AmericanPapist Comments
70 yrs ago Catholics listened to the moral leadership of the Bishops.
Over the years, the Bishops abandoned much of this leadership. & now we see the fruit. When a Bishop actually does what he should, he is met with silence, if not outright opposition.
But, it is a positive sign when a bishop does exercise a little spine. Let's hope he follows up with stronger discipline if need be.
It is a shame, but the Catholic Bishops have lost their moral authority and "leverage" by both not policing the sex offenders in the Church AND by compromising with pro-abortion politicians and those who are "reaching out" to Islam, that criminal-terrorist movement.
Another one of the "fruits" of Vatican II. In 1964 the Church was so powerful in this Country that no Dem pol (or Republican pol for that matter) would have openly defied the Church on an important issue like this. But by not being decisive in 1974 when Roe came out, the Church weakened its hand considerably. Tom
TJM, are you blaming Vatican 2, or how VC2 was implemented? It makes a difference, you know, and it seems you are doing the former. Just wondering.
There is no silence from pro-life Democrats like myself, just a general policy of not speaking to the reactionary side of the Catholic blog world. The Republican Party has given the Commonwealth five governors since the Roe decision and everyone has been pro-abortion. Only the Democratic Party has given Massachusetts a pro-life governor. And in the Legislature, pro-life Democrats outnumber pro-life Republicans almost 4:1.
The best use of our time is talking to reasonable people. Let the unreasonable continue to hear "silence."
"I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."
I'm stunned that anyone could possibly be impressed with the Cardinal's utterly LAME remarks. The wishiwashiness of the above sentence would be more appropriate to a discussion of a completely inconsequential topic, in a conversation with someone with whom you had some stake in not disagreeing with, like a boss...
"I think that at times Starbucks coffee borders on being a little strong as far as I'm concerned."
Pathetic. Sorry to be harsh, but that sentence, when said in the context of Catholics' supporting politicians who vow to keep abortion legal, is absolutely pathetic.
Joanne, you need to modify your example for it to approach a fair analogy. "Little strong" in the context of coffee is not analogous to scandal in the context of matters of faith and morals.
If the MA democratic party machine is so pro-life how do pro-abort to the hilt senators keep getting elected from MA? That's the point - the national party is entirely bought and paid for by the abortion-pharma - lawyer complex, and won't make moves to shed that plank unless/until there is serious prospects of losing power on the nation scene. But that's not going to happen if the "pro-life" members of the party keep this to themselves.
As for the GOP - pro-lifers routinely have to fight and threaten to leave to keep the Rockefeller Republicans from drifting towards abortion. If the pro-life democrats did this we'd see some action.
Edward Peters, of course I was being a bit sarcastic. The documents of Vatican II themselves cannot be faulted but its implementation, on balance, has been an unmitigated disaster. I was in school during the Council but had the good fortune to be formed in the Faith before the lunatic fringe of the Church took over catechesis. From my perspective, almost as soon as the ink dried on the last Conciliar document, the Catholic Church in the US pretty much abandoned effective teaching of the Faith, instead opting to teach love, love, love. What some of these "teachers" failed to appreciate is that non-Catholics love, even atheists love. Of course to love one another is part of the Faith, but what makes the Catholic Faith unique is its sacramental system which provides grace, nurturing the soul to help us love God and each other more fully. Tom
Katherine, you sound close minded yourself. You cannot even admit the Democrat Party has to do some serious answering for its pro-death position (I know the minimum wage mitigates all that). Tom
TJM. Okay, but I worry because many DO fault VC2 itself in the same words you used. I always say, sarcasm does not work in comboxes, it's just to hard to spot in close cases, which is most of them. cheers, edp.
TJM, did you not see the facts that Katherine presented? Your Republican Party is really sticking to the party line in Massachusetts *rolls eyes*. Care to explain why your party is letting down the unborn there? Or that your party has appointed four pro-choice Supreme Court justices since 1975 (five, if you count Kennedy, but I don't--there's no doubt that you do, though). Remove your partisan blinders and realize that the Republicans are barely a step better in protecting the unborn. Of course, once a child is born, Republicans don't give a damn about it. It's not the GOP's job to care if newborns are in poverty or don't have health care. Who cares if the United States has the highest infant mortality rate in the industrialized world? Hey, we just have to help them get born and then leave these children to their own devices to have a healthy, dignified life, eh, TJM? The Church calls for the protection of human life and dignity from conception until natural death. Is there any evidence that Republicans follow that beyond the womb? Some pro-life agenda.
Nathan --
I don't know how far away you are from Massachusetts, but to criticize the Massachusetts Republican Party for abortions in Massachusetts suggests to me that you are pretty far away.
First, given Roe and its abominable prodigy, right now there is very little that a State can do to limit abortion within its borders.
Second, although Massachusetts has had a succession of Republican Governors, the Legislature is so dominated by Democrats there that Governors have very limited power to make much of a change, even if the State had the power to do so in the area of abortion.
On another point that you raise, you are repeating the common liberal-Democrat mantra that Republicans care about children from conception to birth, but after that abandon them to poverty. There is no evidence for this. There may be some debates about the best ways to deal with the issue of poverty, but I think it's a calumny to assert that folks who are pro-life don't care about poor kids.
Tom writes: "Katherine, you sound close minded yourself. You cannot even admit the Democrat Party"
I've check with the Board of Elections and the Federal Elections Commission. There is no such organization registered as the "Democrat Party" so I could not possibily admit anything about something that does not exist. And I am sure the issue is not a grammatical error from a learned person like you.
brassband writes: "you are repeating the common liberal-Democrat mantra that Republicans care about children from conception to birth, but after that abandon them to poverty. There is no evidence for this. There may be some debates about the best ways to deal with the issue of poverty..."
There may be some debates about the best ways to deal with the issue of abortion as well. And the Republican Party has shown little interest in saving unborn life if it means the rich might have to pay an extra nickel in taxes.
Katherine, your last sentence was sick, an infamy and is emblematic as to why discourse in this country has sunk very low. Tom
Brassband, I'm in Kansas, so I am rather far away from Massachusetts and a host of other liberal states, but I don't think I subscribe to your logic. If the hands of states are tied by Roe to do anything about abortion, are you saying it really shouldn't matter if we have pro-choice governors and legislatures in control of state capitols? I don't think you are, but your point comes across that way.
As for your other point, if Republican governors of MA and other liberal states are stymied by Democratic-controlled legislatures, then the pro-choice Catholic governor of my state is inconsequential because of the Republican-controlled legislature. So it really shouldn't weigh on a Catholic's conscience to vote for her since she really can't do anything about abortion?
As for the Democratic mantra of Republicans not caring about the poor, I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is true, most recent of which is the veto of SCHIP legislation. Also, the poor can't get cheap prescription medications, and of course, tax cuts that benefit only the wealthy. The list goes on, but there's no need to belabor the point. Now I want to emphasize that I'm not saying these points are more important than abortion, but the Church teaches these are items that still matter. So just as most Democrats can be charged with supporting choice, I think it's fair to say most Republicans can be charged with turning their backs on the poor.
Nathan, do you consider a 25 year old man a child? Or a family earning more than 300% over the poverty level? The Dems want to cover all of them in SCHIP. Also, you must not read much other than left-wing loon rags catering to folks with "BDS" (Bush Derangement Syndrone). The "rich" as you call them,if you care to read the Bipartisan Congressional Office of Budget and Accounting reports are actually paying more taxes as a result of the Bush tax cuts, allegedly designed to benefit them, whereas, many of the "poor" don't pay federal income taxes any longer. As a matter of fact, they receive "credits" for taxes they never paid. Moreover, the tax cuts, far from being a failure, have caused federal tax revenues to grow to unprecedented levels. Once again proving that supply side economics works, at least for the federal treasury. It's the spending side which continues to be out of control which the Dems, now that they are in charge, are showing their true colors. Get a grip on economics and then let's talk. I'm weary of "economic feelings" from the left, fueled by that anti-Catholic publication, the New York Slimes. Tom
You're blaming Democrats for the out-of-control spending?? Just when I thought I've heard it all...How many spending bills has Bush vetoed in seven years?? Two. That's it. Senator Ted Stevens loves your support for pork-barrel spending. And how much money has he begged Congress for to conduct his venture in Iraq (a venture I supported until I realized how horribly planned it was)? Hundreds of billions. Let's not fix Social Security or improve our woeful education system or give health care for all. Bruce Bartlett is a conservative economist who authored "Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy." A fascinating read. Even George Will, a conservative whose columns I always read in both Newsweek and the Washington Post, blasts Bush's fiscal policies. You really don't believe 25-year-olds should have health insurance? Not everyone in this country was born with a silverspoon in hand. A beginning teacher in Kansas makes about 150-200% above the poverty line. $27,500 doesn't get you very far. If you would like to see the math I conducted, I would be happy to post it for you.
And as a final note, where do you get your unbiased news? I'm all for that, so if there's an alternative to the New York Times and Washington Post that puts no slant on the news, I'm all ears. I'm not being sarcastic, either. I've tried the Washington Times and Wall Street Journal, but they push the right-wing agenda, so I'd love something unbiased in its reporting. Thanks!
Nathan,
Nicely done!
If the Democratic is the party of death, then the Republican party is a close second at being the party of destruction.
Nathan, is a 25 year old a child? Simple question. That's how the Dems are marketing this program, it's "for the children." The figures I quoted were from the Office of Budget and Management, not a "newspaper." Although Republicans spent money like drunken sailors the last several years they were in control, your party of death members promised to be "fiscally" responsible yet have already proposed spending bills that make the Republicans look like pikers. But since the media is happy the party of death being back in power they are curiously unconcerned with run away spending now. In terms of the Washington Times, are you suggesting they are pro-life? Aren't Catholics pro-life? I know the New York Slimes is pro-death (only for innocent unborns, coldblooded killers are granted a pass by the Slimes). So I guess being pro-life makes you right-wing. I'd be proud then to be part of the right-wing, instead of the pro-death left-wing.
Katerina, congratulations on taking responsiblity and acknowledging that you are an adherent of the party of death. You must be very proud of that.
Tom
Tom,
Hahaha. Funny. I can't even vote and won't be able to vote next year either. I called the Democratic party the party of death, which is true and I'm sure makes you happy, but for some reason it hits a nerve when we call things by their name: the Republican party as the "party of destruction." Let's not reward the mediocrity of the Republicans in matters of life, please.
Katerina, that's good news you can't vote. That means one less vote for the party of death.
With the party of death back in power in the White House just think how proud you will be that:
1) Bush's pro-life decision to ban the federal funding of abortion will be reversed;
2) Bush's pro-life decision not to provide federal funding of stem cell research (notwithstanding the announcement of today) will be reversed; and
3) Bush's judicial appointments of strict constructionist judges like Roberts and Alito will be reversed and the next supreme court judge (the necessary swing vote to consign Roe v Wade to the ashbin of history)will instead be appointed by a pro-abortion, president.
So if Bush did not accomplish everything he wanted in terms of his pro-life agenda, he certainly has been far better than his potential replacement, assuming it's a Dem.
Have a nice day!
Tom
Why are you saying I'm part of the "pro-death" political party? Where have I said I'm a Democrat? Where have I said I support a woman's right to choose? I'm just rational and objective enough to realize that the Republican Party leaves PLENTY to be desired in terms of assisting people who are in need. I support Catholic teachings. You only seem to support one element of Catholic teachings, which is good. It's certainly a teaching our bishops say is supreme. But your callousness to those who are outside the womb suggests to me that you're a "Cafeteria Catholic" who's no better than Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. Now I really don't want a reasonable discussion to devolve into personal attacks, so I'll no longer make presuppositions about you, and I'll politely request that you stop referring to me as a member of the "party of death." I'm from Kansas. Everyone here's a Republican. I just think the GOP needs just as serious a reformation as the Democrats do to adhere to Church teachings. I'm sure you have seen that I've been critical of Democrats regarding abortion, so if criticizing the Republicans because they also espouse anti-Catholic policies makes me a baby-killer, well, I can only hope that people who read this can see through your rhetoric.
As for 25-year-olds not being children. I frankly don't care how old a person is. If a person can't afford private health insurance, the government should help them out. It's that simple. I don't think I've ever heard our bishops say, "Well, we should only help those in need only if its fiscally prudent to do so." Unless I wasn't paying close attention.
Nathan, you've allayed my fears. Now let's move on. I assure you that I am not a cafeteria Catholic like fake Catholics Teddy and Little Nan who should have been excommunicated long ago.
I would suggest that many Catholics have been gulled into believing a lot of nonsense about Republicans vis-a-vis Catholic social teaching. I think Catholic social teaching has been used and abused for years, and particularly, it has been used cynically by the Democrat Party to justify the creation of a "Nanny State" which has nothing to do with helping people just the aggrandizement of their political power. For every program they create to "help" the people, they create a bureacracy beholden to them. And the taxes such as gasoline taxes, cigarette taxes, etc that the "poor" pay are crushing them because of a government with too many mandates. If our government were reduced to its traditional and essential role of defending America and its shores there would be plenty of money for the folks to buy, for example, their own health insurance, housing, groceries,etc. I shudder to think where we would be as a nation today if our forefathers (and mothers) were as needy and dependent as the Democrat Party would have them become. I suggest we either wouldn't be here or would still be adhering to the Queen.
Although Social Security, Medicare, etc. all sound nice in principle, and were well intended (particularly in the context of the times), they have, in effect, killed incentive on the part of many individuals who have become wards of the state rather than citizens in full measure. Kind of like always having a mommy and daddy. I think Republicans actually seek to empower people (private social security accounts), to have them grow up and take care of themselves instead of keeping them crippled and dependent on government. You know, truly enjoy freedom. For example,
think of your children. If you want to keep them dependent and deprive them of their dignity, you keep giving them money and comfort and demand nothing in return, like work. On the other hand, if you teach them, encourage them, and force them to grow up, you break the cycle of dependency and foster true growth. I don't think Catholic social teaching is intended to keep people as dependents but rather to provide a level playing field to attain success. I think the Republican party is more committed to that goal and vision than the Democrats.
One simple example: Social Security. Franklin D. Roosevelt created this at a time when it was most needed. He even spoke that eventually it should be turned into a privatized system of annuities rather than a government handout (which for most recipients it is). The New York Times always forgets to mention this fact about Roosevelt when hammering Republicans on Social Security. I wish I could tell you the name of the county, but about 30 years ago in Texas, a county government opted out of Social Security and instead, like many foreign countries, and
Nathan, I was cut off.
"allowed their people to put the money otherwise earmarked for Social Security in 5 or 6 private stock and bond funds (like our "congress critters" have but don't want the "people" to have). Well lo and behold. The lowest income recipients who would receive a $12,000 stipend from Social Security are receiving $36,000 in annual income. And better yet, the balance goes to their heirs and not the feds. The folks earning on the higher end who would receive a $21,000 stipend from Social Security instead receive $75,000 in annual income. Now which program do you think provides more financial security, dignity, and freedom?
Unfortunately, the Dems have not had a new idea since the night Bobby Kennedy died (other than the great idea of the party being for abortion on demand). If Bobby were alive today, I'm pretty certain he would be a Republican or something other than a Democrat. In contrast to his brother,Jack, Bobby was a practicing Catholic with 12 children and a wife, Ethel, who enraged an audience on the campaign trail in 1968 when she spoke about the evils of contraception.
Have a nice Thanksgiving, Nathan. Tom
Tom writes "...:do you consider a 25 year old man a child? Or a family earning more than 300% over the poverty level? The Dems want to cover all of them in SCHIP"
Tom, try to get your basic facts right. Currently under SCHIP there are a small number of adults, mostly disabled people, who are covered. The decision was made to remove them from this program. The Democrats have agreed to this, the question is how quickly to do it.
The bill covers the children of Americans up to 200% of the poverty level who otherwise would not have health insurance. The Democratic bill also covers women and their unborn child.
And Tom, I stand by my comment about the GOP and pro-life.
You have a happy Thanksgiving, too, Tom!
Katherine you need to get your facts straight. The Dems were pushing to revise and expand SCHIP to convert it from a program to cover the disadvantaged in our society to cover 25 years (healthy ones) and families who earn over the 300% poverty level until their hands were caught in the cookie jar. I stand by my comments about Dems - they are the party of death. You must like that kind of company. Have a nice day, Tom
Tom --
I consider it progress that you admit that some people without economic resources are disadvantaged.
Commenting by HaloScan
