AmericanPapist Comments
The name Feuerherd means fire stove. Go figure.
By the way, even when the stated ends of the Democrats are ok, such as making health care universally accessible, it's the means that really distress me. And then there's the whole package of junk that comes along with it. To vote Democrat as a means -- to accept all the junk and ill-conceived planning -- in order to attain their health care plan makes attaining that health care into an evil.
The eternal fire stove waits.
My word. I read the entry and the following comments and I don't think they got a single Catholic teaching correct. You'd think they get one right accidently, but why don't they just get it over with and put on a Fisheater Review like the old blackface minstrel shows?
As usual, there is some truth in this (attempt at) humor.
I'm an obedient, traditional priest, loyal to Holy Mother Church. But if you're not furious at the American hierarchy for enabling child sexual abuse, then you haven't been paying attention. Bishop after bishop, with their "don't make waves" attitude, helped to institutionalize pedophilia in the American clergy. To our great shame, the Church's moral voice has been compromised by their disgraceful negligence.
The cartoonist has grossly overstated the matter. But which is the greater transgression: a spiteful cartoon or the protection of child rapists? The cartoon simply points out the obvious: it is hard to make moral assertions when you're protecting pedophiles.
These pro-abortion Catholics and their contortions--all variations on the "seamless garment"--the most powerful rhetorical weapon any Catholic Cardinal ever handed to the pro-abortion crowd. (And, no, I don't think he was well-intentioned.) The real sleight-of-hand (if you can call what people do with a sledgehammer "sleight-of-hand") is to list four or five ways that "Republican" policies are KILLING PEOPLE!!!! (You know, by not having universal compulsory pre-school, for instance.) That way, you are voting against five different ways that Republicans are KILLING PEOPLE!!!! to balance against the "one" way that Democrats are killing people. The failure of the bishops to OBEY (note, I don't say "enforce") Canon 915 is eating the heart out of the Catholic Church in America.
Fr. N.: The cartoon doesn't just express disapproval of sexual abuse. It makes the slanderous charge that the Pope (and pro-lifers) have no problem with sexual abuse. If the figure protecting the priests had been Law, Mahony, Egan, O'Brien, etc., etc., there might have been a point to the cartoon. But then, THOSE bishops haven't obeyed Canon 915--so the cartoon WOULDN'T have had any point, after all.
Yes. Thanks for the usual disclaimer which every Catholic has burned into his head like a brand since, I don't know...2002?
I just read the comments for that post at Feministe. Wow. I find it peculiar, that more and more, I hear people say (or read them write) that it's strange someone would belong to a religion that is so strict, or that damns them to hell. Like, if they're not Catholic, they couldn't suffer the same fate or that natural law, ethics and morals don't apply to them. If I don't believe in God or in His church, then I don't have to worry about all of those mean and imposing rules! Because, only those stupid Catholics will have to suffer for their sins. Strange, I tell you!
What further evidence do we need that liberalism is a psychological disorder?
The argument "Who would want to belong to a religion that damns you?" is quite amusing. Reminds me of why I became Catholic in the first place. It's like saying about Climate Change: "Why would you want to live on a planet that's heating up?"
Heck, some days I wish our religion wasn't true and some days I wish abortion wasn't a big issue. However, that little thing called reality eventually catches up with me and I finally remember that sin is sin, the sky is blue, water is wet, abortion is evil, etc, etc...
If you are a papist fan you will like our T-shirt
Check out lztees
Where in the world did she get the idea that the Church teaches that unrepentant pedophiles are going to heaven and can receive communion?
Or where does she get the idea that GOP policies result in MILLIONS of deaths? Not even Iraq and Afghanistan civilian deaths total 1 million - even IF we include all the people killed BY THE OTHER SIDE.
Millions of Americans aren't dying domestically due to GOP policies either. AND finally, since when is the Iraq war "unjust"? We're not the unjust aggressors over there and the terrorists who intentionally blow up civilians....oh, I get it...because they "merely" kill innocents that makes them the moral equivalent of abortionists, which the DNC assures us are "necessary" ergo, morally acceptible. Unlike the big bad US military. Liberalism goes insane trying to justify abortion.
Universal healthcare is a joke. Ask the good folks in countries that have it, like Great Britain. We'd be far better off it government were out of healthcare business altogether. It's their onerous rules, mandates, and protectionist and tax policies which have driven the cost of healthcare through the roof. With universal healthcare, we'd be going from bad to worse. That's why bishops should stay the hell out of issues they know nothing about. They just embarrass themselves and the Church in the process. By the way, in terms of the picture, I agree it's unfair to use Pope Benedict, a firm and inveterate foe of clerical sexual abuse. Mahony would have been a fairer target, but since he's a liberal the cartoonist would never used his likeness. Tom
Have the bishops as a body ever denounced the a National Catholic Reporter?
That rag [and its magazine cousin, US Catholic] have been publishing heresy and dissent as "Catholic" for years.
"And here, I thought all the folks telling me I didn't have to vote my faith were doing so on the premise that voting is not a religious issue."
Who told you that? People should draw on their faith in making the discernment as to how they vote. But it is an individual discernment and matter of personal prudential judgment.
And for those who say it is not, I ask why the silence when Senator Rick Santorum or Rep. Henry Hyde and many others did not vote pro-life?
I remember when we were complaining on another combox about Kerry and a certain brassbound ideologue asked,"What about Schwarzenegger?" We didn't hear anything from her again when most replied he was an unacceptable candidate as well. Also, see the now mostly and thankfully unneeded Catholics Against Rudy campaign. Santorum and Hyde are simply just on not many people's radar. Neither is Dem Debbie Stabinowski. Maybe they should be, but we only have eight arms. :) My point being, show me a pro-abortionist, be he Republican or Democrat and I'll be glad to add them to the to-do list.
"Santorum and Hyde are simply just on not many people's radar. Neither is Dem Debbie Stabinowski. Maybe they should be, but we only have eight arms. :) My point being, show me a pro-abortionist, be he Republican or Democrat and I'll be glad to add them to the to-do list.
Scott W"
Well, let's add John McCain to the list, George W. Bush, and a bunch of others.
Well, let's add John McCain to the list There is certainly an issue with him on embryonic stem-cell research I'll grant. George Bush isn't running for anything anymore, so no point in barking at him unless some abortion legislation comes up that he gets wussy about.
Also, I think there is a difference between a formal supporter of abortion like Obama and McCain who isn't but needs to get consistent.
katherine,
When did Santorum and Hyde vote against a pro-life measure or vote for a pro-choice measure? I'm honestly curious. My naive impression is that both were among the most consistent pro-life legislators.
Now if your point is that both at various times supported candidates who were pro-choice and failed to support candidates who were pro-life, then I agree with your implicit but primary point, which I assume is that it can be morally permissible to vote for pro-choice candidates even when there are pro-life alternatives. Such decisions are prudential in nature, and informed people of good will can in good faith reach different conclusions. That said, in the vast majority of cases involving Catholics I know who vote for pro-choice candidates, when movitations are scrubbed, the gravity they attach to the horror of abortion is appallingly inadequate, even in the abstract. Somewhere south of increasing the minimum wage.
I tihnk the last comment in Feuerherd's article is very telling, and also sad
You don't get the minimum wage if you're aborted. Tom
To John and Andrew who posted on the Feministe blog after I got too weary of all the venom and logic-dodging: a hearty thanks! God bless you.
"katherine,
Now if your point is that both at various times supported candidates who were pro-choice and failed to support candidates who were pro-life, then I agree with your implicit but primary point, which I assume is that it can be morally permissible to vote for pro-choice candidates even when there are pro-life alternatives. Such decisions are prudential in nature, and informed people of good will can in good faith reach different conclusions. That said, in the vast majority of cases involving Catholics I know who vote for pro-choice candidates, when movitations are scrubbed, the gravity they attach to the horror of abortion is appallingly inadequate, even in the abstract.
Mike Petrik "
Mike, I am overwhelmed with joy that brothers and sisters in Christ can come to common understandings trough dialogue. Sentence one and sentence two is exactly what I was looking for and you phrase it in a very sound and articulate way. Sentence three, I deeply appreciate that you are Christian, wise and charitable enough to qualify your observation twice to include 1) people you know rather than strangers, and 2) only with those you know intimately enough to know their motivations.
Sleeping Beastly, John and Andrew,
You made a valiant effort over at Feministe. Perhaps I shouldn't have read all of that before bed, I am very upset. You were all extremely charitable and defended the faith very well. It made me so sad to read those men's and women's angry, spewing hateful posts. We should remember to pray for them. All of those who support abortion and have fallen away from or have not yet found the church need our prayers desperately. What has happened in our society? I, for one, just cannot imagine that things could get much worse! It is tempting to wish that God would just come back already and straighten everyone out (myself included)!
I ask why the silence when Senator Rick Santorum or Rep. Henry Hyde and many others did not vote pro-life?
I'm a Pennsylvanian and the only time I know of that Senator Santorum did anything that could be considered "not voting pro-life" would be supporting incumbent Senator Arlen Specter over former Representative Pat Toomey in the 2004 Republican primary. This, along with a poor campaign strategy, cost him the 2006 Senatorial election.
Brendon --
Are you saying that was only a political mistake and not a moral one?
I'll let Brendon answer for himself, of course, but my view is that Santorum committed no moral wrong in supporting Specter, but he probably did miscalulate politically. Santorum was in a tough spot. While he disagreed with Specter on abortion, they were on friendly terms generally and Specter was Santorum's senior PA senator. For a US Senator to publicly oppose his colleague from the same state and party would be virtually unprecedented, and certainly would have ended what had been a healthy working relationship; and if Specter survived, and most experts correctly thought he would, he would have worked to isolate Santorum in the Senate. In other words, Santorum would be banking on Specter's defeat. Santorum calculated correctly on this score. Only the most naive believe that Santorum's endorsement of Toomey would have tipped the scale and caused Specter's defeat. Santorum's miscalulation was that he underestimated the anger from the pro-life crowd who abandoned him with relish as spite for what they saw as a cynical betrayal. These folks basically joined hands with the pro-choicers -- who hated Santorum more than any other politician in the entire nation -- in orchestrating the defeat of the nation's most pro-life Senator. They let the perfect become the mortal enemy of the good. This, along with the general political climate (PA voters were getting tired of Bush and his supporters largely because of Iraq) is what caused Santorum's defeat in my view. Interestingly, at the same time that many pro-life advocates were lobbying hard to convince Santorum to stab Specter in favor of Toomey, Santorum and Specter were co-sponsoring legislation to require the NIH to research methods of creating embryonic stem cells without destroying embryos.
Thank you, Mike. I may not concur with every item in your post, but it is clearly an informed and thoughtful statement. And it would therefore seem that faithful Catholics other than Santorum are at liberty to use the same or similar factors and considerations when discerning their votes and political actions.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
