When I was 18, I got to see the brand-new Pope John Paul II at Yankee Stadium. His homily compared America to the rich man who shared his crumbs with Lazarus, and thought that was generosity enough. In other words, in his very first address to the American people, he chided them for selfishness and inattentio nto the poor.
Anti-communist John Paul II was, but it's hard to see how anyone could conclude that he was a laissez-faire capitalist!
I suspect the "people remember John Paul II as a capitalist and nothing but" remark may refer to the interpretation of his social encyclicals by people like Michael Novak -- or at least some people who like Michael Novak. I know I occasionally run into the attitude that the Pope effectively gave a blanket endorsement of free market capitalism, with any of his criticisms effectively reduced to prudential judgments in matters in which he was no expert.
On the quick quiz, abortion is regularly mentioned as a grave evil during the homilies at my parish, though rarely is it the focus. The good work that the Church does, however, is the focus of numerous homilies, particularly in February (during the Archbishop's Appeal) and the summer months (when missionaries come through).
Finally, I can certainly see how someone could endorse those Ten Steps to Restore the United States' Moral Authority as a cheap exercise in moral vanity. A great deal of American political activity is devoted to chronicling the sins of Them, which amounts to chronicling the virtues of Us.
That's not to say endorsing the list is necessarily, or even probably, a cheap exercise in moral vanity, but it was offered as an approach distinct from the "read the docuemnt and evaluate it in light of Catholic teaching" one you gave in the post.
Mark,
Did I say there was anything wrong with the list?
Selective indignation, and the Gospel when in season, are the hallmarks of what passes for ‘taking a prophetic stance’ among way too many of my Catholic confreres. If you thought my remark was meant for you, I assure you it was not. If you think it is out of line anyway, then I apologize.
Remember, you had to vote for Bush, because Kerry and Gore ate murdered babies.
---------
On Monday, the Iraqi cabinet approved the new oil law, allowing profitable deals and great power over policy by foreign oil companies. Official media in the US, symbolized by the Washington Post, are completely missing what is going on in this story, hailing it as a triumph of Iraqi national unity and reconciliation.
Some of the highlights out of all this are that 1) The WaPo story says a big fat zero about the power of the oil companies in all this or the size of their potential profit gains. 2) It is confirmed that their executives will be able to sit on the ruling Federal Oil and Gas Council, which will have power to approve or disapprove most (see below) contracts. 3) While revenues going to the government will be distributed to the provinces according to population, the amount of these revenues will be much lower than in contracts in other Middle Eastern states, with profit rates for companies running as high as 75% possibly, and 65 out of 80 identified fields open to private contracts. 4) The Kurds have been granted rights to cut deals directly on half the contracts in their terrritories (most of the unexplored fields, with what is "their territory"very much up in the air because of the dispute over who owns Kirkuk), I note that WaPo did note some kind of arrangement with the Kurds, but was rather vague on the details. 5) There is some kind of disagreement over who will be controlling revenues in the Shi'i controlled South, governors or other bodies, with only two provinces having much oil, and with Basra controlled by al-Fadhila rather than the more regionally and nationally powerful SCIRI, which is linked to both Iran and the Bush administration (who said we live in a simple world?).
The key point of the law is that Iraq's immense oil wealth (115 billion barrels of proven reserves, third in the world after Saudi Arabia and Iran) will be under the iron rule of a fuzzy "Federal Oil and Gas Council" boasting "a panel of oil experts from inside and outside Iraq". That is, nothing less than predominantly US Big Oil executives. The law represents no less than institutionalized raping and pillaging of Iraq's oil wealth. It represents the death knell of nationalized (from 1972 to 1975) Iraqi resources, now replaced by production sharing agreements (PSAs) - which translate into savage privatization and monster profit rates of up to 75% for (basically US) Big Oil. Sixty-five of Iraq's roughly 80 oilfields already known will be offered for Big Oil to exploit ... Nobody wants to colonial-style PSAs forced down their throat anymore. According to the International Energy Agency, PSAs apply to only 12% of global oil reserves, in cases where costs are very high and nobody knows what will be found (certainly not the Iraqi case). No big Middle Eastern oil producer works with PSAs. Russia and Venezuela are renegotiating all of them. Bolivia nationalized its gas. Algeria and Indonesia have new rules for future contracts. But Iraq, of course, is not a sovereign country. Big Oil is obviously ecstatic - not only ExxonMobil, but also ConocoPhillips, Chevron, BP and Shell (which have collected invaluable info on two of Iraq's biggest oilfields), TotalFinaElf, Lukoil from Russia and the Chinese majors. Iraq has as many as 70 undeveloped fields - "small" ones hold a minimum of a billion barrels. As desert western Iraq has not even been exploited, reserves may reach 300 billion barrels - way more than Saudi Arabia. Gargantuan profits under the PSA arrangement are in a class by themselves. Iraqi oil costs only US $3 a barrel (you heard it right - its three dollars) to extract. With a barrel worth $60 and up, happy days are here again.
-------------------
War on Terror? Preventing abortion? Yeah right.
It was all about greed.
How many of you know all this and don't care? How many of you willingly connived in this? How many of you took money for pushing propaganda?
I dare you to put this up and ask yourself and your readers that.
Mike:
Sorry for assuming you meant it for me. Having put with a lot of shit for a long time from people who claim that my opposition to torture is a "moral bath" and Torture Phariseeism and smug self-righteousness, I'm afraid I was quick to assume that you were also slamming me for my approval of many of the recommendations on the list. I apologize heartily for jumping to conclusions. Mea culpa, not youa culpa.
"I dare you to put this up and ask yourself and your readers that."
Wow Mark you sure are brave for letting this post go up.
Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and so did Edwards. While they (including myself) have distanced themselves from it today (including myself again....I should have listened to the Vicar of Christ), it is silly to act as if they don't share some of the blame. The overall problem with this post from Kant is that I cannot for the life of me figure out how one can really say that it only costs $3.00 for a barrell of Iraqi oil. Heck the security costs alone, not to mention the normal cost of production, transportation, refining, etc, must be in excess of this.
The list from that group of 'liberals' seems to me a perfectly sane and reasonable list that most anyone, including (maybe especially?) conservatives would sign onto. whatever happened to that 'love my country, fear my gov't' line that the 'right' has used for so long?
My priest mentions abortion frequently, and it is often in the intentions that the lector reads. can't think of one time he said anything about gay marriage....he has mentioned 'defending marriage' but never gays. And he is a rather conservative (traditional?) priest (e.g. no altar girls, lots of adoration, etc)
pax
Kant:
In addressing your comment to "you", I assume you mean "us", e.g. me, an average reader of this blog.
To answer your questions:
1. I didn't know all the ins and outs of the oil law passed by the Iraqi gov't this week; I appreciate the explanation. I find it a matter of concern, and it deserves more discussion.
2. I did not "connive" in any way with any oil executives or Iraqi politicians to make this happen.
3. I did not take any bribes or receive any remuneration for said action, since I did not engage in said action.
(I realize that you may in fact have been addressing Mark and other bloggers by your "you", but just in case you meant to condemn and rant on us all, I just thought I'd come clean to you.)
Whoever wants to go next, feel free.
Kant:
Thanks for the stock tip.
Anti-communist John Paul II was, but it's hard to see how anyone could conclude that he was a laissez-faire capitalist!
Yep. My die-hard Republican friends are still very suspicious of John Paul II because he wasn't capitalist enough for them.
I've found that when both extremes on any issue (be it politics or religion) dislike someone, there's a pretty good chance he's the real deal.
Remember, you had to vote for Bush, because Kerry and Gore ate murdered babies.
No. No one had to vote for any of the above. Sounds like you want to genuinely persuade. I suggest avoiding caricature.
Kathleen,
You're not fooling anyone. We all know that you're on the Halliburton payroll. For shame! 
Thanks for the stock tip.
You're not fooling anyone. We all know that you're on the Halliburton payroll. For shame!
Typical, missing the point.
It was all about greed
Quite a few knew. Mostly higher up. even Bishops, leaders. They used the fig leaf of abortion. Not for nothing did religious leaders pow-wow with the Bush whitehouse actively.
Quite a few connived. Actively participated in suprressing, dehumanizing and slinging mud at those who dared to question. And many did it for the oldest of reasons. Power, selling their wares, and publicity.
They all used the sacred for their profane ends.
"My responsibility for your vote started and ended with abortion. As long as that condition is met, anything else goes. It does not matter that my vote granted power to do many things. I don't even want to know, and anyone who tells me is an evil person "
That was the attitude.
Anyone who questioned the wisdom of that was called murderer, baby killer, and what not.
No one had to vote for any of the above. Sounds like you want to genuinely persuade. I suggest avoiding caricature.
I do not want Catholics hiding under fig leaf of the Holy Fathers' opposition to Iraq, nor abortion, as an excuse for tolerating all the other evil being perpetrated by the people _they_ elected. They had a chance to really effect the outcome - by their vote. One has a responsibility to learn, to ask and to inquire.
And I'm sure that few years later, there would be quotes about how the Catholics never told anyone that abortion was the sole issue! After all the trumpeting for that and even bragging about how effective the abortion stick was, when they are asked to account for all the other collateral evil it generated, they will trot out a quote from a Bishop in some obscure time and place and claim that they never did that.
Today Mark can stand up and question many things being done in his name, but where was he earlier? He was exactly doing what he now accuses others are doing to him because he dares to question.
That "No one had to vote for any of the above" - gee, kinda hard to get that feeling if you were a good Catholic back then, no?.
Wow Mark you sure are brave for letting this post go up.
Nothing can express my intentions better than this one single sentence. It is the distilled essence. Avoid knowing at all costs, so that you can still make the claim - 'I have committed no wrong'
Also, while I don't know much about the new Iraqi oil law, I'd note that that notorious right-wing rag, the New York Times, seems to think it's a good idea:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/2...=rssnyt&
emc=rss
Needless to say, this throws some doubt on whether the law is proof that the Bush administrations had nefarious motives for invading Iraq.
Today Mark can stand up and question many things being done in his name, but where was he earlier?
Yes, Mark, where were you when Colin Powell went to the UN and solemnly swore that Mark Shea had given the go-ahead on the War? Why did you not contradict what he did in your name?
I'd note that that notorious right-wing rag, the New York Times, seems to think it's a good idea
All these are tangential to the core issue. The sanctification of greed under the cover of abortion. And the willful ignorance that made that respectable.
It is that same ignorance here - which deflates the sarcasm in the "right-wing rag" reference.
The New York Times was the head cheerleader for the Iraq War. If you are not aware of it, ..
Yes, Mark, where were you when Colin Powell went to the UN and solemnly swore that Mark Shea had given the go-ahead on the War? Why did you not contradict what he did in your name?
Yes. Rhetoric. No need to know. How much of genuine debate and inquiry was suppressed with the abortion issue?
So let me make sure I understand this. Had Kerry won with on his Iraq policy that was little clearer than "boo war", then the Big Oil conspirators wouldn't have landed such a great deal?
Yup, that's pretty much it. Kerry would have stopped that deal cold.
How? Oh quit hiding behind the fig leaf of abortion and admit you're complicit in the grave evil of not voting Dmeocrat.
I'll take kant seriously when he shows he takes himself so.
I think someone is misspelling their nom de plume.
The word you are looking for to describe your posts is "cant" (I think "tripe's trope" sounds better, but it's your handle.) Kant was a brilliant if utterly deluded philosopher.
I'd say Rant fits him/her better.
I get the feeling that to Kant, the sin of stealing oil is far greater than the sin of abortion? Am I missing something?
In any event I still wouldn't have voted for Kerry even if he wasn't pro-abortion, even if he hadn't flow in from the campaign just to cast his vote against a ban on the heinous practice of partial birth abortion. Even if Catholic John Kerry was as Prolife as Senator Santorum I still wouldn't vote for him.
See, my Dad, God Rest his soul was a Vietnam vet. I love & honor my Dad. I knew Dad would turn over in his grave if any one of his children voted for "that man" for President.
So, I guess, because of my loyalty to my Dad I have somehow been a party to some crime of stealing oil? Is that the logic of Kant?
Hate to break it to you Kant, but even if the whole war in Iraq thing does turn out to be an oil conspiracy I won't regret for a moment not voting for John Kerry.
Kant
The number one issue for the Pope during the debate over the war in iraq was the war in iraq. repeatedly, press releases and pleas and attempts at peace were made.
Although Post-modernism seems to dominate the historical profession, there is at least the willingness to make sure one gets the primary source mat'l correct.
Prior to the election, the no 2 guy at the vatican staed something along the lines of while you can't vote for a candiate because of a pro-abortion stance, one is allowed, or rather one must take into account all of the issues. It is a bit complicated, but, hey you are Kant and he seemed smart enough to actually read things and understand them.
Greed has been 'blessed' not by the church or leadership (okay maybe one or three bishops have fully given their unbridled support to capitalism but that is rare), but rather it is an idealogy that (liberal captialism)that blessed it.
DON'T FORGET: JOHN KERRY AND JOHN EDWARDS VOTED FOR THE WAR!!!!!!! THEY ARGUED THAT THEY WOULD BE THE WAR 'BETTER' IN 2004, NOT THAT THEY WOULD 'BRING THE BOYS BACK HOME'
pax
I'm gonna go back to the point of objecting to the list (again) on the grounds that saying everybody captured in battle needs a habeas hearing is irrational. I don't want to make people who think this way feel bad, and I'm not trying to make them angry, but to propose that policy seriously requires that one approach the conduct of war with the thinking of a six-year-old girl.
I'm gonna go back to the point of objecting to the list (again) on the grounds that saying everybody captured in battle needs a habeas hearing is irrational.
To my mind, restoring habeus corpus and ending indefinite detention without charge (#10) are both specific approaches to a genuine moral problem -- what do you do with prisoners and detainees in these circumstances (circumstances which are far from fully described by such terms as "captured in battle" and "the conduct of war") -- the prudence of which I'm too ignorant to judge. So while I can see where the ideas came from and where they're trying to go with them, I can't say whether they're good ideas as they stand.
Similarly with shutting down Guantanamo Bay.
That said, the steps are presented merely as "common sense" means to the specific end of restoring moral authority, not as an altogether prudent means of serving the common good.
Ed,
The list doesn't say that everyone captured in battle needs a habeas hearing. It says we should "restore habeas corpus." Unless my history is off, it was never U.S. practice to give habeas hearings to everyone captured on the battlefield.
Prior to the election, the no 2 guy at the vatican staed something along the lines of while you can't vote for a candiate because of a pro-abortion stance, one is allowed, or rather one must take into account all of the issues. It is a bit complicated, but, hey you are Kant and he seemed smart enough to actually read things and understand them.
Yes. It is complicated. Was there ever an acknowledgment of that? It was all a simple abortion yes or no question.
In any event I still wouldn't have voted for Kerry even if he wasn't pro-abortion..
Hate to break it to you Kant, but even if the whole war in Iraq thing does turn out to be an oil conspiracy I won't regret for a moment not voting for John Kerry.
Exactly. And you should vote your beliefs. But don't use abortion as a cover, for your mundane political beliefs.
Oh quit hiding behind the fig leaf of abortion and admit you're complicit in the grave evil of not voting Dmeocrat.
Yup. This is all about voting Democrat. Not about "rather one must take into account all of the issues"
I have no arguments with anyone who claims difference of opinion on all the other issues. They should vote their beliefs.
But using the abortion question to suppress the debate itself on other questions, using abortion as an issue that makes all those other issues irrelevant, not worthy of debate .. that is a deliberate ploy.
It is the suppression of the debate, (rather than the outcomes that would come out of it), that is the issue.
Such suppressed issues will out.
For those who are Republicans first, it wont matter. Mixing goat shit with raisins will make raisins goat shit, not the other way.
You have to be relatively deep into the minutiae of North Korea policy for this story.
Speaking very broadly, there are two big ways to make nuclear weapons -- with uranium and plutonium. Each involves different technical challenges and process.
The big issue with North Korea has always been their **plutonium** production. Back in 1994, they were on the brink of being able to produce bombs with the plutonium they were making. The US came close to war with the North Koreans over it..And the two countries settled on something called the 'Agreed Framework' in which the North Koreans plutonium production was shuttered and placed under international inspection in exchange for fuel oil.
Today..
The Bush administration is now saying they're really not even sure the North Koreans have a uranium enrichment program for the production of nuclear weapons.
Why does it matter?
It was on the basis of this alleged uranium enrichment program -- which may well not even have existed -- that the US pulled out of that agreement. This allowed the North Koreans to get back into the plutonium business with a gusto.
Because of a weapons program that may not even have existed (and no one ever thought was far advanced) the Bush White House got the North Koreans to restart their plutonium program and then sat by while they produced a half dozen or a dozen real nuclear weapons
One could go on, but why bother. For Catholics, all the "other issues" are irrelevant of course. So naturally, I understand you don't care.
That list of issues "on the original list" Gitmo, torture et al - they were also up for election. Did you care to know?
I'll take kant seriously when he shows he takes himself so.
See? kant is stupid. So what he says is stupid. End of story. Move on. Ya all, remember it's all about abortion. Remember the mantra "election-abortion, election-abortion"
Kant you see the double standard (hypocrisy) in your 1:36 post?
Kant, you are doing a serious disservice to voting Catholics. For many Catholics, the issues they vote on are guided by a sense of natural law. Life issues such as abortion and euthanasia are paramount, followed by other serious issues such as care for the poor and the sick.
Sure, there are some politicians who take up the flag of pro-life issues with cynicism, but in many areas (for example, here in San Francisco) to be pro-life is politically lethal for anyone seeking elected office. Support of the pro-life movement out here and in many other parts of the country isn't an easy choice or a mindless way of avoiding other issues--it's an essential part of being Catholic.
Kant, you are doing a serious disservice to voting Catholics.
Really? Voting Catholics just rubber-stamp everything else, for the sake of abortion issue?
How many of you vote in primaries to make sure that the between two pro-life candidates the one that comes out is a one that is _competent_ to govern?
San Francisco? Let me tell you - there was Davis, Arnold and McClintok. And Bishop Weigand. You know what the Bishop did? The story of the one that thundered against Davis re: abortion previously?
There was a clear pro-life candidate - McClintock.
The options were clear - speak strongly for life - Arnold loses, Davis wins. Keep mum - and Arnold wins.
Either way, winning for the cause was out.
There was an opportunity to stand up for a "paramount issues".
Oh, I forgot - "Life issues such as abortion and euthanasia are paramount" only if railing against abortion results in Republicans winning.
It is coming up again - as Rudy Guliani. Let us see how many Weigands are out there.
kant
I think you are giving way to much agency to the bishops here. How many catholics really pay that much attn to what they say and how much does it really influence the manner that people actually vote?
pax
No debate was crushed by supposedly trotting out abortion. I heard plenty of people freely give their voice to justifying votes for abortion candidates. Their arguments certainly got crushed simply because they were bad arguments. A classic example of losers-weepers.
As far as the lame cry of "single issue!" it is not that difficult--if one is a consequentialist regarding abortion, it is reasonable to assume they will be consequentialists on everything else. Kinda like after candidates were caught in sex scandals people asked "What does a candidates' personal life have to do with his ability lead?" Simple. If the guy has little problem lying and breaking promises to his wife, then it stands to reason that he will have even less problems with lying to everyone else.
I get a buck fifty from the Texas GOP everytime I preach against abortion. Doesn't everyone?
Commenting by HaloScan
