Susannah York of ‘A Man For All Seasons’, Requiescat In Pace

Sunday, January 16, AD 2011

Susannah York succumbed to cancer this past Friday at the age of 72.

She is best remembered for portraying Saint Thomas More‘s daughter, Margaret More, in what is arguably the greatest Catholic film of all time, A Man For All Seasons.

She was very beautiful and enchanting and her role as Margaret More captured the essences of an integrated Catholic life that is an excellent example for laypeople everywhere today.

The following clip is that of the King paying his Lord Chancellor, Saint Thomas More, a visit on his estate.  The King encounters More’s family and is introduced to More’s daughter, Margaret, at the :45 mark of the clip.  They engage in conversation at the 1:32 mark of the clip.  The entire 10 minutes should be viewed to really enjoy her performance and appreciate the film itself:

Here is the trailer to that magnificent Catholic film, A Man For All Seasons:

Post script:  I was unable to find out if Susannah York was a Catholic or not, but her portrayal of Margaret More is a fine example of living a Catholic life.

Cross-posted at Gulf Coast Catholic.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Susannah York of ‘A Man For All Seasons’, Requiescat In Pace

Anh Joseph Cao and the Vietnamese Government

Friday, May 7, AD 2010

One of my personal heroes is Congressman Anh “Joseph” Cao (R.LA).  I have no doubt that he is more liberal politically than I am, but he is a man of the highest principles.  Pro-life to his core, he voted for ObamaCare only after the Stupak amendment passed.  He voted for ObamaCare, even though he knew such a vote was anathema to almost all Republicans, including the one writing this post, because he thought it was the right thing to do.  When Stupak caved, Cao refused to vote for ObamaCare because of the abortion issue, even though he knew that the vote against ObamaCare was anathema to most of the voters of his liberal district, because he thought it was the right thing to do.

Recently, the Communist government of Vietnam wrote to the Congressman hoping that as the sole Vietnamese-American Congressman he could help clear up some “misunderstandings” between the Vietnamese government and Vietnamese-Americans.  Congressman Cao’s response is memorable and may be read here.  So his meaning could not be mistaken, Congressman Cao also wrote his response in Vietnamese here.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Anh Joseph Cao and the Vietnamese Government

  • If I could, I would contribute to his campaign as well.

    What an outstanding human being and American!

    I will certainly be praying for him and his re-election campaign.

  • What a great letter!

  • Don:

    He voted for Obamacare knowing the Stupak amendment was a sham that was going to get scrubbed out in committe, which it eventually was.

  • I am willing to give Cao a pass on the original vote in favor the healthcare bill.

    First, as profoundly disappointed as I am with Congressman Stupak’s cave-in and subsequent votes, I am unsure any of us can say that a vote for the original House version of the healthcare bill was a participation in a knowing sham … even Bart Stupak. I certainly believed Stupak all the way up until the end.

    Next, Cao’s lone ‘aye’ was not dispositive, in that Speaker Pelosi by all accounts had several more Democrats ready to vote yes. Cao is basically holding a “safe” Democratic seat, vacated by Congressman Cold Cash Jefferson. So I am willing to ‘pass’ Cao on that ground as well.

    Finally, I recall that the Roman Catholic Church and other pro-life religious and secular entities, during the amendment phase, expressly took the position to treat the Stupak langugage as legitimate and not to vote against it during the amendment phases (i.e., not to join with pro-abortion reps) in a political ploy to defeat Stupak’s amendment and force Stupak et al to vote against the final version. As we can surmise now, that might have been disastrous.

    If the Church was correct that pro-lifers can not play games like that, then I find it hard to fault Cao on these grounds either.

  • Greg,

    You might as well blame the entire House GOP Caucus, then. Obamacare would never have made it out of the House without the Stupak language, and the only reason the Stupak language was included was because every Republican in the House voted for it. If the Stupak amendment was a sham, then blame John Boehner and every other Republican.

    Blame the Bishops, who pushed for the Stupak language. Hell, blame me, and Don, and several other folks, since we pushed for it, too. If it was such an obvious “sham” that everyone “knew” it was going to get scrubbed out in committee, then all of us who pushed for the Stupak language are guilty.

    It’s a little unfair to single out Cao in that regard.

  • It isn’t, however, unfair to blame Cao for voting for a bill that–even with the Stupak Amendment–provided massive funding for Planned Parenthood and for contraception.

  • If the GOP had a chance to kill Obamacare in the House and didn’t, then shame on them too. As far as the Bishops are concerned, we all know they are a bunch of big government leftists who routinely distort Church teeaching to tickle their iedological fancy. How many bishops even raised the question of whether or not the massive government control of healthcare violates the principle of subsidiarity, which is a bedrock of Catholic social teaching?

  • Ultimately the passage of the Stupak Amendment made no difference to the final passage of ObamaCare as the Democrats were able to arm twist enough votes without the Stupak amendment (with the help of Stupak). Unlike Stupak, however, Cao is a real opponent of abortion, and when ObamaCare finally passed it passed without his vote, in spite of the very high political cost he will probably pay as a result.

    The Republicans were wise in their strategy: by voting for Stupak they indicated that they put the fight against abortion first, even above the fight against ObamaCare, while most “pro-life” Democrats revealed that they really are not foes of abortion in any meaningful sense. The Republican party fortified its pro-life strength, while the Democrats did their best to repel pro-life voters.

  • If the GOP had voted against Stupak en bloc, then Bart would have had a free-pass to (a) demagogue the GOP on a core issue; (b) rely on Democratic Party assurances that the Hyde amendment covered/covers the entire bill anyway; and (c) accept an Executive Order solution back then. He always wanted the healthcare bill. And the pro-life movement would have sustained severe political damage.

    In any event, Cao voted the right way in the end. It was Stupak who caved (or was bought).

  • I really like this guy. He’s focused on the clean up of the oil on the coast while Senator Landrieu is only focused on getting operations going again, not to mention, he’s co-sponsoring legislation to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This may make him popular to conservatives and may cause them to label him a RINO because of so-called political orthodoxy, but I really like Rep. Joseph Cao.

"I agree with the Church in principle, but …"

Friday, January 8, AD 2010

Last week I posted a reaction to House Speaker Pelosi’s interview in Newsweek (cross-posted to First Things‘ “First Thoughts”). Perusing the comments, I discovered that the author of No Hidden Magenta — a blog with the daunting task of “bridging the gap between ‘Red and Blue State’ groupthink” — has responded with fury and dismay:

At least one reason why neither the Pope nor the Archbishop have denied Pelosi Holy Communion–despite having ample opportunity to do so–is because prudential judgments about how best to reflect a moral principle in public policy involved technical considerations of practical reason that do not go to the heart of what it means to be a Roman Catholic; in other words, they are not about the central value at stake. If Speaker Pelosi believes that abortion is a positive good that should be promoted by the state (rather than as a privacy right for all women) that is one thing (and her recent actions with regard to Stupak suggest that she doesn’t think this), but there are any number of good reasons for supporting less-than-perfect public policy as she claims to be doing in trying to reduce the number of abortions while not supporting an abortion ban. …

Now, we can and should have debate about this question–and I think Pelosi is profoundly mistaken in her position on public policy–but let’s be clear: both the Pope and her Archbishop do not think such a position puts her status as a Roman Catholic or as a communicant in jeopardy. And those who think it does would do well to follow their example in distinguishing between ‘moral principle’ and ‘public policy.’

I’m relieved that the author believes Pelosi is “profoundly mistaken” in her position on public policy. I’m less convinced, however, that “the Pope and her Archbishop do not think such a position puts her status as a Roman Catholic or as a communicant in jeopardy”, and the author’s explanation for why they allegedly do not think so.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to "I agree with the Church in principle, but …"

  • How could anyone say she accepts Church teaching on the matter?

    Pelosi: “I would say that as an ardent practicing Catholic this is an issue that I have studied for a long time, and what I know is over the centuries the doctors of the Church have not been able to make that definition. And St. Augustine said three months. We don’t know. The point is it that it shouldn’t have an impact on a woman’s right to chose.”

    Aside from her deficient understanding of Augustine and the Church(speaking as charitably as possible), she still negates her argument by the last line. “A women’s right to choose [killing her unborn child]” is not a Catholic concept and is clearly at odds with the Church (including Augustine and the other Doctors – not to mention that the Doctors aren’t the Magesterium either).

    Many bishops published corrections of Pelosi’s transparent theological hack job and there is nothing to indicate she was persuaded.

  • There may be several ways to exercise prudential judgment on how best to reflect the principle that abortion is evil in a specific public policy. But proposing and voting for legislation to keep it legal at all stages for any reason, refusing others to exercise their own conscience in opposing it, and getting it publicly funded ain’t one of them.

  • Public policy is crouched in the public good and unity. The good for the public could mean a need for euthanasia. We see these ideas put forth in the heathcare debate. Some illness are way too expensive at the end of life. So Ms Pelosi is saying she can separate ethical and moral discernment when it envolves public policy. What upsets me is that her ideas confuse her own beliefs in principle and she tell us we should follow her way.

  • W Posh,

    The public (common) good does not call for a moral evil. Euthanasia is such and is not consistent with the common good.

    Now it will in fact be that there will need to be limits on health care. Individuals will disagree with what should be covered for all and what some may pay for out of their own resources. These distinctions can be in concordance with the common good. But setting those limits is different that actively seeking to kill a person.

  • Pelosi, and others seem to be trying to justify themselves into Heaven. Isn’t this whole piece about relativism? 2 + 2 = 4, for ever and always – that’s a truth. God issued a COMMANDMENT, not a suggestion, which states (as near as we can tell) “thou shalt not murder” – that’s also a truth. No matter when you think life begins, if you plan and act to cause that life to cease, then you have committed a grave ( we used to use the more descriptive term “MORTAL”) sin. It doesn’t matter what your religion, it is STILL a Mortal Sin.

    Remember, God created us with free will. In the Garden, we exercised that free will, and turned our backs on God, chosing to follow the creator of lies. Why do we STILL follow those who justify their lies to us? At the end of our lives, and for all time, we will be in Heaven or Hell, Forever.

  • I agree with you marvin the only reason they changed the name to grave is people thought that mortal was to harsh… why is that so hard? dont like it? then don’t sin..