AmericanPapist Comments
FYI: It is a newspaper.
Tim+
I've been reading the National Catholic Register for years, and it is an excellent paper for a faithful Catholic perspective on world and national news, as well as Church happenings.
I've also met Fr. Euteneuer and receive his newsletter; his tireless work for the sanctity of human life is awesome.
I think that canceling his subscription and making sweeping denunciations based on this editorial and another situation he disagreed with is extreme and quite unjust.
God bless him and the Register--we're all on the same side here so it doesn't do any good to fight each other.
Fr. Euteneuer's heart is in the right place, certainly on abortion, but he has a record of intemperate rhetoric. For instance, I'm no Sean Hannity fan, but Fr. Euteneuer's shouting match with Hannity, in which he wrongly labeled him a "heretic," was unfortunate.
P.S. What a classy, restrained response from Tom Hoopes. (Full disclosure: I write for the Register and know T.H.)
While I think the Register editorial was not an endorsement in anyway of this pro-death administration, Fr. Euteneuer is dead on right. The article is naive and inappropriate. The praise of Obama will only have a negative effect, lulling Catholics into a false security and inflating the egos of the pro-death forces.
Remember Chamberlain's "We can do business with him (Hitler)."
Hitler was an elected leader. There was no reason to fear him, right? We can be civil and recognize his good points, right? Even such statements are grating on those who read them. And yet, when Obama supports infanticide and abortion it is a "gentleman's disagreement???"
Already voices are saying how "moderate" he is. And yet, Fr. Euteneuer points out his radical pro-abortion cabinet.
Pro-lifers don't want to belittle the president-elect. But, Obama has already belittled himself by his own stances and record. Yet, even after the election people still worship him with Obama hats and t-shirts. The worship of a president-elect whom we know so little about except that he is 100% behind baby murder is complete insanity.
This nation is headed down a dark road of death and tyranny. We need more Fr. Euteneuers and fewer Neville Chamberlain types (eg Mr. Hoopes) especially when the massive escalation of the legalized holocaust of the world's weakest innocent human beings lies on the horizon.
why would any catholic support a rabid pro-homosexual pro-abortionist is he even legal to be in the white house?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/ind...ew&
pageId=82503
Just replace "Obama" with "Hitler" and "unborn" with "Jews" and see how the column sounds.
If the unborn are really as human as you and I, the NCReporter article was completely out of bounds.
"Just replace 'Obama' with 'Hitler' "
Obama is not Hitler.
The evil of abortion is comparable to the evil of the Holocaust, but the evil of Hitler cannot be compared to the evil of Obama.
Hitler's personal responsibility for the Holocaust is unique. He was the driving force behind the Holocaust. He and his cronies conceived, developed, planned, commanded and presided over it. Those who shot, gassed and burned Jews and others did so at the sole behest of the Third Reich.
Obama is not the driving force of American or global abortion culture. He is complicit in supporting and advancing it in heinous ways, but that is not remotely the same thing.
Note, too, that while evil of abortion is comparable to the evil of the Holocaust, moral responsibility for the abortion holocaust is not centralized in the government, but is dispersed among countless millions of healthcare workers, mothers, family members and others who actually sentence particular unborn babies to die.
In general, the U.S. government is not actively trying to kill a particular subset of the population; it "merely" considers it the "right" of certain citizens to murder other human beings. That's plenty evil, but the evil of a single pro-choice president, even Obama, is utterly incommensurate to that of Hitler.
Only Hitler is Hitler.
More good sense from SDG. Saves me saying the same things.
SDG
that was a really sick post i don't even know where to start tearing it apart. first ....don't tell me hitler was unique. stalin and mao killed more and others would but lack opportunity. then you spread the blame across the nation and merely make obama the head killer. (twisted)
then you say abortions don't target any subset of population.........WRONG AGAIN....the vast majority of abortions are black babies. by design, by margret sanger. one half of all black pregnancies end in abortion.....(not genocide?)
obama is busy killing blacks as they idolize him and you are his cheerleader.
Hmmm, I want to stress that the National Catholic Register has articles and new stories _in every weekly issue_ about people fighting to protect the sanctity of human life and how they are doing it.
They always defend the Church's unchanging teachings on life issues and on marriage and the family and do so with interesting and informative articles.
I want people who do not regularly read the Register to have the correct understanding of it; one controversial editorial in one issue should not sully the reputation of a paper that has boldly proclaimed the truth of Christ and his teachings for years and continues to do so.
"stalin and mao killed more"
Neither Stalin nor Mao set out to perpetrate systematic genocide as policy. Tens of millions may have died in famines connected with Mao's policies -- not the same as gas chambers dedicated to the extinction of entire peoples. This kind of false moral equivalency diminishes the greatest evil of the 20th century.
"and others would but lack opportunity."
I can't judge souls and don't pretend to. My remarks concern objective responsibility for actual atrocities.
"then you spread the blame across the nation and merely make obama the head killer. (twisted)"
Yes, what would you do, lay all the blame on a man who hasn't even been inaugurated yet? What has Obama actually accomplished to be worth comparing even to Ted Bundy, let alone Hitler?
Interesting debate here on all accounts.
Here is a question, maybe someone can answer it: Who was more 'guilty' in the Holocaust: Hitler and the men who planned it or the individuals who actually carried out the murders? Are they both equally guilty, or is one more so than another? Does it depend on how fully formed their conscience was at the time? (I'm imagining some dim-witted nurse thinking she's aiding in the murder of helpless Jews for some greater purpose. *Shiver.*)
Can the same be asked about abortion? And with the same results? Who is more to blame: the individuals who make the decision to carry out an abortion, those who influence them to do so, or those who create laws allowing them to make that decision? I'd say they all share a hand in that evil, although to what extent I can't say for sure.
I do know that while I would I would like to be all happy for President Obama my conscience won't allow me to pop any champagne. And to be honest, I wouldn’t have been that thrilled with a McCain victory either. (I would have seen it as the lesser of two evils.) I do hope and pray that Obama makes wise decisions on all accounts and that God works some Holiness on his administration. In the meantime, I will be praying rosaries for all who make those decisions about life: the women, the doctors, and the politicians. And I hope that someday abortion may be a thing of our history instead of something of our present.
T0 SDG - that is most unfair of you to defend Sean Hannity and blame Fr. Euteneuer! I heard that interview and Sean Hannity was so unprofessional in attacking Fr Euteneuer on birth control and bringing up the sexual abuse scandal. Sean Hannity was most improper and his arguments were the typical cafeteria Catholic type - not in line with Rome.
Fr Frank Pavone, priests-for-life said the day after the election that voting for Obama was the worst mistake the american people have ever made. That is strong talk but I am with him.
"T0 SDG - that is most unfair of you to defend Sean Hannity and blame Fr. Euteneuer!"
My "defense" of Mr. Hannity consists solely in the observation that he was wrongly accused of being a heretic.
He is wrong, and shamefully so; he is in dissent against the Church; but that is not the same as heresy, as Fr. Euteneuer should know.
NB,
We can't all be like Hitler; some have to settle for being like run-of-the-mill Nazis, or the Vichy French (and don't you think that's who Sean Hannity and the LC's Tom Hoopes should be compared to? Maybe Regnum Christi's Devin Rose could be like Tokyo Rose!)
"Here is a question, maybe someone can answer it: Who was more 'guilty' in the Holocaust: Hitler and the men who planned it or the individuals who actually carried out the murders?"
FWIW, "guilt" is for God, and maybe judges and juries, to evaluate. The point I'm making here about responsibility is comparatively straightforward.
Hitler and his coterie bear a unique responsibility for conceiving, planning, engineering and presiding over the genocide of the Holocaust. On a lower level, the commandant of a particular death camp bears responsibility for his complicity in the Holocaust with respect to the deaths carried out on his watch in that death camp. He is not responsible for the Holocaust as a whole in the way that Hitler and his coterie are. He may or may not be more evil or guilty before God; that's a different question.
A thought experiment: Suppose that, instead of Hitler as we know him, we imagine a German leader coming to power in a Germany where for decades German citizens of Aryan descent have been accorded the legal right to round up Jews in their neighborhood and bring them to death camps, which are for the most part run by private citizens. And let's say that this right is widely accepted not only in Germany but throughout Europe and the US as well as elsewhere in the world.
Into this world comes a new German leader who -- even more than his predecessors -- assiduously defends these rights of Aryan citizens to round up and kill Jews. He advocates government funding for death camps and opposes even the most vestigial recognition of the rights of Jews. However, he still leaves it up to private citizens whether or not particular Jews are to be rounded up and killed or allowed to live. He does not order the Holocaust, but allows private citizens to carry out whatever mini-holocausts they wish.
Is this situation as evil as the Holocaust? Absolutely. Is our hypothetical German leader as responsible for this evil as is Hitler for the Holocaust? Absolutely not.
"and don't you think that's who Sean Hannity and the LC's Tom Hoopes should be compared to"
Please, I beg you, temper criticism and indignation with truth, justice and charity. Sean Hannity is a cafeteria Catholic, not to mention a bit of a bully. Tom Hoopes is a totally solid Catholic and absolutely committed to serving the Church. I'm not saying don't criticize him, or me for that matter, but please do so in a temperate and charitable spirit.
SDG
you must needs be, retire from philosophy, it is not your forte. as i said earlier i hardly know where to start with you. your logic is, shall we say, at the very least.....tortured. stop it now. underneath it all tho....i sense a protectiveness towards communists....ignoring 160 million killed by the soviet bloc and over 300 million deaths due to mao. and for the life of me......NOT GENOCIDE!!??.....WOW!!...sdg that is genocide against GOD!!....you so need my mentoring but ......we don't have years. liberalism is mental confusion, and is willful sin against truth. honestly ...........
Thank you for your sober and balanced assessments and well thought out perspective, SDG. I'm going to start reading the Catholic Register. Reason will win the day before rabidity.
FESTO
You are the last thing this poor confused soul needs.
FESTO CHANGO!!!......wow it just struck me, now that you're reading the Catholic Register you won't have so much time for Jack Chick tracts.
"i sense a protectiveness towards communists."
I sense a willingness to engage in unwarranted speculation about other people. I'm sorry, friend.
FWIW, I should point out that while Stalin and Mao did not set out to implement genocide, their crimes against humanity, implemented in peacetime against their own people on an even greater scale, are in some ways as bad as or worse than the Nazi atrocities. In other ways, the Nazi atrocity is worse.
In terms of sheer enormity, Stalin and especially Mao killed more than Hitler. At the same time, the principled, concerted, pre-planned Nazi effort to wipe out entire populations and ethnic groups remains a unique and particularly satanic crime against humanity.
In saying "Only Hitler is Hitler," I don't mean to say "Hitler is the worst human being who ever lived," and in particular I don't mean to say "The Holocaust is worse than anything else" -- on the contrary, I've repeatedly stated that abortion is as bad as the holocaust.
My point is that we horrifically minimize Hitler's unique role in an unimaginable crime against humanity by comparing him to a neophyte politician with few accomplishments who is largely the heir of a pro-choice culture in a pro-choice Western world.
Ugh! The discussion thus far isn't addressing the editorial. I have a major problem with these lines, But we always knew John McCain was no pro-life hero (he supports using taxpayer money to fund fatal experiments on embryos) and though we disagree on much, I, for one, always liked Obama.
John McCain, I feel, could have been persuaded to see the light on his flawed stance on ESCR whereas I see no reason for hope (how ironic!) on Obama's overall stance on abortion (and many other issues).
I'm sure he's a very nice man and seems to be a good father who just chooses to let babies die in linen closets and doesn't want his daughters punished with babies.
I'm with Father Euteneuer on this as I was vis-a-vis his 'debate' with Hannity.
I was very sad for NCR when I read that editorial. If I had a subscription I would had canceled it.
SD
don't jive me, he's not an unwilling heir to the slaughter....he likes it...he wants more of it. and has promised to do so....should we not take him at his word. every enemy the church has ( liberals, communists, terrorists) and on and on, have rejoiced at his ascent to power. they don't cheer without reason. such drivel that he's a nice guy killer of children.
"he's not an unwilling heir"
SDG didn't say that. Respectfully, I think you should take a more charitable and less drastic interpretation of SDG's word's and the Register's piece.
Peace, fellow comboxer.
Uh-oh. Someone else's blog caught the "Rustler/Spectatio" contagion.
Good luck ever having a reasonable discussion in the comments again!
"John McCain, I feel, could have been persuaded to see the light on his flawed stance on ESCR"
Possibly so, but it doesn't change the facts: A man with a consistent and well-established track record of supporting cannibalizing certain innocents is not a "pro-life hero." Maybe he could have gone on to become a pro-life hero, but he hasn't been one so far.
Don't get me wrong: I not only voted for McCain, I advocated for him as hard as I could. I wrote long essays about why Catholics ought to vote for McCain. I argued that Obama was the poster boy for the culture of death. But I voted for McCain as the lesser of two evils.
"I'm with Father Euteneuer on this as I was vis-a-vis his 'debate' with Hannity."
The facts are what they are. The word "heretic" means what it means, and Fr. Euteneuer was wrong to use it as he did.
"I was very sad for NCR when I read that editorial. If I had a subscription I would had canceled it."
I am just gobsmacked by this attitude. Never mind how strongly the Register blasted Obama throughout the campaign and will continue to do so. Never mind that it endorsed McCain, and went after the likes of Kmiec for stumping for Obama. Never mind that it is 100 percent loyal to the Church. An editor wrote one blog post saying he "liked" Obama even while saying that we must always fight on on abortion, so you would cancel your subscription?!
I'm not saying don't disagree or don't criticize. There should be room for orthodox, sincere Catholics to strongly disagree and criticize one another. I expect to be criticized, and I reserve the right to criticize others.
But have a sense of proportion, not to mention justice and charity. Look at the bigger picture. Don't call someone a "heretic" if you mean he's a dissenter. Don't go nuclear on a whole publication because of one blog post that didn't even appear in the paper.
BTW, NCR always means the National Catholic Reporter, a publication subscribers should cancel their subscriptions to. The National Catholic Register is called the Register.
"NCR always means the National Catholic Reporter, a publication subscribers should cancel their subscriptions to."
Amen. I think I may still have some white hairs from reading the NCR a couple times. :-(
SDG,
I think the problem you're running in to here is that some people are under the mistaken impression that since you don't think Obama is "as bad" as Hitler (and I agree with you, Obama is nowhere near Hitler), you must think Obama is an okay guy.
It's like refusing to compare a drunk driver to a mass murderer somehow means you approve of drunk driving. It's faulty logic.
Exactly, MAS.
I am very saddened by Fr. Euteneur's decision to publicly calumniate Tom Hoopes, The Register, and the Legionaries. I am actually considering canceling my subscription to HLI's publication--such vitriol is unbecoming of a priest. One wonders if he followed the words of Christ in first approaching this brother in private, then bringing in an elder, before finally making the matter public. One wonders what good his action will do. One wonders if the enemy laughs as we in the pro-life movement tear each other to pieces; we do so much of the work for him as we make ourselves ineffective.
I work as a pro-life lobbyist at our State Capitol and am repeatedly saddened by the pro-life movement's failure to make greater advances because of ridiculous divisions like this.
And, with regard to Tom Hoopes' blog post, I appreciate his sentiment. I feel sick that we have a president as pro-death as Obama. But, as Catholics, we are bound to honor the respective freedoms of the two temporal spheres, the civil and ecclesial. While we are citizens of heaven, we are citizens of this nation too and bound to respect and pray for our legally elected head.
I think St. Thomas More said it best when, as he prepared for death by beheading, he said, "I am the King's good servant but God's first." Obama is our leader, and he needs us to pray for him. He is deeply blind and participating in evil. But, so was the Emperor Constantine. And, he had a conversion. Let us ask Our Lord for the same for Obama.
Spectatio has been banned, and I will strive to more vigilant about weeding out the problem individuals. Sending me a quick note when things are getting out of hand will help me respond more quickly. Thanks for your patience, everyone.
Greetings,
I personally do not know how one can be publicly kind enough to separate the man from what he engenders when what the man actively brings about is abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and, hence, human death, FOCA, infanticide, repealing the federal of Defense of Marriage Act, “I do not want to punish [his daughter] with the baby”, being friends with unrepentant terrorists, etc. As I hope we all now know, these are facts of record and not paranoia or fear mongering or YELLING. I do not like a man like this, because no matter how sincere he appears on other issues, he will always seem duplicitous and, hence, suspect to me on all issues. However, I do sincerely love a man like this. This is why I pray for him. I do not give him public accolades. If I did, as a Catholic, it may appear to undermine the truth no matter how much I simultaneously still recognized it. I guess all of this is just a matter of tactics.
Timothy+
Now that I've had a chance to read the editorial in question, I have really only one sentence I take issue with:
"He is a civil, decent man."
Being able to speak civilly with others doesn't make one civil, nor decent (although it helps). A veneer of civility doesn't make one truly civil.
And I couldn't apply "decent" to anyone who supports expansion of abortion.
I doubt Mr. Hoopes is right that it will be the end of an era when race was factored into decisions.
But the 3 main points of the editorial are spot on. I'll admit to some fear of what the future under the Obama Administration will hold, but it's not a paralyzing fear (more of a "concern").
As President, Sen. Obama (has he officially stepped down yet?) is due the same respect that should be shown to all people, especially the President.
We need to reach out to people, not alienate them. I spend some of my time online interacting with some Objectivists (at a friend's small message board...nothing huge), and I've been trying (for years) to explain to them, in terms they'll understand and using logic they'll accept, why abortion is wrong. (Appeals to emotion by the Pro-Life side are called out, but appeals to emotion on the Pro-Abortion side are usual fare, of course.)
"Now that I've had a chance to read the editorial in question, I have really only one sentence I take issue with..."
And that's fine, MAS. Over at JimmyAkin.org I spent some time with other Catholics going over various dictionary entries for "civil" and "decent" and whether either or both words could or couldn't be legitimately applied to Obama.
If you think they can't, and you find the editorial objectionable on that ground, then object away. Tom Hoopes is a fallible human being like all of us and it is fair to criticize him or me or anyone else.
Whatever anyone thinks of Hoopes's editorial, though, I am just stunned at the intemperance of Fr. Euteneur's response, in which he speaks of Hoopes's "glowing support of the most radical abortion president in American history."
"Glowing support"? Readers who know me know that I am extremely reluctant to make moral pronouncements, but I find it hard to regard this as anything other than a flagrant violation of the eighth commandment.
There is something that deserves to be called "glowing support of the most radical abortion president in American history." Doug Kmiec fits the bill. To say that Hoopes does not is an understatement. Fr. Euteneur has just plain wronged his brother in Christ.
SDG, will you please define what a heretic is? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a heretic is one who exhibits "Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church." it continues, "the heretic accepts only such parts of it [the whole deposit as proposed by the Church] as commend themselves to his own approval." Sean Hannity is, as you said, a cafeteria catholic. He believes that contraception is morally acceptable and that one who openly uses contraception can be in good standing with the church. He also believes that abortion can be justified morally in certain circumstances. How is this not heresy?
Mr. Hoopes's Obama editorial was weak, and Father Euteneuer's response to it was intemperate. Both need to take a step back and remember who the enemy really is.
"SDG, will you please define what a heretic is? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, a heretic is one who exhibits "Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church."
Very briefly:
"Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith" (canon 751). Such truth must be divinely revealed and definitively proposed by the magisterium.
AFAIK, the Church's teaching on contraception is usually understood to be definitively proposed in connection with divine revelation, without itself being the subject of divine revelation. To deny this truth is thus dissent but not heresy rightly so called.
More to say but way sleep deprived, be back tomorrow.
However, the way in which some faithful Catholics go after a priest (Father Euteneuer), who is merely trying to protect the faith and the unborn, does give one pause.
Nobody should question the Register's deep and long-standing commitment to pro-life and Catholic principles. Overall, they do an admirable job. But geez, now and then there are some bone-headed boo-boos.
By comparing Tom Hoopes' view of Obama with the assessment of Cardinal Stafford, one can see how out-of-touch the Register is these days with the pro-life movement.
In Nov. 13 speech that has to be among the most perceptive and courageous by any American prelate in decades, Cardinal Stafford said "Catholics weep" over Obama's pro-abort stance, and that Catholics will face "years" of "Gethsamane" once he takes power.
Stafford explained that underneath Obama's "grace and charm there is a tautness of will, a clenched jaw ..." that led him to declare to Planned Parenthood that FOCA was at the top of his agenda for his first day in office.
Yet, Hoopes calls Obama -- a politician totally committed to murdering children -- "a civil, decent man"? Wow. A lot of pro-lifers in the trenches don't want Hoopes in our foxhole. This should worry the Register's bean counters.
These kinds of controversies flare up at the Register due to the nature of its mission -- to be "middle of the road." By seeking the middle they necessarily have to abandon some of us on the right.
Some years ago Fr. Kearns wrote a column in which he said the Register was not "conservative," as if being conservative is a problem.
I recall vividly how Hoopes demonized Michael Rose in 2002. One might question what the Register gains by seeking accommodation with the left.
Below is the link to the first public complaint I'm aware of regarding the Hoopes column. Matt Abbott published it on his Web site.
http://www.renewamerica.us/colum...s/abbott/
081130
I would tend to agree with Marc's first comment - well put.
SDG's initial comment expresses my opinion also. Fr. Euteneuer does need to examine himself on his tendency toward intemperate expression. I saw it for the first time when he gratuitously attacked the memory of Heath Ledger, before the young man had gone cold in his grave. Of course, he said he would pray for him. Better he should have refrained from using his name in vain. As I said then, I salute and support Father for his work. He just needs to temper his pen. Are you listening, Fr. Farfaglia? Circular firing squads are not helpful to the cause.
"However, the way in which some faithful Catholics go after a priest (Father Euteneuer), who is merely trying to protect the faith and the unborn, does give one pause."
--> I don't know what's in Fr. E's heart of hearts. I am not so sure that he is "merely" trying to protect the faith and the unborn. I am not so sure that his understanding of the faith is correct or in line with Church teaching. I am not so sure that he is following in the footsteps of our Lord.
If he opts to publically **go after** the Catholic Register, which as far as I can see is very traditional and orthodox, then he has to expect to be confronted with folks defending the CR and calling into question his stance and motivations just as he did in relation to those he criticised.
Moreover, as soon as someone stoops to claiming that an opponent is guilty of being boneheaded, the discussion is over and done with, replaced by rant and diatribe.
SDG,
The problem I have with the statement is that the outward appearance isn't the measure of a man. An agent of the Devil (and I'm not saying Obama is one) would absolutely have a "civil, decent" outward appearance. That book-cover doesn't make him civil or decent.
Being impressed with the way a man interacts with others is not sufficient, in my mind, to label him decent. It comes down to his actual actions. Many abusers have a facade that is decent and civil...that doesn't make them actually decent, civil people.
I say all this merely to point out that Obama's demeanor doesn't make him decent or civil. And his position on life issues is a strong mark against his decency.
SDG
that was a really sick post i don't even know where to start tearing it apart. first ....don't tell me hitler was unique. stalin and mao killed more and others would but lack opportunity. then you spread the blame across the nation and merely make obama the head killer. (twisted)
then you say abortions don't target any subset of population.........WRONG AGAIN....the vast majority of abortions are black babies. by design, by margret sanger. one half of all black pregnancies end in abortion.....(not genocide?)
obama is busy killing blacks as they idolize him and you are his cheerleader.
Spectatio's heart is in the right place and his anger is justified though he is manifesting it incorrectly. I just wanted to point out a glaring problem that I saw with this comment. He appeals to history and mentions Stalin, but forgets Lenin. To me, this is always a clue that one's understanding of history has been limited to high school and college textbooks, which do a good job of rehabilitating Lenin.
What Stalin did could not have been done without Lenin. Lenin, after the slaughter of the Czar and his family, proceeded with his mission to destroy the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. He filled his Bolshevist government with those who had the same penchant to kill Christians as he did (Re: Red Terror - and not Wikipedia, please... they omit the details of the mass slaughter of Christians).
Having an understanding of Apostolic Succession, Lenin even had bishops executed and imprisoned the Russian Orthodox Patriarch (who would be released under Stalin). When a successor for Lenin was being selected, Lenin did not approve of Stalin because he believed that Stalin would be too weak and not carry out his mission of exterminating Christianity from Russia to completion.
History shows that, though Stalin was brutal, Lenin's uneasy feeling was correct. Stalin, in his later years, made life relatively easier for the Russian Orthodox than what his predecessor would have liked. Oddly, he never let up on the Catholics.
My point is, no one who has seriously studied history can speak of Stalin without speaking of Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution. I can't believe how much liberal media, such as NPR, have worked to rehabilitate Lenin. It boggles the mind.
In the early 1990's I was very involved with a pro-life group that did mostly direct action (rescues, rosaries at the clinic, sidewalk counseling, etc.). The group did much good, but in the end it broke up due to in-fighting. I often tell people, "Get 10 pro-lifers in a room, and you'll have 10 different ideas on the best way to end abortion." I would chuckle at the accusations of an "anti-abortion conspiracy" during the Clinton years, because you have to have at least two people agreeing to have a conspiracy! :)
Since that time, I have had the attitude that if anyone is doing anything to help the babies, they should be commended for that, and energy should not be spent criticizing their methods. Thus, I commend Fr. Euteneuer for all his work to protect the unborn. Likewise, I commend the Register for all its work over the years defending life. For Fr. Euteneuer to spend his energy demonizing a fellow pro-lifer seems to be wrong-headed and simply ineffective towards our goal: the protection of human life from conception until natural death. With friends like these, who needs enemies?
"then you say abortions don't target any subset of population.........WRONG AGAIN....the vast majority of abortions are black babies. by design, by margret sanger. one half of all black pregnancies end in abortion.....(not genocide?)"
Just to clarify, my point is that government policies in America don't force abortion on specific individuals or representatives of specific groups. While it is true that Margaret Sanger was a racist who intended to promote abortion among blacks in order to reduce the black population, genocide is something very different from this.
In general, aborted babies are condemned by their own mothers, even if they are manipulated, misinformed and sometimes coerced. That's evil, but not remotely the evil of genocide. It is ignorance of the past that leads to such bogus moral equivalency.
"obama is busy killing blacks as they idolize him and you are his cheerleader."
I'm sorry to have to say that you are either a liar or you don't know how to read; in neither case are you qualified to handle the bombs you throw. "Poster boy of the culture of death" is how I described Obama. Let's both try to remember that we will be judged by our words, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
"Spectatio's heart is in the right place and his anger is justified though he is manifesting it incorrectly."
I assume, of course, that you mean his anger toward Obama, Stalin and abortion... not toward me.
"I just wanted to point out a glaring problem that I saw with this comment. He appeals to history and mentions Stalin, but forgets Lenin. To me, this is always a clue that one's understanding of history has been limited to high school and college textbooks, which do a good job of rehabilitating Lenin."
My only redirect is to point out that Obama's manifest evil is on a different, and vastly lesser, order of magnitude than that of any of the figures hitherto adduced (Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler).
Yes,SDG, but why would one make President-elect Obama appear less evil in order to publicly state that he liked him, which is what Tom appeared to do, especially when he compared President-elect Obama in contrast to Senator McCain’s pro-life bona-fides? President-elect Obama is materially complicit with manifold serious matter. Let’s leave the formal determination to God, since the President-elect is not a Catholic, and we are not bishops. We do not have to like President-elect Obama, at all, nor should we. Really. We can actually say that we are better without out it meaning that we are claming that President-elect Obama ought to like us, although we should pray. We can actually say that we do not like President-elect Obama without it meaning that we are angry with him. We are not going to convince him of objective mortality, anyway. Why be scared of the obvious truth for a false political optimism that would have one comprising the truth herself for the sake of working with one with whom is entirely and aggressively convicted in the views of the culture of death? He is invading us. That is a fact. Really. Better get ready. P.C. has no place in Catholicism nor should it ever be equated with kindness.
Timothy+
I like Catherine's comment.
I wish that Pro-lifers would not sniping at each other. We've got to work together, and not be at each other's throats! Our enemies like nothing better for us to be disunited.
Yes, I'm sad that Obama is our president. But I pray for him and his family everyday in my Rosary-and I pray for his conversion, too.
Remember, Saul was once a persecutor...but he was converted and became Paul the Apostle.
St. Thomas More, pray for us. And [of course] Mary Immaculate, our nation's Patroness, pray for us, too.
"Yes,SDG, but why would one make President-elect Obama appear less evil in order to publicly state that he liked him, which is what Tom appeared to do, especially when he compared President-elect Obama in contrast to Senator McCain’s pro-life bona-fides? President-elect Obama is materially complicit with manifold serious matter."
1. Let me say again that questioning or criticizing Hoopes's approach, like anyone else's including Fr. Euteneur's, is fair game. I'm not here to say that Hoopes's approach on this or anything else is beyond criticism or reproach. I'm only here to say that inflammatory overreaction, uncharity and falsehood harms rather than helps.
2. Senator McCain was the lesser murder-supporter in this election, and, I agree, the obvious candidate for the pro-life vote. Hoopes agreed, as did the Register. But let's not whitewash our chosen lesser evil. McCain supported killing innocents. Let's not gloss over that. Fewer innocents than Obama wants to kill, yes, but we must not say that Senator McCain is pro-life, full stop. To do so does grave injustice to the lives of the innocents he supports snuffing out for medical research.
Some folks here seem to think that because I say that Obama is no Hitler I must be pro-Obama, which is patent nonsense. We must take care that being pro-McCain doesn't translate to turning a blind eye to his own evil policies.
3. In keeping with uniform Register coverage, Hoopes's essay was very clear about Obama's evil policies and the need of commitment to opposing them. It also went on to apply to him words like "civil," "decent" and "impressive." These are words with a range of meaning and do not necessarily indicate a profound moral judgment of a man's character.
I'm not saying that one can't criticize these word choices. I think one should be reasonable in considering Hoopes's intended meaning, but one can still argue that he should have chosen other words. One of the more temperate charges of Fr. Euteneur's critique is that the editorial is "naive." I don't agree, but it's a charge within the pale of legitimate discussion. The charge of "glowing support" for Obama is not within the pale.
4. Taken in context, Hoopes's comments do not seem to me to "make Obama appear less evil." Rather, the point is that the reality is more complicated than binary "good/evil" judgments. Obama is not the devil, any more than Bush, and it is no more right for us to demonize Obama than for Bush's opponents to demonize him. I am not making any general comparison between Bush and Obama. I am simply saying that demonizing human beings is wrong.
In some respects -- important respects -- Obama actually converges more closely with Catholic morality than McCain. For example, he is married to his first and only wife. Can I say that without hair triggers pointed at me going off, as if I haven't repeatedly called him the poster boy for the culture of death?
"Let’s leave the formal determination to God, since the President-elect is not a Catholic, and we are not bishops."
Not sure what this means. Don't know how the notion of rendering formal determinations of anyone came into play.
"We do not have to like President-elect Obama, at all, nor should we."
This seems to me open to legitimate question. What makes a person "likeable" is not cut and dried. Is McCain "likeable"? He advocates killing innocents and divorced his disabled wife to marry an heiress-model. I don't know that that makes him "unlikeable," but it's something to consider.
I have a friend who is an atheist. I like him a lot; I would even say he is decent and civil. Yet he is very suspicious of the place of religion in the world and completely rejects the whole basis for the first and greatest commandment. He seems to me to be a good and loving husband and father, though obviously he is doing them an objective wrong by raising them without knowledge of God. Am I anathema for liking him?
Obama also seems to be a good husband and a good father. So were many Nazi officers, I know. Does the fact that they were Nazi officers necessarily make them "unlikeable"? I don't know if I can say that. Obama is also charismatic, intelligent and generally well-spoken, and no, it isn't just when he's reading off a teleprompter.
Obama may have many bad personal qualities that might weigh against his likeability. Some of these have not yet come out; others may have started to. Right now it seems to me at least defensible to consider Obama "likeable" in some sense.
Like Hoopes, I am not a fan of the politics of vituperation and demonization. Neither Bush nor Obama is the devil.
"P.C. has no place in Catholicism nor should it ever be equated with kindness."
I don't find "PC" to be a very useful category. Truth does not hold a finger to any wind; sometimes what is "PC" goes against what is true; sometimes it doesn't. I would hesitate before accusing anyone of taking a particular line because of what I deemed to be its "PC-ness."
>I meant material cooperation versus formal cooperation. I had thought you were defending whom others deemed reprobate.
>What makes a person likable is the extent to which he practices virtue, as that corresponds to the object of his acting, material or abstract. Accordingly, one can then judge who is the more virtuous between respective actors by utilizing the principle of the double-effect.
>I do not think anyone is a devil, and I dream of the restoration of all things, including the devil himself. However, my faith, which I cherish, tells me otherwise.
>I take full responsibility for my claim that Tom was being politically correct in his glowing assessment of President-elect Obama by trying to bolster his likeability (virtue) while minimizing Senator McCain’s virtue (likeability), according to the above-described criteria. I make no claim as to Tom's intent.
Timothy+
"I meant material cooperation versus formal cooperation. I had thought you were defending whom others deemed reprobate."
Sorry to be dense, I'm just not following. Do you mean literally "reprobate" or only figuratively? I'm not even sure what you're responding to here.
">What makes a person likable is the extent to which he practices virtue, as that corresponds to the object of his acting, material or abstract."
I think this is at least questionable. Virtue makes a person admirable, but likeability is a more subjective and elusive quality. Saintly people can be hard to get along with, sinners can be engaging and amiable, and you and I may have divergent assessments of the likeability of different people, you liking people I don't and vice versa, irrespective of their (and our) respective levels of virtue. (Perhaps because of your "reprobate" reference above, I'm reminded of Lewis in The Four Loves affectionately referring to Ovid as "that cheery old reprobate" ... not a sentiment, apparently, that closely correlates or identifies likeability and virtue per se.)
"Accordingly, one can then judge who is the more virtuous between respective actors by utilizing the principle of the double-effect."
Gosh, I just don't think of "likeability" as a quality that readily submits to double-effect analysis. Perhaps we're at cross purposes somehow?
"I take full responsibility for my claim that Tom was being politically correct in his glowing assessment of President-elect Obama by trying to bolster his likeability (virtue) while minimizing Senator McCain’s virtue (likeability), according to the above-described criteria."
Well, taking full responsibility is better than the alternative, I guess.
Madam,
>I do not imagine that you actually consider yourself dense. It might be better to say that the material is too difficult for me to try to communicate, as the principles of cooperation, and their resulting effects on an actor, can be elegant enough to prevent comprehension in this format. This is especially true if they are applied objectively and, perhaps, independent of the contextual meaning in which you were defending the level to which President-elect Obama is evil. I don’t like to say that because then that would make me out to be a Contextualist who is unable to apply meta-criteria to what I read, but misunderstanding happens all the time. I am really sorry for not understanding you. Let’s just leave it at that?
>I feel that the elusive has no place in objective reality and virtue in others is also what defines likeability. I would, and should, like an intense saint more than President-elect Obama, as the saint has been fashioned to be another Christ. My criterions are sound, because while one’s passions may like someone who is openly practicing evil, one should never make allowance for it with one’s reason. I reckon you disagree. I ask that you pray on it, if I may be didactic, but you can unite me with St. Stephen for being so suggestive if I cannot.
>Likeability, as it is relevant to Tom’s disputed comment, pertains to prudently ascertaining the possible effects of Tom’s publicly stating that he likes a man who is to some extent plainly complicit with grave evil while at the same time Tom disparaged his former opponent by claiming he is no hero when that no hero is openly complicit in a lesser amount of openly grave evil than the man who Tom says he really likes.
>So, as applicable to judging who is the more likable, as to what extent the respective actors choose to practice open and notorious evil, the principle of the double-effect is a sound friend. I always like the one who practices less evil on principle alone. I think that is a goal of all Christians. I thank God that my passions are coming into line with this, as well. I always like the saint. I always like the sinner too, but I never openly and politically separate the man from his suspected sin, as the consequences are too great if I did. As in the case of President-elect Obama, he is so convicted in his views, anyway. One must be careful to publicly state one likes a man who stands for grave evils. It is that simply.
>And my responsibility statement was directed at exonerating you, as you stated: “I would hesitate before accusing anyone of taking a particular line because of what I deemed to be its "PC-ness."
In any case, let’s be friends after this. This kind of stuff really stifles the Spirit.
God bless you,
Timothy+
That's Sir. I am sorry about that, Mr. Greydanus.
Timothy+
What's a Y chromosome more or less among friends? ;-) (I have to admit, though, that I was confused by your confusion given your apparent invocation of my patron saint...)
The questions between us seems to be twofold. On the one hand, we have different ideas what "likeability" is, whether it varies with or is equivalent to sanctity, and whether or not to spell it with an "e." :-) On the other hand, we have issues around the prudence of public affirmations about "liking" sinners.
On the first matter, I think it's sufficient to say that your theory of likeability is at least open to question, and that criticism of an editorial that rests on a particular theory of "likeability" as a function of sanctity seems to me less than generally compelling. At any rate, rather than criticizing the writer for publicly commenting on his "likes," one would seem to be in the position of criticizing his implicit theory of likeability, which is a rather different criticism.
On the second matter, you acknowledge liking the sinner; AFAICT, you simply question the prudence of how it is said in public. I'm curious how you would apply this standard to a Catholic who commented publicly about liking, say, Ronald Reagan (Reagan supported abortion in cases of rape and incest). In any case, you state, "I never openly and politically separate the man from his suspected sin." I think a fair-minded reader of the whole editorial in question as well as the larger context of Register coverage generally can conclude that such a separation has not in fact occurred.
Regarding "stifling the Spirit": I'm sad to have to conclude that the point at which I find the influence of the Spirit most lacking in this whole business is the point at which a strident call was issued for a thoughtful and devout Catholic to be "fired immediately" for what was falsely described as an "absurd editorial in support of Barack Obama" and "personal glowing support of the most radical abortion president in American history." I think we as the body of Christ can and should extend to one another more charity, justice and temperance than this, even in disagreement. Whatever one thinks of the initial editorial, I think Hoopes's follow-up is an edifying model of gentleness under fire.
Be all of that as it may, I don't see that diverging opinions on any of these points need be an obstacle to friendship and Christian fraternity. Grace and peace.
The NCR has had some rather problematic articles in recent months. A positive assessment of the Harry Potter series for one! It seems to be dabbling in overtures to a more liberal base.
Father Eutenauer has credibility and character and is not afraid to show righteous anger when necessary. Some of us have turned the virtue of charity into aquiescence to evil.
A likeable Obama is also a likeable pro-abortionist, a likeable radical, a likeable liar (still withholding a birth certificate!) a likeable America hater (no hand over heart at the American anthem), a likeable supporter of fraudulent use of taxpayer monies, a likeable mover of grant monies to 'friend's' causes (including wing nut Fr Phleger), ad infinitum. What's not to like??
Jesus was no pacifist. He would be naming evil for what it is.
NCR can curry favor with liberals with 'soft' editorials but solid catholics will be seeking more solid fare.
"A positive assessment of the Harry Potter series for one!"
L'Osservatore Romano ran one of those too.
"Some of us have turned the virtue of charity into aquiescence to evil."
And some have turned the virtue of steadfastness into carelessness about truth and charity.
SDG:
Truth? You choose to go with L'Osservatore Romano and NCR. I choose Pope Benedict's opinion on Harry Potter.
Charity? You choose to go with the PC crowd. Jesus spoke the truth and died for it. You know the passage about the lukewarm?
It may be time to get "Back to Virtue". Scott Hahn, in recommending Peter Kreeft's book, makes the observation: "We have reduced all virtues to one: being nice".
We need Catholics in the public eye to represent our Church teachings well.
God bless us all with steadfastness to the Faith.
Pope Benedict is the publisher of L'Osservatore Romano.
L'Osservatore Romano is the 'semi offical' Vatican newspaper!
Recently, under a new editor, the newspaper is now offering an entertainment section! A recent article on an 'apology' to John Lennon has been misrepresented as coming from the Pope. Poor Pope Benedict! Being a gentleman he has 'declined to comment'.
"I choose Pope Benedict's opinion on Harry Potter."
Some truth about "Pope Benedict's opinion on Harry Potter."
"Charity? You choose to go with the PC crowd."
It's amazing how much you know about me. (Not to mention the "PC crowd.")
"You know the passage about the lukewarm?"
As God is my judge, I long for nothing so much as the divine taste test. In the meantime, let us not spit one another out in advance. Some other verses worth remembering: "Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls" (Rom 14:4). "So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any incentive of love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy, complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. Do nothing from selfishness or conceit, but in humility count others better than yourselves" (Phil 2:1-3).
"Scott Hahn, in recommending Peter Kreeft's book, makes the observation: 'We have reduced all virtues to one: being nice'."
As an aside, I am happy to count both Peter Kreeft and Scott Hahn as friends. Dr. Kreeft helped bring me into the Church, and Dr. Hahn, I understand, recently spoke very highly of my work.
"A recent article on an 'apology' to John Lennon has been misrepresented as coming from the Pope."
Your memory on the incident in question is a little faulty.
Huh?
Huh, what?
If you mean the Lennon piece:
(a) There was no article on "an 'apology' to John Lennon."
(b) The misrepresentation was not that the pope had "apologized" to Lennon, but that he had "forgiven" him.
(c) Neither was there an article on "forgiveness" for Lennon, either by the pope or by anyone else. (That was part of the misrepresentation too.)
It was just an article on what Lennon meant by "We're bigger than Jesus Christ." I think it was a silly article (talk about an old story!), but not because it was entertainment/culture related. AFAIK, recent editorial direction at L'OR is all to the good.
SDG:
You are obviously a clever fellow, especially at splitting hairs but the point is about newspapers and editorialists NOT representing what they should stand for.
It is particularly important to note the Pope's words 'subtle seductions' regarding HP - which can be applied in spades to our MSM, which practically sold Obama to the uninformed and overly tolerant.
God fearing Catholics need the Register to consistently promote Catholic thought.
We would all do well to read Fr. Euteneuer's latest thoughts on Advent.
God bless!
There is nothing "semi"-official about L'Osservatory Romano; the Holy Father IS the publisher.
SDG did not split hairs, of course; he stated facts.
Commenting by HaloScan
