AmericanPapist Comments
"strongly implied in 2004 that voting for a pro-choice candidate was a serious sin"
Interesting that Senator McCain and his "wife" met with the Archbishop. Do you think the Archbishop called McCain to task for his practice of the above mentioned sin?
McCain is in an irregular marriage?
The best argument against McCain is that he supports ESCR. But instead we get limp complaints about his marriage history. What gives?
Katherine has a thing about McCain's marriage. She talks about it on her blog "CAtholics for Obama" on a regular basis. She conveniently overlooks Obama's consistent support for Planned Parenthood/abortion, however.
Re McCain's marriage: if memory based on public reports serves, his first wife was divorced when she wed McCain; that would, in general make her incapable of marrying McCain. When McCain married his current, she was single, as in not divorced, no? If so, a case can be made that both were free to marry at the time, with both entering what would be a first marriage, no? So....
Excellent point, Ed.
nice to learn that multiple wives and acts of adultery get you off on the "sin of supporting a pro-life candidate"
Not quite sure I see the virtue in all of this.
... so Obama's willingness to accept the murder of innocents is mitigated by McCain's philandering? is that seriously your argument? Can't we both agree that Obama is wrong, and then talk about McCain separately?
Katherine,
Were you this smug and did you write anything condemning Bill Clinton's extra-marital activities?
nice to learn that multiple wives and acts of adultery get you off on the "sin of supporting a pro-life candidate"
I'm not voting for McCain, so no need to put me in a little ideological box. But McCain is not running on a platform of divorce and adultery. He is however in favor of embryonic stem-cell research. It's a crushing argument against him and as far as I know, you've never mentioned it. Why not?
Scott W., fyi I've heard that McCain is holding talks with those who oppose ESCR. Right now he supports the status quo that allows continuing research on existing stem cell lines, but would not authorize more to be created.
have you heard anything to the contrary?
For those who care, my boy's book is published August 12 and can be pre-ordered at Amazon.
As an aside, as much as I like Archbishop Dolan, I don't think the Pope could do much better than to replace Cardinal Egan with Archbishop Chaput. And, as I'm always keen to point out, he's a fellow Kansas boy. :)
You want to talk about 'crushing arguments'? How about the fact that voting for Obama is an absolutely sure vote for the Freedom of Choice Act which Obama himself says he will pass first thing. This act will overturn any and all state laws which place ANY limits on abortion at all. Let us not forget that Obama could not bring himself to say a full term child is a person -- we know this from his own words when he could not support saving the lives of newly born infants who by some miracle survived an abortion. He is in favor of killing them. Katherine, honestly -- your smugness about being a 'Catholic' for Obama is nauseating. If this man wins people like you will have to live with this -- as will the rest of us, to our detriment. (Alas, not the pre-born however.)Shame on you.
It's going to be a great day in America when Obama wins in November. People who actually think McCain has a shot at winning are delusional. Holding meetings with bishops are not going to help him with the "Catholic vote"...he's already losing that battle as it is.
Kudos to Laura! ;-)
Can't we both agree that Obama is wrong, and then talk about McCain separately?
AmericanPapist
I've publicly, repeatedly and on a long-standing basis stated Senator Obama is wrong on abortion policy. YOUR post, AmericanPapist wrote of McCain. I responded about McCain. It was Kathy who decided we can not talk about McCain separately.
Were you this smug and did you write anything condemning Bill Clinton's extra-marital activities?
Sean
I called upon Clinton to resign. Thank you for asking.
Pardon me, Katherine,
when did I say we could not talk about McCain separately?? No matter...you still are not honest about Obama and the abortion issue. Look at the article on your blog from Newsweek about the infanticide issue. That article is a lie! And you perpetuate it.
Kathy is right, Katherine. I have asked you repeatedly to post a link for Jill Stanek in answer to that inane Newsweek story and, so far, you refuse to do it. Are you afraid the "CAtholics for Obama" will see the TRUTH of that infanticide charge?? You say that you oppose Obama's stand on abortion yet you publish stories like the Newsweek one. You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Pardon me, Katherine,
when did I say we could not talk about McCain separately??
Given that on a thread that exclusively had to do with McCain until your post and then which rather than returning to the topic of the OP you mention not only a matter not on this threasd but on another blog, yes, I think you have given a good indication that we can not talk about McCain.
O.K. Katherine, I was just on your blog and my reference to Jill Stanek is finally there. Interesting that it took you almost two days to post it. The most interesting part is that two SECONDS later there is a post from "Don" saying that Jill Stanek is a vampire or some such nonsense. Please.
Oo, sounds like a good book. Funny thing - we toyed with naming your talk for TOT with the "Render unto Caesar" title ;)
I think most of this discussion is very on-topic b/c the substance of Abp. Chaput's argument is that it is not legitimate to vote for a strongly pro-choice candidate, especially for President.
I agree, Thomas. Kind of hard NOT to address Obama/abortion within this context.
Archbishop Chaput doesn't totally rule out voting for a pro-choice candidate. He does, however, say that you better have a damn good reason for doing so, for he writes:
"So can a Catholic in good conscience support a 'pro-choice' candidate? The answer is: [i]I can't and I won't.[/i] But I do know some serious Catholics - people whom I admire - who will. I think their reasoning is mistaken. But at the very least they do sincerely struggle with the abortion issue, and it causes them real pain. And even more importantly: [i]They don't keep quiet about it;[/i] they don't give up their efforts to end permissive abortion; they keep lobbying their party and their elected representatives to change their pro-abortion views and protect the unborn. Catholics can support 'pro-choice' candidates if they support them despite - not because of - their 'pro-choice' views. But they also need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.
"What is a 'proportionate' reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It's the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life - which we most certainly will. If we're confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed."
Prior to writing this all of this, however, he clearly states: "The first principle of Christian social thought is: [i]Don't deliberately kill the innocent, and don't collude in allowing somebody else to do it.[/i]
Not that it probably matters to any of you, but Chaput volunteered for the McGovern and Carter campaigns back in the day. I'm sure if Obama would like to meet with the archbishop, Chaput would be more than happy to do so.
A Catholic would look at Politician A vs. Politician B and consider which one's stated positions and the crowd they hang with (and will appoint to federal positions) is more in tune with the faith and which one isn't.
From a Catholic perspective, a politician and friends who not only tolerates but positively promotes abortion as policy and preference is manifestly at odds with fundamental Catholic moral teaching. No amount of proposals to "help the poor" or "bring the troops home" can make up for a party plank and politicians' stated positions in favor of the intentional killing of the completely defenseless among us.
Put another way, ask yourselves: why is war bad? Why is the US invasion and occupation of Iraq "bad"? If it's OK for the completely innocent, completely defenseless among us to be slaughtered in abortion then what - other than taste - makes one so hot stomping eager to "end the war"?
As trite as it sounds, doesn't it really boil down to a knee jerk feeling that anything "military" is icky while anything to do with preserving and expanding the sexual revolution is either good or "not that bad"? So GOP = icky, DNC = hip, cool, exciting, wonderful, "hopeful change".
How could a Catholic in good conscience (as opposed to someone who FEELS like a "good" Catholic just because) vote for the Politician who positively supports and promotes abortion and infanticide(!)? If one is a ideologue first and a Catholic second it makes sense. But not the other way around.
Is this the same Archbishop Chaput who was quoted as saying that clergy sexual abuse victims are only in it for the money?? Yes, you certainly want him on your side. He'll certainly protect your children, only after the interests of the Church hierarchy and management are taken care of. I feel that his name should be "Kaput".....he should be "outta here"!
Is this the same Archbishop Chaput who was quoted as saying that clergy sexual abuse victims are only in it for the money?? Yes, you certainly want him on your side. He'll certainly protect your children, only after the interests of the Church hierarchy and management are taken care of. I feel that his name should be "Kaput".....he should be "outta here"!
again, non-linked claims like that one just don't register much with me.
You are right, Thomas, I am sure no such quote exists. The only thing that Michael could possibly be referring to is the archbishop's anger over school districts being spared the payouts of millions of dollars to victims of abuse perpetrated by school employees. The way I understand it school districts, at least in Colorado, are limited to the amounts for which they can be sued. This is for the exact same behaviors of which the priests have been accused. Archbishop Chaput felt that this was grossly unfair and made this known in the press. I believe he felt that, indeed, why would lawyers not just focus on suing the Catholic Church as they stood to make LOTS more money? I am positive he was talking about the LAWYERS NOT the VICTIMS.
Kathy it's because Michael Skiendzielewski is an apologist for the bomb terrorists.
Mike and Katherine are both going off on tangents with respect to CATHOLICS deciding whom to vote for.
McCain's marital status and the archbishop's media popularity have little to do with either McCain or Obmama's stated political positions and their parties' positions.
A Catholic deciding whom to vote for needs to consider what that vote will usher in: A President McCain or a President Obama and which man's stated policies will be more in line with the Church's moral teaching, period.
Which man is more likeable, smiles best, cuts the best impression, makes us FEEL good is besides the point. What they promise to actually DO is the point.
Whoever becomes POTUS in January 2009 will inherit a relatively stable and quiet Iraq, so "the troops are coming home" REGARDLESS. And yes, regardless of who wins, there WILL be some sort of continued US military presence in the Gulf including in Iraq. And increased troop presence in Afghanistan!
But one (Obama) has promised to sign FOCA and do all he can to promote and expand ABORTION both domestically and abroad while the other (McCain) has not.
That right there, for a Catholic, ought to be the end of the story; a vote for Obama is not excusable from a Catholic perspective given the circumstances of McCain; now if the GOP candidate was proposing nuclear war, re-instituting slavery, and called for genocide, I'll grant the theologians' quibble that the lesser of 2 evils would make a vote for Obama excusable. But McCain has not called for such intrinsic evils while Obama has in fact promised to further abortion - which is an intrinsic evil.
Amen, John.
Were you this smug and did you write anything condemning Bill Clinton's extra-marital activities?
Sean
I called upon Clinton to resign. Thank you for asking. Katherine
So you supported Bill Clinton despite his pro-abortion views but called for him to resign because he received a few "favors" in the Oval office. The death of millions of innocents on his watch, and the legacy continues by his supreme court appointees, yet you called for his resignation because of his extra-curricular activities. Hmmm
Well said, John.
"So you supported Bill Clinton despite..."
Sean, have we met before?
Anyway, if it is wrong to support a pro-choice candidate, how does John McCain explain himself for doing so?
An interesting argument, but McCain's fault does not justify your own, or mine.
Well said, Thomas.
Agreed. If it was McCain and "some other ideal candidate" who was pro-life 100% then I wouldn't even consider voting for McCain. But since the circumstance that we find ourselves in is NOT a hypothetical, but the very real: McCain or Obama, Republicans (RINOs and all) vs. Far-Left of Hillary Democrats, our moral decision making has to be made accordingly.
In the big picture the choice "isn't personal" that is, it doesn't matter how nice or wonderful the candidate makes us feel or how wonderful he personally is. What matters is his stated policies and the people he surrounds himself with who will effect those policy preferences.
Because it isn't their marital status that will have the greatest impact on the Republic and world, it's their appointees, policies, executive orders, budget priorities, promoted legislation and bureaucratic regulations.
For all his warts, McCain - not my first choice by any means, will be far more humane and far less harmful to Catholicism than Obama and his cronies will be - if we have THEIR OWN WORDS and past statements to go on.
McCain - not my first choice by any means, will be far more humane and far less harmful to Catholicism than Obama
well, I would respectfully disagree. But thank you for offering your opinion.
well, I would respectfully disagree. But thank you for offering your opinion.
Perhaps you would share your opinion on exactly where and how Obamas vision is good for and consistent with Catholic teaching, moral and/or social.
Yeah Katherine -- let's hear it.
Obama has stated that he is eager to sign FOCA- a massive, across the board sweeping law that would make abortion MORE common, MORE well funded, and MORE deeply entrenched in all 50 states. McCain will not do so.
As for Iraq, neither candidate will inherit "a war" as the war is in fact, over and the troops will mostly be coming home by Jan.2009 regardless. Victory always means less troops are needed.
So Obama is for more death and McCain is not. Neither will have much action to deal with in Iraq.
Katherine will probably respond with half-truths. She is good at that. She regularly prints things on her blog and when you send her evidence that what she is saying is erroneous she refuses to print it. She wants her side of most stories to get out but not the other. Especially if it contradicts what she is saying.
Sean, you are such a better writer than I and, as Senator McCain himself has said, there seems to be an excessive focus on one candidate. Let's offer a little balance. Go ahead, make your best case for McCain. What will America look like in 2012 if McCain is elected?
See she won't answer! She always does that....throws it back at the other person. AND thinks you are going to be fooled into doing it! Sheesh!
That's called 'deflecting'. It's passive-aggressive and completely annoying. Annoying Katherine, we aren't fooled.
Laura --
you don't fool me either. We have an post on McCain meeting with a conservative Catholic bishop. Kathy tries to move the topic to Obama and is shocked when it is suggested that we can't talk about McCain (where Kathy if not on a McCain article?).
It has been suggested it is a sin to support a pro-choice candidate. Before any requests were made of me, I asked if McCain supporters can explain their candidate's sin on this matter. Silence.
I think my prior unanswered question deserves the first response. Unless the McCain supporters here are like McCain's campaign ads, totally incapable of defending McCain.
I'm guessing I should not hold my breath on this one.
Thank you, Laura.
You want to talk about McCain Katherine? Come on! McCain in the past has had a subbornly misguided view on ESCR Thomas has pointed out he is open to changing with more information. Is THAT what you are referring to?
I'll take John McCain's openess to changing this opinion and the fact that he would NEVER sign the Freedom of Choice Act (unlike your man Katherine) over Obama's radical and 100% pro abortion NARAL rating ANYDAY.
McCain is also in favor of supporting marriage as between one man and one woman. Unlike your man Katherine, who has promised the radical gay lobby that he would do everything in his power to bring about same-sex marriage on a national scale.
What else do you want to talk about Katherine? Don't say I never asked.
You are a deflector Katherine like so many liberals and you think you can deflect these BIG BLACK MARKS in your man's character by impuning the other guy. We are ON TO YOU Katherine. You don't fool us and the country will not be fooled on election day.
You cannot tell me that the American Bishop's conference or even the Pope himself would vote for Obama. It just ain't happening.
Have a great day Katherine!
Laura,
Thank you and God bless you. I think you have serious factual errors in your statement, but if you could provide documentation, I would re-consider. Anyway, I'm late for my Obama phone banking. Gotta go.
In Christ and His Mother,
Kate
Katherine,
Here is what I wrote back in February regarding the Catholic vote.
http://tuitiofidei.blogspot.com/...holic-
vote.html
BTW Katherine don't think that I am fooled by your attempt to throw this back on me. Like so many of the Democratic Kool-Aid drinkers I am in no way confusing John McCain with a true Catholic President like a Garcia Moreno. Nor would I ever think to create an organization called Catholics for Obama, Catholic Democrats for Obama or the like. I merely refer to my article for others who might glean something from my humble attempt to write on the subject.
I asked if McCain supporters can explain their candidate's sin on this matter. Silence.
As a non-McCain supporter, silence may well be a prudent choice because it stinks of detraction.
Please list for me the so called 'factual errors' Katherine.
Please provide for me a reason why Our Lady would approve of 'Catholics for Obama'.
Laura--
...who has promised the radical gay lobby that he would do everything in his power to bring about same-sex marriage on a national scale.
Name the organization Obama made this promise to, the exact words he used, and the reference to national scale and same sex marriage.
His own words:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.co...new.php?
n=13119
Oh, and you conveniently forgot to answer my other question Katherine: Please provide for me a reason why Our Lady would approve of 'Catholics for Obama'.
Laura --
Thank you for the CNA link (please remember that CNA is NOT Catholic News Service, the official newsservice of the US Catholic Bishops. CNA is a conservative organization). No where does Senator Obama call for national same sex marraige. Like Senator McCain, he is open to civil unions. Like Senator McCain he does not support national same sex marriage. Like Senator McCain he beleives each state has the right to determine the particulars of civil marriage in their state.
Would you have time to make a second, and this time successful attempt to show me where Senator Obama has support national same sex marriage?
As for our Blessed Mother, she has not made an endorsement in this year's Presidential race as of yet.
You are wrong on both counts Katherine. I will not engage you any more. You are a lost cause.
Laura --
God bless you. If I am wrong about the Blessed Mother making an endorsement, please link the press release she issued.
please remember that CNA is NOT Catholic News Service, the official newsservice of the US Catholic Bishops. CNA is a conservative organization
Not that it matter but it is completely irrelevant. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the ‘Don't Ask Don't Tell’ policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”
BTW the CNS or organ of the USCCB states as its mission Mission is to report on the involvement of the Church in the world today. so one would not expect them to headline political articles unless they specifically relate to the Church.
Sorry my previous post got mixed around, it should be
Not that it matter but it is completely irrelevant that the CNA is "conservative" according to you. BTW the CNS or organ of the USCCB states as its mission Mission is to report on the involvement of the Church in the world today. so one would not expect them to headline political articles unless they specifically relate to the Church.
Not that it matter but it is completely irrelevant. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage Act and the ‘Don't Ask Don't Tell’ policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”
One additional comment about this same sex marriage debate. For some it seems the validity of Sen. Obama's statement concerning same sex marriage is in question because it was quoted at the CNA. One can find the same letter he wrote published on the San Fransico Chronicle website. Need one question their political leaning? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/ar.../
MN8J11I731.DTL
Thanks, Sean.
Sean,
Help me out, under what premise are you supporting gay marriage/civil unions etc.? Or are you? I'm confused. Catholics supporting equal rights is one thing that is certainly a good, but I've always thought that you can't have a right if there is no actual, natural possibility of fulfilling what the right implies. Now, I'm admitting that my predisposition could be wrong here, but it will take a bit of convincing to shake me from it.
On another point brought up fifteen posts ago here, what does it matter if McCain's behind in the poles? Is that a measure of his comparative virtue vs. Obama? There's an ad populum piece of you-know-what argument if I've ever heard one.
That being said, I'm not so sure that McCain's track record indicates that he's actually any different from the baby-killer from Illinois on the same-sex marriage issue, especially given the amount of banter that Laura and Katherine have given to it on this post. This only lends credibility to the position that it does not matter which one you support: they're both terrible.
Maybe I'm going crazy, but the libertarian position looks better all the time. Ugh!
Senator Obama supports extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law by civil unions but does not support same sex marriage. Senator McCain also finds civil unions accpetable. Of course, John & Cindy McCain are able to marry to to the fact that civil marriage in the USA does not follow Catholic principles and divorce and re-marriage is legal.
Personally I think men who leave their wives should only be allowed to enter a civil union and not a marriage with their girlfriends.
Teep,
Sorry for the confusion, my comments were a quote from Sen. Obamas letter that was linked to in another post above. I am not in favor of same sex marriages.
John
Equal rights to gays? What "equal rights"? It's NOT the same thing for them to attempt marriage as it is for heterosexuals, so to claim they are being discriminated against is to beg the question about the definition of the word 'marriage'. The super-duper right they claim to possess is the right to RE-DEFINE words and have courts ram-rod this new definition on the rest of us.
Since heterosexual couples do not have the right to re-define millennial old words, neither do homosexual "couples". So no unfair discrimination is going on.
Secondly, about Obama: he is, and has promised to be the most radically leftwing candidate for President ever. Especially on the non-negotiable life issues of abortion, embryo-killing stem cell research, "gay" marriage, and the massive funding of abortion providers....
McCain, while not our ideal candidate is nevertheless, not as bad as Obama, so a Catholic voter (as opposed to a voter who happens to be Catholic) has a choice between one candidate whose positions and party are absolutely anti-life, anti-marriage, anti-Catholic and another candidate whose positions and party are not AS BAD.
In this concrete scenario, where by there are only two choices for President, the only ethical vote is for the lesser of two bad choices. McCain is not the best candidate possible, but he IS the best candidate when compared to Obama. And from a Catholic moral perspective the harm done to the Republic by a McCain administration will be alot less than that done by an Obama administration.
John,
Well, I appreciate your honesty that there is no positive defense of John McCain. God bless you and thank you for sharing your opinions.
Kate
You know what? Why don't you tell us why YOU are voting for Obama Katherine? How do you justify your support?
All this 'God bless you' BTW is nauseating -- trying to convice us that on the one hand you are so pious and yet on the other hand you are so hostile and anti-life. So very typical of left wing Catholics.
So come on -- tell us why and how.
Katherine, if there's no "positive" defense for McCain, then how can YOU vote for Obama since he's WORSE from a Catholic morality perspective?
We are faced with a classic ethical dilemna: neither man is 'ideal' from a Catholic perspective, so in this case Catholics must choose the candidate who would do the least harm, and as we have established beyond all doubt, promoting Obama's victory would cause far more harm to real people via abortion than McCain's victory.
Hence, it's absolutely uncontroversial from a Catholic ethical point of view to choose McCain over Obama even though he's not the ideal candidate in absolute terms.
Now, if you choose Obama over McCain, even though you know Obama is pro-abortion 100% then you have chosen ideology over your Catholic faith. You seem to imply that "other" positions of the Democrat counter-balances or makes up for his vociferous approval of the intentional killing of completely innocent human beings.
Yet not even a Bush "war for oil" involved the intentional killing of completely innocent human beings out of convenience as abortion is overwhelmingly 'done' for. Hence being pro-abortion is WORSE than being "for" the Iraq war.
I've no dispute with you if you consider yourself "uninformed citizens for Obama" but to call yourselves "Catholics for Obama" automatically opens you to charges of either heresy (claiming some teaching for the church that is not so) or intellectual dishonesty (trying to fool people into believing Catholics in good conscience can freely choose the worst of two candidates and still be "good" Catholics.)
So which is it? Are you THAT uninformed a Catholic that you don't realize abortion is the greatest evil of our generation (worse than racism, worse than poverty, worse than foreign wars) or don't you care so long as a Democrat wins?
It would be more intellectually and ethically honest to call yourselves "former Catholics for Obama".
John,
I would respectfully disagree with a great deal of your presumptions. The primary disagreement is to your assertion than we are faced with searching for the lesser of tow great evils. I actually beleive we have two honorable men running for president.
Perhaps it is really my duty here to defend Senator McCain, as it seems I am the person here with the highest opinion of him.
In Christ and His Mother,
Kate
I'll repeat myself: Why don't you tell us why YOU are voting for Obama Katherine? How do you justify your support? and I'll add --in light of your Catholic faith?
Katherine, from a Catholic perspective (as opposed to a secular Democrat or secular Republican WASPs perspective), neither candidate is "ideal", both leave much to be desired when it comes to their understanding of the limits of government, subsidiarity, and moral law.
However of the two, McCain is pro-life at least "most" of the time whereas Obama is pro-abortion ALL the time. And that...is that.
All their other positions: on campaign finance, on immigration, on how big the Federal government ought to be, on taxes.... it all pales in comparison with their position on the unborn.
Would you vote for a man who was pro-slavery but had a great program to help the [other] poor?
Bianca --
In answer to your question, please reference www.catholicsforobama.blogspot.com
John --
I am a great admirer of General Washington. In February I have the grandchildren over and bake a cherry pie and put up some patriotic decorations. Thank you for asking.
In Christ and His Mother,
Kate
She cannot answer even simple questions!
She cannot defend herself because her support of Obama is indefensible in light of her supposedly Catholic faith.
I think Katherine is an imposter -- a former Catholic posing as a practicing Catholic whose job is to try to confuse and obfuscate the real issue -- namely that Obama is the most radical leftist (Marxist) and pro-abortion and pro-infanticide democrat the Senate has ever seen all the while giving out 'blessings' and having photos of the Holy Father on her website and using the name of the Mother of God -- implying by doing so that Our Blessed Mother and the Pope himself approve of this abomination.
She is a sham and she should be exposed.
Guys, guys, guys. Stop picking on Katerine. There is, in the end, no credible case to be made for supporting Obama on Catholic grounds, and we all know it. What's at work here, I think, is something else.
Many years ago, there was a kid in our school who decided to answer every question with a question. We all thought it was funny for a week or two. But then it got real boring, real fast. By then, tho, the kid's identity had become wrapped up in the stunt, and he saw no way to stop it without giving up, I dunno, his new identity or something. So folks just wrote him off as an odd ball, and life went on.
I think that's what's going on with this Catholics-Obama thing. Sophists can always use words and emotions in a warped way that skirt logic and sense and leave serious people fluxommed for a while. We've known that since Socrates. But then most folks get bored with their antics, and move on.
Just as we have with, eg, Doug Kmiec. His credibility has evaporated, and short of some huge mea culpa on his part, it will never be restored. And at least DK had some credibility going into this. The others didn't have that.
So let's just move on (no pun intended). There's something about print, even electronic print, that gives the impression that whoever posted last is right, and that falsehoods, or even stupid comments, must be responded to for the sake of the common good. Qui tacit videtur consentire, and all that. Not true. Not true. Another's lie (or joke or mistake) imposes no obligation of correction on me, and while I might as an act of mercy engage in a correction (once anyway), eventually, one follows the directions of the Gospel, and "shakes the dust" of that conversation from one's fingers, and talks with the adults.
Her point was that Geo. Washington had slaves, so a vote for him would be (according to her read of my posts) unethical. Of course, that's presupposing his opponent was anti-slavery, which of course he wasn't. So in the actual election it boiled down to...SURPRISE! the best of two less than ideal candidates.
It behooves us all to approach politics and ethical questions in general from the facts as we know them, not hypotheticals.
Commenting by HaloScan
