AmericanPapist Comments
You just can't reason with Kmiec, but you know what, ObamaNation won...
To victor goes the spoils, however, the losers in all of this are the unborn, the special needs children, our Bill of Rights, our way of life, the See of Rome, etc.
We will now witness Mr. Infanticide himself, along with Mr. I am a Pope John XXIII Catholic take the oath of office on January 20th.
Congratulations Kmiec, thanks for goose stepping us into the nightware world of darkness & malevolence!!!
I don't know where you and the archbishop got the idea that Kmiec said they were friends. All he said was that they had a mutual friend - David M. O'Connell. That's different.
Anonymous -
No, he closes his letter with the following:
With respect and in gratitude for your past and I hope continuing friendship,
Doug
I hope Kmiec is included in the topic of discussion on what to do with pro-abortion politicians this November... for his sake. He clearly thinks he can bow to Mammon and God at the same time. He needs a fast, hard, and clear correction from the hierarchy before he leads other Catholics to follow his pipe playing down to the river.
Anonymous,
Oooohhh, busted. Wanna defend him some more?
He also said they shared the dinner table. This misleads one into thinking that they spent time outside of workin a cordial friendship. I'm not one having strangers over for dinner, how about you?
Shared a dinner table. I'm sure you've seen how long dinner tables can be at conferences or formal gatherings?
Also, I've been to a multitude of weddings in my life. Oftentimes I share a dinner table at the reception with people who I believe I would be quite presumptuous if I merely called them acquaintances, let alone friends.
That this guy is a lawyer is fitting. He could find the grey area in any situation.
"because you are lukewarm, I spit you out" Apocalypse
Hmm..."incessant need to argue against people while never actually responding to the substance of their counter-arguments" - where's Atheling?!
"I've read suicide notes that were less passive-aggressive than this."
Oh, snap.
OK, this is really long. Please pardon the breach of combox manners. This is the substance of a letter I recently sent out to some friends who were duped by Kmiec in spite of my best efforts.
"Once again, Kmiec is carefully deceptive about McCain's position on abortion (it is deceptive to say that "Senator McCain favors turning "the choice" back to the states", except in so far as he supports overturning Roe v. Wade. McCain, like most pro-lifers and like the great majority of American bishops, only favors that as a first step toward making abortion illegal throughout the country. The difference between McCain's goals and those of faithful Catholics is that McCain would like to make illegal all abortions except those resulting from rape and incest, or those endangering the mother's life. This is a world away from Obama's active and enthusiastic support of removing ALL restrictions of any kind from abortion, and of using our taxes to pay for abortions under Medicare. This is Kmiec's typical style of telling partial truths in ways that are prejudicial to his cause.
But to leave this aside, since McCain is no longer a real issue for us, I'm interested in what everyone thinks about his positive suggestion of a constitutional amendment that simultaneously defines human life as beginning at conception and explicitly outlaws any legislation on abortion except in the case of some sort of supermajority.
On his comments about Obama, yes, it is a wonderful thing that we have elected an African-American president. But it is just too tragic that in order to do it we had to trample even more on the fundamental human rights of the unborn by giving our hearty voice of approval to a radical supporter of abortion rights. And let me say that I am frankly disturbed by Kmiec's description of the coming together of pro-lifers and pro-choicers to vote for Obama. I absolutely do not think it is a virtue to respect the position of someone who wishes to dehumanize and refuse all rights to a whole class of human beings. I mean, honestly, has Kmiec forgotten what abortion IS? I do not respect the position of bigots of any kind, whether they think that African-Americans are only 2/3 human, or that homosexuals can be treated without human decency, or that the unborn have no right to life. Yet another reason why I trust Kmiec's intentions less and less every time I read something he has written.
And I have to say that, regardless of what I think of the amendment itself, I seriously doubt Obama would support anything like this unless it were framed in a way that would leave absolutely no room for any limitation on abortion ever. Time may prove me wrong, people do change, but in the past Obama has been notably unwilling to define when life begins -- e.g., his notorious "above my pay grade" comment. He has also shown himself to be extremely hostile even to moderate and broadly popular legislation that he sees as unnecessary and intended as a step tow
Part II. Sorry. I suck, but I wanted to see what people think.
"But to the amendment itself. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I think it is a terrible idea. Quite simply, it enshrines in our Constitution a right to unfettered abortion across the whole country. Indeed, this seems almost equivalent to FOCA, but even worse because it is in the Constitution, rather than a law that could be easily revoked by a future Congress. It would immediately invalidate all of the countless legal restrictions that have done so much to lower the abortion rates in this country. If this were not the case, there is really absolutely no way that Obama and the Democratic congress would even consider such an amendment. How can Kmiec possibly support such an amendment if eradicating abortion is really a priority for him? He hasn't given us much sense of his rationale or how this would fit in to a larger strategy and why such a strategy's short-term sacrifice of many lives in order to achieve some possible long-term gain might be morally licit. I certainly can't see how this could add up for him.
Come to think of it, this would be an enormous coup for the pro-abortion Democratic party, especially if there were an Obama SCOTUS appointee who would have had to pass through the Obama pro-abortion litmus test to even get nominated. Such an appointee would be sure to interpret this amendment with rigorous strictness and never allow any hazy 'penumbras' that might suggest that the fetus' humanity merits them any protection under the law. Under such an amendment, pro-lifers would never have a good reason to make abortion a priority in voting. Never again would the pro-abortion Democrats have to pander in even the very limited ways that they have to those who are opponents of abortion, since nobody could do anything about abortion through the law anyway. It would be fixed as a right in the constitution. Maybe I was wrong... maybe Obama would support something like this. You can be sure that the Catholic Church never would.
But what such an amendment actually would do is solidify Kmiec's pretty shaky position that there is no sense in trying to pursue legal limitations on abortion. In that sense, it would put Kmiec into a really good position for making the argument in the future that trying to place legal restrictions on abortion is a waste of time and energy. Such an amendment would actually make his currently untenable position unavoidable. Only if such an amendment passed would Kmiec's arguments be finally vindicated. Under such an amendment, Kmiec would finally be right! Under such an amendment the ONLY way that one could work to reduce abortions within this country in ways that faithful Catholics consider morally licit would be to support social programs to reduce poverty.
So, Kmiec's amendment sure would reduce the partisan friction over abortion. But as with all fundamental disputes like this, it would do it by giving final victory to one side. The side with
Part III. I am the suckiest. Mea Culpa, papists.
The side whose dehumanization of the unborn he has come to respect.
There is another insidious feature of the Kmiec Amendment. It would place in the constitution a fundamental principle that humanity does not of itself merit for one the right to life, or at least that no government has the authority to protect the lives of at least some humans from their mothers and their mothers' doctors. Can we please take a moment and reflect upon what such a principle, when applied to any number of other life questions? Is Kmiec unintelligent, or is he truly an Iago? I still cling to the hope that he is just making a major error of reason, and that he does not understand the real implications of what he is suggesting.
peace
Kmeic - SOPHIST
I agree with your last line...set Kmiec free! The guy is a footnote on the long list of people who history will show are on the wrong side of this issue.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama - despite his great achievements otherwise - will be at the top of that list: http://www.fallibleblogma.com/in...on-our-history/
Kmiec supporting Obama was relevant before the election because he was leading so many astray in their voting. Now that the votes have been cast, he's just another Catholic that doesn't get it.
Time to ignore him for awhile and get back to trying to talk some sense into those people who are actually open to hearing the truth.
Now that the votes have been cast, he's just another Catholic that doesn't get it.
The only reason I disagree with this statement is because Obama has surrounded himself with Catholics who oppose Church teaching. I'm trying to figure out why. I don't think Kmiec is done. I think he knows this and that is why he keeps on keepin' on. He's sees an opportunity that he doesn't want to miss. Am I the only one who thinks this way?
Here is my latest video on te topic of Obama's election: http://www.catholic.org/video/?v=1762
Eveyone needs to be thinking about the MARCH FOR LIFE - FOCA must be defeated.
The phenomenon of Doug Kmiec is striking indeed, but is not limited to him alone. He presents us with a paradigm for being pro-life and democrat at a time when our country seems overwhelmed by a "lesser of evils" mentality when it comes to electing public officials.
If you ask me, as far as catholics are concerned, I believe a great deal of the confusion was not created by characters like Kmiec, but by Bishops who implicitly (and in some cases explicitly) suggested that we somehow had to vote for John McCain because he was the lesser of the two evils in this election.
This took focus off of the critical issues in the election and in turn led to a proportionalist debate over which candidate was really more pro-death. This allowed democrats to effectively divide the catholic vote and conquer the white house, the senate, and the house.
Catholics have slowly succumbed to this "proportionalist" approach to voting, and it seems to me that the Bishops of the American Church are no different. It seems as if we have some kind of an image of a set of scales in which various social issues are placed. Which ever side seems to be the heaviest (cause the most destruction) we vote against.
more to follow...
Nothing could be more alien to Catholic moral teaching than this mentality. It is true, as the Bishops pointed out in Faithful Citizenship (citing JPII's, EV), that when there is no clear alternative, we must work to lessen the harm done by existing unjust laws, etc.
What the Bishops failed to do in that document, which allowed people like Kmiec to be so influential, was to identify whether or not we are living in such extraordinary circumstances. The fact of the issue is that both major candidates- Obama and McCain- do not respect basic principles of justice.
No one can honestly say that they voted for McCain because he is pro-life when you look at his support for the destruction of human embryos frozen in IVF clinics. His failure to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, along with his support of an unjust war, as well as his personal life (divorced and currently living in an adulterous) relationship should have easily discouraged anyone with a properly formed conscience to vote for him, or atleast be very wary of voting for him.
That Obama shows utter disregard for the most basic principles of justice is self-evident, but at least he is more or less honest about it and consistent, whereas McCain tried to disguise his inconsistencies throughout his campaign.
more to follow, as I have much to say...
The real issue that the Bishops failed to clarify is whether we are living in such extraordinary circumstances so as to warrant that a vote for someone like McCain was, in principle, morally acceptable.
If the answer to this question is yes, then America is no longer a democracy. We must admit that there are no alternatives, as we are now controlled by a two-party dictatorship, that with the support of the media, has effectively stifled all dissent and abandoned the basic principle of government that states that true governement governs with the consent of its people.
One the otherhand, if given the moral depravity exhibited by both candidates it was not morally licit to vote for either, then it is clear that the responsibility of catholic voters was to seek a third party candidate that respects basic principles of justice. Given the fact that Catholics make up the largest block of voters and play a decisive role in elections, it is unthinkable that the Bishops of the US would not have encouraged Catholic Americans to consider this alternative. If we are truly democratic, then this should have been the clear alternative.
But the fact that this was not at all encouraged by the Bishops of the US (especially considering there were at least two thoroughly pro-life platforms among the independents), betrays not only how deep-seated proportionalism has become among catholics in America, but it also betrays the uncritical assumption of a two-party dictatorship in U.S. politics.
Basically, what I am suggesting here is that if someone wants to argue that McCain really was the "lesser of two evils" and there really was no better alternative, then we must be prepared to accept the fact that the ideal of democratic elections is over in the U.S.
What would be interesting to study is how the Bishops in Germany handled the rise of people like Adolf Hitler in such distressed times as the 1930's. Did Pius XII take a "lesser of evils" approach? Did he side with communists to fight the fascists and vice versa?
These are definitely dark and uncertain times, but my confidence in the Bishops of the U.S. to guide us is greatly shaken, I must admit.
One last thought....
What baffles me the most about people who want to trash people like Kmiec, is that they are hard pressed to defend their own justification for voting for someone like John McCain. The very reasons they voted for McCain are the reasons cited by Kmiec in voting for Obama.
Kmiec's basic argument was that changing laws won't end the reality of abortion, as its problems are much deeper. He further argues that there is judicial no victory in sight anyway, and that turning the issue over to the states will only postpone the problem, just like Stephen Douglas's proposal to turn slavery over to the states didn't work so well. He seems willing to put off the legal battle over abortion in order to fight it on a social and grassroots level, as Senator Casey among others is doing.
We saw something similar in the civil rights movement, which featured both a series of legal battles (brown vs. board of ed) and also grassroots movements (MLK). Both were needed.
But the fact of the issue is that both sides are willing to compromise some principles of justice in favor of others, which is proportionalism 101 (see JPII's, Veritatis Splendor). How anyone can justify supporting this kind of reasoning at this point is beyond me.
I guess what I just don't understand is the "lesser of evils" approach. I'm just not seeing it, whether in defense of Obama or McCain.
Or maybe I just don't want to see it because of the implication. If I "had" to vote for someone like McCain, what does that really say about America? our values? our freedoms?
Very dark are these times...
Dear fellow Roman-Catholics:
The following target-point ---> previously posted, has been censored in several “Catholic” blogs (overly terrified of the plain truth?):
Please do evaluate:
"A surgical attendant in an abortion is automatically excommunicated and… the brains-leaders-law designers- (Biden, Pelosi, et all "Catholics") of the cold blooded murder... are not".
Now:
ARE NOT those EXCOMMUNICATIONS, to be faced urgently in the next USCCB, according to the Vatican (Abp. Burke)?
Is the famous TO BE OR NOT TO BE? The ACHILLES HEEL indeed.
Regards
Doug Kmiec= Fake Catholic. Let's forget him. Calling him a Catholic is like calling Hitler a Catholic. Tom
Kmiec has been invited as a guest lecturer at the archdiocesan seminary in Los Angeles on Tues, November 11. Details here.
Kmiec is the next McBrien.
TJM,
Why would you call Kmiec a "fake" catholic? Because he supports a pro-abortion politician?
But then again so do those who support John McCain, who advocates the destruction of human embryos frozen in IVF clinics for scientific research. Are catholics who support John McCain also to be called "fake" catholics on this account?
Part of the problem here, in addition to the variety of points that I raised above, is that the word "catholic" is almost meaningless in contemporary society- almost as meaningless and vague as the term pro-choice, as the polls conducted by Marist (sponsored by the KofC) showed.
Clayton,
Interesting to compare Fr. Frank Pavone, who supported John McCain (despite some questionable platforms) and someone like McBrien, who probably supported Obama. They both compromised and chose what they thought was the "lesser of evils" (assuming for a minute that McBrien did support Obama)- and yet we see where compromise gets us...
So who did you support mr. gadfly?
As the election wore down, I could only reconcile my conscience with Alan Keyes. He was the only one who seemed to take a principled approach to America's problem and was consistently pro-life.
What astonishes is me though how many people didn't bother to survey 3rd party candidates and simply assumed that there are only two parties to choose from in America. This seems to me to have all the earmarks of a dictatorship.
Can you imagine if 90% of catholics (and by extension, god-fearing Christians) voted for Alan Keyes?
The fact of the issue is that Catholics and Protestants in the U.S. have such an overwhelming voice in terms of sheer numbers that to suggest there were no other alternatives and that we had to choose between "lesser evils" seems to me to be nothing short of just an excuse to avoid taking true responsibility for this situation.
Again, why the bishops did not point these things out, given their tremendous influence, is beyond me.
Can you imagine if 90% of catholics (and by extension, god-fearing Christians) voted for Alan Keyes?
While I supported Keyes before the media locked him out of the political process (and I'd support him today), I think the answer to your question is: Yes, I can imagine that, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome. I fail to understand what "by extension" means. Are you saying that a majority of American Protestants, who still have a prejudice towards Catholicism, are going to vote for a Catholic candidate merely because 90% of Catholics are voting for him? The numbers speak differently. Obama was supported by the majority of Protestants. I doubt they sat down and reasoned out proportionality in their decision.
I'm not sure the a third party candidate is the answer. But maybe you're right. I talked about this today on my blog actually. http://tinyurl.com/6olksg
I really think we need better catholic, political leadership that will articulate a plan forward and a vision for catholics that spans more than a single election cycle. If we had a catholic leader that could put this into a perspective for catholics that included using the HUGE catholic influence in our country to SHAPE our political landscape instead of just be victims within it.
In other words, voting in a block on certain immediate priorities (like abortion) in order to bring about more options in future elections on some of these other catholic priorities and issues.
Joseph wrote..."I fail to understand what "by extension" means. Are you saying that a majority of American Protestants, who still have a prejudice towards Catholicism, are going to vote for a Catholic candidate merely because 90% of Catholics are voting for him?"
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if all christians voted according to their conscience, taking into consideration basic principles of justice, it would be clear that neither the republican or democratic candidates would have been acceptable decisions. Even if just 90% of christians did that, i think the victory would have been possible for someone like Keyes.
It is true that there remains a deep anti-catholic prejudice among many american protestants; but there is a great common ground here that can be exploited. I do not seriously think that good bible believing protestants would vote pro-choice just because an alternative candidate is catholic.
What was interesting about Keyes is that he is African American. So the supposition that most protestants voted for Obama would have been entirely offset if Alan Keyes were the Republican nominiee. What is signifcant is that most african-american protestants voted for Obama, while white protestants did not. The race question would have been divided and would have arguably gone in favor of Keyes given his strong christian tenor.
I would agree with Matt Warner that a 3rd party candidate isn't necessarily the solution because the issue isn't about party affiliation. The issue is about basic principles of justice, which certain third party candidates made a real priority.
Yet what makes this issue nebulous is the fact that "block issue voting" (with the proviso that we will work towards a greater plan of justice over the long term) implies that we must sacrfice some issues of justice for the sake of others. We must "choose our battles" so to speak, pitting one principle of justice against another.
Now Catholic moral teaching does make clear that principles, rather than circumstances, are to direct our moral choices, even though accountability is affected by circumstance. For that reason I would argue that despite the current circumstances, it does not seem to be morally licit to vote for either McCain or Obama. I speak on the authority of my own opinion here and do not condemn those who did vote in such a way, I just don't think that anyone who objects to voting for Obama on the pretext that he is pro-abortion can adequately justify a vote for McCain, given his record on certain issues. I don't beleive the proportionalist stance regarding the "lesser of evils" is consistent with Catholic moral teaching. But this would only lead to one conclusion: catholics should have voted for third party candidates in conformity with these teachings.
That is why I say that the solution at present seems to be in the third parties until republicans and democrats are able to somehow see the light about these issues. Since
Since we are free to vote for such candidates, I would suggeset that there is a responsibility to do so in light of the current situation.
What seems to be missing here is a clear statement by the bishops as to whether circumstances can justify voting for a candidate that repudiates basic principles like the right to life, and whether or not we are truly living in those circumstances.
Keep it up. Eventually you'll manage to exile all of the betrayers out of your party and ensure a long period of Democratic rule. For which I will thank you.
Xanthippas,
If you wish to rehabilitate the Republican party, that is your choice. However, for my part I won't side with a party that is superficially pro-life just to offset others that are overtly pro-death. To me that would be to yield to despair.
What is most odious though about your last post though, is the insinuation that because I voted with my conscience for a candidate that is thoroughly pro-life, I am somehow to blame for this election! Are you suggesting that I am morally responsible for Barak's ascension to the presidency and all the horrible consequences that that entails regarding abortion?? Was it morally wrong in this election to vote for someone thoroughly pro-life??
The fact of the issue is that there can be no compromise with these forces of evil. Just as Pius XII would not compromise the integrity of our Faith by siding with Communists against the Fascists, or by siding with Vichy Fascists against the German Fascists- I propose the same, as it does not seem like "collaboration" is a sensible approach with either party. Both parties see catholics as pawns and hold the values of our faith in relative disdain.
Unless either party is willing to respect principles of justice, I say we work and resist diligently by undermining the two-party system and breaking its quasi-dictatorial spell over americans- a difficult task, but a necessary one.
I think it is very striking that Benedict XVI is bringing Pius XII's life to the forefront over these past few weeks, as his tactics of resistance can give us a blueprint for dealing with the rise of totalitarian states by quietly refusing to cooperate with such regimes.
I'm saying that if all christians voted according to their conscience, taking into consideration basic principles of justice, it would be clear that neither the republican or democratic candidates would have been acceptable decisions. Even if just 90% of christians did that, i think the victory would have been possible for someone like Keyes.
This is nonsense. Protestants don't have a teaching authority other than their own interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures. Those that do find themselves submitting to an authority (usually one they agree with) will find it even more difficult to nail down a proper way to vote their conscience, for almost every mainstream branch of Protestantism, not to mention that of the thousands of fragments, already interpret the Scriptures in a way that makes abortion a grey area at best, and some even go so far as to endorse gay marriage. Not only that, there is no threat of salvation lost for voting for a pro-abortion candidate in Protestantism. There is nothing to lose.
It is different for Catholics, however. But your expectation that somehow Protestants are bound to use their conscience in the same way as Catholics or even understand that they should is ludicrous.
In fact, most "pro-life" Protestants that I know are really straight-ticket Republicans. They are cultural Republicans like most Catholics are cultural Democrats. Proportionality allowed Catholics to vote for McCain in opposition of the horrendous pro-abortion philosophy and practice of Obama, and the bishops even confirmed this, something that seems to be missing in your analysis (which I think is more of a way to defend Kmiec and other pro-Obama Catholics). Every Catholic that I know who voted for McCain were not voting for the GOP, rather for the only real opposition to Obama and his proposed policies. All of them recognized McCain as not being perfectly pro-life.
On the other hand, every Protestant I talked to that was voting for McCain were supporting him. In other words, they were praising his pro-life stance and that of Palin, even though they would not be considered pro-life in the Catholic sense (at least not completely). Why? Because their tradition itself allows them to form their own positions, to mold their own consciences. Palin said she's all for contraception, even though some contraceptives act as abortifacients (funny how Couric understood that link, isn't it? Isn't always the liberal media that is trying to convince us that there is no link?). Protestants don't recognize that link either. There are Protestants who cried when Reagan Jr. pleaded for ESCR at his father's funeral. No link to the killing of the innocent there either.
You're asking too much. You're thinking of an ideal world where Protestants come back to the Church wholesale. Until they do, they believe that they are free to interpret the Scriptures on these matters for themselves. They don't have the Churc
They don't have the Church to help form their consciences.
I do not seriously think that good bible believing protestants would vote pro-choice just because an alternative candidate is catholic.
Virtually the same amount of Protestants voted for Obama as Catholics, proportionately. It's because they weren't "bible-believing"? That's what my McCain supporting, Protestant family members would say. The Bible is a sacred book, but without the Church as the interpreter, how can anyone say that they are bible-believing. It's a contradiction. The Bible is not explicit on abortion or when life begins (that is the argument of all liberal clergy and laity of every denomination... and technically, they are correct). The Bible is also not explicit in regards to gay marriage. Nowhere does it say that gays cannot marry (same argument as above). So, in order to extract that from the Bible alone, one has to render to some sort of interpretation, almost always their own (or they borrow from the Church). Therefore, "bible believing" to a Protestant really means "those who interpret the bible like me". The Church does not require either of those sins to be explicit in the Sacred Scriptures to make that announcement.
The point? "Bible-believing" doesn't mean anything. It is an adjective invented to help stabilize, at least superficially, the crumbling foundation of Protestantism as a whole. A pro-Obama Protestant could turn around and say that a pro-McCain Protestant isn't "bible-believing" in the same way and, because of the nature of the term, their accusation would be valid.
Getting Protestants to unite and drop their contraceptives to follow a true pro-life candidate will be just as easy as getting liberal Catholics, like Kmiec, to.
Joseph,
Wow, hmmm...Where do I start? Unfortunately I think you may have missed the point of my comments. I was not suggesting that as a matter of practicality protestants need to convert and become catholic so that we can get everyone on the same boat politically!
I merely suggested a common ground that many protestants share with catholics, and basically all people of good will- that killing innocent human beings is wrong. That is why i think Keyes could sway, if given a proper audience, many protestants. In fact, one need not necessarily need the authority of the Church to point that out, as many protestants show.
You fail to take into consideration the fact that the reason why the split was so high among protestants was the "race" factor. My only point is that if Keyes was the republican nominee, the race issue would have been irrelevant. He would have undeniably captured a significant amount of the black vote, possibly winning the election.
That the protestants don't have the authority of the Church guiding them, unfortunately has nothing to do with the issue in question. The bible is clear that taking innocent human life is wrong; the bible is equally clear that the unborn are human beings- references to Mary being with child and the unborn John the Baptist leaping in the womb of Elizabeth are sufficient.
That gay marriage is unbiblical is evident enough when Jesus discusses marriage "from the beginning" in Matt. 19.
All that aside, there are some issues that are clear in the Bible and others that are not. These issues are clear enough. But all that aside, these issues can be sorted out objectively and honestly by those who use the natural light of reason. While sin can confuse and obfuscate various issues, it is not difficult to see the natural meaning of marriage nor that killing innocent human beings is wrong. Sin cannot snuff out the light of the natural law entirely.
The fact of the issue though is that too many people compromised. Too many people sought the lesser of two evils, and now we are divided against ourselves- "How can Satan drive out Satan? A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." All these things are the fruit of compromise.
I don't wish to get into disputes between Protestants and Catholics here, and besides that has nothing to do with the questions raised. But all that aside, thanks for the exchange!
You fail to take into consideration the fact that the reason why the split was so high among protestants was the "race" factor.
Of course race played a factor, especially in the black Protestant congregations. But the number of black Protestants only make up a fraction of the 50% of Protestants that voted for Obama, and one can't assume that every black Protestant voted for him. That leaves a sizeable non-black Protestant voting block that ticked Obama's name on the ballot.
My only point is that if Keyes was the republican nominee, the race issue would have been irrelevant. He would have undeniably captured a significant amount of the black vote, possibly winning the election.
Most Americans watch and depend on television too much. It is literally a permanent attachment to the back of their skulls as seen in The Matrix. Keyes was not and could not win the nomination this year because the media literally locked him out during the latter part of 2007 when the primary candidates started to debate. No one even knew that Keyes was running for office! Unless there is enormous financial support for Keyes and it is used to advertise heavily before the primary candidates begin to debate, the same thing will happen. Either that or all feeds for television will have to be sabatoged to free the minds of all Americans. Even then I picture them holding their television sets in tears as white noise pumps out of them.
One other thing, Republicans foolishly thought the same thing about the selection of McCain. Women and feminists would get what the wanted: a woman a heartbeat away from the Presidency. You saw how she was fed to the wolves and betrayed by the feminists... because she was too conservative, had a family, was anti-abortion, and wasn't educated at Harvard. The same media would somehow make Alan Keyes look like David Duke, guaranteed. Which goes back to my first suggestion, unplugging the nation from their honored guest at home: the television set.
That the protestants don't have the authority of the Church guiding them, unfortunately has nothing to do with the issue in question.
Yes, it does. And the fact that there is no eternal consequence to how they vote. This is the kingdom of earth, after all; not the Kingdom of Heaven (an argument I heard from a pro-Obama Protestant who failed to recognize that it matters what we do to others while we are here, even when it comes to voting).
The bible is clear that taking innocent human life is wrong; the bible is equally clear that the unborn are human beings- references to Mary being with child and the unborn John the Baptist leaping in the womb of Elizabeth are sufficient.
No, it's not sufficient. There is nothing specific that says life begins at conception. It also doesn't cover the first or second trimester as it can be and has been interpreted that both Jesus and St. John the Baptist were both in the fetal stage of development at the time. Therefore, there would be no explicit Scriptural objection to abortions before a certian period of development. If it were explicit, then there would be no argument and "bishop" Schori (Episcopalian) would not be able to lead her entire congregation down to the river with her pipe playing.
That gay marriage is unbiblical is evident enough when Jesus discusses marriage "from the beginning" in Matt. 19.
I says nowhere that men cannot marry men or women cannot marry women. It does say love your neighbor and we know that the practice of stoning homosexuals came to an end with the New Testament, thanks to Jesus. Jesus also prevented the Jews from stoning the prostitute and he ate with publicans and sinners, doesn't that show that he loved them regardless of their sins and he was not going to condemn them for it? (Sound familiar?)
Without a interpretive authority, the Scriptures can be interpreted in any which way but lose. If 30,000+ (or 11,000+ for conservative estimates) sects of Protestantism that do not share the same interpretation doesn't tell you that, then I don't know what will.
All that aside, there are some issues that are clear in the Bible and others that are not. These issues are clear enough.
If they were clear, there would have never been a Great Schism, nor a Protestant Reformation. In today's world, the mere fact that so many church-going Protestants voted for Obama, some even given a biblical mandate to, should tell you clearly that it is not clear (without the Magisterium, that is).
Wow those are long posts. I was just curious if you were trying to sneak in an Obama argument there. The way You have explained your position seems consistent enough for me.
The fact of the issue though is that too many people compromised. Too many people sought the lesser of two evils, and now we are divided against ourselves- "How can Satan drive out Satan? A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand." All these things are the fruit of compromise.
Canard -- this election came down to the following: a vote for FOCA, the lifting of the Mexico City ban, the lifting of the Hyde Amendment, the lifting on restrictions for public funding of ESCR, a movement for national gay marriage, and the expansion of hate crime laws that will erode the freedom of religion (Obama) vs. a man with imperfect pro-life views, especially in regards to ESCR (McCain). The lesser of two evils was absolutely clear. The choice was to try and plug the hole in the dike (vote for McCain) as a temporary fix, whip out the sledgehammer and pound at the crack to break the dike faster (Obama), or stand and watch others bash the dike with sledgehammers (third-party or abstention) to the detriment of the town below, while lobbing rotten eggs and tomatoes at both the group destroying the dike and the group trying to put in a temporary patch. The choice was obvious. It had nothing to do with voting for Satan to stand against Satan, it had everything to do with mitigating the damage that was about to be unleashed by the dike demolitionists.
I don't wish to get into disputes between Protestants and Catholics here, and besides that has nothing to do with the questions raised.
There can't be a dispute because, proportionately Catholics will have just as much blood on their hands as Protestants will. They both turned their backs on the Cross. My reason for bringing up the divisions between Catholics and Protestants was to shed some reality on whether such a great unity can take place between the Church and the myriad of Protestant sects. The theological differences are just too great between many of them. I'm not trying to get into a Protestant vs. Catholic dispute either.
Joseph writes..."The lesser of two evils was absolutely clear. The choice was to try and plug the hole in the dike (vote for McCain) as a temporary fix, whip out the sledgehammer and pound at the crack to break the dike faster (Obama), or stand and watch others bash the dike with sledgehammers (third-party or abstention) to the detriment of the town below, while lobbing rotten eggs and tomatoes at both the group destroying the dike and the group trying to put in a temporary patch. The choice was obvious."
I respond...Was it so obvious? So are you suggesting that to vote for someone completely pro-life (such as Alan Keyes) was immoral? How do you reconcile this position with the Bishops' document on Faithful Citizenship, which exhorts us to vote pro-life?
You are suggesting that for one to have voted for a pro-life candidate (among the third party candidates) is the equivalent of standing by and watching as immanent danger ensues- am I now morally culpable for whatever ensues during the Obama administration?
I would suggest a different analogy. Both Obama and McCain (Democrats and Republicans) are destroying the damn. The difference is that Obama and his cronies are using sledgehammers, but McCain and his cronies want to go at a slower pace by using picks and hammers. What is worse is that McCain and his republican cronies are telling us that they are trying to fix the damn when really they are not!
But my question is why anyone is trying to destroy the damn at all?? And that is why I voted for neither, as we need the protection that moral right offers, and being as neither of the two were offering that, I voted according to my conscience- not according to circumstance.
What seems questionable here is your "lesser of evils approach." I don't deny that McCain was the lesser of evils; what I deny is that I was somehow morally obliged to vote for McCain, which you seem to suggest was necessary in your analogy. Again, how are we to vote- according to conscience or according to circumstance?
God bless!
"Again, how are we to vote- according to conscience or according to circumstance?"
Yes.
I would suggest a different analogy. Both Obama and McCain (Democrats and Republicans) are destroying the damn. The difference is that Obama and his cronies are using sledgehammers, but McCain and his cronies want to go at a slower pace by using picks and hammers.
I'll accept that analogy. It still illustrates the lesser of two evils. Under McCain the town below would not have been flooded as quickly and we, the pro-lifers, would have been given time to come up with a better strategy (perhaps just four years). Under Obama, all of the ground we covered will be lost by July. The third portion of the analogy still stands. Voting third-party or opting out was no different than standing and watching, doing nothing to stop the two group or try and prevent the dike from bursting, while lobbing rotten eggs at both groups. How does that help this situation? It doesn't.
I was behind both Alan Keyes and Sam Brownback in the primaries. Keyes was eliminated early by the media, Brownback was much later. I was planning on abstaining in the presidential election until I learned of FOCA, the plans to repeal the Mexico City policy, the plans to publicly fund ESCR, and just how tight-knit Obama and the gay lobby was... at that point, the only logical thing to do was to stop him by whatever means possible. McCain, as much as I didn't want to vote for the guy (I had read some of his writings last year), was the only candidate that could have stopped him.
I repeat, it was impossible for Keyes to win. Now, I've shot down all of the other points made by you, one by one. I have no plans to repeat them. And the election has already happened. Those sanctimonious few who preached third-party/abstention and tried to convert Catholics who made the decision to vote for the only person, as defective as he was, that would stop the obvious clear and present danger to the unborn in Obama, were wrong. Those who voted for Obama were wrong. But let's move on.
We now have a man who have vowed to do Satan's will as president and we Catholics, at least, have to unite to do something about it.
Con't.
I'm not sure what we can do at this point. We need leadership from somebody. I think we need to start trying to create a Catholic Party and promote truly pro-life Catholics as the party heads... maybe? I don't think it's possible to convert the Democratic party, their foundation is abortion and gay "rights". It's possible that when the Republicans come back from their drawing board session they will realize that they need to address the pro-life issue head on. But, I don't think they'll change any of the other questionable parts of their platform. Nevertheless, if we plan to stay within the two party system, then the party that is most likely going to hear us is the Republican party (as much as it pains everyone to hear that). So, the two choices seem to be, push for a new Catholic party interested in all aspects of Catholic social teaching or try to heavily influence the Republican party. Whatever we do, we have to start now and not wait until the next Congressional elections. We also have to start organizing, throwing support and money behind such candidates as Jindahl, Keyes, and Brownback (or all of them to "flood the market"). But if you think that the Democratic party is going to change, you're wrong. If we could even get 50% pro-lifers in that party, it would not be for another 8-10 years. By that time, the murders of innocent children would have piled up.
So, forget about what could have been, should have been. We need to do something now. McCain is gone. I forgot about him as soon as he lost. You should forget about him too.
Joseph writes..."Keyes was eliminated early by the media, Brownback was much later."
Basically your premise here is that the media controls the election, and therefore, one is to choose between the lesser of evils among media darlings. I disagree; the people control the election, not the media.
Joseph goes on to state.."I repeat, it was impossible for Keyes to win."
I respond..."Nothing is impossible with God." It is impossible for someone like Keyes to win if we are brainwashed into thinking that there were only two real candidates for this election- those who receive the most press. But, as there were not only two candidates in reality, and we were asked by the Bishops to vote according to our conscience (guided by the light of true faith), there could be only one other alternative. Since, as far as I understand, the people of this country largely determine political elections, I assumed that in principle at least, Keyes, could have won- even if the odds were against him.
In order to argue as you have done, we must concede that the elections were not free, since they were dominated by the media. In which case we would be living in dictatorship. Now, while we are definitely moving in that direction, the fact is, we were still free to vote for other alternatives- which seems to place a responsibility upon us to do so, at least as long as this freedom lasts.
Joseph writes...Those sanctimonious few who preached third-party/abstention and tried to convert Catholics who made the decision to vote for the only person, as defective as he was, that would stop the obvious clear and present danger to the unborn in Obama, were wrong.
I respond...So again, i ask a question that you are clearly avoiding, was it "immoral" given the "clear and present danger" of an Obama presidency, to vote for a candidate who was completely pro-life? I'm not asking if it was "wrong"- I want to know if you are implicating those of us who voted pro-life (against both McCain and Obama) in the moral corruption that will ensue during his presidency?
If your answer to this question is, "no, it was not immoral", then obviously we had a moral obligation to vote for people like Keyes. On the otherhand, if your answer is "yes, it was immoral" then you are saying that in this circumstance it would have been a grave evil for someone to vote pro-life! You are further saying that voting pro-life (against both Obama and McCain) somehow makes us responsibile for the proliferation of abortion under the Obama presidency.
If your answer is yes, you are saying essentially that circumstances, rather than principles, ought to determine our choices in elections, which would seem to be the same sort of "situational ethics" condemned by JPII in Veritatis Splendor. We are called to act according to legitimate principles of justice, not to modify them according to circumstances, even when the situation "appears" to be impossible.
The fact that you will not make a clear statement on this shows me that you see the clear implications here.
So- do we vote according to conscience or circumstance? If conscience, then why not completely pro-life?
Peace...
Basically your premise here is that the media controls the election, and therefore, one is to choose between the lesser of evils among media darlings. I disagree; the people control the election, not the media.
No, my premise is based on reality. And if you've read any of my other comments you'd understand. The television is the most heralded piece in any American home. As was shown, when Keyes was blacklisted, no one even knew he was running. That is a matter of fact. You seem to be living in a dream world.
Same with Brownback. He failed to get any publicity during the primaries. You are once again dreaming if you think that the lack of media time didn't have an effect on his campaign. That's the way it is. I'm not going to repeat it again. What we have to do is fund the candidates we want to represent us. Otherwise, the same thing will continue to occur.
I respond...So again, i ask a question that you are clearly avoiding, was it "immoral" given the "clear and present danger" of an Obama presidency, to vote for a candidate who was completely pro-life? I'm not asking if it was "wrong"- I want to know if you are implicating those of us who voted pro-life (against both McCain and Obama) in the moral corruption that will ensue during his presidency?
That's a stupid question and it is a false dilemma, that's why I'm not answering it. If I agree with the bishops, then you already know my answer. But the sanctimony displayed by the "third-party/abstention" people, especially to those of us who voted for McCain by default, was not a figment of my imagination.
If your answer to this question is, "no, it was not immoral", then obviously we had a moral obligation to vote for people like Keyes.
No. That is not what the bishops have stated. You are making your own Church "rules" for voting, just like the Obamabots were making theirs. This is precisely the sanctimony I'm talking about. Your implication is that those who voted for McCain were going against their moral obligation. This simply is not what the leaders of the Church had stated repeatedly.
So- do we vote according to conscience or circumstance? If conscience, then why not completely pro-life?
The leaders of the Church have said that, in the case of the last election, we could do both. End of story. The worst case scenario for the unborn and for religious freedom was an Obama win. Voting for Keyes would not have prevented the worst case scenario.
Chris M.,
I just noticed your comment... beautifully done.
Joseph writes...That's a stupid question and it is a false dilemma, that's why I'm not answering it.
I respond...What is stupid is your inability to respond with candor. Calling a question stupid because you cannot answer it on account of your misguided assumptions about conscience and voting is just further evidence that you are way off here. Your line of reasoning reminds me of biblical fundamentalists!
Joseph again writes...No. That is not what the bishops have stated. You are making your own Church "rules" for voting, just like the Obamabots were making theirs.
Ummm. Not quite. The bishops urged us to vote pro-life, mindful of all the issues in question, and catholic moral teaching makes quite clear that circumstances do not determine the morality of our actions.
You ignore the reality that a vote for McCain "by default" is just a glorified way of saying that you applied situation ethics rather than objective moral principles, which as catholics we are not permitted to do (see Veritatis Splendor, as my hunch is that you haven't read this important document).
Joseph then writes...Your implication is that those who voted for McCain were going against their moral obligation.
I respond...If voting for someone who sanctions the killing of innocent human beings doesn't go against "moral obligation" I'm not quite sure what else does. McCain's record on the use of embryos frozen in IVF clinics was clear.
The fact of the issue is that the Bishops never publicly, to my knowledge, sanctioned a vote for McCain. They only said that where there are no alternatives, a vote for someone who is pro-abortion is licit provideed that that is not why we vote for them, and that we vote with a view to lessen the harm done by such injustices. This was nothing than a reformulation of what John Paul II declared in Evangelium Vitae.
However, in this election, there were other candidates, so that mandate doesn't seem to apply. You don't seem to get this point, because you think that if these candidates don't get media attention that gives us the license to just ignore them and utilize a proportionalist approach to the election.
But what amazes me is that you will not answer the question: did those who voted for Keyes do something immoral given the outcome?
The answer to this question makes all the difference in the world "my friend", and the fact you won't answer it proves my point, and I suppose that is the reason why you seem to be getting quite frustrated!
God bless!
Gadfly,
I've already destroyed your points. Our conversation is over.
Joseph also writes...The leaders of the Church have said that, in the case of the last election, we could do both.
I respond...Not quite; where do the bishops contend that we can vote strictly according to circumstance without any recourse to conscience? It is you who are now creating the false dilemma, in which one can choose to vote according to his conscience or on the otherhand, according to circumstance, pitting the two against each other in a superficial way, as if a person voting with their conscience ignores the circumstance and a person focusing on the circumstance is to ignore their conscience. Rubbish! This is utter nonsense. Circumstances affect our decisions, there is no question about that; they also impact our level of responsibility before the moral law.
But to ignore objective moral principles under the pretext of harsh circumstances is akin to saying that sometimes "we must do evil that good might come of it", which is absolutely abhorent from the standpoint of catholic moral teaching. Ironically, it is this same nauseating pretext that justifies horrors like abortion, euthanasia, and every other attack against life- "its just necessary in these circumstances."
The ends do not justify the means; both the means and the ends must be ordered to the good, even in seemingly impossible circumstances. Again we cannot fight Satan with Satan, we cannot fight one utilitarian ideology with another.
Peace...
Joseph,
As you wish my friend, though I wonder now who is really dreaming :-)
Commenting by HaloScan
