AmericanPapist Comments
Cardinal O'Malley just made it harder for the Democrat "Catholic" apologists to push their usual spin. Good for you, Eminence. I hope Teddy Kennedy and his chivas are both shaking. Tom
Lori is getting his cue-cards from Hillary Clinton.
Does government have any more important function than the protection of innocent human life?
Any politician who lacks a serious interest in discharging that obligation ought not to be considered for public office.
There are other things that are important, such as reducing the deficit, or saving social security, or expanding economic opportunity for the poor, or improving the quality of our roads, etc., etc.
But if you elect someone who will make sure that the trade deficit doesn't get out of whack, or that the potholes get filled in, but doesn't give a hoot about whether innocent human beings are protected . . . well, it seems to me that the priorities just aren't right.
In my estimation there's not a lot of room for nuance if one is being completely honest.
brassband says it better. again.
Cardinal Sean is obviously trying to nudge the MA Democratic party a bit here. Truth be told, the MA Republican party has been as much of a problem--Weld, Celucci, Swift, Romney all ran or served as "pro-choice" governors. In the 1994 senatorial election when Mitt ran against Ted Kennedy, Catholic voters had to either vote for a pro-choice candidate (Romney actually ran as more pro-choice and more pro-gay than Kennedy) or abstain.
The Cardinal's singling out of the Democratic party seems disingenuous and unnecessarily partisan, except that he is playing politics here. That's not usually a wise move for a prelate, but we'll see how it plays out.
Of course, the classic example of what the bishops are describing here: Would a Catholic feel compelled to vote for "Pro-Life" but racist, antisemitic, unfit David Duke over a "Pro-Choice" alternative? I think any rational person would agree that in a case like this, a candidate's position on abortion does not trump other stances.
OK, so does this now explain the confused and erroneous decision to approve "Plan B" by the Connecticut bishops?
Peador99, I get it. You're a Democrat and so you are an apologist for that party even though its party platform is intrinsically evil, i.e. abortion. Taking your argument to its logical extreme , if everyone aborts then we don't have to worry about racism, anti-semitism, poverty or anything else. However, with regard to anti-semitism, that is a sickness which currently afflicts the far left of the Abortion Party (Dem) rather than the Republican Party. Bottom line, the bishops have given a pass to the Dems since Cardinal Bernadin came up with his disengenous "seamless garment" nonsense. It's about time a bishop actually called the Dem Party to task. He might even be guilty of saving some lives (and souls). Tom
Thomas - did you see the scandal the NY Times created with it's headline on the 15th? I've got a post up on my blog, with additional, similar links. It's utterly irresponsible reporting.
Catholic Bishops Offer Voting Guide, Allowing Some Flexibility on Issue of Abortion
OOPS! Link was in error. Here is the correct link.
Here is corrected link for the above issue on the NY Times article.
The New York Slimes (also intrinsically evil) will do everything it can to keep the pro-abortion, pro-stem cell research, and pro-gay marriage party in power. Tom
Lori is a big disappointment. I hope he doesn't advance beyond Bridgeport. Between the whole Plan B thing and this, I'd shudder to think how bad it would be if he were a bigger player.
I must have a different interpretation of Lori's statement. Even Archbishop Chaput asks, "What is a ‘proportionate reason’ [to vote for a pro-choice candidate]? That’s part of Catholic theology, those are the facts. We can’t just dismiss that. But, what does that mean? I wish we could flesh that out better with some examples, and some clearer guidance." I'm taking Bishop Lori to mean that yes, there is the possibility that you can vote for a pro-choice candidate, but you have to jump through a lot of hoops to reach that conclusion. "The main point of the statement," Lori said, "is that you can't easily reach that conclusion." Yet he and Archbishop Chaput concede that the possibility of concluding to vote for a pro-choice candidate exists. I take "I think the more who go through those hoops, the better off we're going to be" to mean that many of those who try to go through the hopes to justify their pro-choice vote aren't going to make it. That's my take on Lori's comments. They strike me as a decent attempt to explain what "Faithful Citizenship" says.
I think what this means is, what happens if the choice is between Rudy and Hillary for President?
Both are pro-abortion but one is clearly worst than the other. The moral dilema was already thought through in Evangelium Vitae and the answer is - since not voting would allow the worst of the two to win, a Catholic may vote for the least of the two bad choices.
But if we were smart we'd form a single voting block and then push BOTH parties to the "center" or rather "up, heavenward" from the mire. But we're not smart because we've allowed ourselves to be brow beat into silence by weak shepherds and wolves in sheep's clothing telling us how "catholic" they are while living and voting for immorality.
Cardinal O'Malley took a brave stand that is very unpopular in Boston, and is not playing "partisan politics." Any political party that supports abortion as part of routine policy is unacceptable. Let's continue to pray for the good cardinal, and for a change of heart of all those of any political stripe who do not recognize abortion as a grave moral evil.
I suppose I am willing to be corrected, but it does not strike me as orthodox to say that the casting of a vote for one party or another is a sin. Voting is different than ruling. God and society give the ruling class certain privileges, and certain obligations. Therefore a ruler may be in an objective state of mortal sin for failing to oppose / advancing the cause of abortion. So John Kerry will go to hell unless he repents. (And aiding that ruler with the specific intent of advancing the cause of abortion would also put a person in an objective state of mortal sin. Ditto on NOW members.)
But none of that has anything to do with voting. On what principle could there be limits on voting? It seems to me that a Catholic may choose not to vote. It seems to me that a Catholic may, without sinning, forget to vote. It seems to me that a Catholic may enter a voting booth and close his eyes and stick out his hand and pull whatever level fortune dictates. Voters do not rule, and moral principles appplicable to the ruling class (e.g., just war theory) cannot be used to constrain voters.
As I said, I suppose I am willing to be corrected, but these claims that "it's a sin to vote for a Democrat" strike me as plainly heretical. They make a claim "the Church has always taught..." when in fact the Church teaches no such thing.
"scandal"? How about voting for a pro-abortion politician sends people to hell!
You people all make me ashamed to be Catholic and ashamed to know there are Americans like this running around with these idiotic opinions. It makes me sick to think anti-intellectual people like you are sitting next to me in the pews. The Catholic blogosphere is full of more troglodytes and reactionary wackos than even the worst evangelical Protestant ones. What a bunch of losers.
It seems to me that O'Malley is speaking in the genuine interest of the Democratic Party. In many cases one votes as one's father voted, and as one's father's father. "Gosh, guys, I would really like to keep voting for your party, but if you keep picking these mindless power-hungry imps, well, I'll have to see what the other side of the aisle has." Someone has to turn the screw on the Dem party, and who better than a bishop of Boston. Let's get Cardinal George on the wagon, too.
God, I love these power prelates!
Rose, allow me to concede to you the point that the Catholic whose comment preceded mine must be indeed anti-intellectual, as there was really no logical point made at all... as for reactionary... well, only one person is really reacting here. God bless!
Holy cow, Ed and Thomas Peters anto-intellectual? I have to wonder in what manner of doublespeak would such a definition of anti-intellectual be possible?
Rose, you're so judgmental. Don't you know that's the greatest sin one can commit in liberalville? I know, you vote for the Abortion Party (formerly the Democrat Party) so you are lashing out from a guilty conscience.
And I know, the minimum wage is in parri passu with abortion. Tom
Remember, TJM, that the GOP is just as complicit in abortion by not doing anything to end it as the Democrats (and I again reiterate that not all Democrats are abortionists as your rhetoric would like us to believe. See Cardinal O'Malley's statement) who promote choice. I once asked a priest why I couldn't vote for a pro-choice Democrat governor in my home state. I reasoned, "She hasn't done anything to promote it." And he responds, "But she hasn't done anything to stop it, either." In the 35 years Roe has been a law, Republicans have occupied the White House for 23. And in the 28 years since the GOP adopted the Right to Life platform, we've had 20 years of Republican presidency. I guess people are willing to accept lip service on the subject but not require actual action. I, on the other hand, expect more from elected officials. Inaction is a sin.
Nathan wrote: "Remember, TJM, that the GOP is just as complicit in abortion by not doing anything to end it as the Democrats..." Surely that's going a bit far, no?
Sign me, no friend the do-little-good Republicans, but even more disgusted by the do-plenty-evil Democrats.
The GOP may not have ended abortion . . . but I don't think it's fair to say that it has done "nothing."
Republican Presidents have consistently limited federal involvement in abortions by executive order.
The Republican Congress passed the partial birth abortion law that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court by a majority of Republican-appointed Justices (Roberts, C.J, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ.) in Gonzales v. Carhart.
Has the GOP done enough? Of course not, but they have accomplished quite a bit and you can be certain that the Democrats would do everything in their power to undo it all if given the chance.
I agree with both Ed and brassband, and I also gave credit to the partial birth-ban in a different post. I just believe that if the majority of Democrats are going to be condemned on this issue, and rightfully so, I don't think the Republicans should be extolled when they've occupied the White House for the overwhelming majority of the time since Roe v. Wade was handed down and it remains law and not a whole lot has changed. FOUR Republican-appointed justices (Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souther) upheld Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992. Way to help the cause. Ed probably has it right, though, in what he wrote above.
Quite frankly, I just take exception to the demonization of all Democrats as baby-killers. It's not true. Not in Congress, and not in the electorate at large. On the flipside, plenty of Republicans believe in choice. But again, like Ed said, taking your chances with the GOP in terms of life and hoping for the best is probably the best one can do. I just happen to question the reliability of Republicans.
Honestly, I think there are a lot of Democrats who are either pro-life or indifferent to the issue of abortion but who, nevertheless, have allowed the rabid pro-aborts to hijack their party . . . just as I believe that there are many pro-national security Democrats who have similarly allowed a hijacking by the "move-on-dot-org-DailyKos" crowd.
Why do these moderate Dems remain silent in the face of the extremists in their party?
Cowardice . . . and I go back to my earlier post; if you can't take a stand in favor of innocent human life, what business do you have in government?
None, so far as I'm concerned.
Nathan, there is a HUGE difference in a party advocating for abortion and a party which supports the pro-life position. Republicans have always promoted legislation to either end or curtial abortions only to have their efforts stymied by the Dem party which
either through various legislative devices (unfortunately legal under our representative form of government) or through the courts when they fail in the legislature, to maintain abortion. There is no moral equivalence here. And Cardinal Sean should be commended for pointing out the obvious. Tom
5 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
