And Now a Message From a Pro-abort

Saturday, April 6, AD 2013

The pro-abort sentiments expressed by the sign destroyer in the above video I have head many times.  Concern about overpopulation at a time of demographic collapse and a concern that they are having too many babies and the pro-abort doesn’t want to pay taxes to support them.  Go to the Daily Caller here to get the back story on the sign destroyer screed.   Her respect for the free speech rights of those who disagree with her is truly heartwarming.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to And Now a Message From a Pro-abort

  • If it looks like Hillary Clinton, sounds like Nancy Pelosi and smells like Joe Biden then you can bet it’s the next Ohio state congresswoman preparing for tolerance.

  • In all honesty, that could have been me some twenty years ago. Not that I would have stomped on the pictures and damaged/destroyed them, but the sentiments–I don’t want my taxes going to pay for crackheads–yeah, I can understand that one. So obviously, if you don’t want your money to pay for crackheads, the solution is to end government/taxpayer funded welfare. Simple as that. Turn it over to the religious community–let them deal with it with money they voluntarily collect from their own parishioners.

    But liberals, and I am guessing the woman above is one, never seem to think of that. Seriously, I have a liberal friend who will complain about this or that injustice, and I will suggest to her she stop complaining and lend a hand/car (her own hand and her own car) to end the injustice, help the oppressed, etc. Then she gets kind of confused. Like, what? The government is supposed to do that…

It Takes A Lot of Verbiage to Justify Murder

Monday, December 3, AD 2012

Would that all pro-aborts were as forthright as the abortionist in the above video.  Instead, most of them hide behind an endless torrent of evasions and euphemisms to conceal a very simple truth:  abortion is the killing of the innocent.  Alison Taylor, first Anglican Bishopess in Australia, is typical in her lame defense of an unspeakable crime.  Unfortunately for her, her effort receives a fisking to remember from Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so often in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith:

Alison Taylor, the new Anglican Bishop of Queensland and the first female Anglican bishop in Australia, riffs on abortion:

The Bible speaks of a world which God has created and which he loves beyond measure, in which all life is to be embraced as a gift from Him. However, it is a world which is fallen, and which longs for the full redemption in Jesus Christ which is to come. Sin and suffering abound in a human condition of great complexity, and at times immensely difficult decisions need to be made.

Like whether or not Allie actually meant what she just said.

What the Bible does not teach, and which has never been a part of Christian doctrine – contrary to the assertion in this month’s TMA letter – is that ‘all human life has absolute moral value’. The latter view is unbiblical because it would be untenable for Christians in situations where complex moral choices must be made, in diverse circumstances ranging from military defence and self-defence to the sometimes conflicting rights of mother and unborn child.

Let’s see.  National defense.  Protecting yourself from someone who wants to physically harm you.  Fileting the kid because you don’t want to have to take a pay cut right now.  Morally, they’re all pretty much the same.  And on the ludicrously small chance that you missed Allie’s lame “theology,” she repeats it here.

Nowhere in the Bible is a foetus accorded the full moral status of a human person. On the contrary, in the sole biblical text on induced abortion, Exodus 21.22-23, an abortion caused by injury to a pregnant woman is regarded seriously but considerably less than murder. Other than what might be inferred from this text, the Bible is silent on the issue of the moral status to be accorded to foetal death, as it is on the question of when an embryo might be said to have a soul that survives death. These two issues, which preoccupy the abortion debate today, could probably not even have been conceptualised by writers living in the Biblical era.

I think it was Andy Warhol who once said, “In the future, everybody will be an Anglican bishop for fifteen minutes.”  It’s not like you have to know any actual Christian theology or anything, like Catholics, Orthodox and serious Protestants do, or be versed in some kind of Christian tradition.

Just memorize a few handy cliches that are useful for just about any occasion and you’re in like Bishop Flynn.  Allie uses two here.  The Scripture writers, who were mere men who had absolutely no assistance whatsoever in writing down the Word of the Living God but it wouldn’t have mattered if they had since they were all blithering idiots who couldn’t find their heads with both hands.

Then there’s the ever-popular “The Bible never said anything about _________” argument, probably the most useful Anglican dodge of all.  If, of course, you overlook the uncomfortable fact that the Bible also doesn’t teach that racism, sexism, “homophobia” and voting against Barack Obama are sins.  But did Allie happen to mention what absolute morons the Scripture writers were?

The Bible was written millennia before an adequate understanding of human reproduction was possible, let alone the possibilities of IVF, embryonic stem cell research or prenatal foetal tests, and the difficult moral dilemmas involved in each of them. In summary, an absolutist antiabortion stance simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.

So what say Allie bottom-lines it for you?  It’s a human being when and if I want it to be and NOT BEFORE, bitches.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to It Takes A Lot of Verbiage to Justify Murder

  • 2nd Timothy 4:3-4 – For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

    Canterbury is in full flight from orthodoxy, and into heresy and apostasy. Judgement Day is coming and it ain’t a’gonna be pretty.

    Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy! Lord have mercy!

    PS, I love how the Nova Vulgata reads that passage – I just can’t help myself: “Erit enim tempus, cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes auribus, et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur.”

  • What do we expect from a female bishop of the Anglican church? It once celebrated the supernatural but now worships the unnatural,,,,,,,

  • Oh, but Patrick, in worshipping the unnatural, the faux-Anglicans still worship the spiritual – the demonically and diabolically spiritual.

  • Pacem Patrick and Paul. it isn’t the piskies’ fault. There aren’t so many of them compared to the hordes of common goods/socialist justice/sexular humanist cathies.

    And, it’s more the constant efforts of liberal US Catholic bishops’ bureaucracies (you should not give $$$ to your bishop); far-left US Catholic universities, et al that provide the “cover” to rationalize infanticide as a common good, “human right”, just, and “women’s health.”

    Oh, yeah, if you voted for Obama, you “own” this.

  • How very Anglican of her. She seems to be in the right “religion”. Lord have mercy on her.

  • “The Bible was written millennia before an adequate understanding of human reproduction was possible, let alone the possibilities of IVF, embryonic stem cell research or prenatal foetal tests, and the difficult moral dilemmas involved in each of them. In summary, an absolutist antiabortion stance simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.”

    If anything, the advances in medical science and embryology that she cites make it more obvious than ever that abortion is killing a human. If someone wants to justify abortion, medical science does not provide a good template.

  • Anyhow, the Bible is the “Word of God.” Briefly, God, not man, decides who lives or dies. “Thou shalt not kill.”

    We’ve come a long way, baby!

    Recently re-reading a freshman Ancient History text, I see that as part of the development of the Spartan polis, Spartan fathers’ rights to kill their infant children were usurped by the polis’ council.

  • It is easy to see that many liberal or progessives have an illusion that because of the amount of scientific knowledge we enjoy today that it automatically converts to wisdom. It doesn’t. Unwanted pregnancy has a peaceful solution. Adoption.

  • “How very Anglican of her. She seems to be in the right ‘religion’. Lord have mercy on her.”

    No, Elizabeth, you got that wrong. Bishopress / High Priestess Alsion Taylor is in the LEFT religion, NOT the right religion.

    Big difference! 😉

  • A cup of Rath cometh.
    Keep your vessel filled with oil.
    Trim your wicks.
    And stand in humble awe of the vindicator to come.

  • Dr. Boyd is what “social justice” Catholics will look like in ten years.

  • God said to Eve: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth childen.” Gen.3:16. Children before and after birth.

  • T. Shaw: “Recently re-reading a freshman Ancient History text, I see that as part of the development of the Spartan polis, Spartan fathers’ rights to kill their infant children were usurped by the polis’ council.”
    From the Preambe to the U.S. Constitution: “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our (constitutional) posterity,”

  • as posted here already, knowledge and wisdom not necessarily the same thing.
    I hate how they cite 9 year old pregnant girls as the reason we should have abortion legal. Something about it reminds me of terrorist hiding behind children.

  • Not to mention anzlyne the probable violation by the abortionist of the legal and moral duty to expose the hideous crime of a sex abuser impregnating a child. If I were the local prosecuting attorney I would have been opening up immediately a criminal investigation after seeing that video.

  • “an abortion caused by injury to a pregnant woman is regarded seriously but considerably less than murder. ” It is considered manslaughter. If the pregnant woman was killed by accident by another person, it is considered manslaughter. Justice is predicated on intent. To lay in wait for one’s neighbor to kill him is capital one homicide. The above doctor lays in wait to murder an innocent person. The doctor is one of the men emasculated by Roe v. Wade

Baby as Parasite

Friday, April 20, AD 2012



Over at the Huffington Post a diarist blogging under the name Sasharusa helps explain why babies in utero are treated like so much disposable garbage by so many people in our society:

This is Giardia lamblia. It is an intestinal parasite that is very common and is a pain in the ass to rid of.

I know, I know, it doesn’t look like a precious little baby. I know. It looks scary, and gross, and looks like it will bite your head off. But we’re not talking about looks. Who knows, maybe aliens think we’re ugly as f–k but this parasite would be labeled Miss Universe in their culture? Who knows! Anyway, I am sorry for plastering this as the very first thing in my diary. Consider this just like those exploited photos of miscarried late term fetuses that Anti- Choicers parade around.

Anyways, back to the whole fetus= parasite thing. That is how I see them. I don’t see them as cute and cuddly. I see them as terrifying and scary. I see pregnancy the same way.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Baby as Parasite

  • Time to weep. LIFE clothed in flesh. Pay it forward.

  • Clicking on that link to the Huffington Post would make me feel like I hit on a porn website, so I’m not going there.

    “Sasharusa” is indeed in need of prayers, but I don’t believe what this person posted. As for “anti-choicers”, those lamebrains are the true anti-choicers. Do you think they favor freedom of choice for schools? Or buying a car with a big V8 engine that runs on natural gas with room for a family? Or living where you want? Or choosing your own dmaned health care plan?

    No, Sasharusa and that ilk don’t believe in any of that. They live in an echo chamber and confuse opinions with intelligence.

  • Every sovereign person alive was begotten as an innocent virgin including this dreadful person writing terrible things that makes indecent individuals of those people invited to spend some time here on earth. Those pesons who renew the face of the earth with Joy, Justice, innocence and LOVE. These people (in utero) love because they have not been taught how to hate. If they are fearsome, remember man that you are fearsome and wonderfully made. These children make mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, community, nations and universes. Homo sapiens. Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. The human being, called, accused falsely, of any crime, any insult, will triumph because of his virginity, innocence and JUSTICE.

  • The devil has no soul, because the devil has no body, no human body. This individual substance of a rational nature is GROWING according to the dictates of his immortal soul. Expalin that Sasharusa.

  • Every piece like that provides the contrast necessary for the lost to find God.

    Joseph reminded his brothers that their intended evil was used by God for good. I think that happens more than we realize because it is only in looking back that we recognize Providence.

    My read of history is that God uses decaying cultures in opposition to the City of God. So it was under the Roman Empire and so it is today. Sasharusa doesn’t know that her evil rant will be turned to good but I trust that it is so.

  • Beware whom you call a “parasite.”

    When I think of liberals, parasite comes to mind.

  • @ G-Veg:
    My read of history is that God uses decaying cultures in opposition to the City of God@

    Sounds like my compost pile. It is full of rot and cow poo but when it is spread out on good soil, it produces the most luscious fruit. We need to stand firm; God is working and His people are listening and preparing for the good fight.

    Lord, give us holy priests…shatter and bring to naught all that might tarnish the sanctity of priests, for you can do all things.

  • I have been involved with the Right To Life movement since before it became what it is today. These poor souls are out here. They have been out here since before R v W. Does anyone remember(if your as old as I am) being taught to “die for your faith”? At the time the sisters said, “there are many ways you will be called to die for your faith. You may not be brought before a firing squad, or burned at the stake. But you will be called.” As a young child I just thought that was sooo dramatic. Now I know what they meant. Yes, we may be brought befor a firing sqaud befor it’s all over. We are being called right now to die for our faith. We have had such a long period of wandering in the desert of not having the guidance, the leadership of our hierarchy. Many of whom fell right into the lock step of the progressive think tanks. Some who were a PART of them. I believe we are as close to losing our freedoms as we have ever been in the history of our country. If you want to get a thumbnail of how this has happened and how deceptively this movement towards communism has “snuck up on us”, which of course it has not, please read “Righteous Indignation” Excuse Me While I Save The World, by Andrew Breitbart. Starting at chapter 6 he really gets into a rundown of where and how this has been promulgated upon the masses. The beginning of the book is boring but it does lead up to this very good outline. At the time of the first warning signs of abortion on demand in this country many of the original pro life activists learned of these things. It was virtually impossible to talk about at that time. The response was always,” Oh that’ll never happen in America!” Well it did, and “they” are very close to achieving their goals. There is only one way out now, Pray Pray Pray, and yes be prepared to “Die For Your Faith” and the unborn.

  • I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but the Church is routinely accused of writing Modest Proposals in regards to Jews, women, dissenters, social liberals, et cetera. I will not pretend that traditionalist Catholics are innocent. I have looked all around and I have seen unpleasant facts.

    Look at the burning of Giordano Bruno. Look at the right-wing firing squads in Spain and Latin America. Look at the shoveling of Jews into ghettos. Look at the demonization of women as temptresses and witches who need to be silenced. Haven’t these and other facts repulsed people? Haven’t these and other facts led people to believe that the Church erases humanity?

    How can people see the Culture of Life in the Church? Please do not assume that I am an enemy of the Church. I have a complicated spiritual journey. I am trying to find truth and goodness wherever they are found, mainly in the Church.

    P.S. Paul, are you referring to liberals as parasites? Aren’t liberals human beings? Furthermore, I have yet to see every single liberal referring to unborn children as parasites. I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease.

  • It seems to me that if one takes the idea that fetus = parasite seriously, and additionally finds pregnancy ‘terrifying and scary,’ then one would certainly want to avoid any sexual interactions, given that this terrifying state only comes about by that means.

    After all, if one knew that one had a high likelihood of contracting an actual parasite by eating a certain thing or walking barefoot in a certain place or whatever else, it would be perfectly reasonable to avoid all those scenarios- we might call such precautions and abstinence a mark of intelligence, whereas if someone deliberately continued to engage in them there would be little else but to presume them a fool.

    So if this analogy is going to have any currency, and if the parasitic nature of pregnancy is so remarkably terrifying, those who profess such an understanding should be (one would think) on the forefront of abstinence practice and endorsement.

  • Perhaps I should have added this. I abhor referring to unborn children as parasites. I also know that there may be much more to the history than what I related. The point that I wanted to raise was that the Church has MUCH baggage. I do hope to see the Church given the grace to face that baggage head-on. Why have I not left the Church? I do try to find Jesus in the Church.

  • Brian Cook: I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease.

    How about as a punishment?

  • I do not debate or otherwise have dialogue with liberals, but perhaps Dr. David L. Schindler’s “The Repressive Logic of Liberal Rights: Religious Freedom, Contraceptives and the ‘Phony’ Argument of the New York Times” at Communio News would rebut the assertion, “I have yet to see any serious liberal referring to pregnancy as a disease”:

    Because liberals (being secular atheists or otherwise of that temperment) believe man is evolved from ape, and hence an animal, of course to them might makes right and an embryo is simly a parasitical collection of cells. But a truly authentic Christian realizes that man is created in the image and likeness of God Almighty, and that implies and necessitates responsibility and accountability. The liberal, being liberal, thinks he / she may engage in sexual intercourse like a wild baboon in heat without any consequence for his / her action, and nanny government is supposed to pay for his / her contraception or abortion (or failing that, the government may compel the Church to so pay). A truly authentic Christian on the other hand knows that God will hold him / her responsible and accountable, and knows that all human life derives from that same God from moment of conception to death.

    Other than that, I have nothing to say to the liberal.

  • “but the Church is routinely accused of writing Modest Proposals in regards to Jews, women, dissenters, social liberals, et cetera.”

    Yes, by people who do not want to focus on what really bugs them, which generally boils down to the fight of the Church against abortion and the refusal of the Church to bend and say that homosexual sex is morally good. The Church has been around for 2000 years and critics can find plenty to point to where Catholics have not lived up to the teachings of Christ. However, the critics usually have an appalling lack of knowledge of the history involved, often are quite comfortable with the enormities of our day while passing judgment on those of the distant past (beam and speck problem) and are simply not being intellectually honest. If what bugs a critic is the belief of the Church in the sanctity of life then battle us about abortion and don’t babble about the Albigensian Crusade or the “oppression” of lesbian nuns in 13th century Perugia.

  • “I have a complicated spiritual journey. I am trying to find truth and goodness wherever they are found, mainly in the Church. ”

    Stick around and read and comment Brian. The search for truth and goodness is a necessary pursuit and you may find some here.

  • When, in Engel v. Vitale (1962) the Person of Jesus Christ was refused acknowledgment in the public square, the soul of Christ was denied to us, making of all persons, beasts of burden, parasites, anything the fallible state calls us, slaves of a fallible, mortal disease, punishment. Every person in this generation may be described by Obama’s definition as a “punishment”. To end the “punishment” we must return Jesus Christ to His proper place as Sovereign King in our hearts, our minds and in our country. Unfortunately, abortion, ending the punishment by ending our neighbor’s life, making war on the unborn, human sacrifice replaced love and charity and generosity.

  • Wow…I’m not a fan of pain myself, but for crying out loud, grow up, lady. Millions of women have done it before and will continue to. Your grandma and great-grandma and great-great-grandma before her weren’t sissies, or you wouldn’t be here.

  • enness. Let’s go over this again. When the person of Jesus Christ was denied to us, many of our brothers and sisters in the womb were denied their sovereign personhood and were murdered. With the return of the acknowledgement of Jesus Christ, our sovereign dignity will be acknowledged by the government and our culture. My ancestors had this same problem with the communists in Poland. Instead of welcoming a new life , the mother and child were HATED. There is no separating Jesus Christ from His people and this is being done to the detriment of the newly begotten. And as you say “women have done it before” but only their enemies ripped the child from their wombs. In America, our representatives rip the child from the womb, call our unborn punishments and diseases, as though the human soul does not exist and with our tax dollars. Why is that?

  • I think we have less to worry about from kooks like Ms Rusa who regard the infant as a literal biological parasite. After all, God/Nature/Evolution (take your pick) has devised absolutely marvelous mechanisms to see the mother and baby safely thru pregnancy. Those who decline to participate in the natural imperative to colonise the future are self-selecting out.

    But industrial capital capitalism and consumerism have transformed children from blessing to burden (economic parasite) and thence to luxury item. For the large percentage who “wait until we can afford children” IVF, surrogates, &c become necessary.

    Who knows? Perhaps new technologies will move economic activity back into the home where children will again be an asset.

  • I heard someone the other day on a chat TV show talk about the IVF procedure and the “host” carrier. Seriously folks, doesn’t this give you cold chills? Why, they even said sometimes the original egg producer could carry the embryo.

    How do you get this horse back into the barn?

  • Mr. Cook, I do not believe that you would want to get into a debate with me about the firing squads in Latin America – of whom I am sure you consider to be “right-wing”.
    The Spanish Civil War is a very complex time in history and the people Franco opposed and defeated were not as pure as the driven snow…far from it.

    Latin America has been a place of political extremism and violence since before the conquistadores set foot in the Western Hemisphere. The Aztecs practiced human sacrifice and were hated by the Indian tribes they ruled over. Cortez would not have overthrown the Aztec Empire without Indian help.

    Those who point out the Latin American firing squads are usually silent about Castro, the FARC or the Sendero Luminoso, the three who are to blame for most of Latin American bloodshed over the last half century.

    Babies are not parasites. Babies are not burdens. The fact that some people believe these lies does not make them truths. They believe they can have it all – the expensive imported luxury car, a high powered career, annual vacations in exotic places, etc. For them, a child is a burden. When they are old, they will be considered a burden to the younger taxpayers of that time.

  • “How can people see the Culture of Life in the Church?”

    Mostly in places and in ways that don’t get as much media attention as the bad stuff, and for the most part are spearheaded by lay people rather than priests or nuns (with some exceptions) so they aren’t as closely associated with “the Church” in the public mind. Are you familiar with the Sisters of Life religious order, or with the work of the late Dr. Jerome Lejeune, for example? Were you aware that one of the founders of NARAL, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, eventually became a Catholic and ardent defender of life, as has Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in Roe vs. Wade?

  • Brian CooK: “I do try to find Jesus in the Church. ” IN the Blessed Sacrament on the altar.

  • Pingback: logic pro-choice pope benedict XVI cardinal ratzinger |
  • Pingback: Michelle Obama: Forget Our Unprecendented Attack On Religious Liberty We “Made History”

A Case Can Be Made For Auschwitz!

Sunday, March 18, AD 2012



Michael Moriarty as SS Sturmbannfuhrer (Major) Erik Dorf, in the riveting miniseries Holocaust (1978), attempts at 5:26 in the video above to convince the incredulous SS Reichsfuhrer Heinrich Himmler that rather than concealing the crimes of the Holocaust the SS should stand behind them and and convince the world that the genocide of the Jews and others deemed “undesirable” by the “master race” was right and just.  He anounces to the astounded SS officers, Dorff being an attorney in civilian life, that “A case can be made for Auschwitz!”  He is speaking to mass murderers and monsters, but even they are repulsed by what he says.  They understand deep down that they have been involved in an unspeakable crime for which no excuse, no argument can possibly be made.

Would that most pro-aborts would have some such shred of moral sensibility remaining.  Alas, I am afraid that this statement of Jessica Delbalzo is much more common among pro-aborts, even if they rarely are this forthright:

I love abortion.  I don’t accept it.  I don’t view it as a necessary evil.  I embrace it.  I donate to abortion funds.  I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman has access to safe, legal abortion services.  I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom.  I love abortion.

Continue reading...

57 Responses to A Case Can Be Made For Auschwitz!

  • “We hold these truth to be self-evidnent that all men are created equal” created, not born equal. To be pro-abortion is to be against the laws of nature and nature’s God. To be pro-abortion is to be against the will of God, To be pro-abortion is to be pro-atheism and against all that America stands for. This is why America won WWII. God was with us. And relying on Divine Providence, God is still with us.

  • Well they certainly are trying their hardest to make their case:

    If society retains any moral outrage fanatical pro-aborts may just invoke it by pushing their godlessness too far.

  • I think two deficits in such persons’ consciences are humility and objective truth.

    Twenty-first century enablers of mass evil employ social justice as justification for all sin.

  • Another moral outrage report from Gateway Pundit:

    “Disgusting! Obama Administration Approves Using Aborted Fetal Brains in Lab Experimentation”

    It’s okay! Obama is Social Justice.

  • Another video could have made the point better. Moriarty’s words are a none too subtle smear job against Christianity and the West. I’d like to know which high churchmen called for a Judenrein Europe involving the mass destruction of Jews as opposed to their conversion. There is a class of propaganda inspired by Communists and their fellow travellers that persistently tries to involve the religion of Christianity and in particular the Catholic Church in the Nazi mass murder of Jews. This serves the double purpose of obscuring the heinous crimes of the Communists which over the years have swallowed more victims than the Nazis ever did. The Germans are an efficient and highly capable people; when led by an amoral technocratic elite it takes only a few men to organise the killings of vast numbers of victims.

  • I disagree Ivan. I think this is the perfect video for the point that I was making. Nothing of substance that Moriarty’s character says is meant to be taken seriously except as desperate attempts at self justification by a man lost in an abyss of evil that he has allowed his ambition to lead him into. Moriarty’s character is shown to be especially despicable in the miniseries due to his knowledge that what he is doing his evil and his unavailing efforts to convince himself otherwise. This point is driven home after his capture by the Americans at the end of the war. He commits suicide after an American interrogation officer shows him the pictures of some kids murdered at a concentration camp and tells him that if it was up to him he would allow any surviving parents of those kids to deal with him. As a side note Michael Moriarty has been an outspoken critic of abortion. No, the video makes my point well in this post, about evil and those who attempt to convince themselves that blackest evil is actually shining good.

  • I am reading Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg right now for the first time and every page has me saying, “oh my God!!” I came to a part where liberalism/progressivism is a fight against boredness(?) a trial of anything that if it works, do it!; religion is dammed for science. I can see where much of today’s ills are coming from. I trying to take this book with a grain of salt but my goodness this has been going on since Mussolini and the very late 1800s into the early 1900s and much is seen today. Mr Goldberg seems to take the argument very even handedly as well. Someone tell me I am wrong for believing this book.

  • Nothing of substance that Moriarty’s character says is meant to be taken seriously… – that is the higher critic speaking Donald. It does make your point.

  • There is a reason why God ordered the children of Israel to spare none of the Canaanites. Liberals like Jessica Delbalzo will never give up abortion – murdering babies. They will force the war on us the born in the same way that they have on the unborn, and they will do it using the same words that Maximillien Robespierre used as he led Catholic clerics and laity alike away to meet Dr. Guillotine’s merciful instrument of euthanasia: liberty, equality and fraternity.

  • Stranglehold of PC-ness.

  • The sadness and shattered-ness of this person; self-wounded – intellectualizing his soul’s conflict; searching for justification and redemption – despite his real inner knowing that he has been duped and has sinned tragically. I thought of Viktor Frankel’s Search for Meaning– from this side now.
    A very poignant scene as he walks away, still struggling, hearing the discussion behind him. And for me– also hearing that continuing conversation and knowing that today that same/different discussion/obfuscation still goes on.

    Placed side by side with the abortion lover and the infanticide “ethicists makes me feel almost helpless.

    I also hated to hear the reference to highly placed churchmen– afraid it is true– and at the same time afraid that it is yet another smearing strike at the Church; like all smears based on some truth.

  • And just recently two “ethicists” are trying to recommend “after-birth abortion” for parents who don’t care for what came forth. A clear sign of moral corruption is linguistic corruption, the flat refusal to state what one intends — in this case, infanticide. Even “abortion” was a piece of linguistic corruption. The word had meant “miscarriage” — think of an abortive flight. People wanted to “sell” the idea of abortion by calling it “induced abortion,” meaning “induced miscarriage,” when of course it was no such thing.

  • Go check out her facebook page, she has her picture up of her and someone dressed up as the devil. Very fitting…

  • Tony’s comment made me think of this:
    The Name Game (linguistic deception and rational judgment)

    a case can be made for anything people want to believe

  • Tony Esolen, ” A clear sign of moral corruption is linguistic corruption, the flat refusal to state what one intends — in this case, infanticide. Even “abortion” was a piece of linguistic corruption. ”
    The obliteration of a language is an obliteration of a people. A spontaneous abortion is a natural miscarriage, nature making its selection. An induced abortion is homicide.
    Hitler could not explain why the German race was superior, so he made up Ice Cosmology. The Germans came as frozen embryos from outer space by a space ship circling the planet. Stalin said:”killing one man is homicide. Killing 30,000,000 is a statistic.” In America, aborting 50,000,000 is a “political point of view”.

  • and they will do it using the same words that Maximillien Robespierre used as he led Catholic clerics and laity alike away to meet Dr. Guillotine’s merciful instrument of euthanasia: liberty

    By some creative misunderstanding this anecdote has become legendary:

    The impact of the French Revolution? “Too early to say.” – Zhou En Lai.

    We now have in the WH a man who has no problems with the murder of a baby who survived a botched abortion. Imagine the little fellow’s plight. His mother hates him. He has no father or uncles to protect him. Alone, the instruments of the state are deployed against his tiny frame. The doctors want to get over it and go on to their dinners and yet he refuses to die. And along comes the “constituitional expert” Obama like something out of Dean Swift, insisting that nonetheless the edicts of the Schreibtischtaters be carried out. Such are the benefits of a Harvard education. As the Lenten lamentations have it: if they do this when the wood is green, what will they do to dry wood?

  • Even though my chin was on my chest the whole time, I read it. I even strayed into the comments section.

    There, she says this, and it is a quote:

    “There is no [human] right to life support from someone else’s body, so there is nothing for me to mind seeing. Unless, of course, you want people to be forced into donating their spare organs…”

    To reiterate: “There is no [human] right to life support from someone else’s body”

    This gives us a valuable insight to the pro-death thought process:

    A) Since the first nine months of life are by nature the very act of one depending upon the body of another for life support, according to this logic, nobody has the right to be born.

    B) If nobody has the right to be born, those of us who were lucky enough to not be killed before birth exist only through either the arbitrary and subjective beneficence of somebody else, or because we are bred to a pre-determined utility. So . . .

    C) If our very creation is based solely on the beneficence or utilitarian purposes of another then our continued existence is at that same arbitrary and subjective beneficence or purpose. We then have no individual, natural rights at all, only those abilities granted or assigned by our progenitors. Things like liberty, self-determination the right to life itself are myths.

    D) If there are no natural rights at all, then, society is simply “survival of the fittest.” Control of society then devolves to those who can, through brute force, gain enough power to hold it.

    War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength.

    Sieg Heil.

    “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” – Joseph Stalin.

    The evil there cannot be any more obvious. We are dealing with Satan himself.

  • All I can say is : Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Isaiah 5:20
    St. Michael, defend us in battle!

  • Donald McClarey: Your response to Ivan is perfect, defining the people. My thoughts follow.
    Jesus Christ said from the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.”When Michael Moriarity, as Erik Dorf gives his impassioned, albeit evil speech, about Auschwitz, he alludes to the Jews as “Christ killers” and to the Hitlerites as having “saved” Christianity and civilization for the world as though world domination were not at the core of Nazism. His rant is contradicted by the fact that all priests were summarily sent to Aucshwitz, where Maximillian Kolbe died, or were executed outright. Eric Bolt’s character exhibits the madness of the Madman, Hitler, himself. Christ’s plea for forgiveness from the cross: “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” is not in their heart. They are the most miserable and vile of creatures. Saving the planet by murdering everybody who disagrees with them, pretending to be the JUSTICE of God, and yet, I am informed that the Soviets were more cruel, more savage. It is no wonder that Bolt committed suicide, as the Nazi did not accept the forgiveness of Jesus. Oberammergau is the village in Bavaria that was saved from the plague in the middle ages by the people promising that their whole economy would be based on promoting Christianity, most notably the Passion Play, and other art. After two hundred years, they became secularized and abandoned the Passion Play and the plague returned. The people resumed the Passion Play and the plague abated. Even now, the Jews content that the Passion Play depicts them as “Christ killers” but the fact is that it is what it is. Every human being, except the Immaculate Conception, bears the guilt and the glory of being saved by Christ’s crucifixion. The lesson is that without Christ’s forgiveness and the cross, civilization and humanity is not redeemed.

  • WKAiken:
    “nobody has the right to be born”. All men come into existence through God’s generosity. God is love. All creation and especially man exists through God’s love. God is existence. God is being. If nobody has the right to be born, then nobody has the right to human existence. The newly begotten sovereign being in the womb creates motherhood for the woman, grandmotherhood for her mother, great grandmotherthood for her grandmother and further. It is the same for the father to great grandfatherhood. HOPE AND CHANGE is what happens when a woman conceives and CHANGES into a mother. If this woman does not believe in human existence as being worthwhile she ought to give it back.
    The immortal, rational soul of the human being lives forever. The human being is composed of a rational, immortal soul and a human body. To redefine the human being as having no rational, immortal soul is a lie. Eternal consequences for an action of homicide will be taken into account by nature and nature’s God. If this evil person refuses to admit our Creator, then let her return her existence. Since she denies our Creator and our endowed unalienable right to life, she forfeits her sovereign personhood, her citizenship and her rational, immortal soul. The rational, immortal soul is the essence of humanity.

    “we are bred to a pre-determined utility” The compelling interest of the state in the newly begotten sovereign person in the womb is that the person constitutes the state by his being, being the standard of Justice for the state, perfect Justice, perfect innocence, virginity and virtue. The rational, immortal soul brought into existence by the will of God and by the procreative action of his human parents renews the face of the earth and the state. Unless this evil individual is going to live forever, the state needs the new human being to continue the state. Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator. How can the state prevent reason? How can the state prevent God? “The fool says in his heart: There is no God”

    Thank you for the quote for Joseph Stalin: “Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” – Joseph Stalin. Why would anybody in his right mind call the human race “ENEMIES”? ENEMIES

  • If human existence is a gift from God, then let everyone make himself useful. The act of free will in charity will set you free.

  • Mary – I share your incredulity. The idea that such concepts are now actually being put forward by some people makes me fear the worst is coming.

    Your arguments are extremely well-reasoned. I find it ironic that, in the logic which the pro-death crowd puts forward, they would also surrender their own so-called “right to privacy.” I suppose it is only naivete to believe that the fascists would be stopped by a logical fallacy.

    “Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator.” Perfect.

  • You have to wonder if this women loves her child (the one she allowed to live) at all or if she is so narcissistic that the child exists as a vessel to spew her venom. Can you imagine looking at your living child and not at least wondering about the child you destroyed.

    I have two beautiful children that mean everything to me and I cannot look at them and think what if they had never been born? How much I would have missed…

    I pray her daughter realizes the evilness in her mother by denying her the love of her sibling.

  • I call BS on her story about her two-year old being disgusted with the idea of not having the ability to abort. I guarantee that is made up. I have two younger children who are naturally horrified/confused as to why someone would abort. Part of this is that we share with them ultrasounds of them (from their baby book) and their siblings and they recognize the obvious- I/sister was in mommy’s tummy. The idea that a two-year old would accept that the “fetus” is not a baby is silly. My guess is that she didn’t know what her mom meant when she switched from “Baby” when it was about having one versus “fetus” when she was talking about getting rid of it.

  • A case may be made here for Michael Moriarity playing Erik Dorf and Lila Rose playing a pimp.

  • I agree with david. Tell any two-year old that Mommy has a baby in her tummy and she is going to kill it, and you will see a classic example of natural law (i.e., law written on the hearts of men) at work. Call the baby a fetus you might get a different reaction, but only because they don’t understand what a fetus is.

  • WK Aiken: “I suppose it is only naivete to believe that the fascists would be stopped by a logical fallacy.
    “Again, I say, if this evil individual does not like her existence she ought to surrender it back to our Creator.”
    The reality of logical fallacy is if the individual has not surendered her existence back to our Creator and by an act of free will annihilated herself, she has at some point consented to her existence. The person cannot deny our Creator and assume her existence without contradicting herself. If the person exists, she cannot deny other persons who exist. If the person exists, she cannot deny the existence of God and other persons who exist.

  • This post is disturbing for two reasons, both of which have to do with the comparison of the Holocaust and abortion. First, you’ve chosen to use (as either a credible source or a means of drawing in readers) one of the most roundly dismissed and historically problematic Holocaust films ever produced. I encourage further reading about the mini-series “Holocaust.” It’s widely and rightly viewed as sensationalistic, extremely poorly researched, and an unethical and poorly executed mixing of fact and fiction (you’ve described Moriarty’s character here in the comments section, and while your description is accurate in terms of what’s depicted in the film, the historical record demonstrates that his character’s construction is a terrifically inaccurate representation). I recommend thinking twice before referring to this mini-series at all, let alone in conjunction with abortion.

    Second, I beg of you and all others to stop comparing the Holocaust to anything, let alone abortion. No one need shy away from their views of abortion in order to refrain from invoking the Holocaust to incite outrage. It’s absolutely unnecessary to connect the two and what’s worse, it’s fallacious. Using the Holocaust and its 11 million victims to make a point about anything only leads to inaccurate comparisons. Abortion may well be a horrifying epidemic. But it is *not* the Holocaust, or “a holocaust,” nor should one disturb the memories of millions to make a rhetorical point.

  • We have a holocaust of 54 million unborn babies since Roe v Wade just in these United States because men and women want to get their genitals titillated without taking responsibility for the consequences of engaging in sexual intercourse. World wide, the figure is surely much larger. So perhaps the comparison with the WW II holocaust of 11 million people murdered by the Nazis is unfair. Godless liberals in all countries are far, far worse than their Nazi forebearers.

  • “and while your description is accurate in terms of what’s depicted in the film, the historical record demonstrates that his character’s construction is a terrifically inaccurate representation).”

    Disagree Regina. The SS made a point of recruiting young professionals like the character portrayed by Moriarty. As depicted in the miniseries the SS took extreme pains to get rid of evidence of the Holocaust as best they could, with SS and other Nazi officials continuing to deny that the Holocaust occurred at all at the Nuremberg trials.

    In regard to the Holocaust and abortion, the comparison was between the attitude of the SS officials to the idea that there could be a public defense of the Holocaust and the pro-abort nutcase proclaiming her love of abortion. As for body counts, some 55 million kids have been done to death through abortion in this country. I pray that there may come a day when those deaths will cease. Until that time arrives I intend to draw whatever comparisons I deem relevant in pointing out the great evil that is celebrated as a constitutional right in our country.

  • The word holocaust doesn’t make sense when used in conjunction with abortion — the literal definition of this term isn’t applicable. Even if one wanted to believe that there are multiple holocausts, the historical (even Biblical) use of this term refers to a sacrificial death by fire. This makes some sense in terms of a place like Auschwitz. It does not make sense in terms of abortion. Moreover, numerous Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors believe that it’s absolutely indecent to claim multiple holocausts. It’s their belief that there is only one, and it’s the capital “H” Holocaust, not the/a holocaust. I’m simply advocating that another term be located to describe the atrocity of abortion. That shouldn’t be too difficult, should it?

    Additionally, the claim that “Godless liberals in all countries are far, far worse than their Nazi forebearers (sic)” only further indicates an ignorance of history itself and to be frank, it’s a very ugly dismissal of the pain endured by those destroyed during the Holocaust.

  • What liberals do and say is an ugly dismissal of the pain liberals visit on the unborn as they dismember and vacuum out the remains from the womb, as they puncture skulls with scissors, as they throw the corpses in the trash.

    Godless liberalism. Godless, putrid, rancid liberalism. Worse than their Nazi and Communist forebearers. Crying the same as Robespierre: liberty, equality, fraternity. The only reason why someone cannot understand this is because that someone is liberal him/herself and believes in the right to chose to murder.

  • You do understand that it needn’t be *my* claim that Moriarty’s character is a ridiculous construction, yes? He’s an impossible fabrication and this is a claim that’s been verified by historian after historian. What more can be expected when not even one survivor was consulted during the filming of this mini-series… The notion that this SS officer would commit suicide and therefore acknowledge his own lack of morality is beyond dubious. Again, no need to disagree with me. I’m simply pointing out that a comparison built on factual inconsistencies is never going to be fruitful.

    I never mentioned body counts or comparisons of them — because it’s entirely beside the point. Those who claim that the Holocaust was unique don’t use body counts as the basis for their claims. There are many stellar scholars whom one could read for further information on this point and others.

  • Scroll down the web page here at Priests for Life to find links to pictures of babies torn apart by abortion – not for the faint of heart.

    This is what Hitler did. This is what Obama does. This is what Nazis diod. This is what liberal Democrats do.

  • “I never mentioned body counts or comparisons of them — because it’s entirely beside the point.”

    Until it’s your body! Or my body! You don’t get it, or worse, you refuse to get it.

  • “The word holocaust doesn’t make sense when used in conjunction with abortion — the literal definition of this term isn’t applicable.”

    Nor would it be in regard to the Holocaust if taken literally Regina, since I doubt if the Nazis were planning all of this as a burnt offering to God, no more than the abortionists who burn the bodies of their victims or simply dump them with garbage. In another sense, I guess it could fit both cases as the sacrifice is made to false Gods like racial purity, convenience, etc.

    “Moreover, numerous Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors believe that it’s absolutely indecent to claim multiple holocausts.”

    Sadly Regina, killing innocent people in huge lots has not been rare in human history as the last century amply demonstrated. The Holocaust was a crime that cried out to God for justice. Alas, such crimes are many in the chronicles of human barbarity.

    “He’s an impossible fabrication”
    I would direct your attention Regina to Kurt Gerstein.

    “There are many stellar scholars whom one could read for further information on this point and others.”

    The claim that the Holocaust is unique Regina is a moral claim not a historical one. For a good overview on the subject I would suggest that you read “Is the Holocaust Unique?”

  • Paul, it’s clear that you’re impassioned. I can respect that. I can’t respect multiple ad hominem attacks. I’m only trying to strengthen a pro-life argument by stripping it of problematic fallacies. I’m sorry that you instead see this as some sort of personal deficiency or decision to champion evil. I just can’t engage further with your claims. I can only suggest that you read my comments free of the assumption that I’m a “Godless liberal.” Hopefully you’ll recognize a different motive in them. Be well and God bless.

  • Dial it back Paul. Regina and I are having a reasonable debate and there is no need to attack her.

  • Donald, I have to smile in response to your latest post. Yes, I’ve read Rosenbaum’s book. In response, I’d suggest that you read Alvin Rosenfeld’s The End of the Holocaust, which recounts the many ways in which the Holocaust has been misappropriated. I didn’t mean to initiate a discussion about whether the Holocaust is or isn’t unique. There has been a decades-long debate on that subject that involves far savvier voices than my own, all of whom present an incredible range of intriguing responses. My point was only that if such a respected body of Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors find tremendous problem with the use of the term “holocaust” when referencing other tragedies (in part, at least for some, because of the belief that the Holocaust was unique), it shouldn’t be too difficult to refrain from making such an association. Surely, one needn’t invoke a separate tragedy to emphasize the tragedy that is abortion.

    I can’t tell — are you claiming that Gerstein is a representative example of SS officers? Look to an excellent review of “Holocaust” in Wiesel’s And the Sea Is Never Full for more on the ridiculousness of Erik Dorf.

  • “suggest that you read Alvin Rosenfeld’s The End of the Holocaust, which recounts the many ways in which the Holocaust has been misappropriated.”

    Read it and found it unconvincing.

    “My point was only that if such a respected body of Holocaust scholars, historians, and survivors find tremendous problem with the use of the term “holocaust” when referencing other tragedies (in part, at least for some, because of the belief that the Holocaust was unique), it shouldn’t be too difficult to refrain from making such an association.”

    Not difficult at all, but I simply disagree that historically the Holocaust is sui generis.

    “that Gerstein is a representative example of SS officers?”

    No Regina, and you knew that even before you typed that query out. You postulated that a conscience stricken SS officer was an impossible fabrication and I disproved your assertion.

  • Very interesting! I’m attending a conference in two months that will explore Rosenfeld’s book in more depth. I do find it to be persuasive, personally. I think you’ll find Wiesel’s approach to these topics dissatisfying (if you don’t already), given your review of Rosenfeld.

    Erik Dorf is an impossible fabrication for many reasons, inclusive of the general presentation that an SS officer (especially one who was responsible for so much — far too much to be believable) might normally have an attack of conscience. The review by Wiesel goes into great detail regarding Dorf’s historical inaccuracy. I happily grant you that there were exceptions to this rule. I think it’s disingenuous to present the exception as the rule.

    In my experience, it’s rare that a blogger will take as much time as you have to respond to a reader. Thanks for entertaining my concerns so genuinely.

  • “I think you’ll find Wiesel’s approach to these topics dissatisfying”

    Not dissatisfying, merely different from my own. Considering Wiesel’s horrific personal experiences in the Holocaust I can readily understand his position and if I went through what he did I would probably share it.

    “I think it’s disingenuous to present the exception as the rule”.
    That is not my contention. Most SS officers were well educated, cultured and, from all external evidence, conscienceless killers.

    “Thanks for entertaining my concerns so genuinely.”

    Thank you for the good debate. I am always eager to engage in a reasoned exchange of views, particular on historical topics, as history is my abiding intellectual passion.

  • Sorry, Donald. I should know better than to type when I am angry. Apologies to Regina, too. I still maintain, however, that there is no essential difference between the past Holocaust that the Nazis perpetrated and the current Holocaust that the liberal progressives are perpetrating, except that today’s numbers of those murdered are far, far greater. Yet the photographs of human misery and suffering – whether a dismembered unborn child thrown in the trash heap, or a Jewish prisoner victimized by surgical torture and starvation – are all the same.

  • Censorship and misdirection department.

    We little people can’t use the holocaust as a metaphor for abortion because our rulers have declared abortion is a human right.

    Even worse, we mere Catholics would trivialize 70 year-old mass murders.

    Irony department. I never read any holocaust books. But, I know that if it wasn’t for my father (RIP) and all my uncles (RIP), they would not be here telling you what you can’t write. Irony.

  • It is indeed accurate to say that most SS officers were extremely well educated, and also that in spite of their educations, they routinely made immoral choices. They just didn’t normally acknowledge that what they were doing *was* immoral. While Dorf does this, it doesn’t strike me as acceptable to present as the average experience. Ultimately, since most “pro-choice” people also don’t acknowledge the immorality of their beliefs and actions, I wonder anew about referencing this series.

    “Thank you for the good debate. I am always eager to engage in a reasoned exchange of views, particular on historical topics, as history is my abiding intellectual passion.” Agreed. Though it’s a discussion of unimaginable horror, I thank you for the dialogue.

  • Regina,
    I don’t think either the film or Don ever suggested that the Moriarty character somehow was presenting the “average experience” of an SS officer. What you seem to be saying is that exceptional experiences are implausible even if they really occur, which strikes me as untenable. And I agree with Don and others that the proposition that the Holocaust’s massive cruelty was so exceptional in human history that it alone can warrant the term is grounded in something other than fact. While a case can be made that use of the term to describe mass murder of the unborn shows insensitivity to our memory of the mass murder of the Jews, one can also make the case that such a proposition is based on the assumption that the former is not as horrible as the latter, which I doubt can withstand scrutiny.

  • The enemy has many names. Each has a connotation, but all have the same underlying essence. Evil is evil. Debating the shades of murder makes none any more palatable or relevant.

    Saint Michael, the Archangel, defend us in the battle. Be our protection against the malice and snares of the Devil. We humbly beseech God to command him. And do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly Host, by the powers of God, cast into Hell Satan and all the evil spirits who prowl about the world seeking the ruin of souls.

  • In functional terms the various Holocaust remembrances serve mainly as props for the liberal religion. So that, one can have all manner of recall in Europe but no one is supposed to notice that it is overwhelmingly the Muslims who make life a misery for the Jews there. This is a desirable state of affairs for the liberals and the tranzi set. As on the one hand the Europeans are prevented from taking effective action to secure their borders and adherence to their laws on the grounds that it is racist to do so, and on the other hand it is so far proved an effective tool to stymie any attempts by the Right to appeal to the nationalism of the Europeans to put their interests first. East Europeans have handled this naked attempt at mind-control better than the West, but there is no telling how long they can hold out in the face of well financed propaganda from the EU and Soros types.

    Now it seems to me that if the Holocaust is to be held in the same unapproachable light as Catholics are to hold the Eucharist, then at the minimum it behooves those who speak on its behalf to see to it, that it is not used to further partisan ends. But this is not what we see. No Catholic is allowed by mealy-mouthed rabbis to compare the worldwide plague of abortion to the holocaust, yet homosexuals get a pass to invoke its memory to further their agenda, forgetting that homosexuals such as Ernst Roehm were well represented in the Nazi Party. A thinking man cannot allow such blatant double standards to pass muster. Further, there was only one name that was worthy of blasphemy in the West and that is the Holy Trinity and its Persons. Blasphemy is passe now; why should the rest of us now replace the Trinity with the holocaust or the superstitions of the moment. I read the “Gulag Archipelago” when it can out in translation in the 70s and early 80s. Nothing that men are capable of has surprised me since. The Holocaust is neither unique nor unprecedented in scope or method then or in more recent times. There were the horrors perpetrated by King Leopold in Congo, the Armenian massacres, the millions who perished in the martyrdom of Tsarist Russia at the hands of the Communists many of them not incidentally Jews, the Ukrainian Holdomor, the mass induced starvations in Maoist China and the depredations of the Khmer Rouge. The perpetrators of all these genocides have by and large all gotten away with it. Kaganovitch, Molotov, Mao, Pol Pot and almost all their lieutenants all died in their sleep with little comment from the guardians of Holocaust memory. Yet no effort is spared to root out every last octogenarian Nazi holed out in some basement in Canada or Michigan. The Holocaust is of significance to Jews, it has none to me other than as a demonstration of the adage that God is on the side of the bigger artillery.

  • “The Holocaust is of significance to Jews, it has none to me other than as a demonstration of the adage that God is on the side of the bigger artillery.”

    Well Ivan it has a great deal significance to me, and I regret to say that I do not have a familial relationship to Christ. As for God being on the side of the bigger artillery, I think that is probably a bitter jest for Hitler and Stalin to ponder in Hell.

  • But you are adopted into the family, Donald.

    Romans 8:15

    For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

  • True Paul, and it is also true what Saint Ignatius Loyola said when advised that one of the members of his order had Jewish blood. “How wonderful for him to be related to Our Lord and His mother!”

  • The similarity between the Jews in the Holocaust and the unborn in the abotion holocaust, is that these persons were denied acknowledgement of their sovereign personhood. Deny the humanity of the person and everything becomes legal. Dorf’s argument was predicated on the propaganda that the Jews were not persons deserving of life. Hitler did his share of abortions: “Life not worthy of Life” General George Patton, shall I say beloved Gen. George Patton told his men going into battle: “Kill them with kindness”. Patton acknowledged the sovereign personhood of the enemy combatant and that of his own men. Grant and Lee respected the humanity of the other. You may not want to go back to Alexander the Great, but here too, was another leader who acknowledged his men as persons and respected them. Obama will not recognize and acknowledge the human person as being a child of God. Somewhere, oh, somewhere in the Old Testament, God calls man “lesser gods” small “g” I am still searching for the quote but if God is our Father, then, we, his children whom He has adopted are “lesser gods” aka sovereign persons. We are God’s INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. Only our Creator has a copyright, a patent on the human being ” I AM.” (If man is not a person, he cannot be an animal. Animals are a different species. Man is homosapiens: Man of Wisdom)

  • WK Aiken: Will you be so kind as to explain to me what the picture is. I see a white bunny rabbit getting his teeth brushed.

  • I regret the callousness of my remark Donald. Thank you for your patience. Of course God has the last word: Stalin’s “How many divisions does the Pope have?” is well a known cynical quip. The steadfast Eugenio Pacelli’s reply “Tell my son Joseph that he will meet my legions in heaven” puts things in perspective and should be equally well remembered.

  • I love that quip of Pius XII Ivan! He said it to Winston Churchill who uttered another of my favorite quotes:

    “You ask what is our policy? I will say: It is to wage war by sea, land and air with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road will be; for without victory, there is no survival.”

Bias? What Bias?

Sunday, January 29, AD 2012


The bias of most of the main stream media is well known, but a current example by CBS is beyond parody:

Over the years, pro-life activists have come to accept that the media isn’t interested in their annual March for Life in Washington D.C. protesting abortion, even though it routinely attracts hundreds of thousands of people. But this year’s photo slideshow hosted on a local Washington CBS website has activists scratching their heads in disbelief.
 Currently the March for Life slideshow of seven photos features protesters who actually support abortion; none of the photos actually feature pro-life marchers.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Bias? What Bias?

  • What is this “CBS” of which you speak?

  • For the hollow sound of a little empty laughter.
    C ensorship B y S atan.

  • Wow, PM!!! You sure have got it right CBS is the Voice of Satan. But, hey, nothing to worry about. The Truth is never killed……it always triumphs in the end. They can censor and distort the desire of Americans to do away with Infanticide and respect the sanctity of Life from Conception to Natural Death, but eventually we shall win because we are fighting for God.


2 Responses to Don’t Worry, Planned Parenthood Says It’s Not a Baby Yet

Richard Rich Pretty Much a Disaster as Ambassador to Malta

Friday, April 8, AD 2011

Hattip to Catholic Key Blog. Richard Rich Douglas Kmiec, who sold out the pro-life movement by supporting the most pro-abortion candidate in our nation’s history for President, Barack Obama, now the most pro-abortion President in our nation’s history, is pretty much a disaster as ambassador to Malta, his equivalent of the going rate for traitors of thirty pieces of silver, according to a State Department Report.

He is respected by Maltese officials and most mission staff, but his unconventional approach to his role as ambassador has created friction with principal officials in Washington, especially over his reluctance to accept their guidance and instructions. Based on a belief that he was given a special mandate to promote President Obama’s interfaith initiatives, he has devoted considerable time to writing articles for publication in the United States as well as in Malta, and to presenting his views on subjects outside the bilateral portfolio. He has been inconsistent in observance of clearance procedures required for publication. He also looks well beyond the bilateral relationship when considering possible events for the mission to host in Malta. His approach has required Department principals, as well as some embassy staff, to spend an inordinate amount of time reviewing his writings, speeches, and other initiatives. His official schedule has been uncharacteristically light for an ambassador at a post of this size, and on average he spends several hours of each work day in the residence, much of which appears to be devoted to his nonofficial writings.

At the same time, he has not focused sufficiently on key management issues within the embassy. . .

. . .The Ambassador advised the inspection team that he intended to discontinue his outside writings and focus on matters that directly pertain to the embassy and priorities outlined in the Mission Strategic and Resource Plan (MSRP). Within weeks of the team’s departure, however, he resumed drafting public essays that addressed subjects outside his purview as Ambassador to Malta and detracted from his core responsibilities. These activities also detracted from the core responsibilities of embassy staff members who devoted time and effort to reviewing and editing the ambassador’s drafts and seeking approvals occasionally after the writings had been submitted for publication from Department officials.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Richard Rich Pretty Much a Disaster as Ambassador to Malta

Sacred and Holy?

Sunday, September 5, AD 2010

And they cried with a loud voice, saying:  How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? Apocalypse 6:10

If you listen closely you can hear the attendants (which include the mayor of our fine city of Houston Anise Parker) at this “dedication” commenting on their newly “sacred and holy” ground. They are speaking of the largest abortuary in the United States.

If we are moving toward, or already in, a post-Christian civilization then should we be surprised that those who promote and support abortion and other anti-life policies impart a religious sheen on their actions?  After all, human sacrifice was present in almost all pagan religions to some extent with the Aztec sacrifices being among the most infamous.  These people are willing and proud worshipers of Baal and, unless we pray, fast and offer Masses in reparation for these sins, we will only allow this evil to grow and ever more innocents slaughtered at the altar of “Choice”.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Sacred and Holy?

  • Walter,

    Thanks for posting this.

    It’s a crying shame that the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston has the largest abortuary in their backyard.

    I’d like to know if there was a Catholic priest present at the ceremony and what is his name. I only say this because the attendees were reading from a pamphlet that said “holy and sacred ground”. Sounds very Catholic to me.

    That and Carol Alvarado, a Catholic state representative is shown prominently in this video. She is also (or was) on the board of directors of Planned Parenthood of Southeast Texas (Houston).

  • Yeah thanks for posting this.. I get sick listening to that mayor and state rep – notably misguided by a passion that can’t see the truth… Please people from Houston vote them out…

  • “holy and sacred ground” sounds very Catholic to me”

    It could just as easily be Episcopalian, since a lot of their liturgy “sounds Catholic” too (in some cases, more Catholic than the current Novus Ordo).

  • McClarey posted some homilies by Cardinal Newman this past Lent that addressed the neo pagan-atheism that will plague our times.

    It seems we may be experiencing that right now. Secularization of society, practical atheism, and a president with an ideological bent toward socialism, liberation theology, collective salvation and Mohammadism (he may not be a Muslim, but he is certainly sympatico).

    Add that to Human child sacrifice (abortion), use of magic potions (drug and alcohol abuse), sexual rites (cohabitation, pedophilia, pornography, sodomy, homosexualism, ‘gay marriage’, incest, polyamorous unions, etc.) and a generally hedonistic culture.

    We, orthodox Catholics, are nothing more than a remnant in a culture that is more pagan and evil than pre-Christian Rome.

    Time for the saints to rise up.

  • I noticed that the woman in red was clearly embarrassed and did not want to pronounce the word “abortion”.

    They perfectly well know what they are doing and desperately try to delude themselves into thinking that they are not murdering anyone.


Elena Kagan Says It Is Fine If The Law Bans Books

Tuesday, June 29, AD 2010

SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan has argued before the Supreme Court that it’s fine if the Law bans books.

Her rationale?

Because the government won’t really enforce it.

I’m no legal scholar but this sounds like a 3rd grade argument.

Aren’t our nominees suppose to have better reasoning skills and a solid grasp of the U.S. Constitution?  As well as a fundamental understanding  of such concepts like Freedom of Speech?

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Elena Kagan Says It Is Fine If The Law Bans Books

  • Bibles banned in China – is that what is coming here?

  • So is Elena Kagan willing to support banning pornography magazines and books?

  • Like all the other “brilliant” liberals, Kagan the pagan is incapable of right reason.

  • Scratch the thin veneer of liberal bu!!$#it and you slam into totalitarianism.

    Peace, justice and human dignity: the slaves will enjoy free health care, free lunch, and free fornication!!!

  • But don’t you know that if you don’t want free health care, free lunch and free fornication you are part of the “let them eat cake” coalition?

  • And what’s with the new symbol thingies?

  • Phillip and all the non-gravatar readers,

    I got tired of looking at the random abstract icons, so I switched the default to MonsterID’s in the faint hope that some of you guys will sign up for free gravatar accounts/icons.


  • And what’s with the new symbol thingies?

    Yeah, Tito. How are we supposed to upload a real picture? I tried registering at WordPress, but it won’t accept any reasonable facsimile of my real name as a user name. Can we upload a pic without registering at WordPress?

  • I kinda like my monster thingie. 🙂

  • I also had the same problem as j. Used multiple variations of my name and said they were all used. Must be a govt. program.

  • Phillip et al.,

    Just so everyone knows, MonsterID links that icon permanently to the email address you provide.

    So if you get tired of it, you have motivation to go over to and sign up for a free account!


  • To be fair I am rather doubtful that Kagen wantts to ban books. I am trying to recall the exact sequence of events here . I actually think what started this all this were the ealier comments of the Deputy Solicter that gave the SUp COurt Justices the heebee jeevees and thus Kagen here is trying somehow to recover.

    That being said the Supreme Court can make the most seasoned lawyers look like idiots and also (and this is the problem the GOP will have in her hearings) she is basically just working for the boss. So when these hypos come out that go to the most alarming degree well there is not exactly a easy answer.

  • jh

    Nail! Head!

    She’s going to rubber stamp Obama. She’s a nothing and will continue to do nothing except vote for whatever the boss wants.

    Phil, I’m paying for the free health and lunch. They’re on their own when it comes to fornicking. I’m of the “let them have the opportunity to pursue happiness” coalition.

    My grav seems appropriate!

Sorry Charlie, Crist Vetoes Florida Ultrasound Bill, Bottom Line – More Babies Will Be Killed

Saturday, June 12, AD 2010

The following is from Florida Right to Life Organization:


HB 1143 was a pro-life and a pro-choice bill. It required that an abortionist give an ultrasound test before an abortion. 82% of the abortion clinics in Florida already do, but they do not all give the woman the option to see or discuss the ultrasound.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Sorry Charlie, Crist Vetoes Florida Ultrasound Bill, Bottom Line – More Babies Will Be Killed

  • Mr. Crist seems to be showing his true colors, hmm?

  • A sad day for our most vulnerable, precious, and innocent unborn babies. Praying for Crist’s soul…

  • The only way to properly frame this issue is to realize that the two sides have different prospectives.
    Pro-lifers see it as a just and moral cause to protect women and their children from harm.
    That’s good enough for discussion and debate but far short of the response needed to stop the slaughter of the innocent lives as pictured in this article.
    The abortionist and their subjects who go under the banner of Pro-Choice are not interested “causes”; they are far beyond that stage. They have declared WAR with any and all opponents of their religion and the “industrial complex” which powers the advance of their “Crusade”. They are rich and powerful and unfortunately know for the most part that the enemy’s main weapon is simply conversation which can be matched word for word.
    We have to likewise be willing to adjust to the conditions of war. The many of faith must become Christian Soldiers and march into battle willing to give more than voices to a cause. How you say?
    It would only take 10 to 20 thousand tax paying citizens refusing to file next year united and willing to go to jail unless all public funding for abortions be stopped immediately by say “executive order” followed by proper legislation. That, I’m afraid, is too much to expect. And there would be Bishops against it sighting “civil disobedience”.

  • Crist has left the Republican party as I explained in this post:

    He realizes he has no chance of getting pro-life Republican votes against Marco Rubio in the Senate race, so he is going after pro-abort votes.

  • Marco Rubio responds to the veto:

    “Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio said Crist’s veto was coldly calculated politics, not compassion for poor women faced with paying for ultrasound exams.
    “Once again, Charlie Crist has put politics ahead of principled policy-making,” said Rubio. “This veto will now make it harder for Florida to fight Obamacare, since the bill would have enabled our state to opt out of the abortion coverage mandate in the federal health care law.”

    Here are the responses of the the two Democrats vying for their parties’ nomination in the Senate race:

    “Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Kendrick Meek, D-Miami Gardens, called the veto “a no-brainer.” But he agreed with the Republicans that Crist was trying to move back to the political center after a political lifetime of opposing abortion.
    “The governor wants to put politics ahead of public policy,” said Meek.”

    “Democrat Jeff Greene, also running against Crist for the Senate, said the governor should have “opposed from the start” Hudson’s bill.
    “The fact that Charlie Crist even had to think about whether or not to veto this bill is just more evidence that Crist is a flip-flopper,” said Greene.”

  • Is the political center pro-abortion?

    Bottom line: you vote for Dems more babies will be exterminated, and almost certainly you will not get into Heaven.

  • I have an update to my post to include something from National Geographic’s “In the Womb” documentary to assist those who are actually on the fence in this debate- those who could be persuaded by facts like pictures of the end products of abortions and video of actual children in the womb and making their tiny presences known in very impressive and dramatic effects.

    If it is beneficial to show the world the realities of birds stuck in an oil spill and dead or dying, or innocent victims of a controversial just/unjust war- why would objections come from the political Left over the raw footage of Life and Death in the womb or I should say when the womb is turned into a killing field? I admire that the Left will go to great extremes to analyze a military action which may or will kill foreign persons- but where is that interest in determining the validity of the Life claims made by those who know something about the lives of the unborn children?

    Before my first child was born, I really didn’t fully get what was going down- I had no idea that that tiny life I first glimpsed on a grainy ultrasound would end up being a child that I would consider more valuable than all the material wealth of our entire planet- more valuable than a million of my own lifetimes- her value completely transcends all of this- at one point in my early 20’s I joined with others to counsel a good friend to have an abortion, and even sat in the clinic waiting for her while her boyfriend went back to his life a thousand miles away- literally. She and I eventually came to our senses, came to become Catholics, and we both were just full of extreme sorrow and guilt over what went down- both of us blaming ourselves for our roles more than putting blame on the other. I only wish I had been the man I am now back then. I can’t, and my friend has since passed away, childless, except for the child no one thought should be coming into our world. Forgiveness came to both of us in Confession, and in Repentance- I still actively pray with and through my friend and her child in ways I need not describe to fellow Catholics. Part of my own Repentance is to take a very aggressive position on Abortion- as some kind of Woman’s Right. I am a pro-Woman, pro-Child, pro-Humanity, pro-Environment, pro-humane treatment of Animals kind of Catholic watchdog- I do not shy away from those who want to tar me as anti-woman because I care about women in tough spots- I am all for mobilizing the culture and economic forces to help every women in the situation of bringing a child into the world through her own precious body. I simply do not value the opinion that it is ever, the right decision to kill an innocent child- if that makes me a Right Wing Catholic extremist in the eyes of pro-Death Choice believers then So Be It. I know the score, I aided the process of one demonic abortion- I am forgiven, but in my mind I have some serious work to do to help make this whole situation of the genocide against unwanted, unborn children- come to a rapid conclusion. I have no truck with the “state’s rights” pro-life strategists and mainstream politicians because I don’t see that as an incremental strategy, I see it as a tragic end game legal strategy- one where even if you win it, you lose the war for the unborn.

    My advice is for the Catholic priests and Catholic Sisters to begin a bold movement- since they do not have spouses and children they are more free to conduct some very intense non-violent non-cooperation exercises by praying in front of abortion mills until the authoritites drag them off- and if Catholic parishoners want their Jesus on Sunday- they will have to find their priests or demand that the system changes to end the genocide going on in our collective names. The Catholic clergy must hold the laity to a minimal standard, just as we must hold the Catholic clergy to a minimal standard- the laity should not tolerate the legal and systemic killing of unborn children, and the clergy should never tolerate the molestation of a single child.

  • I await the sophists over at Vox Nova to tell us why this is a great thing that Crist has done, and how Tim is more evil for putting that picture up…

  • How many wars, tornados, earthquakes, and other natural disasters is it going to take for America to wake up to the fact that abortion is murder?

  • Sydney,

    My thoughts too, at least on the picture.


  • The sophists over at Vox Nova inadvertently “hit on” a Catholic principle – possibly first time ever.

    One of the Corporal Works of Mercy is:

    Bury the dead.

    Let’s say the pro-life Democrats (HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!) enact a law that exterminated babies be accorded Christian/Jewish burials, as appropriate?

    Pro-life Democ . . . (I’m about to bust a gut).

    I can imagine a vegetarian hyena. I cannot, in my wildest hallucination, imagine a pro-life Dem.

  • Well, perhaps you’ve never met a pro-life Democrat.

  • T. Shaw,

    I’ve known some very principles pro-life democrats, though sadly it may be a lost cause when it comes to actual candidates for high office in the party.


    I agree that it’s important that people see those kinds of images — though I must admit that I also appreciate your moving that one below the fold. I sometimes have my kids around when I’m reading down the TAC main page, and at their ages I’d rather keep the full depravity of our nation concealed from them a little longer.

    God forgive us…

  • Most probably, these tiny ones, considered pathological waste, are incinerated, turned into ash, and taken to a landfill. Thus, not only is the child murdered and disposed of in such a cruel manner, but it has also been denied the opportunity to love and be loved. It has been denied sleeping peacefully in its mother’s lap, of being playfully tickled and cuddled, of taking its first steps and learning its first words under the guidance of its father. Everyone in its family, including grandparents, has been denied the opportunity to experience divine love. Some Catholic cemeteries are setting aside land for memorials in remembrance of these tiny ones. One cemetery has the statue of Rachel, who is weeping, to give comfort to those who have experienced the tragedy of abortion. Like the poster above, I wonder how much longer God will bless our country with blue and sunny skies while this vile darkness covers our nation like a shroud. I really do think we are on the precipice of destruction. Charlie Crist has made a heinous decision to try to gain earthly treasure, but the eternal heavenly treasure may just elude him.

  • I expect the debate over the use of graphic pictures of aborted children will continue- my own decision is based on a consistent standard- I agree with the Left when they wish to show the realities of war, and to put up posters of baby seals being clubbed to death or birds dying soaked in BP Oil- that is fine in my book- but if the Left objects to the use of real pictures of aborted children then I would call them out big time- didn’t they claim that George W. et al was keeping photos of dead soldiers and Iraqi civilians from public view because of his fears of public opinion turning against his policies? Well- ok then- why would it be so wrong to use undoctored photos of aborted children to convey the truth to try to convince people of goodwill that their taste for pro-choice politics is the wrong choice?

    Now within the pro-life community- as Darwin brought up- what about the stray child who takes in the aborted children pictures? I found confirmation from Fr. Pavone of Priests for Life who understands the dilemma- first- the pictures are effective, it is akin to seeing those dead bodies stacked up in the Nazi concentration camps- it is chilling but it is educational- helps solidify the ideal- “Never Again”. And why does the media keep showing video of oil soaked pelicans in the Gulf- as Brian Williams et al says things like- “these images are tough to watch”- so why show them when children may be watching- it might make them cry or have a nightmare? Well, Fr. Pavone added that his contacts with mental health counselors has given him assurance that the disturbing images will only leave some negative residual feelings for children who are left to themselves after viewing the graphic sorrowful images- if parents don’t use the image exposure as a teachable moment and explain why something is really bad, and should be stopped- then all bets are off as to what effects will linger in that child.

    For me, my wife and I have had a difference of opinion on this when we have driven down the road with out kids and sometimes there is an elderly couple out holding up a huge sign with an aborted child picture on it- my wife opposes abortion obviously, but she is thinking that children shouldn’t be exposed to these nightmarish images- my take on it was along the lines of Fr. Pavone’s even before I heard his view. I say to my kids when they see those signs- “sweathearts- those pictures are abortions- children inside their mama’s bellies are killed by the people who are supposed to be their protectors- this is why mama and papa are fighting against abortion- do you understand?”. Children get that abortion is evil, insane, unbelievable once they see a single picture- it is that obvious- only deceitful adults can find ways to cover up or explain away such brutishness. I think it is along the lines of how we are to become like little children, and the wisdom of the world is not on par with the truths transmitted through the Gospels.

    Now my experience with my kids who have seen big photos of dead children in these street protests has fit with what Fr.Pavone described- they aren’t traumatized, they speak with a firm conviction about the right to life for all babies- they are interested in knowing more and even wanting to help save babies. They know from the experience at home- how we are so careful about the unborn child and mama when she is pregnant- as she is right now- due very, very soon- how we are praying for the little guy and mama at every meal, and in our night prayers, how we are all stepping up to do more work at home and have better attitudes all to help make life more peaceful for mama so she can focus on being healthier for the sake of the baby and for herself. This is the way that should be normal- as Peter Kreeft writes about in his – Philosophy of Jesus- humanity has become abnormal- Jesus is the one who is truly normal- we become more human, more ourselves when we become more and more like Jesus- with the Holy Spirit enabling us. Human families should be modeled on the Holy Family in the openness to life – even in unusual or threatening conditions- and to love unto death, not cause the death of a loved one- as the warped logic of pro-choice would frame it.

  • Darwin & Tim S.,

    I moved the pic below the fold so the YouTube video could get some exposure.

    At first it was an accident as I was trying to embed Tim’s link into the post, so I miss-embedded it at the top.

    It looked good that way so I rearranged the pic below the fold.

  • No problem Tito- I trust your judgment on that- I want people to see the juxtaposition of beautiful life on latest ultrasounds with the hideous reality of abortion- this should maybe tame some of the outrageous celebatory comments being tossed around on mainstream Democrat blogs and facebook pages- I mean really- you want to cheer for Abortion? When I was a serious Pro-Death Choice guy back in my 20’s at least I could say I was completely clueless about fetal development and what abortion even did- it was just a reflex reaction to what seemed cool and smart in liberal secular circles- which was my world then. When I first saw “Silent Scream” I was pretty much blown away- cold, hard facts hitting me in the face of my conscience- but before I even got to the point where I was introduced or open to seeing something like “Silent Scream”, it took several people I knew and trusted- many of them women- to get me thinking twice about the whole pro-abortion choice idea. I pray this posting gets viewed by at least some who have not already converted to a pro-life comprehension. Come Holy Spirit!

A Meek Response to Pro-Choice Rage

Thursday, May 20, AD 2010

Thaddeus M. Baklinski of reported on a verbally violent encounter in Vancouver, Canada of  presumably a pro-choice/pro-abortion proponent yelling derisive invectives towards pro-life protesters.

The pro-life protesters did not respond to the taunts and intimidation.

They humbly took the abuse until the violent abuser left the scene.

What these protesters did by responding the way they did is a fine example of being meek.

Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.

— Holy Gospel of Saint Matthew 5:4

The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 explaining this Second Beatitude:

Inasmuch as poverty is a state of humble subjection, the “poor in spirit“, come near to the “meek”, the subject of the second blessing. The anawim, they who humbly and meekly bend themselves down before God and man, shall “inherit the land” and possess their inheritance in peace. This is a phrase taken from Psalm 36:11, where it refers to the Promised Land of Israel, but here in the words of Christ, it is of course but a symbol of the Kingdom of Heaven, the spiritual realm of the Messiah. Not a few interpreters, however, understand “the earth”. But they overlook the original meaning of Psalm 36:11, and unless, by a far-fetched expedient, they take the earth also to be a symbol of the Messianic kingdom, it will be hard to explain the possession of the earth in a satisfactory way.

[Warning:  The YouTube video below this fold is full of profanity and other disturbing language.]

Continue reading...

4 Responses to A Meek Response to Pro-Choice Rage

The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

Tuesday, May 11, AD 2010

The Lying Worthless Poltical Hack, a\k\a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, tells Priests and Bishops to speak out on immigration from the pulpit based upon a biblical concern for “the dignity and worth of every person”.

The respect that the Lying Worthless Political Hack has “for the dignity and worth” of the smallest and most helpless among us was well demonstrated by this quote from Naral Pro-Choice America in 2007 after Pelosi became speaker of the House:

“Americans who value freedom and privacy have many reasons to celebrate as Nancy Pelosi takes the Speaker’s gavel to make this historic move forward for our country.  For her nearly 20 years in office, Speaker Pelosi has been an effective advocate for women’s health and has championed her pro-choice values by consistently voting to protect a woman’s right to choose.  In November, voters across this country endorsed Speaker Pelosi’s call for a change and new direction by electing 23 new pro-choice members to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Today, we celebrate as Speaker Pelosi takes the reins; under her leadership Americans can expect a new focus on commonsense solutions, not the divisive attacks that marred the previous Congresses.”

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

  • Problem is that many U.S. bishops don’t need Nip Tuck Nancy to egg them on in using their good offices as a feather to tickle their ideological fancies on this issue. I mean you have both Cdl. Roger Mahony and Abp. Timothy Dolan engaging in New York Slimes-style smear tactics to disparage the good people of Arizona who are exercising their God-given right to protect themselves from the ravages of open borders malfeaseance.

  • Is it dignified to die of exposure in the desert?

    Do we celebrate the worth of those who are suffocated in unventilated containers snuck across the border by ‘coyotes’?

    Or the women trafficked … or raped … crossing the border?

    Or the drug violence? Or gang crime? Kidnapping? Murder. Mayhem. Is that all dignified?

    Anyone who supports the current border situation, or would cause a stampede by offering ‘amnesty’ … has a share of all this blood on their hands. Not very dignified to my way of thinking.

  • Or it could be because of the bishop’s longstanding support of immigrants, mainly because the US Catholic Church was built on the backs of poor, outcast immigrants.

    Despite the Speaker’s horrid theology on abortion, she’s right that more clergy should speak out on a just immigration policy. How can we say we respect all life when we spit on the poor and needy who come to us looking for a living (in a legal way)?

  • “How can we say we respect all life when we spit on the poor and needy who come to us looking for a living (in a legal way)?”

    Deporting illegal aliens is not spitting on them. No one of course is proposing that legal immigrants do not have every right to be here, so I do not understand the (in a legal way) that ended your sentence.

    In any case this post isn’t about the debate over immigration, but rather at the deafness the Lying Worthless Political Hack has to an essential teaching of her Church and her willingness to attempt to enlist the Church, with language the irony of which I am certain eludes her, when it becomes politically expedient for her to do so.

  • Mr Smith:

    Immigration is not the issue. It’s about illegal aliens storming across our borders and the attendent dangerous criminal activity. For the bishops to accuse those who take a differing view from that of the open borders crowd od being anti-immigration when they know it is nothing of the sort is reprehensible, to say nothing of being unbecoming the office of bishop.

    USCCB “pastoral” letters on these type issues are more ideological than pastoral and are not worth the paper they are written on esecially that “Faithful Citizenship” one.

  • Again we get to the claim that immigrants have a right to immigrate – which they do according to Catholic Social teaching. But Catholic Social teaching also notes that states have a right to regulate immigration. I suspect the Church understood that when it developed this teaching that there would be some poor immigrants who were cut off. Catholic Social teaching is not about achieving utopia in the here and now. It is about applying moral principles in a fallen world.

  • If the Demonrats were not assured of getting the votes of the illegals, do you think they would be fighting so hard for getting them in to the county AND giving them “defacto” votes (via ACORN, et al)?

  • Pingback: The Values of the Word « The American Catholic

Obama Approves Assassination of Citizen

Thursday, April 8, AD 2010

When Catholics justified their decision to vote for Obama, they did so on two grounds: healthcare and foreign policy. The premise was Obama would actually save lives through healthcare and through his more peaceful foreign policy, thus outweighing the damage he would do through his promotion of abortion.

I never found that premise convincing. Not only did I think they underestimated the damage abortion does, but I also believed that they were ignoring what Barack Obama was actually promoting in his foreign policy. To make a long story short, I think most people assumed that since Obama was a Democrat who had opposed the war in Iraq that he would be the opposite of Bush when in truth their positions are very similar.

Since taking office, Obama has largely followed the lead of his predecessor. However today news is coming out that he has surpassed his predecessor in circumventing due process: Obama has authorized the CIA to kill a US citizen believed to be involved in terrorism (H/t Vox Nova).

The idea that an American citizen can be killed without a trial outside of battle is a troubling one, regardless of whether you voted for Obama or not. The death penalty is something that should be used only rarely (if at all-I’m w/ the bishops that it’s not good in modern America), and if used then used in the context of a trial. The rights of trial are not merely procedural technicalities but safeguards designed to protect the dignity of life: that is, regardless of what someone has done, freedom & human life itself are so precious that we take it away only after a deliberate and careful process.

To take away human life outside of self-defense is a power no one, including the President, possesses. One will hope that the media will publish this and emphasize it so that public pressure will dissuade Obama from taking this course of action. Unfortunately, one has to doubt that that hope will be realized.

Continue reading...

63 Responses to Obama Approves Assassination of Citizen

  • Oh, but surely the president deserves the benefit of the doubt! He has “more information” than we do! And he should be allowed to do anything to save american lives!

    At least, this is the defense you people made of Bush. Now you’re criticizing Obama on the same grounds?

    Of course, much of Obama’s foreign policy is sheer evil, just like Bush’s. But do forgive me if I find your opposition of it laughable, considering you defended Bush’s policies. Your concerns ring hollow.

  • An interesting debate on this topic taking place on National Review Online:

    I found this comment by Jonah Goldberg interesting:

    “Re: Assassinating Awlaki [Jonah Goldberg]

    Just my quick two cents: I think this is a good and fine debate to have, but it’s worth considering that one reason we’re having it is that the White House wants us to. As Steve Hayes noted last night on Special Report, the news that we would be targeting Awlaki was leaked months ago, around the time of the Christmas bomber. It was releaked this week, perhaps to counterbalance the news that the White House is considering removing references to Islamic extremism in its national security strategy.”

  • The Catholic Anarchist’s response to the news that the man he voted for is willing to have the CIA assassinate an American citizen is to rant against Bush and his supporters. I am shocked, shocked!

  • I will have to let the others included in the group of “you people” answer for themselves, whoever “you people” is meant to address.

    However, I think you need to show me where I defended Bush’s policies. To my knowledge I have never done so on a blog. While I was very much a neocon in 2004, as I learned about Church teaching in college I came to oppose Bush’s foreign policy in regards to the war in Iraq, treatment of prisoners, etc. I don’t believe I have ever blogged supporting Bush’s actions, so I presume your accusation against me is nothing more than reasoning by stereotype & generalizations rather than any substantial basis.

    But of course, I digress. Whether or not my concern is has ill motives does change the fact that what I’m saying is true. I’m the one who voted against the man who’s trying to assassinate American citizens and you’re the one who voted for him.


    That is an interesting idea. Obama’s pretty good about getting the media to follow along; I wonder what the strategy is.

    And you are more than welcome to continue to post clips from Casablanca on any post I write. In fact, this post is surely deficient for lacking clips from that classic movie.

  • One of my rules of life Michael is that there are few things that cannot be made better by a Casablanca reference!

  • To quote my mom:
    “Life is technicalities.”

    I have no problem with murderers being targeted for death, I object to this one being killed without a trial to revoke his citizenship. (on the basis of having declared war on the US, if this is the youtube fellow I seem to remember)

    (Ed note-No profanity, even if merely abbreviated.)

  • I have no problem with murders being targeted for death

    Typical view of The American Catholic.

    (Ed-I changed your quote of him to what I changed him to say without the language).

  • Foxfier:

    They still retain human dignity and ought not to be killed, regardless of what they have done, unless self-defense requires it. There is no reason this man should not be “merely” imprisoned.


    You really need to stop arguing by association.

  • You really need to stop arguing by association.

    And you should take your own advice, methinks.

  • MD-
    Sure there is: we can’t do it, and trying to will make for a nice big pile of dead bodies. Failure to act has already resulted in innocent deaths– in part because this unspeakable has been able to be at war with a nation without even losing his citizenship of that nation.

  • Foxfier:

    Do you have any evidence of someone who has died b/c the United States was trying to capture this man rather than assassinate him?


    This thread is not about my decision to blog for TAC so please stop submitting comments in that regard. Needless to say, I do not agree with everything my co-bloggers or the commenters say. In fact, I accepted the invitation to discuss those differences.

    Furthermore, as one of your co-bloggers has just mentioned some support for Obama’s decision at your blog, you should check your own house.

  • Question:

    What’s the standard?

    What I mean is, under what circumstances may the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States authorize armed force against an enemy person?

    Obviously we don’t try all enemy soldiers in American courts prior to bombing their positions.

    On the other hand, obviously the President shouldn’t be able to declare any given Person X somewhere in the world to be an enemy and have him shot.

    Somewhere between those two extremes is a line, which can be demarcated on the basis of moral principles.

    What’s the standard?

    I notice that the article brought up whether the target was on a battlefield. In this war, what battlefield would that be? A Paris nightclub? An apartment in Beirut? A city street pretty much anywhere?

    It seems more pertinent to me to ask whether the subject is armed…but once the Nazis bedded down for the night, they weren’t armed. Yet I suppose we were perfectly willing to bomb the Nazi barracks, and I don’t suppose that was unjustified.

    What then?

    Perhaps the concern is whether the man is an American citizen? Hmm. The only way that seems pertinent to me is that, if we can capture him, we should try him for treason instead of locking him up until end-of-hostilities as an unlawful combatant. I mean, if we’re talking about a matter of human rights, and not just the particular privileges of citizenship.

    I don’t mean to make absurd comparisons here. Of course I see the difference between blowing up a guy’s house in Kentucky and blowing up a Nazi barracks.

    But I want to see the standards and criteria for authorizing force spelled out in plain language. It seems to me that doing this allows those standards to be evaluated dispassionately.

    So: Those of you who think the CIA hit isn’t okay: What’s the least alteration in the situation required to make it okay? Those of you who think it’s fine: What alteration would make it beyond the pale?

    Where’s the line? What’s the standard?

  • God Bless America! I just want everyone to know how much I love my country.


    If this doesn’t make you cry, you’ve got the devil in your soul.

    (Ed-note: This is not an actual comment from Iafrate but a joke played on him)

  • I for one find this development troubling on several levels. This is very much in line with the previous administration’s foreign policy, but it goes a step further.

  • Yes, the thing that Obama defenders seem to be missing out on this topic is that by ordering the killing without trial of an American citizen, Obama is taking a step which the Bush administration explicitly declined to do. (And rightly, I would argue.)

    Ordering any kind of assassination is troubling from a moral and a legal point of view, and it is (I think) with good reason that US law has generally forayed this. Setting the precedent of ordering the assassination of a US citizen (even on suspicion of terrorist involvement) without trial essentially means that Obama is claiming the authority to order the death of any person, at any time, for any reason.

    That’s not something one wants any authority to claim. (And someone who imagines this is “the same” as having the authority to order military action is either ignorant or duplicious.)

  • I just wanted to make sure you all saw this, so here it is again.


    Why, I love this song so much that I may never post anything else here again.

    (Ed-note: this is not an actual comment of Iafrate but a joke played on him.)

  • First, will whoever it is that is manipulating Michael I’s posts stop?

    Second, Michael D: did you read the updates on the link? Already the discussions are open.

    Third, Darwin, are you so sure?

  • Only American citizens deserve human dignity?

    I’m not really worked up over this one way or the other, maybe because I don’t see any other president doing any differently, but I do find it somewhat disturbing that some believe killing Americans is somehow less immoral than killing non-Americans.

  • Would you be worked up about it if Bush did do so?

  • Restrainedradical

    For me, the issue is that this is another step away from human rights; I agree with you that assassination is wrong, whether or not an American. However, there has always been a sense that Americans are given more rights and protections – rights and protections I think which should be extended outside of America, but instead, we see the rights and protections being eliminated, to make everyone equal.

  • Henry,

    Is this the WaPo article – – with this correction:

    “Correction to This Article
    The article referred incorrectly to the presence of U.S. citizens on a CIA list of people the agency seeks to kill or capture. After The Post’s report was published, a source said that a statement the source made about the CIA list was misunderstood.”

  • The posts attributed to Iafrate are simply wrong. I disagree with the guy on a lot of things and I wouldn’t exactly consider him the most considerate and thoughtful person around the blogosphere, but while I appreciate the humor of it, it’s just wrong and makes you all look bad.

    It’s your blog to do with as you see fit. I’ve voiced my opinion in the past that I don’t think you should moderate even the worst of his comments because most people can see them for what they are. They’re a true reflection of what he stands for and his character. Posting comments under his name that he clearly didn’t write shameful and even worse than the way the other blog refuses to post comments that challenge the fallacies and unwarranted assertions offered.

    I would remove the comments, apologize, and promise to not do anything like this in the future. Common decency dictates that, and your regular readers deserve better (at least this regular reader thinks he deserves better).

  • Michael’s posts are faked?

  • Jonathan

    A couple things. If you read beyond that, there is still the assertion of Americans being targets, just the CIA source is wrong. Second, there are other articles and discussions on the CIA affair– not just that one article. So, it is possible they were wrong, but as I said on the VN post, there are all kinds of indications which the Bush administration favored such actions and did them — even if we cannot prove it, I suspect this is not new, a creation ex nihilo, but an open admission to what was once not open. That is my intuition. Even if I am wrong there, there is nonetheless evidence which, though not proof, shows why one can suspect it is the case — and again, the line beyond what you quote is indicative of that, too.

    Still, Obama is bad for doing this. But to believe it is new… and the Bush team opposed such an idea? Read Cheney.

  • The posts attributed to Iafrate are simply wrong.

    Agreed RL. Completely classless. Michael’s a troll on this blog, no question about it. And anyone familiar with his writings will recognize the joke. But editing comments that way is a basic violation of blogging etiquette (as is the delete-all-dissent (DAD) policy at VN from some writers) and it shouldn’t happen. Apologies are owed to Michael I.

  • I generally approve of what Obama is doing here. I can see the other side but I think he is solid COnst grounds here.

  • If it was found in WWII tha there were in a army camp numbers of Japanes Americans that had returned to Japan to fight could we bomb it or since it they are citizens would we have to send in the FBI to arrest them

  • “The death penalty is something that should be used only rarely (if at all-I’m w/ the bishops that it’s not good in modern America), and if used then used in the context of a trial. The rights of trial are not merely procedural technicalities but safeguards designed to protect the dignity of life: that is, regardless of what someone has done, freedom & human life itself are so precious that we take it away only after a deliberate and careful process.”

    I think calling this the Death penalty , while a good way to try to put this in the Civil Context , is largely incorrect.

    We currently have an young American Citizen from Mobile Alabama that is in Somilia (at least was) creatingterror and destruction in his for work for AQ. In his spare time he sends out videos urging all to the join the war against the United States

    Woull targeting him be the death sentence or would it be valid military exercise?

  • I woke up this morning to the altered comments. As they’ve been discussed, I don’t think it’s fair to delete them but for the sake of avoiding any confusion I have added a note to both comments making it clear that the content was not of Iafrate’s doing. As I didn’t do the editing, I think that’s all I can do other than to promise that there will be no further editing of comments in my threads other than modifying inappropriate language. I apologize for the editing that took place and am trying to rectify it as best I can.

    If there’s anything else MI would like me to do (or anyone has suggestions for me to do), please let me know.

  • Jh:

    I’m thinking about it, but let me ask you a question: what is the difference between an assassination and a “valid military exercise?” That is, is it always permissible for another country to execute kill orders for the leaders of the opposition? If say Robert E. Lee had been shot in the back during the Civil War by a Union sniper, is that morally acceptable as a “valid military exercise?”

  • Michael D:

    Actually, there is a real-life example you can use: the targeted shooting down of Japanese Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto’s plane while on an inspection tour. Yamamoto’s plane route was discovered because we had cracked the Japanese military code. The attack was authorized by President Roosevelt:

  • Michael There would be nothing wrong for a Union Sharpshooter to shoot General lee in the back

    Union and Confederate sharpshooters were shooting Officers all the time

  • Jh:

    My example was poor. Let be more specific-General Lee is sitting 300 miles from a battlefield visiting with his family. He sits down to the dinner table with one of his kids on his knees. At that moment, the Union sharpshooter fires. Or we can play with the example of a regular private, sitting at home with his family.

    I think we would agree that a sharpshooter in the heat of battle is justified in aiming at officers-it causes confusion and makes victory more likely, not to mention it is battle. One can further argue that when one is conducting military missions, like the example Price gave, one can expect to be attacked and so is permissible.

    I don’t think that however we can argue that a participant in war is subject to be killed at all times regardless of whether or not they are involved in the war. A soldier on leave is not a target.

    What makes the problem fuzzy w/ Obama’s decision however is trying to decide what constitutes a battlefield here. I’m not prepared to say that the decision to be a terrorist constitutes a continuous act of war. I think the US has the right to seize him arrest and use force to do, including the force necessary to defend the soldier’s lives. I’m not prepared to say that if they find him unarmed & alone they can kill him.

  • Michael D:

    A soldier on leave is not a target.

    Exactly. It is more than this, but this is the heart of the issue — for a war to be just, there are all kinds of rules for war; among them is how one finds targets (which goes with the question, is the soldier acting as a soldier, or outside of that domain). To approve of assassination in this instance is to extend the domain of the battle and the domain of what is and is not soldiering, both of which are troubling.

  • Of course the classic example is Adolph Hitler. Even before we were at war with Hitler I would have had no problem, moral or otherwise, with anyone assassinating Hitler after he came to power in Germany. The question gets much murkier when we are dealing with smaller fry in service to evil.

  • I don’t think that however we can argue that a participant in war is subject to be killed at all times regardless of whether or not they are involved in the war. A soldier on leave is not a target.

    I may be wrong on this, but I’m not aware of any restriction on killing enemy soldiers who aren’t on the battlefield or on leave or whatever. Nor is it clear what the moral difference would be.

  • If there’s anything else MI would like me to do (or anyone has suggestions for me to do), please let me know.

    Whoever did it should personally and publicly apologize.

  • I may be wrong on this, but I’m not aware of any restriction on killing enemy soldiers who aren’t on the battlefield or on leave or whatever.

    You are wrong. The church condemns the killing of non-combatants.

  • BA

    Actually, just war theory discusses the status of soldiers, and makes sure that they must be, when engaged, combatants; military necessity and proportionality are a part of the ways this is addressed in classical terms. The soldiers can be captured, but if they have given up fighting, they can’t be killed as if they were still fighting. And if they are, for example, off the battlefield, they are no longer fighting.

  • BA

    BTW, this is why we can’t just take out wounded soldiers or prisoners of war; just because they are soldiers does not mean they fit the status of combatants, they can lose that status in various ways.

  • Actually, just war theory discusses the status of soldiers, and makes sure that they must be, when engaged, combatants; military necessity and proportionality are a part of the ways this is addressed in classical terms. The soldiers can be captured, but if they have given up fighting, they can’t be killed as if they were still fighting. And if they are, for example, off the battlefield, they are no longer fighting.

    I agree with all of this except the last sentence. I’ve never seen any discussion of Just War stating that you can’t kill enemy soldiers when they are “off the battlefield,” whatever that means.

  • BA

    Just gave you an example where this debate actually exists in the tradition — naked soldiers taking a bath. And if you agree that prisoners of war or wounded soldiers cannot be taken out indiscriminately, why? What makes them no longer free game, if they are still soldiers?

  • BTW, this is why we can’t just take out wounded soldiers or prisoners of war; just because they are soldiers does not mean they fit the status of combatants, they can lose that status in various ways.

    Soldiers who are captured or wounded are *incapable* of fighting, and thus have traditionally been protected as noncombatants. That’s a far cry from someone who is capable of fighting, and who isn’t doing so at the moment only because he’s not aware of your presence.

  • Just because they are wounded or captured does not mean they are incapable of fighting; many wounded people get up and fight, and many people who are captured struggle for release. They might be less capable, but so is someone who is not on the battlefield, without any weapons of any kind. Capture them, if you wish. Assassinate when they don’t possess a threat? What?!

  • You are wrong. The church condemns the killing of non-combatants.

    Well sure. But an enemy soldier is a combatant.

  • Just gave you an example where this debate actually exists in the tradition — naked soldiers taking a bath.

    Larry May (the author you cite) argues that you shouldn’t kill a naked soldier but says that this is not a matter of justice but humaneness, and admits that his position is not the standard one. The only source he cites discussing the issue, Walzer, treats it as obvious that killing the naked soldier is permitted.

  • Just because they are wounded or captured does not mean they are incapable of fighting; many wounded people get up and fight, and many people who are captured struggle for release.

    Right, and if a wounded soldier picks up a gun and starts shooting or an enemy soldier tries to escape then they lose the protection of noncombatant status. Do you not agree with that?

  • BA:

    The point of the article is that it is an issue of concern and debate within the framework of just war discussions. And humanness and mercy is within the context of just war discussions (see Augustine). More importantly, your answer “and if they pick up a gun and starts shooting” goes back to the naked soldier point. They are not with a gun, not shooting. Remember, one aspect of just war theory is response must be just — which goes with the humanness issue of the article but he didn’t put it in that context — that is, if you can capture without killing, that is what is expected.

  • “if you can capture without killing, that is what is expected.”

    In the case of al Qaeda-style terrorism, the likelihood of a Khalid Sheikh Mohammed arrest scenario is probably low. More likely the “combatants” will go out like the Madrid train bombing cell.

    This is what is so vexing about jihadist terrorism; it exists in limbo somewhere lower in intensity than conventional warfare, but significantly more intense than organized crime. The Catholic moral philosopher has his work cut out for him. What is the battlefield, and who are the combatants? Is a UAV-fired missile strike legitimately called assassination, or is it just the regular course of this type of warfare? I’ve seen this stuff argued back and forth in comboxes ’til everyone is blue in the face, but I haven’t found a good treatment of the subject from a Catholic perspective.

  • Well sure. But an enemy soldier is a combatant.

    No, not always. I saw a Marine havin’ lunch at the Pizza Hut the other day. Is he a legitimate target?

  • I saw a Marine havin’ lunch at the Pizza Hut the other day. Is he a legitimate target?

    No, but then he’s not an enemy soldier either.

  • No, but then he’s not an enemy soldier either.

    Not to his fellow lunchtime buffet diners, no…

  • This is a fascinating discussion. With regards to these latest posts, though, how plausible would it be that an individual Marine would be targeted for an attack?

    For the purposes of the analogy, it might be better to consider a high-ranking officer, someone who has been promoted off the battlefield but nonetheless plays a major role in directing operations–say, a member of the joint chiefs of staff, or the enemy organization’s equivalent.

    When and when would not that individual be a legitimate military target?

  • And what about civilian commanders like a head of state? What about president-elects who have no power yet but certainly will unless stopped?

  • Pingback: Blog Comment Policy and Conflict « The American Catholic
  • Has anyone yet proposed a standard for what constitutes a combatant who may be legitimately targeted?

    I mean, IF…

    1. He has participated in attacks, or the planning of attacks, against the U.S.; and,

    2. He declares himself to be at war against the U.S.; and,

    3. It is not feasible to capture him;

    THEN, if he’s in a cabin or compound by himself, is it okay to blow the place up with a Hellfire missile?

    Under what circumstances is it not okay?

  • * crickets chirping *

  • The way I understand it is that in war one does not directly aim to kill but rather one aims to stop an unjust agression. Such is the case with self-defense also. Not clear at this point but some argue this is how the Church has moved captial punishment – from punishment to defense of society. Thus the moral object (perhaps) is the use of force to render an attacker impotent and not killing of the attacker. That consequence may be forsee under double effect but again is not directly intended.
    Can such an argument be used here? There is a person who is in fact, if not at that moment at some point in the past and probably in the future, involved in attacks on the US. Can we apply the above reasoning. It seems hard to make the argument that one is not directly intending the killing of a specific person in this situation. Perhaps an argument can be made that it isn’t and is licit. Perhaps, if as noted above capital punishment is not direct killing, one can apply the principle of the state executing a person to defend society.
    Then it would seem clear the guilt of the individual would need to be clearly established. In that case one would need to argue that a finding by the President on secretly held information would suffice. Does the Church say that determinations of guilt must be public and/or judicially based?

  • Phillip:

    I don’t know of any direct Church teaching on that point.

    Unless there is some passage of which I am unaware which says otherwise, I expect that the rule is a matter of the morality of individual action, initially, with social and corporate action envisioned as an outgrowth and an organization of the former. It is to the individual act that universal and objective moral laws are directly applied; the corporate organization of a nation’s laws is reflective of this individual obligation indirectly, showing forth the moral pattern at higher levels of organization in a fashion similar to the way a fractal pattern is repeated at larger scales.

    If so, then a need for determinations of guilt to be public and judicial in character is not a primary moral obligation but an outgrowth of that which is healthy for society; namely, the rule of law and the need that society’s judgments in matters of life and death be carried out in “daylight” and with great deliberation whenever possible.

    That, of course, is healthy for society. But note the caveat “whenever possible.” It is not always possible.

    The law, as it ought, provides for instances in which a man defends his family or even his property by armed force against an intruder “in the gravest extreme”; that is, when the need to stop the criminal attack is now and the soonest intervention by police is ten minutes hence. If Person Y comes storming into Person X’s house in the middle of the night, and Person X stops the invasion with a firearm, thus killing Person Y in the process, no crime is committed. (Provided there’s no disparity of force, that Person X didn’t chase Person Y while Y is fleeing the scene, and so on.) The normal orderly intervention of society was not possible in this instance.

    So too there may be — in fact, certainly are occasions when a trial and a civilian conviction and incarceration are impossible responses to an attack. Military initiative is therefore required instead. I don’t think anyone denies this; the question is how to write our laws in such a way as to (1.) adequately anticipate this need and allow for it under the law, so that the rule of law is not visibly violated every time one of these exceptional cases arises, and (2.) write the law in such a way that it does not allow the unscrupulous, incautious, or confused to exercise military initiative in instances where a capture and trial are plausible.

    Writing the law to meet those two goals in a fashion sufficient to satisfy all observers is impossible. Satisfying most observers is extremely tricky even if some of them weren’t biased towards finding fault. In an adversarial political system, in which half the observers are finding fault wherever possible in order to win the next election, you probably won’t even be able to satisfy a majority of observers.

    Which is why I wasn’t surprised when, in response to my two requests that someone propose a standard or even lay out where they thought the lines should fall, I got the blog equivalent of chirping crickets. (Even among this usually quite vocal crowd!)

    Now in a sense that request isn’t quite fair of me. Or, if the request is fair, it isn’t quite fair that I should waggle my finger at everybody for not proposing a standard. After all, I haven’t proposed one, either!

    But I’m making a larger point; namely, that criticism of a president for “going too far” in this area of policy is meaningless unless one has a standard by which one may judge he has gone too far. Without the standard, how does one know if he has gone too far?

    We have here a crowd of folks some of whom gave G.W.Bush quite a tongue-lashing for the laxity with which he carried out policies in this area. Later, a slightly different crowd with (tho’ with some overlap) gave Obama equally nasty language for doing basically what Bush did, or perhaps a bit more.

    Now one would guess from all these loud pronouncements of fire and brimstone against both presidents that every poster here has in mind a standard of what is and isn’t appropriate target-selection, which (1.) he knows to be the correct standard, (2.) can articulate, (3.) can defend against other proposed standards, and (4.) which one or both presidents have violated.

    But I suspect very few if any of the posters here really do have a well-defined standard in mind. At least I haven’t heard one articulated. And I myself am having difficulty coming up with one, so I suspect others are as well.

    But why, then, are folks giving Bush and Obama a lot of grief, if they can’t even say for sure that either man is operating outside the correct moral standards for this area of policy-making?

    I suspect it’s for two reasons: (1.) We have a gut feeling that this targeted assassination (what a choice of words: why is it considered assassination, I wonder, rather than an attack or assault?) is going too far; and, (2.) Even if it isn’t, we’re aware that a precedent granting the president power to do this sort of thing is dangerous when wielded by a man without a well-formed conscience.

    Now item (2.) is entirely logical, and if we all opposed this policy on the basis of avoiding the precedent, I would not complain of holes in our argument.

    But it seems to me that some folks are composing their criticism in such a way as to imply that Bushama have violated a standard of policy-making which everyone ought to know and which Bushama has no excuse for not knowing and following. It seems to me that they’re making this implication, without actually articulating the standard, because in reality they don’t have a clue exactly what the standard is.

    And, as I said before, I’m not sure what it should be, either.

    But let’s face up to it. On Argument 2 (dangerous precedent) we can articulate exactly what the problem is. But on Argument 1 (violation of an objective moral standard) all we have is gut feeling. And I don’t think it’s very just to blame Bushama for not having the same gut feeling as we, and following it.

  • R.C,

    I think your points are well made. There is certainly a tendency to think politically and it affects both sides of the house. I think this is showing up now on this issue. I think it has been more prominent on the torture issue. I have asked plenty of times some very vociferous opponents of torture what licit interrogation looks like and gotten no answer. I think the terrorism piece makes traditional assessments more difficult and need to be looked at dispassionately. But this is perhaps a reflection on the current state of American politics.

  • The danger in this case, and many other cases, in this thing we used to call the “global war on terror” is this- we become too accustomed to the demonization effect that creating a special kind of warfare always produces.
    Because the Muslim jihadists who cloak their cause for war in their faith make us uncomfortable, we decide that they are terrorists, rather than merely being unlawful combatants engaged in combat against a signatory nation to the various Geneva Accords. When we have to make them special because they are non-standard enemies, we commit ourselves to mental, legal, and geo-political gymnastics that always seem to produce bad results and bad decisions.
    The no-good, non-state, illicit Muslim jihadi swine declared, through action, war upon the United States (a signatory to the Geneva Accords).
    Congrtess should have declared war upon them and their supporters wherever they may be found- what they did, was authorize the POTUS to take whatever military action necessary to bring them to heel.
    In this case, the POTUS had, and still has, the legitmate authority over the armed forces of the US to prosecute the war as necessary (in compliance, where understood, with international standards for war).
    What you describe here, and what is not particularly new, is the POTUS ordering civilian (non-military) security and intelligence personnel to take lethal actions in cases where such authority is suspect at best. If the military commander assigned to the area of responsibility locates, targets, develops and strikes said scuzzy individual into non-existence, so be it. But where and when will end the POTUS’ authority to issue “kill” orders against “terrorists” at his own discretion, apparently independent of his authority as commander in chief? Certainly not at the conclusion of hostilities. Unable to even formulate a strategy to defeat global jihad without conducting all-out war, the Pentagon has adopted the capstone military concept of “persistent conflict.” Do not look for the conflict to ever end, nor for the military to seek victory.
    At water’s adge? That famous dividing line for domsetic politics is now long gone politically, as well as operationally. The new administration has been most vocal first in extending to domestic political enemies the moniker of “potential terorrists” and in declaing that home grown extremism (worded to appear to account for MAJ Hasan, in reality the wording more closely fits previous warnings about Tax Tea Partiers) is a gfreater threat than Al-qaida.

    In my opinion, the lout is an absolutely valid target. So kill him in combat, not as a covert operation of clandestine intelligence services.

Palin Responds to Family Guy Attack on Trig

Tuesday, February 16, AD 2010

Sarah Palin and Bristol Palin respond to the vile Family Guy attack on Trig, her son with Down’s Syndrome:

People are asking me to comment on yesterday’s Fox show that felt like another kick in the gut. Bristol was one who asked what I thought of the show that mocked her baby brother, Trig (and/or others with special needs), in an episode yesterday. Instead of answering, I asked her what she thought. Here is her conscientious reply, which is a much more restrained and gracious statement than I want to make about an issue that begs the question, “when is enough, enough?”:

“When you’re the son or daughter of a public figure, you have to develop thick skin. My siblings and I all have that, but insults directed at our youngest brother hurt too much for us to remain silent. People with special needs face challenges that many of us will never confront, and yet they are some of the kindest and most loving people you’ll ever meet. Their lives are difficult enough as it is, so why would anyone want to make their lives more difficult by mocking them? As a culture, shouldn’t we be more compassionate to innocent people – especially those who are less fortunate? Shouldn’t we be willing to say that some things just are not funny? Are there any limits to what some people will do or say in regards to my little brother or others in the special needs community? If the writers of a particularly pathetic cartoon show thought they were being clever in mocking my brother and my family yesterday, they failed. All they proved is that they’re heartless jerks. – Bristol Palin”

– Sarah Palin

Perhaps it is partially because I have an autistic son, but words literally fail me to adequately describe people evil enough to mock a handicapped child because they differ with the mother of the child politically.

Continue reading...

79 Responses to Palin Responds to Family Guy Attack on Trig

  • Family Guy is commonly about as tasteless as the imagination permits, exceeded in this only by South Park. It is an indication of how corrupted the media have grown in a modest time frame.

    Amy Carter was overexposed but given only the mildest ribbing by the likes of the Not Ready for Prime Time Players and Chelsea Clinton was left in peace (bar for being called a ‘dog’ by Rush Limbaugh). I think one of Geraldine Ferraro’s children is named ‘John’; do you recall the other two?

  • It is quite amazing that people who allegedly have their full faculties and imaginative creativity will act like the effin’ retards they ascribe people with actual special needs as being.

    The fact is people with mental retardation, autism and other impairments are more enjoyable, joyful and pleasant to be around than any of these monkeys who like to throw mean words around without considering the feelings of those who have impairments and the loved ones who care for them

    If you ask me, that is pretty effin’ retarded, especially when the goal is to attack a defenseless child simply because his mother makes you feel uncomfortable and intimidated.

    Do you think that the fact that we consider children a burden and a punishment for recreational sex or a simple ‘choice’ to kill has anything to do with considering anyone with special needs as a burden on society and fair game for ridicule?


  • One of the things Palin has unquestionably achieved (to her sorrow) is giving the hard left a chance to show the entire country how utterly despicable and hateful the “caring” party can be.

  • Southpark usually has a nuanced and valid point to make, even if it is one we disagree with. It has had pro-life episodes, and many shows about the humanity and dignity of disabled people.

    I simply can’t put that show in the same class as Family Guy, which is nothing but one-sided propaganda.

    In addition to being intrinsically evil, making fun of a down-syndrome child is mind-bogglingly irrational and stupid if your goal is to somehow oppose Sarah Palin.

    In the end this is the same show that depicted Jesus as a pedophile, God as a selfish womanizer, and all Christians as mindless, book-burning, hate-filled bigots. It’s the kind of stuff I might have thought up as an angst-ridden teenage atheist in rebellion against the Church. I’m glad I grew up, and I’m sad others are still stuck there.

    And you know what MacFarlane’s defense always is? And its the same one used by all of these guys: either we can make fun of everything, or we can make fun of nothing. Everything is sacred or nothing is sacred. And somehow our first amendment embodies this idea. Of course this is irrational, illogical, and childish.

  • When a culture makes everything profane, nothing is sacred.

  • I seem to recall that Joan Rivers was interviewed in 1983 or thereabouts and said her aim was to be “the meanest bitch in America”. Asked if any topic was off limits, she said, “deformed children…and religion I’m very careful with…”. Well, that was then.

  • I deleted your comment restrainedradical. No one in this thread will be allowed to speak in defense of this vile assault on human decency. All such comments will be deleted.

  • In my misspent past as a teen, youth, young adult and sadly full grown man I would have found this funny. In fact, I used to like the show as well as other prurient interests. Then I was assaulted by God and only by His Grace I came to my senses and returned to the Church of my Baptism.

    Making that decision meant that I was all in. Of course, I only think I am all in because everyday I am reminded of how not-at-all-in I really am. Yet, I know that morality is not in me it comes from God alone. Adhering to His standards renders this and other things I would have found entertaining and funny in my past as sick and twisted.

    I certainly am not ‘politically correct’ and I don’t think we need to allow coercion, government or social, to limit artistic expression. Yet, I think that social standards, based on ‘mere Christian’ morals must be infused into our culture.

    This ‘joke’ was not funny because it maligns children with inherent limitations and not because it attacks Sarah Palin. She’s a big girl and can take care of herself and she chose public life. I think that children with mental retardation, physical disabilities, Down Syndrome, etc. have a greater opportunity for sanctification than fools that find this kind of crap funny.

    I think if I met myself from several years back, I might kick my own ass.

  • The sad thing is that Family Guy is capable of being hysterically funny without being radically offensive.

  • Sadly, I read restrained radical’s comment before it was deleted. It’s an appalling enigma to me how the left is so adamantly against torture, but at the same time can applaud a wicked and evil cartoon which could be considered one of the most deadly of weapons, the most harmful poison. Society must be nourished with good, not evil, and evil is being preached to an immense audience. Evil such as this corrupts and kills souls. But then, the principles of God’s kingdom and the principles of the world are vastly different. That cartoon caused unnecessary pain to the Palins and countless others. Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday, a perfect time to contemplate Jesus’ crowning with thorns. Mother Teresa said that mental illness is Jesus’ crown of thorns. Although children with downs’ syndrome are certainly not mentally ill, I think we could extend the meditation to include the parents of these children who suffer greatly with mockery, taunts and insults directed toward their beloved children.

  • restrainedradical is a valued commenter here at American Catholic. This thread however is not one where our usual free-wheeling debate format applies. I feel quite strongly about this and no comments defending the Family Guy spit in the face of decency will be allowed. If handicapped kids can be mocked as entertainment or political attack, then we truly are a culture that is sick unto death.

  • Surprisingly (at least to me), The Anchoress is defending “Family Guy” and criticizing Palin for speaking out:

    I responded somewhat negatively in her comboxes.

  • I’m not seeing how the clip was an attack on Trig (not saying it wasn’t mind you, just that I don’t see how it was). Maybe someone could explain?

  • “I think if I met myself from several years back, I might kick my own ass.”

    American Knight,

    The desire to go back in time and kick your own backside is the universal sign of maturity. To me, the realization of how we were wrong in the past explains why reconciliation is the greatest of the sacraments.*

    * Unless my wife is reading and then my answer is marriage is the greatest sacrament.

  • I’m missing something. I get “former governor of Alaska” is referencing Sarah Palin, but how does Trig fit into this? I don’t get it. I second the call for an explanation.

  • The date has Downs syndrome, the one who says she is the daughter of a former governor of Alaska. That is indictated by the way that she speaks.

    The Huffington post author here is clear as to what Seth MacFarlane intended.

  • Jay, the Anchoress is simply clueless on this. The insult was directly aimed at Trig as you pointed out. That the Anchoress can’t see this astounds me.

  • I’m not seeing how the clip was an attack on Trig (not saying it wasn’t mind you, just that I don’t see how it was). Maybe someone could explain?

    I think MacFarlane was trying to cover his ass by recasting Todd Palin as ‘an accountant’ and Trig as female.

  • I had deleted this comment but on second thought I am going to post it. It came from someone, now banned from this blog, calling himself FascistHater. His name is apt, but not in the way he intended. It is a monument to the type of hatred that motivates people to attack those they disagree with by attacking their kids. Such hatred ultimately consumes those who revel in it.

    “What a bunch of “knee jerk assholes” you all are. Did any of you watch this entire show? The girl with downs syndrome is treated as a self assured young women who is the superior of the “normal” Chris Griffin. I’m certain if he had made inappropriate suggestions involving a Lufta she would have shoved it up his ass. If only Palin’s “Normal” slut daughter was as self assured and bright as this cartoon character.

    By the way Don sorry about your son but maybe someone with genes as defective as yours shouldn’t be reproducing. Hey . . . if my comments going to be deleted might as well make it good.”

  • The date has Downs syndrome, the one who says she is the daughter of a former governor of Alaska. That is indictated by the way that she speaks.

    Okay, but how is that an attack on Trig?

  • Governor of Alaska plus Downs Syndrome Child. The Downs Syndrome child is also portrayed as nasty and manipulative. This is not rocket science BA.

  • Don, I caught that comment last night but refrained from commenting because I knew it would be deleted. Obviously the person is quite filled with hate and apparently a proud fascist too (they often go hand in hand dontcha know), but I was wondering if you were able to tell if the person was someone we’re familiar with or just a drive by. I was inclined to think it was the typical leftist type of drive by because I only know of a handful truly hatefilled semi-regulars but their names are well known and they seem to have no shame about associating their name with their venom. However, I got to thinking that this person probably knows more about you than can be ascertained from the post. Nevermind, I’m fairly sure who it is. Sad.

  • Governor of Alaska plus Downs Syndrome Child. The Downs Syndrome child is also portrayed as nasty and manipulative. This is not rocket science BA.

    I grant that it was a reference to Palin/Trig. That much is obvious. What I don’t get is what is insulting about it. The girl didn’t come across as nasty or manipulative in the clip to me, and even if she did, Trig isn’t a teenage girl, so it’s not like these attributes would be ascribed to him.

    I agree this isn’t rocket science, why is what makes the unwillingness/inability of people to say what was insulting about the clip somewhat mysterious.

  • I think I may have watched family guy once, maybe twice. Never thought it funny or entertaining – mostly just stupid. No reason to ever watch it.

  • Nothing mysterious about it BA. You simply do not think it is insulting. I, Trig’s mother and Trig’s sister think it is, along with quite a few other people. I guess we’ll see how this plays out and how many other people fail to see what I think is an obvious attack on a child with Downs Syndrome simply to vent political hatred.

  • FWIW, I could see the, “Well, this isn’t all that offensive,” point were this more or less in isolation. However, given that Palin has been consistently vilified by the left for bringing a child with Downs Syndrome to term ever since she appeared on the national stage, I think it’s reached the point where making a point of it at all (especially in a venue like Family Guy, which has become an all purpose political/cultural attack program over the last couple years) plays as offensive.

  • “but I was wondering if you were able to tell if the person was someone we’re familiar with or just a drive by.”

    Deliberately didn’t attempt to Rick. The person involved wasn’t worth that much effort on my part. Whoever it was I feel pity more than anything else. Living with that level of hate must be like wearing an emotional hair shirt.

  • The girl didn’t come across as nasty or manipulative in the clip to me

    She rebukes him for not helping her to her seat and then rebukes him for not asking about her person. You wouldn’t mind?

  • Nothing mysterious about it BA. You simply do not think it is insulting. I, Trig’s mother and Trig’s sister think it is, along with quite a few other people.

    I’m asking why you thought it was insulting. Saying, “well I and a lot of other people thought it was insulting” doesn’t answer that question.

  • It’s pretty incoherent, which is describes the MacFarlane’s humor in general. Throw everything against the wall and hope to elicit a response.

    South Park actually had a dead-on hilarious parody of the Family Guy writing style during the notorious censored Muhammad episode, depicting FG as being written by manatees who nudge random balls labelled with pop culture references into a mixing machine, thus leading to the attempted gags.

    After having watched the clip, it sure looks like a manatee job. I agree that it’s offensive, and a secondary shot at Trig, but I think it’s more of an attack on Sarah Palin than her son, projecting the latter’s handicaps on to the former. I say “secondary” because the depiction of the impaired character as an obnoxious, attention-mongering glasses-wearing diva is a direct attack on the former Governor herself.

  • [G]iven that Palin has been consistently vilified by the left for bringing a child with Downs Syndrome to term ever since she appeared on the national stage, I think it’s reached the point where making a point of it at all (especially in a venue like Family Guy, which has become an all purpose political/cultural attack program over the last couple years) plays as offensive.

    I can understand this as a psychological explanation, but if past attacks make people conclude that any reference to Palin is per se insulting then I think they are overreacting.

  • BA, I’ll try this one last time with you and I’ll put it in personal terms. My son is autistic. He is a constant joy to me and to his mother. He is unable to carry on a normal conversation, although he can answer yes and no questions. His autism may have caused retardation although with autism this is difficult to say. He can read although how much he retains is often a mystery for us and his teachers. His autism gives him all sorts of behavioral quirks so that he will never be able to live independently or work outside of a sheltered workshop. Things that other people can do without thinking, he, sadly, will not be able to do. Compared to most people his life will be hard, something thus far he has coped with magnificently.

    If I were to be a public figure, and a “comedy” show decided to feature a character who is mentally handicapped and who is the child of a person who is clearly intended to be me, I would be livid. My son was not brought into this world to be used as a prop by which an attack could be launched against me. That you fail to understand why I would be livid, and why the Palins are livid, I find baffling.

  • If I were to be a public figure, and a “comedy” show decided to feature a character who is mentally handicapped and who is the child of a person who is clearly intended to be me, I would be livid. My son was not brought into this world to be used as a prop by which an attack could be launched against me.

    This begs the question of how it was an attack, which is what I was asking. If I comedy show attacked my family I would be livid too. But I don’t see how the above clip constitutes an attack.

  • Because Trig can’t defend himself BA, just as my son cannot defend himself. Kids of politicians used to be off-limits. Now it is open season on disabled kids of politicians. I guess common deceny is a thing of the past.

  • BA,

    I think Dale summed it up well. The odd thing for me is that the scene was simply not funny. I don’t mean not funny because it was offensive, it was simply not funny period. I’ve watched the Family Guy before and found certain bits extremely funny…even some of the very offensive ones, but this one wasn’t funny and is quite transparent and unnecessary. It’s clear that it was framed with Sarah Palin in mind, which in itself isn’t a problem, but that the cudgel is Down Syndrome because of her son is rather distasteful.

  • Exactly, Don. It wasn’t that Family Guy necessarily depicted the disabled person in a negative light. It was the fact that the show’s creator felt the need to draw the connection between the disabled person depicted and a 2-year-old disabled person actually in existence.

    It would have been objectionable to use ANY of a politician’s kids to make a dig at that politician; to use a politician’s 2-year-old disabled child to do so makes it all the worse.

  • DarwinCatholic:

    Absolutely. And not only has the Left revealed how vicious the “compassionate” can be, they have managed to show that their socialist policies aren’t really motivated by compassion for the poor and downtrodden after all, as they like to pretend. If that was really their motivation, they wouldn’t behave this way.

    Which brings us to the question. If the Left’s socialist policies aren’t driven by compassion, then what’s their real motivation? The answer, I think, is a combination of a desire for control over others, and the worship of the state which they have divinized in their minds.

  • Let’s make it clear, if Rush does it, it is wrong. If Family Guy does it, it is wrong. There. Left and right — are both of them lacking compassion because of Rush or Family Guy? I think many on both sides are; but many are not. Don’t do guilt by association; Family Guy isn’t like Rush, though — one of the big differences is Family Guy is a rude, crude, nasty show and a “comedy” with its axe to grind but yet — it isn’t gearing itself as a piece of political opinion to help energize politics. Rush and Beck and people like them — are. But that doesn’t make Family Guy good. It’s a show which makes Beavis and Butthead look intelligent.

  • Because Trig can’t defend himself BA, just as my son cannot defend himself.

    Defend himself from what? All of your comments make sense only on the assumption that the Family Guy clip above constitutes an attack on Trig. What I’m asking is, how is it an attack?

  • I think Dale summed it up well. The odd thing for me is that the scene was simply not funny. I don’t mean not funny because it was offensive, it was simply not funny period.

    Dale’s theory, as I understanding it, is that the girl is supposed to be Sarah Palin. Watching the above clip, that idea would not have occurred to me in a million years.

  • I watch family guy – it’s very left, it’s very offensive, and occasionally it’s very funny, but that’s hit or miss. I’m generally irritated by the hyper-sensitive jump to offense behavior of people a la the recent hoopla over Rahm Emanuel’s comment which was clearly not directed at or referring to mentally handicapped people (incidentally, the much smarter and funnier South Park recently had a good show about about just this thing except instead of “retarded” it looked a homosexual slur that has now been adopted to mean something else in the culture, but I digress). However, I can understand how this could be hurtful b/c it’s definitely targeted at Palin and her son (the former to a bigger extent than the latter I think). I sort of see what blackadder is saying in that it doesn’t seem like an attack against the DS girl, but rahter that DS was used to tie her to Palin. I think the point is that whether he intended to mock DS itself (or Trig himself), the writer clearly used the real life handicap of one of Palin’s children to mock her. And I do think that crosses a line.

  • BA

    I agree it might be difficult to see, but the girl is not Sarah Palin. The girl represents Sarah’s children morphed into one. It is a girl and apparently has Down’s Syndrome. And it is being used to goad Sarah Palin — mock both her daughter’s dating choices as well as Trig. I can see where it is coming from, and I can see why this is not respectable at all (just like attacks on Chelsea were not respectable). If the girl were Sarah and she was shown careless with her children, that would be one thing; but taking it out on her children for their mother, no, not good.

  • The line goes that once you explain a joke, it’s not funny. This joke wasn’t funny in the first place, so far as I can tell, but we seem to be struggling with a situation where an insult isn’t insulting once you explain it. I’ll give it a shot, though.

    The gag here (to the extent that there is one) appears to be that Chris goes out on a date with a somewhat bitchy and demanding girl who speaks in a “retard” voice. When he asks about her family, she explains that her mother is the governor of Alaska. I guess one could see this either as a “boy, they all seem to be retards in Palin’s family, don’t they” joke or as “oh, Down Syndome, heh heh, Palin, heh heh” joke. Either way, it seems to get what little steam it has from associating mental disabilities and disagreeableness with Palin.

    Now, I suppose one could say, “Why is it offensive to associate Down Syndome or retardation generally with Palin’s family? She has a child with Down Syndrome, but there’s nothing shameful in that.” This would be true in a limitted sense, but it ignores the fact that in the instance in question it’s clearly being treated as something which is humorous or derisive, not just a “Oh, by the way, did you hear a child of the former Alaskan governor has Down Syndrome?” This is where the fact that Palin has been routinely mocked by the left for having a child with Down Syndrome would come into play.

    I suppose a comparison might be, say that the Family Guy episode had featured Chris going on a date with a bitchy and spoiled teenage black girl, who proceeded to wolf down a couple watermelons and speak in a heavily stereotyped “Black English” accent. If when Chris asked her about her family she explained that her father was the president of the United States, people might rightly take this as a racist attack on the Obamas. Now clearly, there’s nothing wrong with being black, so one could question how this was an insult, but the obvious answer would be that the show was attempting to make “Obama’s kids are black” an insult, and thus serving as both racist and anti-Obama.

  • The date has Downs syndrome, the one who says she is the daughter of a former governor of Alaska. That is indicated by the way that she speaks.

    Thanks for the explanations. But as I watched the clip, my impressions were that reference to the former Alaskan governor was nothing more than a non sequitur. I saw the date as merely having a speech impediment, nothing more. Downs Syndrome never came to mind, because the character’s demeanor was very different to that of people with DS that I have encountered.

  • I suppose a comparison might be, say that the Family Guy episode had featured Chris going on a date with a bitchy and spoiled teenage black girl, who proceeded to wolf down a couple watermelons and speak in a heavily stereotyped “Black English” accent. If when Chris asked her about her family she explained that her father was the president of the United States, people might rightly take this as a racist attack on the Obamas.

    That would be offensive. But unless I’m misinformed, there isn’t a stereotype that people with Downs Syndrome are bitchy and demanding.

  • I had taken the “retard speak” voice as being the negative stereotype generic to mental disabilities, and assumed that eating watermelons and “Black English” would be the equivalent stereotype in regards to race.

  • Down Syndrome is a genetic disorder that carries with it various physical characteristics that are easily identifiable even to the average observer. It’s pretty clear (to me anyway) that the intention was to illustrate the character as having Down Syndrome.

    Still, regardless of how ill conceived or executed the scene was, it’s clearly intended to be a dig on Palin which in itself isn’t a problem. Using Down Syndrome to do it would be tasteless in itself, but it’s certainly no coincidence that that means was employed because she has a DS child.

  • employed ugh

    [Fixed it for you Rick. 😉 – Tito]

  • Maybe I’m slow to catch on…

    The physical attributes I get. However, animation is a poor medium to convey that. Upon re-listening, I see your point about the speech, Rick. However, my initial impression was that of a woman with a lisp combined with an Elmer Fudd-ian style of pronunciation. DS never came to mind.

    Oh well, I guess I shall retreat back into my bubble where most pop culture influences do not dare enter.

  • I had taken the “retard speak” voice as being the negative stereotype generic to mental disabilities

    I’m not sure having speech problems is a stereotype about people with Downs as it is a reality. I mean, the actress who plays the girl has Downs Syndrome. That’s her real voice.

  • Let me also make a side point. Both from watching the clip and from reading about it in general, a theme of the episode seems to be that people with Downs Syndrome aren’t all that different from the rest of us. We live in a world where 90% of couples who are told there child has Downs abort, perhaps in part because they have an exaggerated image of the problems associated with Downs. The message of the show, in other words, is one that people desperately need to hear, and particularly for the FG viewer demographic I’m not sure if there would have been a more effective way of getting that message across.

  • Thanks Tito. I’d type this in huge letters if WP would let me. 😉

    BA, so yes, the speech issue is a reality. And based on what you just wrote, the voice actress has DS. Her character claimed to be the child of a former Alaska governor. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to assume that whole gag is about Sarah Palin due to her having a DS child. Yeah, it’s not like they were attacking Trig directly, but it is reflective of a rather nasty attitude. I mean, with all the things someone could use to rib Palin like her botched interviews, writing on her hand, leftist stereotypes of conservatives as dumb hicks, it takes a pretty vicious mind to use their child’s birth defect in an attempt to score a point and/or laugh.

  • Rick,

    Again, I’m not denying that the reference was to Palin. That’s obvious. I just don’t see what’s insulting about it, either to Trig or to Palin.

  • Somehow BA’s unique interpretation of how the mockery of Trig is good for handicapped people eluded Seth MacFarlane who manfully responded to the controversy by sending out his publicist with this statement:

    “The Times asked “Family Guy” creator Seth MacFarlane for an interview regarding the matter. But he opted to send a statement via his publicist: “From its inception, ‘Family Guy’ has used biting satire as the foundation of its humor. The show is an “equal-opportunity offender.””

  • I think Henry Karlson is correct. The girl is a conflation of Bristol and Trig.

  • Dale’s theory, as I understanding it, is that the girl is supposed to be Sarah Palin. Watching the above clip, that idea would not have occurred to me in a million years.

    Just a cobbled together guess, based only on the clip and the one previous bit of venom directed at Palin (Stewie in an SS uniform wearing a “McCain/Palin” button). I bow to anyone who watched the whole thing for context. For my part, it would not have occurred to me in a million years that I would be carefully parsing FG episodes for narrative context. 🙂

    After all, the show peaked with the Benjamin Disraeli sight gag…

  • Somehow BA’s unique interpretation of how the mockery of Trig is good for handicapped people…

    It’s not that I think mocking Trig is good for handicapped people; it’s that I don’t see how the show was mocking Trig.

    My comment about the effects of the show generally was, as I said, a side point. As I understand it, many of the people here who think the show was offensive only have a problem with the reference to Palin, not to the show’s treatment of Downs Syndrome generally (certainly your comments have focused in this direction). So whether you agree that the show could serve a useful purpose in demystifying Downs is separate from whether you think the reference to Palin was out of line (and visa versa).

  • I think Henry Karlson is correct. The girl is a conflation of Bristol and Trig.

    I’m not really seeing this. The girl in the clip doesn’t look like Bristol Palin, Chris neither looks nor acts like Levi Johnson, etc. The only reason I can see for saying that she must be Bristol is that as a teenage girl she obviously can’t be Trig.

  • A link to Seth MacFarlane’s campaign contributions:

    Then we have his comments about the election when he was stumping for Obama:

    Then we have the McCain-Palin are Nazis scene from the Family Guy.

    MacFarlane is a bitter partisan of the Left. That is his right. When he decides to give vent to his hatred by mocking a disabled child of someone he hates, that should go way over the line for any civilized person.

  • Anchoress did not say Palin should not have spoken out. She said she should have done so differently, in a way that would have turned the tables on Family Guy.

  • I speak as a big-time critic of Sarah Palin as a potential political leader- I don’t see any valid point in targeting her as a parent of a child with a disability- she’s a human being- not one of us would find it acceptable for someone to take us on as public bloggers and start picking on our kids- especially our youngest most vulnerable children.

    Joe has pointed out that it is perhaps possible to include the disabled in a joke line that isn’t just picking on someone, but makes some larger relevant point about some issue related to being disabled. But clearly, making sly reference to a politician’s disabled child is cruel and unusual- and unless that part of the Left wing is ok with their alter-ego part of the Right wing, perhaps targeting Obama through sly put-downs of persons meant to bring to mind his daughters- then I would say the more reasonable folks should be able to bring public shame to this type of “humor”. With public shame in the offing, most commercial artists will learn that there is no pay-off for continuing such a trend. Public shaming has a role to play- it can be a check on out-of-bounds expression without having to resort to some kind of direct censorship.

  • I agree with Tim.

    If the tables were turned and a Family Guy clip had Mr. Seth McFarlane mocking President Obama’s precious little daughters using derogatory black stereotypes all hell would break loose in the form of constant media attacks in characterizing conservative Americans as hateful bigots.

    My two-cents worth.

  • A couple months back there was an episode of 30 Rock where one of the characters tried to infiltrate Obama’s “inner circle” by befriending one of his daughters. There were scenes of him talking on the phone with the daughter, etc. in which he adopted a valley girl voice and basically talked like a stereotypical schoolgirl. I don’t recall much of a fuss about this at the time, presumably because while the show quite clearly was referencing the Obama family there was nothing insulting about what was being said about them (one could argue that it was insulting to imply that Obama’s daughters act like little girls, but then they are little girls).

  • BA,

    So acting like a little girl is equivalent to a derogatory black stereotype?


  • Interesting counter example, BA.

    As per previous discussion, though, I assume that if the 30 Rock character had used a heavily “Black English” voice rather than a schoolgirl voice, people would have seen that as more offensive — because although some black people do indeed talk that way (though not the Obamas) it’s seen as connected to a negative stereotype about black people.

    I think the reason people are taking offense in this case is that although it’s true that people with Down Syndrome do have speech impediments, the social perception of those speech impediments is pretty uniformly negative.

    By which I guess I mean, it seems to me that simply making “hey, did you hear Palin’s kid has Down Syndrome” references (at least in a comedy show, especially one that emphasizes sharp political satire) will end up coming off as derogatory all on its own.

  • I don’t know Blackadder. I guess there are different thresholds or considerations people take into account on things. For example, I have a son who is developmentally delayed. He’s not classified as autistic though he has some similar symptoms. In fact, it sounds like he is not much unlike Don’s boy in functionality and prospects for his future. I didn’t take offense Obama’s Special Olympics joke a few months ago, yet many others did. I didn’t view it as a dig on special needs kids nor indicative of an underlying disrespect or contempt for them. I viewed it as a bit of self-deprecating humor on behalf of Obama and have used the same type on myself (still do in fact).

    In this case, it’s more a matter that I can see how many could be offended because there is nothing really humorous in it though it was an attempt to use a DS as a pretext of slamming a political opponent or at best forcing in a political jab where it has no business. I guess I’m looking at it more from where something like this must have come from. Unfortunately I think there are a number of hate filled people like that Hateful Fascist guy who insulted Don. It’s one thing to have such a hard heart and express it, it’s another to use or tear down innocent or powerless people to vent that hatred. It’s certainly not something in our Christian understanding of the dignity of the person that there is any room for, but it strikes me as the type of thing that just about anybody of good will would avoid. Nay, that it’s not even something they would conceive of. I guess I’m just offended that people think that way and act upon it.

  • Rick,

    I have to admit that President Obama’s joke was self-deprecating.

    The GOP and conservatives were politically opportunistic in bashing him and were not justified in their anger.

    In contrast, I believe Mr. Seth Mcfarlane was deliberately being nasty in this clip. Unfortunately I do watch FG from time to time (rabbit ears television) and I can say that Mr. Mcfarlane is a bitter left-winger who takes every opportunity he can to disparage the GOP and conservatives. Although he “claims” to be an equal opportunity offender, the balance is skewed grossly in disparaging conservatives than liberals by a 10-to-1 margin.

  • I’ve FG a fair number of times myself. I don’t particularly care one way or another about the politics. If something is funny, it’s funny. My uneasiness with the shows I have seen are some of the religious things. Unfortunately I have a higher tolerance for religious jokes than I ought, but FG can still manage to offend me in that regard. However, I find great humor in many of the gags whether they be G rated or R rated. The funniest gag I’ve seen on the show was quite R rated, but was right up my alley from a setup/punchline point of view (the scene with the blow-up dolls).

  • I don’t mind the unbalanced attacks as well. I like to laugh and whatever does it for me makes me happy.

    But you have to admit, FG is definitely not on the family viewing list. In fact if I were blessed with children I would stop viewing FG for the sake of the children not catching me watching such filth.

  • Largebill: “American Knight,

    The desire to go back in time and kick your own backside is the universal sign of maturity.”

    I don’t know if I am mature, but I am certainly more mature than I was when I was caught up in the Spirit of the World. It is easy, tempting, alluring and seductive to go with the flow of the present darkness because when you are in it, it doesn’t seem dark. In fact, it seems fun, light and quite right.

    It isn’t. FG could be funny at times; however, when it disparages the defenseless it crosses the line. That doesn’t mean that people with physical and mental limitations cannot be funny or even made fun of in a lighthearted way, but this was clearly mean-spirited.

  • AK

    I think a good example where there is a lighthearted way this was done, and yet misunderstood, was Tropic Thunder. The whole point was to ridicule the way some people with disabilities are used by Hollywood for the sake of self-glorification instead of any real concern for them. But many people felt disturbed by its representation, not understanding the point.

  • HK,

    Tropic Thunder!

    That is a funny movie, enjoyed it thoroughly.

  • HK,

    I did not enjoy the movie as much as Tito, but it had some good parts. I think those actors have so much talent (acting talent, they seem vapid in everything else) that more could have been done.

    Nevertheless, the scene you reference is funny and I agree, it is not offensive because the object of ridicule is not people with mental retardation or other handicaps.

    Stiller does not seem like the kind of guy who would cater to low humor as pertains to people with special needs. Mary’s brother in Something About Mary, which was funny and extremely inappropriate was not disparaged even though he was made fun of. Stiller’s character comes to his defense. Additionally, Dillon’s character refers to people with special needs when he is lying to Mary about how much he likes working with them as ‘retards’, but he is clearly portrayed as a man with very low moral character.

    We cannot be offended at the slightest mention or inappropriate view about sensitive things without referring to the context. I have noticed that many of us, me included, oft times have a knee-jerk defensive reaction when the Church is portrayed in most media. Sometimes it can be done well, I think Doubt was well done and not offensive, Bill Mahr is another matter all together.

    Humor, even off-color humor, can still be funny without being mean.

  • It will come out shortly that Palin used a couple of babies for publicity, and that Trig is NOT her son. I got this info from several non biased observers of the Internet.

    While I have no comment about Palin not getting an abortion (she certainly considered one), I also do not think she has told the truth about the delivery of her baby. I truly do not think the baby she calls Trig is HER baby. Maybe it is her daughter’s, maybe not. The fact is, we do not know for sure what is real and what is not.

  • Michael,

    It is HER baby. The problem is that she was inseminated by a space alien from Zorcon. The delivery was kept secret because it was performed on a Rian spaceship in the Torary Sector. This is what is real. I got it from non-biased sources. It really is.

  • Phillip,

    I’m afraid your ‘sources’ were a bit confused; insemination implies pregnancy and Palin was not pregnant. Trig was transported from the Zorconites via a Rian spaceship (you’re right about their involvement – too many sources have confirmed it at this point), and given to Palin during her flight back to Alaska from Texas. I am still combing through ‘Going Rogue’ for hints about why she was chosen, though.

  • John Henry,

    They’re Zorconians not “Zorconites.” How can I trust you if you can’t even get that right.

  • Pingback: Family Guy Actor Sides With Palin « The American Catholic

5 Responses to USCCB Promoting Anti-Catholic Speaker This Weekend

  • Not a comment–a question:

    Does anyone ever call up the USCCB and just ask them what they have to say about this (or any of the other idiocies they inflict on us)?

  • Carol,

    They don’t return phone calls.

  • I know the USCCB isn’t open to the public but I emailed Cardinal George a very civil letter asking him basically “whassup with this?” Speaking of doing a yoeman’s job, he is & I have nothing but admiration for him & most of our bishops. What I cannot understand is why they don’t dissolve the USCCB & just start over. Do these people have tenure or what?

  • gb,

    I’m not sure why they don’t do a complete overhaul of the place.

    But it’s human nature to resist saying “I was wrong”. Pride then kicks in when the pressure mounts.

    In my opinion, nothing will be done.

    Just look at the pedophilia scandal.

    Nothing was done about that. Only when the media pressure became overbearing did “individual” bishops act.

    No bishop likes to be told what to do, especially from us plebians.

  • Cardinal Newman quoting St. Basil writing to the Western bishops on the onslaught of the Arian bishops:
    “The dogmas of the Fathers are despised; apostolic traditions are set to naught; the discoverers of innovations hold sway in the churches. Men have learned to be speculators instead of theologians… The aged sorrow, comparing what is with what was; more pitiable the young, as not knowing what they are deprived of”. [Ep. 90]

USCCB Scandal Deepens, U.S. Bishops Remain Silent

Thursday, February 4, AD 2010

[Update at the bottom of this post]

The scandal that has engulfed the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) shows no sign in abating.

Today we learn even more incriminating facts that continue to tarnish the image of the USCCB.

In the latest program Michael Voris explains the deep entanglement of Democratic Party and anti-Catholic operatives that hold high positions within the USCCB.

Continue reading...

67 Responses to USCCB Scandal Deepens, U.S. Bishops Remain Silent

  • Pingback: Res et Explicatio for AD 2-4-2010 « The American Catholic
  • All this sounds like the attitude of the bishops about the sex scandals. “Don’t confirm; don’t deny. Maybe it will all go away”.

    The road to hell is indeed paved with the skulls of bishops.

  • Well, it will only make them look even worse.

    With the new media, ie, blogs, twitter, facebook, etc, the news of their lack of action will spread like wildfire.

    It’ll be interesting to see how much tap-dancing will occur and who will do the tap-dancing.

  • I guess I’m a little perplexed as to how this is in some sense a current or deepening “scandal”. It doesn’t take much dealing with most diocese with large national Catholic organizations (with the exception of some of the newer, more orthodox ones) or with the USCCB to find that a lot of their employees are left leaning politically and progressive leaning in regards to theology and liturgy. If anything, this was more pronounced 10-20 years ago than it is now.

    I think it’s generally been bad for the Church, and we’re suffered as a result, but if anything it’s a bad scene we’re gradually coming out of (it takes a long time to turn over employment) rather than a new breaking scandal of some sort.

  • It’s probably perception more than anything.

    Many of us maybe never bothered to think much, if anything, about the USCCB.

    Then when they got a bit higher visibility when they actively involved themselves with ObamaCare more Catholics took notice.

    Over time as Catholics began to look into the USCCB, what you may call something that has been there for awhile, to us is scandalous.

    So there it is.

    You probably were fortunate enough to be raised a solid Catholic as a child, then progressed to a fine Catholic university immersing yourself even more in Catholic culture. All the while you were already aware of the problems with the USCCB since age 7.

    Me, and many others like me, returned to our faith through various forms. So many of us are behind the loop, so to speak, of the many warts and issues involved in the Catholic Church in America.

    So when many of use “reverts” or “converts” find scandalous information such as an openly professed lesbian or a woman priest advocate working in high profile positions in the USCCB, we are scandalized by this.

    So those are the perceptions.

    The attitude of “well it’s always been there and besides it was worse 10-20 years ago” is understandable.

    But to me and many others its scandalous. 😐

  • Except the problem is: this report is filled with lies, misrepresentation, and logical fallacies. It does no one any good to be scandal mongers and gossipers using false information — though it seems it is all for politics (which is why Voris acting like an authority also suggests, falsely, anyone who said a Catholic could vote for Obama was wrong).

    Want to see the kind of error? Well, it is simple: Mary Kay Henry was NOT given a position by the USCCB. She was brought into talks with people representing different labor groups, and represented one such labor group. In other words, it would be like someone condemning Pope Benedict for his dialogue with Islam and saying “there is something wrong with the Vatican, it is promoting Islam.”

  • Henry K.,

    You made a lot of accusations but you haven’t offered any evidence to back any of it up.

    I respect your knowledge in your fields of study, but where is the evidence of what you propose?

  • Tito

    Voris makes all kinds of accusations and claims, and you never ask him to back it up; you just upload and attack. You never look to the sources yourself. But you want source? Ok.

    Go to that thread. Read the post. See the logical fallacies being exposed. Then read the commentary thread. In it you will see this linked:

    And what it says is clear:

    Washington D.C., Dec 7, 2009 / 05:44 pm (CNA).- On Monday, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, media director for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops spoke with CNA, clarifying the role of Service Employees Union executive and gay rights activist Mary Kay Henry with the bishops’ conference.

    Sr. Walsh noted that in the past, Mary Kay Henry was chosen by the unions to take part in a dialogue with the USCCB but left in 2006.

    She was not appointed by the bishops, Sr. Walsh explained.

    So there you go, an example of distortion going on. Sure, she talked with the USCCB representing unions. Jesus, and the Catholic Church, has always had dialogue with people in such roles before; will anyone condemn Pope St Gregory the Great for meeting with Atilla the Hun? Using the loopy logic in this video, Pope St Gregory the Great was promoting Atilla’s rampage!

  • Henry K.,

    Good catch on the CNA article.

    I’ll send that link over to Mr. Voris so he can avoid making that mistake.

    (my article didn’t make that connection)

    And for your VN posting, very interesting reading.

    I’m not up to speed in many of the subjects you touch upon, but I’ll be rereading it again. Every little bit helps!

  • As I mentioned in the thread about the CCHD, the underlying theme behind these criticisms is a deep hostility toward not only the USCCB, but the bishops themselves. In this thread, we have read: “The road to hell is indeed paved with the skulls of bishops.” Tito has said that he has been scandalized – i.e., tempted to lose faith.

    Henry is right – these accusations fall apart upon further research. Catholics are being told to doubt the authenticity of the bishops’ teaching and governing office. Moreover, we are being told to question their very sincerity and faith. This is the scandal we should be afraid of.

  • When Bishops have dialogue with lesbians and gays and other members of the legions of hell, liberal Catholics say it’s a scandal to criticize the Bishops.

    When Bishops take false Catholics like Representative Patrick Kennedy on the carpet for open apostasy, liberal Catholics say it’s a scandal the Bishops are using the Communion Rail politically.

    No, folks, the best liberal is the repentent liberal, and failing that, a defeated, muzzled and emasculated liberal. The only dialogue we should have with them is this: “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

    P.S., I’ll trust Michael Voris before I’ll trust any liberal Democrat.

  • PS, Mary Kay Henry should re-read what 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 states (NIV):

    Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

    So why are we having dialogue with the wicked? Jesus didn’t have dialogue with them. He preached the Gospel of repentance to them. We ought to do the same.

  • Jesus didn’t have dialogue with the wicked? The Jews certainly thought he did — he was dining with sinners, indeed, drunkards; he was hanging out with the Samaritans; and he said nothing about the abuse of Roman society upon the Jews, yet affirming the faith of a non-Jewish Centurion (are you going to say he was without sin)?

    And that’s just the start of the matter.

  • Mary Ann Walsh did not participate in a women’s “ordination” ceremony. After one such event, the participants marched to where the bishops were meeting. When they didn’t go away, she appeared, met with them, received their rose bouquet, and they left. It’s the kind of thing a media relations person does.

    And her statement that a person could vote for Obama (not that they should – I certainly didn’t) matched up pretty well with an interpretation of Faithful Citizenship that many orthodox bishops accept. Of course, when you’re part of the neo-Donatist movement that thinks Cardinal George and Archbishop Wuerhl are closet leftists, none of this will satisfy you.

  • Zak,

    I caught it right before you posted your comment.

    I corrected my post to reflect this fact.

  • Henry,
    I agree with the points you’re making – one factual issue: it was Leo the Great, not Gregory the Great, who met with Atilla.

  • I agree with both Paul P. and Henry K.

    Whether it was dialogue or preaching, Jesus certainly spent time with sinners, but not to reaffirm their sinfulness but to show them the light.

  • Zak

    Oops — you are right (though I know this, I often do this same mistake when typing, for some reason — I have a few other lapses where my fingers go into automatic writing mode — an interesting phenomena and I expect many of us have examples of this)

  • Another example of what is going on: Voris says people in the hallways are found supporting Obama’s policies. Ok.

    The question is: which policies? All of them? Some of them? A couple of them? But yet by saying it in this way, it’s easy to create a false picture, and that is exactly the kind of strategy which is done for propaganda not for the exploration of truth.

  • Well hopefully they’re not supporting this:

  • I think ultimately though one needs to see that the USCCB is a political organization in addition to a religious organization. That’s fine as long as people realize it is and that it will have the problems of any organization that is political. I think Henry has pointed out such problems with some pro-life organizations.

  • Well I’m pretty sure that the USCCB is not a political organization in any legal, tax or regulatory sense of the term. But any tax exempt group is permitted (within certain constraints) to work to advance their charitable agenda via supporting and opposing relevant legislation, though not supporting or opposing political candidates. The USCCB has a reputation for generally supporting the liberal approaches to addressing Catholic concerns. To the extent this is true, it is not especially scandalous, but it may be imprudent. My guess is that the policy preferences expressed by the USCCB are more representative of its staffers than the bishops, and that neither the bishops nor the staffers are especially gifted at public policy, but probably think they are.

  • I think John Carr is one of the most thoughtful Catholics in America–and certainly one of the best spokesmen for Catholic social teaching. And I find it more than a little dismaying that a group of self-anointed REAL CATHOLICS are spending so much energy trying to undermine the work of the bishops of this country. This is not just unhelpful; it’s diabolical.

  • Mike,

    There is political and there is political. I think Henry points out some of the foibles of pro-life conservative organizations that are tax exempt also.

    I don’t think the USCCB generally supports liberal approaches I think it pretty much always does. Again understanding the experts that advise the body may give understanding to why they do.

  • Ron Ch.,

    Thoughtful as in promoting that more innocent children be killed?

    Yeah, and THAT’S not diabolical.

  • Phillip,
    I have not read Henry’s expose on the foibles of “pro-life conservative” organizations, but if the problem is that they are willing to support candidates who are imperfect on life issues in order to prevent the election of candidates who are abortion enthusiasts, ok, but I don’t see that as a foible. On the other hand, if they are favoring pro-choice candidates over pro-life candidates because they former are otherwise considered more conservative than the latter, then that would be worse than a foible — and I’d really appreciate knowing more about it.

  • Tito, what you are doing here is slanderous–to a good man and to the bishops whom he serves as a spokesperson. Do you happen to KNOW John Carr? Have you ever heard him talk about abortion? Do you suppose his work for peace/justice . . . and the work of our bishops through the USCCB to uplift the poor . . . has nothing at all to do with fostering respect for human life? For that matter, do you recognize any connection whatsoever between poverty/racism and abortion, or do you think it is purely coincidental that poor minority women patronize the killing clinics at such a disproportionate rate?

    Sorry, fella, John Carr is a REAL Catholic, not some Pharisee with video blog, a big mouth, and way too much time on his hands.

  • Ron Ch.,

    I’m not sure what blog you are reading, but I have never said anything such about John Carr.

    Joe H. posted a video that stated John Carr has been with an organization that promotes abortion for decades. I don’t see how you got your conclusions from this, so I’ll just chalk it up to your liberal-tainted glasses getting the better of your imagination.

    Get a hold of yourself brother.

  • Some other concerns about the CCC that I’m sure can be disproved:

  • Phillip and Ron Ch.,

    The evidence is devastating concerning the cooperation in evil that John Carr has led and been involved in.

  • American Catholic began as a healthy alternative to the consistently left-leaning Vox Nova. It seems to be reinventing itself in the spirit of the old Wanderer. That is a terrible shame, and shame on anyone here–and in the holier-than-God “orthodox” blogosphere–who casts aspersion on a man who has faithfully served the Church in the United States and its bishops for many years.

  • No, what this post is doing is highlighting a story. If any of the facts are mistaken Ron tell us precisely what facts are wrong. The USCCB has a history of allowing its staffers to associate the USCCB with some pretty unsavory groups that promote positions directly contrary to Church teaching. The USCCB needs to address this story directly and not simply play a game of hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil.

  • Donald, a lot of the ‘facts’ have been debunked, and one glaring piece of slander removed (the picture of Sister Mary Ann Walsh). The more you dig into this, the more you see that a mountain is being made out of a molehill.

  • That sounds intereting. I can’t believe it. gochristian shoes

  • I have to say, I don’t find this video or the accusations very substantial. Everyone is entitled to their polemics, of course, and so I can see why some anti-Democrat Catholics enjoy this type of stuff. But, as Mike Petrik says above, some members of the USCCB preferring policies favored by the Democratic party to advance the common good “is not especially scandalous, but it may be imprudent.”

    Also, on a personal note, I’m shocked, shocked that anyone could write an article suggesting it was possible for Catholics to vote for Obama. That Sister Mary Ann Walsh must be way out there.

    To be clear, I think legitimate criticisms can be made of the USCCB. But these types of videos blend and muddle legitimate concerns with partisan attacks in a way that I think is unhelpful. The problem with the Vortex, as I see it, is that it isolates and absolutizes one of many possible approaches to serving the common good, and regards any other approach as illegitimate. It seems to me that it instrumentalizes the Faith in the service of a conservative political polemic, and in the process does a disservice to the Faith and to the USCCB.

  • The USCCB needs to address this story directly and not simply play a game of hear no evil, speak no evil and see no evil.

    I don’t really see what you’re talking about. These accusations are pretty small beer in the grand scheme of things, and, as Darwin notes, there is nothing new in there. In the 1980’s, sure, the USCCB was basically co-opted by Democratic partisans. But the Vortex is basically the mirror image of it from the right; they are not raising any new questions. Most of these issues have already been addressed, are matters for prudential judgment where reasonable people can differ, and/or are inaccurate to begin with.

  • I’ll spell it our for you John Henry. They should explain why they were shoveling money into an organization that one of their staffers served as the head of. Can they even spell “conflict of interest”? Rather than attacking the people who are bringing this to light they should be ramping up their own investigation. They might also wish to explain why Carr omitted noting his involvement with the CCC from his USCCB bio. They might also explain why Tom Chabolla, associate director of CCHD programs until 2008, and who worked under Carr, took Carr’s place on the CCC board after Carr left, during a time period when the CCC became involved in pro-abortion advocacy, and whether Chabolla and Carr maintained contacts about the CCC. Chabolla since leaving the CCHD is now assistant to the President of the Service Employees International Union. Finally, perhaps they can explain why, when this all came to light, the first reaction from the CCHD was to scrub their website of all mention of ties with the CCC. This story is not going away.

  • Don,

    I get conflict of interest issue; and I get that the CCHD has had very poor oversight. I think the CCHD should be either scrapped or completely overhauled, and I’m in favor of more transparency. But I don’t think the video covers these issues very well.

    My issue is that I think the Vortex (and, really, couldn’t they find a better name?) is advancing a partisan agenda, rather than simply voicing legitimate concerns about conflict of interest or the funding of groups whose values conflict with those of the Church. For instance, the video keeps repeating the word ‘Democrat’ or ‘Democractic’ as if it’s an epithet. And some of the charges in the video are just ridiculous (implying that making the case that Catholics could have voted for Obama should disqualify someone from working for the USCCB?). In other words, as I said above, the video “blends and muddles legitimate concerns with partisan attacks in a way that I think is unhelpful.”

  • Clearly many improvements or even an overhaul of the program needs to take place. Attacking the structures of sin is a laudable activity with a positive goal. However, the problem with many (most?) secular groups that appear to be doing that sort of work is that they’re almost always trying to exchange one structure of sin for another. They are typically shells for particular political parties or have too closely aligned themselves to party interests.

    Therein lies part of the danger for third party benefactors like the USCCB. It’s one thing to work with a secular org for a shared interest even though they may not share all interests, it’s another to thing to support that org directly. What happens is that you run the real risk of becoming an integral part of a structure of sin.

    All that said, I think those ads are poorly done in substance. They smack of overblown righteous indignation, take many intellectual shortcuts, argue by assertion, use charged words that are usually quite subjective, makes unwarranted assumptions, etc. Frankly, I can’t see any difference in what is being done here than what some authentic Catholic anti-american-calvinist crusaders do. The only difference is what side of the fence their sitting on.

  • I’m not touching this story with a 39-and-a-half-foot pole. Regardless of the accuracy or inaccuracy of the reporting (and I have my doubts), the blatant guilt-by-association-and-innuendo style of the reporting left me feeling dirty after watching.

    “… I’m shocked, shocked that anyone could write an article suggesting that it was possible for Catholics to vote for Obama. That Sister Mary Ann Walsh must be way out there.”

    Yeah, tell me about it. I must be a stark-raving lefty.

  • Rick,

    Right. There are problems on both sides of the fence. There are pro-life pharisees. There are also social justice pharisees.

    Just hard to recognize one’s own as such sometimes.

  • Great comments and insights.

    About the overhaul of the CCHD – they have two overall programs, one focusing on political activity, the other focusing on business activity. The business grants are amazing – helping poor people build skills and worker-owned businesses. The political grants are a lot more tricky – often involving people with liberal mindsets – and I agree that it needs to be overhauled.

  • Pingback: My take on the Catholic Campaign for Human Development controversy «
  • Henry K, for your insights on what the Bishops knew and didn’t know, you are probably right. For your history on St. Gregory the Great meeting Atilla the Hun, you are at least a century off. It was St. Leo the Great in 451 who met with Atilla, thus delaying the destruction of Rome by 25 years……historical footnote worth noting….

  • Nate W., John Henry, Ron Ch., Jay Anderson, et al,

    You guys are building straw men arguments by attacking the messenger.

    By shining the light on the problem, you guys go ahead and savage the reputation of those doing the reporting and you all should be ashamed of yourselves.

    Granted that Mr. Voris *may* have gone over the top in some of his analysis, especially the innuendos to being a “Democrat”, but the basic story is this, the USCCB has been dealing with anti-catholic organizations for years. Just because they’ve done it in the past, doesn’t allow them a free pass, such as John Henry’s comment, ‘small potatoes’.

    If the USCCB wants to be taken more seriously they need to get their ‘allegedly’ devout Catholics like John Carr OUT of pro-abortion organizations and place Catholics without, as Jay says, a ‘conflict of interest’.

    Thank you for your comments, I’m learning a lot on how to report such news.

  • Dennis

    Yes, that was established above about Gregory/Leo. Often my fingers will mix them up when typing — but the point behind it still stands. Thankfully, I know I’m not impeccable nor infallible!

  • Tito, the guys you reference have no reason to be ashamed of themselves, anymore than does anyone who notes that other journalists & commentators occasionally make generalizations and inaccurate statements.

  • Chris,

    There is no evidence of inaccuracy.

    If Nate could name what was inaccurate instead of making things up I can see your point.

    On the rest, I understand what you’re saying.

  • Pingback: The Many Scandals of the USCCB « The American Catholic
  • The liberal agenda and left-leaning “Catholics” is one reason, among others, that I dropped out of RCIA and chose not to convert to the RCC. The USCCB is only one of the problems. Out-of-control renegade priests can feel real comfy in many a parish in these United States.

    Face it, the liberals are an energetic, visible force within the Roman Catholic Church and they are not going away. They have become a cancer that is multiplying at an exponential rate. Michael Voris can’t stop it. EWTN can’t stop it. AveMaria Radio can’t stop it. Just look at the mess out in California, with all pro-gay, pro-choice bishops. They’re quite happy, comfy, and content behind encased in their ivory towers. And the disease has spread eastward to parishes in the Midwest, Florida, and the Northeast.

    Where’s all this “unity” that I was told existed in the “one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic” Church? It ain’t there! The current RCC barely resembles the RCC of 100 yrs. ago. So continue to have your “CHURCH” but don’t call it “holy” or “Catholic” or “Apostolic.” Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who wish to continue living in “LaLa Land” will continue to wear blinders.

  • The liberal agenda and left-leaning “Catholics” is one reason, among others, that I dropped out of RCIA and chose not to convert to the RCC. The USCCB is only one of the problems. Out-of-control renegade priests along with their progressive laity can feel real comfy in many a parish in these United States.

    Face it, the liberals are an energetic, visible force within the Roman Catholic Church and they are not going away. They have become a cancer that is multiplying at an exponential rate. Michael Voris can’t stop it. EWTN can’t stop it. AveMaria Radio can’t stop it. Just look at the mess out in California, with all pro-gay, pro-choice bishops. They’re quite happy, comfy, and content encased in their ivory towers. And the disease has spread eastward to parishes in the Midwest, Florida, and the Northeast.

    Where’s all this “unity” that I was told existed in the “one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic” Church? It ain’t there! The current RCC barely resembles the RCC of 100 yrs. ago. So continue to have your “CHURCH” but don’t call it “holy” or “Catholic” or “Apostolic.” Those who have eyes to see will see. Those who wish to continue living in “LaLa Land” will continue to wear blinders.

  • Darlene

    So basically, you are telling me you are still a Protestant, and the reason why you didn’t convert is because you are a Protestant? Big deal.

  • Pingback: Fr. Frank Pavone Defends John Carr of the USCCB « The American Catholic
  • Henry,

    No, I am not a Protestant. It’s easy to assume things in a forum like this where face-to-face, in person dialogue is absent.

    Protestant evangelicalism has many problems, one of which is that they (for the most part) ignore the creeds and councils of the first millenia.

    So, I came to the conclusion that Protestantism is a schism from a schism and will continue to split and divide. Sola Scriptura is not a unifying force within Protestantism, but a disunifying force. Hope that clarifies things.

    As far as my emphatic, blunt post, I understand that it will offend Roman Catholics. Offending was not my intent. With that said, the priest with whom I had counsel was very kind, long-suffering, and understanding. Even taking into consideration my original comments, I do not judge the salvation of individual Catholics. That is God’s business.

    If I have sinned in being so bold, forgive me.

  • The USCCB website says that Mary Kay Henry was appointed to a USCCB subcommittee and the USCCB accepted the subcommittee’s findings. Why would the USCCB look to anti-Catholic “experts” like Mary Kay Henry for advice in developing policy?

    Answer: For the same reason they invited Father Thomas Reese and Diana Hayes to speak at their conference last week-end.

    Jesus had something to say about this: “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.”

  • Michael Voris is certainly human, and on rare occasions he may get his facts wrong, but taken as a whole, there is a mountain of evidence against the USCCB. A favorite liberal trick is to suggest that one flaw in the evidence damns all the evidence. I’m not fooled.

  • Nothing has been said here. Absolutely nothing.

    All of you are defending nothing and have nothing concrete to say about anything.

    The fact is you can not vote for a man who kills babies, I’d like to see you explain that when you come face to face with your creator. Can’t do it.

    The fact is, you can not give money to death programs from unsuspecting pew sitters – its illegal as well as totally against what Jesus commanded of us.

    Who cares who supports John Carr? It’s irrelevant? If the man has put any support into anti-God programs he is out.

    The Jews (many) did it wrong and so are the Catholics (many). You don’t reject the sacraments because the gatekeepers are corrupt. God said to St. Teresa of Avila “I put myself in the hands of thy enemies for your sake!” If you reject the commandments and the working of the Holy Spirit in the Church through those sacraments – then you hold man up as God.

    Don’t give money if you don’t know where the money is going. Put your money in areas you know are deserving of it. Don’t vote for the slaughter of innocence. Don’t keep quite when a priest is an idiot or a Bishop is a nutcase. Fight – and stop trying to defend your need for comfort.

    Newsflash the Church has the enemies within. Fight it – get them out – run them out of town but stop trying to give yourself an excuse to take a nap.

  • My dealings with the USCCB and the two of the organizations it sponsors and funds leads me to believe this organization is more a socialist political group than people working to live up to the Gospels. Obama and far too many of the Democrats in office are sociast with a socialist agenda. I fear that some of the Bishops may have been sucked into the false notion that socialism serves the needs of the poor. SOcialism brings the entire society down to the level of the laziest. Socialism depleats to will and ability of the society to provide for all.

  • WayneK,

    It is quite apparent in Europe today. France is turning into an economic basket case with gov’t unions striking each day preventing Sarkozy from instituting well needed reforms.

    It’s a slow creep towards totalitarianism.

  • MIchael Voris and Simon J. Rafe practice censorship of
    anyone who does not accept their messages on face value. That leads me to believe they are fake critics
    seeking to marginalize rather than serve any issue.

  • I believe they love their faith and don’t like it when bishops fail in their duty to feed their sheep.

    Instead they hide behind man-made bureaucracies hoping that difficult issues that don’t adhere to their Democratic Party Catholic leanings would just go away.

  • Archbishoip Raymond Burke was well known for “speaking out”. In an article for Time online, Amy Sullivan (Priests Spar Over What it Means to Be Catholic) alludes to the fact of his removal by the U.S. Catholic Bishops Conference. In particular, the article states that because of a “calming down” of the anti-abortion rhetoric, the president was elected. In fact, I can tell you that here in St. Louis, the archbishop who replaced Burke (Carlson) silenced the Latin rite Church (St. Francis De Sales) from speaking out against abortion from the pulpit.

  • D Paul,
    That surprises me greatly. I wonder whether the “silencing” actually referred to exhortations on who to vote for or not vote for, which is a violation of federal tax law. Under federal tax law churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations may receive contributions on a tax deductible basis only if they refrain from political or partisan behavior. Within much more relaxed constraints they normally can engage in legislative or policy behavior. Telling a congregation that it is important to vote for candidates who are opposed to abortion is fine (even if somewhat simplistic from a Catholic perspective), but a minister may not tell his congregation to vote for X or against Y, at least without losing the right to receive contributions on a tax deductible basis. I’d be very surprised if AB Carlson told the priest at SFdS that he could not speak out against abortion from the pulpit. If true, that really would be quite scandalous, and shocking given that AB Carlson is among the bishops who criticized ND for awarding pro-abort Obama an honorary degree.

USCCB and John Carr In Denial

Wednesday, February 3, AD 2010

After the breaking news that showed direct links between John Carr, a top executive of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, with pro-abortion groups dating back 30 years, John Carr has denied any wrong doing.

Below watch the full eight minutes for the most current update of this USCCB scandal on‘s Daily Catholic News Roundup and The VortexVic Faust and Michael Voris will report how both the USCCB and the pro-abortion group scrubbed their websites simultaneously to hide any connection they had with each other plus much more.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to USCCB and John Carr In Denial

  • Msgr. George Kelly pointed out decades ago that the weakness of the Church in the U.S. is a weakness of the bishops – their refusal to be active bishops who actually bishop. They have allowed their dioceses to be run by their bureaucracies. They are afraid of the orders of nuns and priests and of college presidents [who seem envious of the bishops].

    Now the chickens have come home to roost. The inability of the bishops to face up – and immediately – to complaints of sexual abuse has cost dearly in financial terms. But the cost has been worse in spiritual terms. How can we trust our bishops who seem spineless? Consider the refusal of Bishop Morin even to countenance that he may be wrong in his support of the CCHD and the CCC. There is said to be a crisis of vocation to the priesthood. But who would want to submit to orders from the cowardly?

  • Not to mention Harry Forbes continuing to give glowing movie reviews to anti-Catholic films under the USCCB banner:

    He’s still there:


  • I think we have to be cautious to lay the blame solely on the bishops. I suspect that some of them are complicit; however, many are simply saddled with other functions and are failing only to supervise petty bureaucrats. Also, many have displayed poor judgment but they aren’t infallible and neither are we. When a mistake is made, it needs to be corrected – not hidden. I wouldn’t want to be a bishop who willfully allowed this when all our sins are made known to all. Ouch!

    I state this because I get the feeling that many people perceive any criticism of the USCCB as an attack on the bishops. The USCCB is a Behemoth that is often not run by the bishops. In my opinion this is why the USCCB is useless. Apparently it is also corrupt. Attacking the USCCB is not an attack on bishops, it is an attack on a collective body that seems to have a life of its own.

    I also notice Carr stated that he did not know about an organization that promoted abortion AND homosexuality. Why didn’t he say OR? Could it be that different organizations promoted abortion and homosexuality? That would make his statement true. Unless it is the same organization that promotes both evils – then he wasn’t lying. He was misleading and sly like a serpent. I pray that this man isn’t a Sodomite – for the sake of his soul.

    Thanks for keeping us posted Tito – this is a big deal. The light exposes evil. Keep shining it.

    I smell more smoke.

  • Pingback: Res et Explicatio for AD 2-4-2010 « The American Catholic
  • AK,

    Absolutely right.

    It is the USCCB as a whole that is the issue, not individual bishops.

    But the spotlight will be placed on bishops that are directly linked to the CCHD and CCC that continue to mendaciously defend this cooperation with evil.

  • Will there be any expose on the people who keep pushing big business insurance, and the insurance promotion of abortion for the sake of money?

  • Yes, one hopes so. Such is the nature of the human species. Business, govet. and Bishops error.

  • Pingback: USCCB Scandal Deepens, U.S. Bishops Remain Silent « The American Catholic
  • Thanks for keeping us posted Tito – this is a big deal. The light exposes evil. Keep shining it.

    I smell more smoke.

    So John Carr is now an “unfaithful Catholic” using the cover of social justice to subvert the Church so beloved of REAL Catholics like Michael Voris, S.T.B.???? Hey, guys, that’s not smoke you’re smelling.

  • Pingback: The Many Scandals of the USCCB « The American Catholic