text:
Details here. I'm not calling for Democrats to be as hysterically anti-Muslim as they are hysterically anti-Christian at the moment, but their willingness to suppress cognitive dissonance rivals if not surpasses that of the sheep from Animal Farm.
I love those commercials, that was awesome…..
Also, Redstate is just being "Islamophobic". They are not radical, they are just misunderstood.
Good post, Bonchamps!
Well played old chap
Here in Scotland, it is the offence of Profanity to disturb worship. The essence of the offence is the disturbance and annoyance of the minister and congregation, and the interruption of their devotions.
A building enjoys no special protection and it is not an aggravation of a breach of the peace or of mobbing and rioting that it is committed in a place used for worship.
This seems to me a proper distinction.
Of course, any wilful damage to the fabric or plenishments of the building is the crime of malicious mischief.
You summed it up well, Bonchamps: "The sad thing is that I believe that much of this anti-Christian hatred – and I am now speaking generally and globally – is motivated merely by the fact that vulgar, hateful people cannot tolerate the existence of other people who, even though they are as oppressed by sin as everyone else, aspire to be something more than mindless animals who do nothing but hump one another and follow the latest idiotic trends. Sloshing about in a sewer filled with their own spiritual feces, they must pull everyone else down into it, and erase any suggestion that it might be possible to escape. That is the only way it can be enjoyed."
The jerks have a point. There's something wrong in Russia, and the Orthodox Church is happily cooperating with it.
There was a case in Chicago in 2008 where a group of protesters disrupted a mass being said by the Cardinal. They received probation, community service, and a $2600 fine (to pay for cleaning the fake blood out of the carpet). That seems appropriate.
With all due respect, I believe that Bonchamps' responses to Paul Z. and Pinky are correct. I agree.
this isn't a Madonna situation where they were being needlessly provocative in an effort to harass Christians.
In Madonna's situation, it is nothing but a marketing strategy to prolong her already far too long public career.
I am with Bonchamps on this one. At least the Russians seem to take Christianity seriously.
Bon, you seem to be ascribing bad motives to those who disagree with you. Personally, I've seen no information on which to build a positive narrative about Russia. All indications are that any kind of dissent is silenced by the government. I can't get that worked up in support of this punk band doing some terrible things, but if the reaction to it is emblematic of a regression toward totalitarianism, then it's definitely to be criticized.
I worry about my fellow Christians in Russia. I see a far greater threat to their future from Putin than from that band. Their actions, while offensive and ridiculous, were dwarfed by ongoing anti-government rallies alleging electoral fraud and widespread political corruption.
The German case is quite different. There, the protesters disturbed public worship. Every state in Europe guarantees freedom of worship and such actions are rightly criminal.
That is a very different matter to staging a protest in a building sometimes used for worship, but when no service was in progress.
The Russian Orthodox Church has valid Holy Orders and valid Sacraments, though it is not in union with Rome. Even Rome recognizes the validity of Eastern Orthodox Churches, of which the Russian one is an autonomous, autocephalus member. As such, isn't there a Tabernacle in the Church where the Pussy Riot was staged, and doesn't that Tabernacle contain the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Blessed Lord and Savior? Don't Eastern Orthodox do it the same way? Orthodox Anglicans do. So the actions of the Pussy Rioters are even more reprehensible.
Get out of thinking that the Roman jurisdiction is the only Catholic one. It demonstrably is not, and Rome's recognition of the validity of Eastern Orthodox Holy Orders and Sacraments is a case in point. BTW, even the Pope had kind words to say about the recent meeting between Patriarch Cyril of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Roman Archbishop of Poland.
While this doesn't relate to the merits of the case (I'm in agreement with Pinky and Paul Zummo on them), for informational purposes:
"As such, isn't there a Tabernacle in the Church where the Pussy Riot was staged, and doesn't that Tabernacle contain the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Blessed Lord and Savior? "
The Russian Orthodox do not reserve the sacrament in a tabernacle, because the bread and wine are combined and served out of a single chalice (the intinctioned cube of Eucharist is dropped into the communicant's open mouth by the priest using a a golden spoon).
Actually, I've had some Russian Orthodox folks online (which, as we all know from Catholic combox wars can be a weird sample) tell me that they consider the Catholic practice of reserving the sacrament in the tabernacle and most especially the Catholic practice of Eucharistic adoration, to be idolatrous. "It misses the point that the Eucharist is food" was the way it was put to me.
While it in no way excuses the behavior of the punk band, there is, honestly, reason to be concerned about the Russian Orthodox Church and its place in modern Russia. Keep in mind, despite the official atheism of the Soviet regime, there were strong and disturbing ties between the ROC and the communist regime. These ties have continued in Putin's Russia, where not only are a lot of ex-KGB types running the government, but Patriarch Kirill himself has been strongly implicated as having been a long term KGB informant and collaborator.
Thank you for the clarification, Darwin.
It is perhaps worth recalling that the Kram Khrista Spasitela was built by the blood-spattered tyrant, Tsar Alexander to commemorate the defeat of Napoléon. Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture was commissioned and first performed at its dedication.
It is a monument to the victory of despotism and ignorance over freedom and enlightenment and to the defeat of that Grande Armée, whom Hilaire Belloc hailed:
"You who put down the mighty from their seat
Who strove to fill the hungry with good things
Who turned the rich man empty to the street
And trailed your scabbards in the halls of kings…"
It could be truly said of Moscow, as was written of Jerusalem, "If you had known the time of your deliverance…" Alas! its priests, too, then as now, had "no king but Caesar."
I don't have a problem with the Russian government's prosecution per se. But two years in prison seems wildly excessive.
I don't have a problem with the Russian government's prosecution per se. But two years in prison seems wildly excessive.
These broads are serial public nuisances, so something more severe than parole after 20 days might be expected.
Art Deco,
They've already been in jail for six months. I don't think you can call that getting off easy.
Although it seems clear that Vladimir Putin is up to no good in co-opting the Orthodox church to his grandiose plans, nonetheless these punks have deliberately chosen to insult the memory of millions of victims of Communism by cavorting at the restored Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, which was destroyed at the orders of the monster Stalin.
>Oh please. When did the post-Soviet Russian government threaten Poland? Other than, perhaps, in response to NATO's belligerent insistence upon a missile shield (why do we have a divine right to that again?)'
Um … how does a missile *shield* signify belligerence? All it does is prevent missiles from destroying a country. Yes, I know, Russia thinks it'll just protect us from nuclear retaliation if we attack them. But to you seriously think any president (real or potential) – Bush, Obama, Romney, Ryan or another realistic candidate – wants to incinerate innocent Russians in an aggressive nuclear strike?
Poland's desire to be defended from Russia is understandable, given the recent East European history – Russia dominating Poland in the 18th century, the Partitions at the end of said epoch, the Russian occupation of central Poland in the 19th century (and the brutal repression of any and all Polish rebellions during that time), the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1920-21 or so, and of course Stalin's betrayal of the Warsaw rebels and subsequent establishment of a Communist puppet state in that land after World War II. And that's not even counting the rivalry between Moscow and Poland for Eastern Europe in the centuries before Peter the Great.
Even if we forget Poland (since, given history, I wouldn't be surprised if the Kremlin thought trying to dominate/occupy/control that country is too much trouble than it's worth) , there's still the ex-Soviet republics, which Putin's Russia is trying hard to dominate. Just think about the 2002 hacking of Estonia, Russia's interference with the 2004-2005 Ukranian elections (Putin was on the losing side of the Orange Revolution), and the 2008 invasion of Georgia, among other things. Want to know why Alexander Lukashenko is still dictator of Belarus. Because he and Putin are BFFs.
Honestly, I find it quite ironic that such a devoted opponent of US imperialism (real or otherwise) seems to be just find and dandy with Russia's very real imperialism in eastern Europe and the Caucasus region.
They've already been in jail for six months. I don't think you can call that getting off easy.
Did I even imply it was?
These women are attention whores. They thrive off challenging authority with paying trivial prices for it. Give them small (but escalating) jail terms for each instance of vandalism, disorderly conduct, disruption of a religious service (a class A misdemeanor in New York, btw), criminal trespass, and resisting arrest. Eventually, though, it is not unjust to point the cannon at the cat. They ought to do themselves and everyone else a favor and get normal jobs.
As for Russia, it is a foreign irritant, not a peril. As for the Russian political order, regrets but the attempt at democratic institutions was contemporary with an economic catastrophe. One ought to hope for a recovery in fertility, successful improvements in the effectiveness and reliability of police and courts, and a regulatory regime that does not ratify or promote rent-seeking before one hopes for a restoration of competitive elections. (Even so, Putin's regime is likely the most liberal-democratic in the civic realm of any outside the periods running from 1905 to 1918 and 1988 to 1999).
>As for Russia, it is a foreign irritant, not a peril.
Tell that to the people of Eastern Europe…
The basis of the the ABM Treaty is that in the realm of ballistic missiles so called defensive weapons tend to destabilise existing deterrents. If the Russians had wanted to use their missiles against the Poles, the propitious time was in 1989; that era is long gone now. The Poles should not rely on bear baiters in the Pentagon for support, but instead come to a regional understanding with the other Europeans including the Russians.
Russia is repressive. Nice to see you're sadistically enjoying P**y Riot's suffering (clearly, you find femininity&female organs scary) When Russia passed its antigay laws… the first man arrested wasn't gay, but a straight married man. Russia has been against free speech for years. Read about Dostoevsky and Tolstoy.
You're defending oppression&censorship. P**y Riot isn't sociopathic;they were battling the sociopathic Vladimir Putin.
How to sweet someone who revels in the censorship and oppression of others. You're just like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor. You HATE women and freedom.
Susan, the pu$$y rioters defiled a Christian Church. If their intent was to protest against Putin, then they should have carried their protest to a govt bldg, NOT a Christian Church.
Having pro-sodomy filth laws isn't fre speech. It's promotion of godless sexual idolatry and iniquity. The gays who won't repent belong back in the closet where they belong, and Christianity belongs front and center in the public square.
As for the first man arrested who was straight, if he was promoting homosexual filth, then his arrest, regardless of his sexual orientation, was right and correct. There are only human rights, and the filth of these sexually promiscuous creatures does not qualify as a human right. Indeed, for this kind of filth God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.
How to sweet someone who revels in the censorship and oppression of others. You're just like Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor. You HATE women and freedom.
If that's the way you want to put it, sister, go ahead. Betwixt and between hating women and freedom I have little time for vulgar professional adolescents who deface public property and disrupt other peoples' common activities.
I will leave the judgement on Putin's Russia to historians who will doubtless have better access to the information needed to make that judgment than any of us is likely to get.
What is clear is that this band willfully defiled a church. In any country, rights are not absolute, but need to be balanced against other rights. If they had been sent to jail for two years for making their "protest" in Red Square, I would be supporting their right to free speech (even if I very definitely disagree with much of what they are saying). They do not however, have a right to enter a church or other non-governmental or non-publically owned space in order to make that protest.
Personally, I get the impression that they wanted to be arrested; they got what they wanted and I am not going to loose too much sleep over it.
May God bless Bonchamps, Maryland Bill and Art Deco.
God Bless all of us. Just because people disagree with Bonchamps about the nature of the Russian government, that doesn't make them the enemy (and even if they were, we still should ask God to bless them).
I do have reservations about Putin's government, a lot of them. But I know I don't know enough to be sure one way or the other. I also know that to a certain extent, whether Putin is a saint or a sinner, it doesn't change the wrongness of what this "band" did in a Church.
Susan, I disagree with Bonchamps about this, but I wouldn't accuse him of hating women or freedom. Attacking someone's motivations is bad form. And also, just because Putin is a sociopath, that doesn't mean his oppnents aren't.
The Russian Orthodox do not reserve the sacrament in a tabernacle, because the bread and wine are combined and served out of a single chalice (the intinctioned cube of Eucharist is dropped into the communicant's open mouth by the priest using a a golden spoon).
Darwin, you are wrong. We do in fact keep the reserved Sacrament in a tabernacle on the Holy Table at all times, for Presanctified Liturgies during Lent and for the communion of the sick at all times of the year. Just because we don't have a practice of Eucharistic Adoration outside of a liturgical context doesn't mean that the Altar does not at all times have the Holy Gifts placed on it.
"Politics is the art of the possible" and "politics involves compromise." The compromise that Paul Ryan suggests does not violate his strong pro-life stand in principle. The choice the GOP has is to do what is the most- morally accepted public viewpoint right now, OR lose out to Obama's absolute support for abortion to the point of infanticide, aka partial birth- recall his own actions as Illinois State Senator when he voted against funds for babies who survived abortion. The US Electorate needs further education on the absolute right to life of all babies, and hear the stories of all survivors of rape and incest. The Government is not Jesus' Body, the Church. Extreme idealists do not make the best politicians The ideal for all issues is still to be achieved- Isaiah's Lion is still chewing on the Lamb and the cash for plow-shares is being dumped on unwinnable wars.
Ryan may well not have played the "step in the right direction" angle before, but then he hasn't been a vice presidential candidate before. His comments this week can be read to be in line with Evangelium Vitae's "an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done." (They can also accommodate a power-over-principle reading, but that butts up against his right to a good name.)
Personally, I think this week's lesson is not that Ryan is a power-over-principle politician, but that we need to evaluate candidates in an "art of the possible" light, not in a "speech to a friendly audience" light. If we're not supposed to think less of a politician because he can't fully effect his policies, we should nevertheless account for what he can't effect in judging him as a candidate.
"I often find his commentary to be fair-minded (even when I disagree), I am surprised at this rather unjustifiable attack on Ryan's character but also willing to grant the benefit of the doubt."
You're being charitable to Mark here, which is a benefit of the doubt that he rarely gives to the targets of his diatribes. The truth is that this sort of thing has become Mark's stock in trade over the years. I'm completely disgusted by Mark's calumny of Ryan, and I'm not even supporting the Romney/Ryan ticket (as anyone who has even slightly paid attention to anything I've written in the last 5 years knows that I will NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES vote for Mitt Romney).
Mark, as is his schtick, will of course deny that he calumniated anyone, and will instead claim that he was merely pointing out "blah, blah, blah." Which, of course, is total BS. Here is what Mark said: that Paul Ryan "partly renounced his pro-life convictions" and "Ryan now opposes the murder of innocent human beings [only] where it is convenient to Romney". Mark is stating these things as fact – that Ryan has renounced his belief that there should be no rape exception to outlawing abortion. Apart from a press release from Romney HQ that merely reaffirms that their formerly pro-abort presidential candidate is, indeed, still at least somewhat pro-abort, Mark has absolutely NOTHING – ZERO -ZILCH – NADA – to back up his assertion that Paul Ryan has "partly renounced his pro-life convictions".
Which makes Mark's statement a lie. He has painted Ryan is a false light for no other purpose than to brandish his own "see-I-told-you-so-pox-on-both-your-houses" bona fides. And I say that as a card-carrying member of the "pox-on-both-your-houses" club. Now, Mark will point to the press release mentioned above, and will highlight "Ryan" where the release mentions the "Romney/Ryan" ticket" and will say "SEE!!!! Ryan now supports murdering babies where it's convenient to Romney." Problem is that absolutely no words ever actually uttered by Paul Ryan, and no actions ever taken by Paul Ryan, could EVER lead any rational-thinking sentient human being to form the conclusion that Ryan has "partly renounced his pro-life convictions" or thinks it's okay to murder children conceived in rape if it means electing Romney.
So, I ask again: what solid proof – from Paul Ryan – does Mark have to back up his words? None. And what "proof" he does allude to doesn't pass the basic smell test that our Church has provided us:
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.
2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.
Has Mark done this where Ryan is concerned? Has he, with sufficient proof, given the benefit of the most favorable interpretation in concluding that Paul Ryan (who has otherwise shown throughout his political career that he takes his pro-life beliefs seriously) has "partly renounced his pro-life convictions" and "now opposes the murder of innocent human beings [only] where it is convenient to Romney"?
I submit not.
I'm missing something. Is Ryan the typical Three Exceptions Republican that we've endured for decades, or is he two?
Scott, my best answer would be to "Google it" and read his position for yourself. I don't say "Google it" dismissively, but rather as a way of saying don't listen to what someone else claims Ryan's position to be, but do yourself the favor of searching out his views for yourself.
That said, my understanding is that Ryan is a "One-Exception" Republican, in that he believes in a very narrow exception where the life of the mother is threatened by carrying a pregnancy to term. Again, though, don't take my word for it, as I'm sure you can find something more definitive if you look for it.
But that press release from Romney HQ is NOT the place where you or anyone else will find Ryan's position. The funny thing is that my take-away from reading that statement was "Yep, that's the Romney I know so well and for whom I will NEVER vote." I certainly didn't take the views of the top of the ticket as reflective of the views of the bottom of the ticket. Mark's take-away, on the other hand, appears to be "Aha! Another opportunity to tarnish the pro-life credentials of yet another prominent RepubliCath pro-lifer and to put another nail in the coffin of the RepubliCath pro-life myth!" But Mark could accomplish the aim of questioning undying pro-life fealty to the Republican Party by pointing to Romney himself. There's no need to try to drag Ryan down by claiming he is someone who is "pro-life" only when it's convenient.
Bonchamps: I am good with that. "If Romney-Ryan really is unacceptable on life issues, then it is unacceptable, period." bears repeating
Jay, I respect and understand your view of Romney, even if I disagree with it. We are in complete agreement on Ryan and Shea.
I'm confused here. I was under the impression that Mr. Shea supported Ron Paul. Now that may be a misremembering on my part. But if it is not then it is worth pointing out that Ron Paul's position on abortion is a tenth amendment one in that Roe should ve overturned and the issue should be returned to the states to decide as they will. Which would definitively *not* be a no exceptions abortion position.
Again, I may be misremembering, but I could almost swear I remember a column of his not too far back laying out why a Catholic could support Ron Paul in good conscience. If that is incorrect then the point is obviously moot.
Fantastic thread, I've got to say. The Evangelium Vitae quotation couldn't be more on-point. And the Catechism passage, well, that's applicable pretty much everywhere.
I think the reason for the anger directed against Ryan has to do with the continued distrust of Romney. According to the narrative, Romney couldn't be trusted on conservative principles, so his VP had to be perfect. He chose Ryan, who is perceived as having unassailable credentials. So Ryan was supposed to keep Romney honest. The abortion exception statements shattered the narrative. Now, it's seen as Romney contaminating Ryan, or Ryan not being strong enough to stand up to Romney.
Of course, all of these narratives are fiction. They're our interpretations, and we demand that all the characters wear white hats or black hats. We ascribe mystical powers to a VP nominee, or ridiculously claim that Romney can't be trusted on abortion, or just as ridiculously claim that Romney can be trusted on abortion. It's more complicated than that.
I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction.
I really don't see how that can be interpreted as giving up his principles. Legalization of abortion did not come as a single step – it started with severing the link between intercourse and procreation through acceptance of contraception (first morally at Lambeth, and then legally through Griswold). Roe v. Wade was the culmination of many steps. Ryan is just doing it in the opposite direction, and the most realistic way it will happen – step by step. This is similar to claiming that a coach doesn't really want to ever score a touchdown because he called for a 5 yard slant for a first down at his own 20 yard line rather than throwing a deep route hail Mary (sorry, it's football season).
It could still be a "no exceptions" position.
Ron Paul's position is a technical legal one – he is not saying that abortion should be legal, he is saying that as a Constitutional law matter, it is a decision for the states. If he were a STATE congressman he would feel 100% comfortable voting for a STATE law banning abortion. Whether he is right on the Con law matter is a different issue, but one that RCs can legitimately disagree about (it is, incidentally, the same position Scalia holds and has held for many years). So his issue is not whether abortion should be banned, but through what legal mechanism.
"I'm completely disgusted by Mark's calumny of Ryan…"
I agree. I believe Mark is deeply engaged in calumny – an intrinsic evil.
Yes, but that obviously leaves the door open to states choosing to go the full-on abortion-into-the-ninth-month way, too. I understand the premise of the tenth amendment solution (and I supported Thompson last time around whose view was similar, so this isn't necessarily a criticism of Ron Paul) and am not necessarily condemning it. Claiming that Paul himself may be 100% against abortions with no exceptions personally and might vote for an outright ban if he were a state legislator is fine. But I'm not going to pretend that states like, say California or New York aren't going to have an abortion free-for-all if we send it back to the states. He may vote against it, but he is fine with other states voting for it. And as a matter of pure Constitutional law, an amendment to protect the lives of the unborn is perfectly in line with Constitutional procedures outlined in the document as well.
My point is that it seems to me to be a bit disingenuous to freak out over Paul Ryan's percieved shift in position if you support someone who is OK with letting states decide its a-ok for folks to abort all they want.
The irony here is that Mark's preferred candidate, Ron Paul, also favors a rape exception to laws against abortion.
Wow. So Mr. Well-Informed Practicing Catholic isn't aware that St. David of Wales was the product of a rape?
Denouncing Akin's views is not the same as saying that the life of a child conceived through violent rape is less valuable than that of a child conceived through loving intimacy. He can reject Akin without rejecting the immorality of abortion.
I hope Ryan thinks this over–it is very disappointing.
Good post, Bonchamps. One would think that the words of the self-appointed piety / purity police of the Catholic Blogger Magisterium that seems to have arisen in this day and age of the internet should carry more weight than those of the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him (many of whom have actually come out with kind words to say about Ryan's Catholic witness).
Paul Ryan is a good Catholic witness. What kind of witness is Mark Shea's calumny (a term someone else used above, not me)?
Actually, what you are accusing Mark of is properly rash judgment rather than calumny.
I think icefalcon's comment touches on the downside of the "step in the right direction" approach taken by a VP candidate. There is a conflict between making one's personal opposition known and the inherent deference to the presidential candidate's position. A "personally opposed, but not in charge" argument is a dis-integrated witness to the truth. It may be justified under the circumstances, but it is not without its bad effects.
What's disappointing is that people continue to ascribe to Ryan – out of either maliciousness or ignorance – views that belong to his running mate.
Surprise, surprise, a presidential nominee who once ran to Ted Kennedy's left on abortion is … SHOCKER!!! … soft on abortion. The vice-presidential nominee, Paul Ryan, by all indications, is not similarly soft on abortion (absent more proof than what has been offered thus far), but believes that Romney's views are a move closer to the ideal than are Obama's (and the current law of the land under Roe and Casey).
WOW! Time to "think this over". I wouldn't vote for Romney under any circumstances, but nevertheless believe he's closer to me on the issue than what the current law allows. In that sense, yes, even a ban on abortion with exceptions is better than what we currently have.
"But Ryan explained WHY, and his explanation still gave witness to the truth."
The fact that an explanation was required establishes that his witness to the truth as a VP candidate is not as clear as his witness to the truth as a member of the House.
Here's a simple test: Can Ryan the VP candidate unconditionally endorse Ryan the House Member's Sanctity of Human Life Act?
Actually, what you are accusing Mark of is properly rash judgment rather than calumny."
The object is no less harmed by the accusation if the speaker is being "rash" vs. being intentional. At some point, "rashness" becomes reckless disregard for the truth.
But, for the sake of charity, I'll consider amending my assessment of Mark's statements from being calumny to instead being rashness that exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth. Honestly, however, I don't think that particular spin puts him in much better stead.
"…I'll consider amending my assessment of Mark's statements from being calumny to instead being rashness that exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth. Honestly, however, I don't think that particular spin puts him in much better stead."
Perhaps Mark Shea would do well to focus on the girth of problems in his own life instead of the lack of girth of problems in Paul Ryan's life.
Can't that be said of all of us?
" Such suggestions – and Mark did suggest as much – are really outrageous."
For my part, I don't find it at all outrageous to suggest that a vice presidential candidate, to say nothing of a vice president, will not publicly work for the passage of legislation which the presidential candidate, to say nothing of the president, opposes. (Such, at least, were the circumstances I was trying to invoke by mentioning the Sanctity of Human Life Act, which on my reading entails legal prohibition of abortion in all cases.)
"But, for the sake of charity, I'll consider amending my assessment of Mark's statements from being calumny to instead being rashness that exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth."
And part of my re-assessing whether it's "calumny" vs. "rashness that exhibits a reckless disregard for the truth" hinges on whether Mark persists in his claims, without further proof to back them up, that Ryan has "partly renounced his pro-life convictions" or that "Ryan now opposes the murder of innocent human beings [only] where it is convenient to Romney".
So far, at least in response to commenters at his post, Mark appears to be doubling down on his claims. In my book, that doesn't lead one to easily dismiss it as "rashness".
As I stated above, I am a card-carrying member of the "pox-on-both-your-houses" club. I'm voting for the Constitution Party's candidate, Virgil Good, who has a 100% pro-life without exceptions stance. Even if Goode weren't on the ballot, I'd still NEVER vote for Mitt Romney.
But being a member of the "pox-on-both-your-houses" club doesn't excuse either "calumny" or "rashness exhibiting a total disregard for the truth". And the only reason I read and commented on Mark's post on the subject was because someone brought it to my attention. Otherwise, I don't read him (or any other blog these days apart from this one and Creative Minority Report).
In fact, I don't read or write on my own blog much anymore (although I did post yesterday -for the first time in 2 months – to commemorate the 90th anniversary of the death of Irish soldier, statesman, and hero, Michael Collins).
My comments weren't meant to be a criticism or condemnation of Ron Paul's views on how to handle the abortion issue legally (as I said before, I supported Fred Thompson last time around and his views on the subject were similar). Like I said at the end of my last post, I just find it disingenuous that Mr. Shea, who I believe supports Ron Paul- whose own position would legally allow states to permit all abortions if they so choose- is upset about Ryan's perceived shift in position.
I've always really enjoyed reading Mr. Shea's work on the faith, but it seems to me that when he gets into applying those principles in the political arena he goes off the rails into hysterical territory.
True, Foxfier.
In all fairness, the question as to whether the decision regarding abortion's legality does or should rest with the states is quite different than the question of whether abortion should ever be legal and if so under what circumstances. The notion that the answers are yes and no respectively is quite logically coherent. That said, the inferential liberties that Shea takes with Ryan's statements and positions are not logically coherent, but just emotional rants.
My own considered view is that absent a constitutional amendment, the abortion decision does rest with states. Indeed, one can make a case that some of the same animations that justified the post-Civil War civil rights amendments also apply to the unborn and the protections they need, in which case a constitutional amendment may well be the most sensible answer — even if politically implausible.
Far too many words have been spilled on this topic.
A president who is partially pro-life is a step on the right direction from where we are today. That we are even discussing this says more about the likes of Mark Shea than it does about Paul Ryan.
The Catholics I know agrees with Romney's position on abortion when it comes to rape. I consider Romney to be a moderate conservative & Ryan more conservative but not an extremist. Anyway, I like these 2 men as they are both very decent.
In November, you get to display your Catholic "bona fides."
Cast your vote for the 88% pro-life team or for the 0% pro-life regime.
Bona fide Catholics understand that "88% pro-life" is a political euphemism for an objectively evil position.
Hey, Tom,
Is that why bona fide catholics feel they can liciltly advance the 100% abortion agenda?
I just walked by a couple pf persons that abruptly went to see St. Peter.
They now know that you will not be getting into Heaven if you shoot people on 34th Street and Fifth Avenue, or if you vote democrat.
Hey, T.,
Inventing religious doctrines does not solidify your Catholic bona fides.
Tom- You have a number of excellent blog posts over the years on the principle of double effect. Why are you are belaboring this non-issue?
K: I'm the worst sinner you ever met. I have no Catholic bona fides.
I did not invent Church teaching. If you die in a state of mortal sin . . . Voting democrat is voing for abortion which is a mortal sin.
I was referring to two dead and nine woounded outside my place of employment the Empire State Building in NYC. I was on the street 100 yards away when it happened. I'm only a little shaken. Sadly, I've seen more sudden death.
That is an excellent question, Paul D. Tom, you know full well that voting for the Romney ticket is not remotely objectively evil, so why are you implying otherwise?
Of course voting for the Obama ticket is not objectively evil either, even if the prudential calculus necessary to justify it is pretty doggone tricky.
I'm not familiar with the principel of double effect. I know the principle of double-tap.
One of my co-workers was entering a taxi and saw the NYPD kill the shooter. "Driver, JFK Airport, and step on it!"
And Tom, so in 1860 you would have encouraged Catholics to not vote for Lincoln since his position on slavery was constrained by pragmatic politics and imperfect? So America gets Stephen Douglas and a couple extra decades of men, women and children in chains, all in exchange for your phony principle?
MP: Apparently, K believes that stealing (government without justice is mass brigandage) other people's money to give it to the democrat voting base (coincidentally including UAW, NEA, PLO, Wall Street bankers, green boondoggles like Solndra, etc.) is plenary indulgence. It wipes away about 5,000,000 mortal sins advanced by the democrat agenda. Because Matt. 25: The Final Judgment: "I was hungry and you voted for Obama . . ."
I don't consider it a non-issue to use political euphemisms to represent what is evil as what is good.
"step in the right direction"
Ok. so 'splain to me how this is different from Benedict XVI's statement that use of a condom by an HIV positive person is a "step in the right direction" brouhaha? In that case, it did not mean the Pope was backing off on the intrinsic immorality of artificial contraception, but rather that it showed the person was at least starting to recognize that consideration of others was more important than his own personal gratification, and hopefully someday that same person would arrive at the fullness of truth on sexual morality. IIRC, Mark defended the statement pretty much along those lines (and I would agree with him).
How is Ryan's statement different wrt hoping the country finally arrives at the fullness of truth on abortion?
Mitt Romney's position on abortion is objectively evil. If pointing out that fact constitutes encouraging Catholics not to vote for him, blame the party that nominated him, not me.
And if people think pointing out that fact is implying that voting for Romney is objectively evil, blame the parish that catechized them.
T. Shaw: "Cast your vote for the 88% pro-life team or for the 0% pro-life regime."
Tom K: "Bona fide Catholics understand that "88% pro-life" is a political euphemism for an objectively evil position ……. I don't consider it a non-issue to use political euphemisms to represent what is evil as what is good."
Tom, do you seriously consider your response a fair or honest characterization of Mr. Shaw's comment? In other words, was Mr. Shaw saying that 88% was perfect or simply better? You do realize that the bishops have repeatedly stated that supporting measures that are less than 100% pro-life can be morally acceptable if they are the best practical option for advancing the pro-life cause, do you not?
If I also recall, the letter sent out by B XVI last election dealing with what legislators could and couldn't do wrt objectively evil legislation seems relevant here. The letter said something to the effect that a legislator whose pro-life position is well known, could vote for a law that while not removing an evil entirely, limits or restricts the evil from the current norm. It would seem said legislator could morally vote for a law restricting abortion to rape or life of mom, given the current status, so long as it is clear it is intended as a step, not the end game.
How is Ryan's position different from that? And how is voting for Romney, given his exceptions and the current state of law on abortion, substantively different from a legislator voting for such a law in the situation above? Or am I not recalling the letter correctly?
I like Tom better when he's not being ornery. I also refuse to believe that he doesn't know he's being ornery.
I like Tom better when he's not being ornery. I also refuse to believe that he doesn't know he's being ornery.
But we have grown accustomed to talking about things like "88% pro-life" as though they were good things.
"88% pro-life" is not a good thing. It is a gravely evil thing.
"88% pro-life" is, as I said, a political euphemism. It means "not pro-life."
Here's my proposal: If politically conservative Catholics spent more time talking about why "88% pro-life" is a gravely evil thing, and less time talking about why people can vote for candidates who are not pro-life, there would be more pro-life candidates to vote for.
I'll drink to that proposal and offer one of my own:
If the bishops would spend less time talking about being Catholic and more time ex-communicating there would be more pro-life candidates and less scandal.
"88% pro-life" is a gravely evil thing, and less time talking about why people can vote for candidates who are not pro-life, there would be more pro-life candidates to vote for."
I'm not so sure that Tom is wrong on this, I can see how this type of conversation might produce more candidates who would appeal to our rather small echo chamber. This would not advance the ball, of course, any more than voting for Radical Republican abolotionists rather than Lincoln would have advanced the ball on slavery, but I suppose it might make a voter *feel* pure, holy, righteous and all that.
To not vote for someone who can further the culture of Life is akin to say: Let's not ever vote for a Christian! Let's only vote for Catholics because we know it's the one true church founded by Our Lord himself!
"I'm comfortable with it because it's a good step in the right direction."
I'm willing to hold my breath, give the benefit of the doubt, and take the wait-and-see approach. After all, he has to get into office first, and with all the hatred (mis)directed towards Catholics in our world today, and the number of Catholics who vote for Obama and the pro-choice stance, getting into office would be much more difficult if he came right out arguing against Romney full frontal on this issue. This issue has been and will continue to be an on-going one; one that will not be immediately and tactically resolved even if he were to go into office with a 100% pro-life position. I feel IT IS a good step in the right direction – it's a MOVEMENT in a direction that is closer to being 100% pro-life than not. If he were to get into office, then we can only pray (and as always make our voices heard) that he takes that step further until there is NO death to the unborn innocents – EVER. We should stand in unity to continue to work on this issue realizing that it's a long-term war — not a short-term battle. Right now, I'm choosing not to be so quick to judge or join in on the ugliness of politics…and pray.
" If a candidate is for rape, incest and life of the mother exceptions, and will work to ban all other abortions, then he is clearly preferable to someone who is one hundred percent pro-abortion. After we reach the goal of banning all abortions, except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, then we can work to close those exceptions.
If the goal is merely to vent in com boxes and concede the political struggle to the pro-aborts by effectively leaving the political arena, then a pure pro-life strategy is appealing." Exactly how a Catholic must vote. Sometimes the choices are difficult and you have to ask; who is MORE pro life or MORE pro abortion. It's the reality we deal with and we have to do the best we can. Clearly we must defeat Obama and if that means voting when we really don't feel we have any choice-then we'd better vote. Otherwise it's just a vote for Obama anyway. You may as well fill out the ballot with BHO's name on it.
The REAL problem is candidates are afraid to stand up and be totally pro life-from conception to natural death and don't realize you cannot start making exceptions.
They think if they go that far they will not get elected. The truth is they may not and no candidate who is PRO LIFE and can't win does us any good. What we need to do is finally stand up to those that are pro abortion,steal the narrative away from them and elect someone who is truly pro life in spite of them. We can have the discussion later on why there are no exceptions to deliberately murdering an innocent.
One of the most irritating aspects of the left is that they judge programs, not by outcomes, but by how good and morally superior it makes them feel. By any objective standards, LBJ's War on Poverty is a failure, which has degraded the lives of millions trapped in the inner cities and dependent on government checks. But hey, those policies make white libs feel "compassionate" so let's continue them.
It's disheartening to see people on our side engage in the same sort of thing. The bottom line is this: babies are left to die on tables every day, they get their brains sucked out, abortions are available right up to the delivery date – and our president and his party are completely OK with that. If he is elected in November, he will name SP Justices who are also OK with that. The entire pro-life cause will be set back for decades. However, the pro lifers who sit this one out will be able to congratuate themselves on their moral purity – nevermind the actual results or political reality.
"It's disheartening to see people on our side engage in the same sort of thing."
Bulverism like this — and Mike's "it might make a voter *feel* pure, holy, righteous and all that" — demonstrates only the poverty of thought on the part of the bulverist.
It's all the more shameful in that Catholics show themselves unable to conceive of a reason to point out evil other than to feel morally superior.
Tom K,
A sane person understands that going from 100% abortions legal to 5% is a good thing even if 5% abortions legal is a bad thing. So a sane man battles to see this good thing happen and resents being opposed by the man who opposes the good thing happening because a bad thing remains. The latter man is either a fool or evil.
What is the 'bul' part with 'verism' ? Is it a superior way to cut at the verism of Catholic reason? My B student dictionary mentions 'bull' session.
If bull prefixes truth or realism, then it must mean that an "l" is dropped.
So, that last sentence sounds like you are maybe looking for cites from Scripture or the Catechism in the pointing out of evil.
I believe it's because of people like Mark Shea that we wound up with the most pro-abortion president in history and I truly feel he will be judged accordingly, just as anyone who supports abortion rights candidates over pro-life candidates. Ryan had to be carefull how he answered that question because it was a trap type question to tie him to Aikin which would give the dem's and media enough ammo to likley re-elect Obama. Romney pledged to Jay Sekuluv who stated on EWTN radio that he will appoint judges to the court that respect life from conception to natural death and now with a real Catholic on the ticket you can bet he will……
I agree with all Robert that writes, especially on how some self-anointed have employed the perfect to ruin the good. It's comes really close to "detraction."
The Obama-worshiping shills that populate the so-called media's have two jobs. Ambush GOP candidates and lob "softballs" at liberals.
Typical question to Obama, "Do you like fried onions on your cheeseburger?".
Typical question to Romney, "When did you stop beating your wife?".
Here's one I would ask Obama, "Do you prefer fried or roasted canine?"
Thank you for the explanation, Don – I should have looked it up in the web search area.
Never would have guessed the word was another gift from CS Lewis. It really does define the way governments have gone from keeping outward order to ruling to roost of its people.
Maybe E. Bulver's mother was one of the makers of 1960's 'feminism', when fifty years later, some in government want to be sure that public schools provide birth control for age 12 more than teaching them how to think. And on to results in 'fashion', greed, and bad manners.
Oh, relieved that T. Shaw didn't get bulverised at the ATM wall on Friday AM.
Good post, Bonchamps!
The late great Henry Hazlitt. Now that's a name that rarely is mentioned and when he is, his works never disappoint.
Obama, bless his heart, doesn't foster equal opportunity, he forces equal outcomes. That has failed adding to poverty.
"The key idea here, though, is that charitable giving is not a duty of justice or a duty enforced by human law. The state has no obligation to confiscate and redistribute wealth in order to "help the poor" (assuming that this is what the aim really is).
Nor do Catholics have an obligation to advocate for policies that would do as much, let alone castigate and anathematize other Catholics who object to the prudence and morality of such policies."
'Tolerance' is a two way street and, when in balance, allows the higher virtue of charity to flourish.
."(13) But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one's standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. "Of that which remaineth, give alms."(14) It is a duty, not of justice (save in extreme cases), but of Christian charity – a duty not enforced by human law. – Rerum Novarum, 22
"This not only appears to go against what the most radical anti-Ryanites insist upon, but it really describes the way most of us already think and live anyway."
Charity has been a traditional function of both religious and civic groups traditionally, fostering unity and civility.
Very few of the agitated middle-class leftists, Democrats, liberals, et. al. are living in rags because they have given the majority of their wealth to "the poor." Something tells me that Chris Matthews, E.J. Dionne, and others on that side of the political divide are enjoying all of the perks and pleasures that an upper-middle class American lifestyle makes possible."
– not fostering unity and civility either.
You don't conquer poverty by giving man his clothing, food, and shelter. You defeat poverty by teaching (fix failed public education) him the skills to earn them; and by removing the obstacles (class hate, demagoguery, green boondoggles, enviro-nazi hindrances to low cost energy, costly regulations, high taxes, etc.) to economic development and job growth.
Conquer poverty
Vote Romney/Ryan
Populorum Progressio is part of Catholic Social teaching, too.
"Now if the earth truly was created to provide man with the necessities of life and the tools for his own progress, it follows that every man has the right to glean what he needs from the earth. The recent Council reiterated this truth: "God intended the earth and everything in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should flow fairly to all." (20)
All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. They should in no way hinder it; in fact, they should actively facilitate its implementation. Redirecting these rights back to their original purpose must be regarded as an important and urgent social duty."
Paul VI also cites St Ambrose ""You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich."
St Gregory, too, says, ""When we give the poor what is necessary to them, we are not so much bestowing on them what is our property as rendering to them what is their own; and it may be said to be an act of justice rather than a work of mercy."
On the balance between the rôle of the state and private initiative, Paul VI teaches, "It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work."
Rerum Novarum does, indeed, establish the right to private property; Populorum Progressio says that "All other rights, whatever they may be, including the rights of property and free trade, are to be subordinated to this principle. "
There is no contradiction here, simply a development of doctrine.
"private property owners make economic decisions, not government agencies."
Of course, but within the constraints established by public policy; that is why Populorum Progressio insists that public authorities see to it that "private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man's basic human rights. "
Again, there is no conflict here.
The Popes' assumed that man would be virtuous.
It is not so.
Socialists, progressives, liberals, democrats don't care about the poor. If they did they wouldn't have spent 80 years pushing the same old failed garbage. They care about political power.
My son has autism spectrum disorder. He can speak, and he can work, but his condition requires a job coach to help him stay on task and moderate his behavior, which unaided will become self-injurious.
Is he the "extreme need exception"? How will this be temporary? What WILL be temporary will be my life and my ability to provide for him financially and protect him from financial or personal abuse. He does not have the social capability to protect himself.
One does not have to be a "socialist" to understand that a just society protects those that are weakest and cannot fend for themselves. I don't expect my son's "exception" to assume the "rule," but it is a vast oversimplification of life that "extreme need is a temporary and relative phenomenon.
Don't get me wrong, America has gone too far on the path of socialism. But it is vastly unrealistic to assume that a safety net can be temporary, or that enough money can be produced by private charity or local governments, in all cases where basic human compassion (forget Christian morality, which presumably the author believes in) would require more.
Conquer poverty.
Vote Romney/Ryan.
There is violent rape and then there is statutory rape. The violent rapist is a murderer. The statutory rapist is a grossed out ignoramus of unmitigated proportions. Here is the difference Akin was struggling to define. The criminal rapist ought to go to jail for the rest of his unnatural life. The statutory rapist is over eighteen years of age and ought to know better and an underage girl who has not reached the age of informed consent have sexual relations, with or without the child becoming pregnant, the parents of both the male and the girl, or the girl alone, may choose to support and encourage the relationship and 'adopt" any child as their own, even though it be a grandchild. Statutory rape carried a two year federal prison sentence, no questions asked, in my day, and I felt very protected. With abortion, pornography, indecency at every turn, with the removal of all protection of the young uninformed, innocent virgins, informed sexual consent is counted legally at fourteen years of age in some states and without the voters voting on it. The protections were removed to enhance the abortion rate and increase Planned Parenthood's profit. Our daughters are being mutilated.
The woman's body may shut down during the violence, but conception takes place hours later.
Life is Life. Government does not give LIFE and government cannot take innocent life, not Liberty, nor the pursuit of Happiness. Government does not give sovereign personhood and government cannot deny sovereign personhood, not even to the one-celled human being, coming into existence at the will of "their Creator", with his newly begotten immortal soul.
My definition of just punishment to the rapist is to give the victim's parents twenty minutes alone with him on the open seas, or a public pillory with several bats and let the public have at him, or jail for the rest of his unnatural life. Once a rapist, always a rapist, the public is not safe anymore, and for all the money taken for taxes. Abort the innocent life, harbor the evil doers and compliment the cowards. Where is Judge Roy Bean when you need him.
My dad's family is the result of Tartar rape and the girl's father adopted the little boy born of the rape. Adoption consisted in taking the child upon his knee. And I would not be here if not for the generosity and common sense of my father's ancestor. It was my mother's family who was raped in 1595.
And as far as Obama not knowing anything, what else is new?
In the Old Testament, the Bible, if a woman was being raped in the city and she did not call out, she was to be stoned along with the rapist to keep evil out of their midst. If the woman was raped in the field where her cries would not be heard she was not to be put to death. In not calling out, the victim in the city, became an accomplice to her own rape.
It has been known and acknowledged for some time that stress-whether physical or psychological-can cause delayed ovulation, and therefore a delayed period. This was a fairly common complaint in my college days actually–the girls (the ones who weren't on the Pill) would complain about their period not coming on the day expectetd and guess what? They had had a bad month working on a paper or some history project or something. Or they got sick, or went on some new ridiculous diet and exercise program. No they weren't pregnant, and yes, the period came a few days late.
I don't see why a rape, if it occurred in an early part of the cycle, say Day 5 or 6, wouldn't cause a delayed ovulation. Now if a woman were on Day 14, which is mid-cycle for the average women (not on the pill) and about the time they ovulate (I think Day 16 is the text book date), that I don't know. And if she had ovulated within 24 hours before the rape occured, I don't know of any reason why the egg might not get fertilized (and then implant some days later.) If the rape occurred several days after the woman has ovulated, fertilization is most unlikely. An unfertilized egg only lives roughly 24 hours.
This is my understanding from what I've picked up along the way. I would verify with an Creighon Modle NFP practioner.
i hope all of you get raped and then you can feel what it is like, bunch of hypocrites
I get what the candidate said, but wish too, that he had taken a deep breath before answering. McCaskill wants him to stay in the race, she thinks he is a wounded bird now and that is the only way she could win. Typical O/alinsky tactic to eliminate your opponent. Too bad. Hope there is someone to fill his shoes who is a little more willey.
LOVE Rob Roy. It's the Scottish in me.
Yes women get pregnant from rapes. No your body doesn't shut that down. If a man ejaculates semen into a woman, she can get pregnant whether it's consensual or it's rape. I knew a woman who did indeed get pregnant after being gang raped. It happens. Apparently you folks think rape is a joke. Hardy har.
As bad as the remarks are, it doesn't seem completely irrational to think some physiological factors can affect the likelihood of pregnancy – stress, fear, etc. release different hormones and compounds into the body, so it could be possible it would affect conception.
Still, pretty cringeworthy. But not as bad as that Texas Gubernatorial candidate (Clayton Williams?) that made a huge rape gaffe that cost him the election to Anne Richards.
The law may have been changed, but last I remember, if a child was brought into a family, through rape, adultery, or whatever, the child was legally the father's/husband's child and a legal member of the family. The law did not exact death to the unbon child.
"I'll leave comments such as "what"s as an example of the sort of insanity we are dealing with from the left."
"what" does not know that she is a "WHO"
So what you are basically saying is that you are fine if a woman is raped since you really know there isn't a chance of pregnancy. Consequently, any woman that claims rape and is pregnant wasn't raped at all.
Somehow, I think women from the Virgin Mary to Sister Theresa would have a problem with your theory. I suggest heading to the confessional and I pray God takes pity on your soul.
Mr. McClarey,
I read and comprehend quite well. I do well at reading between lines. If you favor HB 3 which I assume you do…..then this would be your exact view. Would it not?
Another problem with irresponsible government overspending is no accountability for grievous, intentional, and wasteful error. The piece of cake mentality going in, and the garbage produced coming out.
I just looked up ten indictments for rape in this year's Books of Sederunt, more or less at random. Six of them contained averments to the following, or similar effect, "while she was under the influence of alcohol and drugs or of one or other of them and bereft of the power of resistance" or "while she was asleep under the influence of alcohol and incapable of giving or withholding consent" Another averred the woman was a defective, within the meaning of the Mental Health Acts and incapable &c
In no sense is this a scientific survey, but it suggests that rape may well be as often clandestine as forcible. After all, the essence of the offence, the factum probandum, is absence of consent; force or violence are merely evidence that the panel knew the woman was not consenting, or was reckless as to whether she was consenting or not.
Another good post, Bonchamps!
….one cannot simply discuss "the role of government" in the abstract, without considering who will actually run the state and what values and assumptions they take with them as they create and execute policies with coercive force.
Exactly, well said.
This post says it all. However, I have to admit I threw up in my mouth a little when I read you were a Ron Paul Supporter….
Every time I ran into a Ron Paul supporter downtown (usually they were standing at a crosswalk holding a sign trying to get everyone to sign some sort of petition) something always seemed a little "off".
The crux of the matter is that "winning matters;" it isn't everything but it matters.
We are down by 2, it is a 46 yard attempt, and there are 15 seconds on the clock. Ryan had better be the guy.
"We are down by 2, it is a 46 yard attempt, and there are 15 seconds on the clock. Ryan had better be the guy."
Ryan is just the holder, and I'm sure he'll get the snap down and the laces out. But Romney has to be the one to kick it through and I am not sure I trust his leg.
If God, in his wisdom, decides to punish us with four more years of Obama, I will see the good in it.
One good being he should not be able to run again (consecutively), should the US survive him.
Anything can happen in two months and change, but I am a little encouraged hearing from a few past O supporters that they are going Romney this time around. Not that it matters much in the Lone Star State, but its something.
As for Ron Paul's failure to win not mattering, I don't know. I doubt Texas would have Ted Cruz on the GOP ticket if not for Paul's influence.
c matt says:
If God, in his wisdom, decides to punish us with four more years of Obama, I will see the good in it.
One good being he should not be able to run again (consecutively), should the US survive him.
If Obama wins a second term people will not have to vote any more as Obama's HOPE AND CHANGE will make Obama Emperor. Obama has instructed the Department of Justice to enforce his 923 new Executive Orders. The Department of Justice has been constituted to judge Executive Orders and not to enforce them at the whim of the Executive. The Affordable Healthcare Act is, in reality, an Executive Order, without informed consent for the people. Chief Justice Roberts found that it is OK to ignore the people who pay for it and make them pay for it, giving Obama access to every senior citizen's social security. Make Obama say: FREEDOM to the people.
Amen! I do not think there is any doubt about the candidate faithful Catholics must support this year. We must support Romney, because Obama clearly is an enemy of the Church.
If Obama is reelected, he will have gotten away with an unprecedented attack on the Church. Thus emboldened, he will begin new attacks on the Church. And large numbers of Democratic voters and donors, who despise traditional Christianity, will cheer him on, as will the anti-Catholic major media.
Romney won me at his Ryan selection. Quoting Jimmy Akin here :the solution to the global poverty problem–to the extent we can achieve it–involves a mixture of providing work as the foremost solution, providing handouts as the backup solution – Romney/Ryan'splan does that exactly!!! Then there is that little bit of the pro-life factor. The R7R ticket is significanlty more pro-life than the O&B ticket, for sure. R&R for the win!!!
I am glad that people are familiar with natural law and the scope of such arguments for Catholics on politics. However, it is important to remember that the Church has long argued that there are several principles for assessing candidates. This writer has provided one: freedom of conscience. Another is supplementarity for the purpose of the Common Good. According to this principle the State helps local organizations to provide for the poor.
Your main argument against Obama is the violation of individual conscience on the HHS mandate. Putting aside the arguments on contraception, the mandate would allow for individuals who are or are not Catholic working at a Catholic institution to make their own decisions on contraception. They would then go to their insurance companies to get "free" access to contraception. This means that Catholic institutions will not be providing contraception. And, you the individual are not paying for contraception for anyone else. Because the government does not provide contraception for people. It is provided through insurance plans. In fact, the attempt to stop this is the one violating conscience since it is telling individuals what to think about contraception. And, there is an added bonus to doing this. It will help with curbing the number of abortions. We are not utilitarians in the Church. But under Natural Law we do have to be informed by the consequences of our actions. And, limiting abortions through a policy that does not violate life is a good.
However, there is an added reason to vote for Obama. Currently the Paul Ryan budget would change the health care insurance for the elderly to a capped system that does not keep up with the health care inflation rate. This would put the elderly in more jeopardy. And, it would put harder burdens on middle class families who would have to spend more on health care as their wages are decreasing. This violates the Natural Law principle of supplementarity. So, under Natural Law, there are actually much clearer reasons to vote for Obama.
"This means that Catholic institutions will not be providing contraception."
Except that most Catholic institutions are self-funded and so they are paying for it.
"Currently the Paul Ryan budget would change the health care insurance for the elderly to a capped system that does not keep up with the health care inflation rate."
Though in order to pay for ACA the Obama administration has cut 700 billion from Medicare effective now. That impacts seniors much more than any Ryan plan. Especially since the Ryan plan exempts from cuts anyone 55 or over today and the caps won't take place for ten years.
James Zucker: "[individuals] not Catholic working at a Catholic institution to make their own decisions on contraception."
When all is said and done: Put it on the ballot so that all citizens might have a choice and get to choose what their taxes are going to buy. If you are going to impose Obama's freedom on me, I do not want it. The Affordable Healthcare Act is an Executive Order which gives Obama access to all social security. The premiums are to rise to $240 for Medicare by 2014, leaving most citizens with only one half of their grant. The free contraception is only the bait.
Z: Why are wages declining under the Obama-essiah?
Why is median family income nose-diving?
Why are there 23,000,000 people either unemployed or under-employed? […]
The regime is at war with the Church.
The casus belli isn't artificial contraception or gay marriage. They merely are the latest ambushes.
The Church must be defeated because its teachings on faith, moral and Objective Truth compete for the minds of the serfs against Obama and the collectivists.
That is the reason, as Mr. Bonchamps stated in a comment elsewhere, the regime is out "to criminalize religious institutions."
A little more discussion on the Ryan plan:
Philip and Mary:
Good points that need a response.
So, lets start with Philip's points. It is true that some Catholic institutions, not all, are self funded and so would have to provide these plans. However, two points on this. First, the Obama administration did show some signs so compromise with these institutions so that they would not have to comply. Second, these institutions would be purchasing these plans with such options. This means that the individuals would chose to use these plans. The Catholic institutions would not be purchasing the contraception. They would be purchasing plans that allow for non Catholics and Catholics who use contraception to make that choice. Third, this already exists in 28 states and 8 of these states have no exceptions. Catholic institutions have already found ways to do this.
Second, as to the points on the executive order. I don't know where you are getting this from. It is true that Obama is allowed to have the HHS to do certain mandates. However, the ACA is not an executive order. Most of its elements were part of the overall law that was passed by Congress.
Third, Mary argued that these elements should be placed up to a general vote. Why? Are all rights and actions done by the country put up to a vote. And, since there is no referendum at the national level, this would be impossible.
Fourth, Philip argued that the Ryan bill is similar to Obama in that Obama cut 700 billion from Medicare. This is just not true. Actually, Conservatives have manipulated what actually happened under the ACA. The actual thing that ACA does is reduce the growth rates of Medicare. The overall growth continues throughout the next 10 years. However, the Ryan plan intentionally caps the amount of money sent to the elderly. So, it cannot keep up with the inflation rate for health care.
So, what are the reasons why you ought to vote for Obama as a Catholic. First, his plans, as supported by the American bishops, help the poor and fulfill the preferential option for the poor under Catholic Social teaching. His plans do reform Medicare without endangering the elderly. He provides access to contraception for those who individually choose to want it by bypassing the employer and purchasing plans from their insurance. And, this has a track record of reducing the number of abortions in the country. And, Obama is following the need of the state to supplement the works of local organizations. Paul Ryan, a Conservative Catholic, advocates the moral philosophy of Ayn Rand who promotes that individuals should follow their own ego in order to satisfy their individual self interest first. This is not an attack on Ryan as an individual. I am sure that he is a good Catholic. But his overriding social philosophy is not in line with Catholic social teachings.
Mr. Zucker, The President is violating the Constitution of the United States in aggressive and singular ways. His violation of the 1st Amendment through the HHS Mandate is the one closes to the hearts of Catholics and as well it should be. His amnesty program for unlawfully present aliens is another. His divisive and dismissive tone is significant to many of us who "cling to our guns and religion." His support for same sex marriage shouldn't be ignored. But most of all… most of all… His unmitigated support for abortion.
Perhaps you need some of the more Christian Left objections though:
Guantanamo Bay – Closed? Nope. Specific promise broken, that.
Afghanistan Pull Back – Accomplished? Even Started? Nope. Specific promise broken, that.
Immigration Overhaul – Accomplished? Started? Nope. Specific promise broken, that.
Maybe you are a pragmatist though:
Job Growth – Not even close… Well, in India, but not here.
Deficit Reduction – Quite the opposite.
Foreign Relations Improved – Quite the opposite, things are no better with the Russians, the Chinese, the Venezuelans, or the Iranians. Europe is in the midst of a downhill slide and believe that the US is not relevant to their prosperity. Eastern Europe figures they are on their own, Georgia knows they are, Turkey has moved from ally to marginal opponent, and Mexico continues to favor unlawful immigration into the US while fighting a stalemate conflict with narco terrorists.
Where, pray tell, has this administration succeeded?
If you are going to explain why we are wrong to oppose President Obama, you had better come armed with more than sophistry.
"First, the Obama administration did show some signs so compromise with these institutions so that they would not have to comply."
"So, what are the reasons why you ought to vote for Obama as a Catholic. First, his plans, as supported by the American bishops…"
Though the Bishops have rejected the compromise you refer to. Thus according to other statement you should agree with the Bishops and reject Obama and his false compromise.
"The actual thing that ACA does is reduce the growth rates of Medicare. The overall growth continues throughout the next 10 years. However, the Ryan plan intentionally caps the amount of money sent to the elderly. So, it cannot keep up with the inflation rate for health care."
Not true. Read the link I provided.
Obamacare raises insurance costs across the board hurting those most in need, does nothing to address the reason for escalating medical price increases and spends not one page to enact tort reform in 2700 pages of the largest piece of federal legislation in history. It has already forced Catholic schools to drop health insurance for students because of its lack of a conscience clause.
Now you are either ignorant of these things or are a willing accomplice with evil. Which is it?
"Third, this already exists in 28 states and 8 of these states have no exceptions. Catholic institutions have already found ways to do this."
Note in this article that the way to get out is closed by Federal rules:
Okay, so lots of issues to respond to from both posts.
Lets start with G Veg:
The first major point you have made is that the President is violating the Constitution. You provided two major examples. The HHS mandate assumes that the President's compromise violates either individual freedom to worship or establishes his own religion as national. Neither is the case. In fact, under the compromise, individuals who are either Catholic or not get to make their own choice on contraception and go directly to their insurance company. As for establishing his own national faith, there is of course no basis for this. So, there is no violation of the First Amendment.
Your second example is on immigration. Actually, the president is fully within his executive office to instruct the justice department to not go after these immigrants. And, he has provided a path for children who did not choose to come here but have shown a desire to become good citizens to remain here. What is the alternative. Would you want to deport 20-30 year olds who did not come here under their own will but now are showing an effort to become responsible citizens? If you say no, then you are suggesting they should simply live in the shadows.
As for most of the other promises that you claim Obama broke, there are issues there with Republicans who have used the filibuster in the Senate more than all Congresses since the 1960s combined. I am happy to go further but this would take some time to explain. Just tell me if you want to get into that debate.
But the Ryan issue is central. And, this gets to Phillip. Phillip, you are correct that the link points out that cutting the growth rate will have an impact on future spending for providers. The spending that was cut was from Medicare Advantage. This was passed under Bush. Most medical experts argued that the benefits under this program were largely luxury and could be cut without affecting seniors' health. This is where the cuts in growth were targeted.
However, under the Ryan plan, real cuts would take place. This is due to the desire to change the structure of the plan into a voucher based system in which seniors would get a fixed amount of money. This amount does not keep up with health care inflation. So, the damage is much greater.
The point is that Ryan's plan does not fulfill the principle of subsidiary. This is why the Catholic Bishops in America came out against the plan.
Sorry to post so soon again. But there were a couple more responses as I was making my arguments.
First on the self insurance issue. The Obama administration did express a willingness to discuss this issue with Catholics and others who also looked for this exception. The problem has been an unwillingness on Catholic leaders to work through these problems with the administration. However, either way, the individual would have the option to make this choice on purchasing the option.
Second, on the issue of the ACA itself. The argument has been made that there are no provisions for controlling costs. This is simply not true. The ACA creates regional cross state exchange markets to increase competition. It also forces all people to purchase some form of insurance. This gets rid of the free rider problem, a solution that conservatives like Newt Gingrich advocated until 2008. And, it also spreads out the costs by including more healthy and young people in the risk pool nationally. This means that there is more money in the pool and less sick people. But the sick gain more coverage.
Plus remember the plan covers all people including especially adults and children with pre-existing conditions. This fulfills the Catholic principles of both subsidiarity and the Common Good.
"Phillip, you are correct that the link points out that cutting the growth rate will have an impact on future spending for providers. The spending that was cut was from Medicare Advantage."
Actually per the article, both Obama and Ryan limit growth in Medicare. Ryan through market mechanisms and Obama through planning commissions. But I suspect we will provide our competing studies to show this.
"The point is that Ryan's plan does not fulfill the principle of subsidiary. This is why the Catholic Bishops in America came out against the plan."
I suspect you mean in the interest of solidarity one working group of the USCCB came out against the Ryan plan.
More about the USCCB not being formally against the Ryan plan:
August 14, 2012, Washington Post: "Romney's right: Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion."
Second, overall law . . . including the death panels . . .
Third, you should say "the regime" not "the country." Not only is there no national referendum in the Constit., there is no rule by executive whim, either.
And fourth, over the next ten years the medicare beneficiaries' payments will rise because the numbers of citizens over 65 y.o. will rise. That is not inflation. Obama cut those dollars.
And, if ACA isn't repealed, medicine will go the same way as colleges and the housing market. Government interference in higher education funding results in college tuition inflation rates two- to four-times higher than the overall inflation rate. Similarly, FHA, FRB, FNMA, FHLMC, HUD, etc. provideed massive infusions of dollars which caused the housing bubble and worsened the devestating great recession.
Anyhow, I have been paying Medicare contributions for 40+ years. Obama is taking it away. Also, for nearly 50 years, I paid for medicaid with my taxes. I will never see a penny of it; but every arsonist, dope pusher, fornicator, hater, murderer, prostitute, rapist, thief, illegal invader will get health care and will suck dry the health care system.
There is no justice. Jon Corzine will not be charged. Yet, Bernie Madoff is in jail for four lifetimes? Apparently, Bernie wasn't a large cash bundler.
As to the HHS Mandate, even IF the follow-up compromises reached a point that WAS constitutional, doesn't it bother you that he began with a policy that was unconstitutional? Surely the recognition that he was comfortable violating the 1st Amendment matters.
As to Deferred Action, the President does, indeed, have the authority to bar the Executive Branch from removing classes of aliens. However, the President does not have the authority to grant affirmative benefits outside of law. He has granted employment authorization and permission to reenter the US and those areas are governed by statute. These acts are unconstitutional.
Please get into the other areas… I would LOVE to hear how Senate filibusters and GOP refusal to cooperate is responsible for the President's failures.
As best I can tell, the decision to close Guantanamo was entirely within the President's authority. So too, the decision to continue to war in Afghanistan. But maybe you mean that he "couldn't" in the sense that it wasn't politically expedient to keep his promises. That would be a rich definition of moral governance.
The foreign policy mistakes are legion and I'm guessing you won't be trying to blame that on the GOP. That leaves us with legislative failures as the point at which GOP meanness is to blame, not the President's inability to "reach across the aisle" as he said so often before he was elected. The thing is though that the President had control – overwhelming control – of both houses of Congress. That he elected to expend all of his political capital on healthcare reform rather than keeping his promises to immigrants isn't the GOP's fault, it is a cold, calculated act of a Chicago politician.
Again, you had better come to this fight armed with better than vague generalities and soft logic. I'm one of the least qualified people to wage this fight. God help you if you bring some of The American Catholic's heavy hitters up to bat.
Okay, good arguments. Lets go through them.
It is true that CVS and others provide basic contraception at a cheap price for women. However, many of these forms of birth control do not work for a percentage of the population. This means that many women are not able to use this form of contraception.
Second, you argued that I have provided no evidence about the link of contraception and fewer abortions. Fair enough. The Guttmacher Institute has done a study showing that out of all the births in America, about 3 million are unwanted. And, out of these 1.5 end in abortions. What happend to the other 1.5 million. The people who did not opt for abortion tended to show a higher rate of using contraception.
You also argued that the Church would not consider this because of its strict policy against contraception. i would agree that we ought not be utilitarian in this discussion. And, this does get us into a contraception, natural law, and proprotionality debate. i will say that contraception is not dogma. It is doctrine. And, it does have the potential for change. In fact, the advisers to the Pope in the 1960s did call for a change in this doctrine. Either way, the point is that there is an advantage to natural law to provide for people to choose to access contraception and lower the abortion rate.
Lastly, as to Ryan's acceptance of Rand's philosophy, he gave an interview in which he claimed she was the most important contemporary philosopher on politics. And, he requires his staffers to read her regularly.
The point is that her philosophy stresses moral egoism. And, this shows in his revision of Medicare. He focuses on market mechanisms that would cap the ability of seniors to afford care and service.
Sure, I am happy to debate anyone on the merits of these cases. I hope that you don't consider all my arguments as vague generalities. So, lets look at the issues.
First, the major complaint here has been that Obama violated the constitution through these mandates and executive orders. But you have not provided evidence that this is the case. Obama has ordered through the HHS that individuals can go to their insurance companies to purchase contraception out of their own free choice. There was a problem in implementation so he was willing to work with Catholic institutions to provide compromises in implementation. In both cases, he has not violated the first amendment. He has actually fulfilled its mandate by allowing the individual to make their own choice.
Also, you have argued that the executive order on the immigrant issue is a violation of the constitution because they allow for affirmative steps. Obama has ordered the Justice Department not to go after certain illegal aliens for 2 years. And, he established clear criteria for this. The reason for doing so has to do with the filibuster issue. The Republicans clearly supported the Dream Act up until 2008. Once Obama did so, they filibustered the issue in the Congress. And, they would not support any reforms to immigration. So, after 3 years, Obama has passed an executive order using the same Republican ideas that forestalls deporting 30 year olds who came here through no choice of their own. And, they have to show that they are in school or have served. This is not granting amnesty. So, this order is fully within his purview.
Second, the argument that Obama was not stifled by the filibuster is simply inaccurate. Yes, it is true that Obama had a 60 Democrat majority. However, some like Lieberman and Nelson did not agree with him on most issues. So, the Republicans were able to use this. Even Mitch McConnell admitted that his first priority was to stop Obama from winning a second term. This led to their uniting and voting as a block each time to stop discussion on issues. When Ted Kennedy left the Senate due to illness, this allowed the filibuster to have more power. And, then Scott Brown became Senator. Throughout this time, the Republicans have used the filibuster more than all of the Congresses since the 1960s combined. This has made making legislation incredibly difficult.
The foreign policy mistakes need to be better laid out. You cannot simply make a claim that he has made failures and then stop there. He has been able to establish policy that led to the capture and kill of Osama bin Laden. He has led a NATO effort that ousted Qaddafi. And, in the effort, we lost not one person and spent only 1 billion unlike previous ventures under George Bush that lost 1 -3 trillion and 10,000 troops. He has found a way to get us out of Iraq. He has worked with the Russians and Chinese to put more pressure on Syria. His policies are hardly the failure that you point out.
Finally, you are welcome to argue against my positions. But, I don't see how they are simply vague and lacking in evidence given the evidence that I have provided.
First, you ask for evidence. Then, when I provide it, you dismiss it without argument. I am sure there is some bias that you would want to point out from the Guttmacher Institute. But this does not prove their logic as wrong.
Second, you accuse of vague generalities. Then, you quote CS Lewis and his metaphorical arguments about the state as if you have made a direct connection with Obama's administration. Again, you are assuming what you have not proven. You claim Obama violated the first amendment. Lets agree to a rule here. We have to show what has been violated under the Constitution. You argue it is the first amendment. Obama's HHS mandate allows individuals to purchase plans for contraception. This does not violate an individual's beliefs. It allows for them to make free choices.
Paul Ryan has outrightly praised Ayn Rand and has his staffers read her. That is fine. In fact, I am not against considering Rand's philosophy. But it is important to note that she does not believe in the Common Good. And, this is a primary principle of Catholic Social Teaching.
I'm taking the kids to the park – far more important than this argument I assure you. I'll take a swing by your soap box later. If you are still up on it, I'll give you as fair an ear as I can.
I raised the issue of addressing medical costs which you conflated with insurance costs. Insurance premiums are not a driver of medical costs.
Mr.Zucker the problem is you are not a serious man. These are serious issues which impact millions of people's lives. Politics ought not be the sandbox for frivolous ideas to be tested on people like guinea pigs for social experiments.
The only thing more morally disgusting than your utter disregard for serious economic and political discourse is your blithe disregard for real world consequences your imprudence would have on your fellow man.
First, let me address your serious and fair argument. You are right that I was not addressing the issue of medical costs. I was addressing premium costs. At this point, this is the primary issue that everyone is addressing including both Democrats and Republicans. Medical costs are going up due to increasing life spans, new technologies and a growth in the rate of seniors. This is a non unique problem for either the Ryan or the Obama plans. However, both due to try to manage those costs through differing competing visions of how to spread out the overall costs. I would be happy to argue the merits of Obama's vision. However, let it be said that nothing in his plan leads to immoral actions or to the high costs that you are claiming.
Second, I am sorry to hear that you think of me in such a poor manner. Throughout these posts, I have never been uncivil or used ad hominems to attack you or the other people whom I am answering. I have had to respond to several different people since I am the only "liberal" here on the site. I made this choice. So, I am not whining. However, my arguments have been backed up and supported by reasons and evidence. You are welcome to disagree with my points. But, I would challenge you to point out where I was uncivil, lacked support, did not explain myself through multiple reasons, or provided crazed conspiracy type arguments. Please point these out specifically. Otherwise, I have to assume you are attacking me instead of the arguments because you are lacking reasons to defend your positions.
I do enjoy debating. So, I hope we continue this in a serious and fair manner.
Philip, If you mainstream abortion, thus making drastic cuts to healthcare for infants through early childhood, and you then make elder-care over age 70 at the behest of your own appointed 15 person panel, you have made dramatic savings in health insurance on the backs of those who presently require the costliest care. If you see that as an ideal to strive for then, yes, Obama is your man.
I don't think I was making that argument.
i will say that contraception is not dogma. It is doctrine. And, it does have the potential for change.
Sorry, cannot let that stand. Completely and totally wrong, and you should retract that statement for the good of your soul. I sincerely mean that. Contraception is intrinsically evil, period.
Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC)
CCC 2399 Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).
CCC 2370 "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil.
Humanae Vitae
Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI condemned artificial contraception
John Paul II, Familiaris Consortio
Only natural family planning provides the only moral basis for a planned family depending on the married couple's individual circumstances and with guidance from a spiritual adviser. NFP enables husband and wife to always be open to the gift of life.
No wiggle room on this.
Okay, so there are two entirely separate arguments being made here. One is about the rights of religious organizations, in this case the Catholic Church. And, second, there is the theological debate on the status of contraception. I will take Bonchamps argument here. And, I will post again on the theology of contraception in just a minute.
I do want to make one rule that hopefully we, and I do include myself, can follow. Can we all agree that we have differing versions of what we believe to be true? This is not to make a relativist argument. I firmly believe that we ought to show why our view is correct or incorrect and be evaluated based upon the support we provide. But, can we at least agree that we should not rule out valid forms of arguments on either side simply because we obviously disagree. And, I would ask that there be a level of civility on both sides even though we disagree. Based upon this, I promise to remain within the boundaries of the arguments provided.
It seems to me that Bonchamps has clarified his argument by arguing the following points:
1. Obama is attacking the right of the Catholic church and the integrity of its positions to exist violating the constitution and the institution's liberty of conscience.
2. Without the mandate, people still have the right to make whatever choice they want and the church is not stopping them so there is no violation of individual conscience.
3. We cannot evaluate these issues using other types of philosophies like utilitarianism since Catholic natural law thinking is separate from such frameworks.
Now let me be clear. I put these in this order because they depend upon one another. If the Church's integrity and freedoms are being violated, then #3 really does not matter. The Church's protection as an institution and its integrity of beliefs in paramount. This is true both Constitutionally and as a matter of our faith. Also, #2 is important since the Church cannot violate an individual's conscience in their choices. However, the Church does not have to participate materially in the evil of a choice by any individual.
Okay, having set that up, lets look at the issues. In order for Obama to have violated the Church's integrity, he would either have to be #1 forcing them to purchase contraception directly. Or #2 forcing them to give contraception to all of its employees including Catholics. Or #3 forcing to purchase plans with contraception against their will. Obama is not doing #1. He has allowing for Catholics and non-Catholics to bypass the employer and go straight to the employer to purchase plans that include or do not include the option of contraception. He is not doing #2 because he has made an exemption that only institutions with a majority of workers who are not the faith of the institution must have these options in the plans. The only one that he comes close to violating is #3 due to self insurance by certain Catholic institutions. But he has already expressed a willingness to work with Catholic institutions on this issue to make sure that they will not have to violate their conscience on this issue. So, there is no violation of the Constitutionality of the protection of freedom of religion. And, the Catholic Church as an institution is not being attacked. Rather, Obama is attempting to establish a policy that will help to serve people in general who wish on an individual level, both Catholic and non-Catholic, to use contraception.
This gets us to the second issue that you raised. It is true that the Church is not attempting to stop individuals from accessing contraception. And, legally, even if the Church wins on the mandate issue, they do not have the power nor the will to stop individuals from accessing contraception at 7 eleven or any other convenience store. However, that is not my argument. My argument is that the individual's conscience must be protected. Under this plan, the individual would be able to make a choice to get and use contraception. While the Church may disagree with this, it cannot stop the individual from doing so. And, the Church is doing that to its employees if it says that they will not even provide insurance plans that open up that option. My point is that your argument about the violation of the Church's conscience works both ways. In this case, the Church is removing the ability of the individual to go to their insurer and make their own decision.
This then leads to your last point on the issue of utilitarianism. You are right to argue that consequences do not determine our moral decision making. That is strict utilitarianism. But basic Catholic Natural Law teaching tells us to assess every moral decision based upon the intention, the act, and the consequences. In this case, the intent is to provide people with the free choice on how to manage and prepare for their families while also maintaining strong sexual intimacy within their committed relationships. The act itself is not to provide contraception. But, rather it is to provide people with the choice on that issue. And, the positive consequences is that it helps to limit the number of abortions.
My point was never that the limitation of abortions should determine our moral reasoning. My point is that this is a part of the overall reason why many Catholics do support Obama's position because it aims for the Common Good without violating basic rights.
This then brings me to my point on Ryan's plan. You are welcome to ignore it. However, it raises my initial point that you agreed to in your response. We both agree that Catholic social teaching includes multiple principles: protection of individual conscience, susidiarity, the Common Good, solidarity and preferential option for the poor. My point is that Obama's overall plans and actions have fulfilled much more of these principles than what Republicans have offered.
You pointed out that the government is not always needed and this is the point of subsidiarity. True. But that does not mean that the government is not needed in this circumstance. We are currently living in an era of increasing inequality. The richest 20% currently hold 80% of the wealth. Median family income for the middle class has falled by $4000 since 2000. And, 2% of the richest people in America received 97% of the share of income in the country last year.
This is not an argument for socialism or communism. This is a criticism of the concentration of wealth and income that even Pope John Paul II pointed out in his encyclicals. The point is that local churches and community service groups cannot provide for all of the help needed by the middle class and the poor. Costs are going up while salaries are going down or remaining stagnant. In this environment, Obama's policies have provided for basic unemployment services for the unemployed, increased food stamps for those in poverty, provided for health care coverage for people who cannot get it through no fault of their own, and has provided for basic coverage for the elderly. In contrast, Ryan's plan would cap the amount to seniors below the inflation rate for health care and lower taxes on the richest amongst us. We can definitely disagree on the merits of these plans. But, your argument ignoring the points on Ryan's plans does not show why most of the Catholic principles are not being upheld by Republican ideas.
Of course, I respectfully look forward to your reply.
I was worried about getting into this debate. It is not that I am not prepared for it. I just did not want to get away from the scope of the political issues. And, I know that my response to you has the possibility of creating a firestorm. But, since you did make this argument, I don't want it to appear that I have no basis to my argument.
Dogma does not work the way that you are describing. Yes, it is Church doctrine and teaching that contraception is immoral and evil. However, the Pope could have raised Huamane Vitae to the level of dogma. He chose not to. And, he did this because there is considerable debate on whether or not the basis to Huamane Vitae is correct.
I read Humane Vitae a long time ago. So, I apologize if I miss some of its main points.
It argued against contraception based upon :
1. The general definition of sex as procreative, unitive and a sacrament.
2. Sex must be open to life at all times.
3. The fear that procreation would lead to a culture of abortion, death and the utilization of women as tools for male pleasure.
Okay, lets take a look at these issues.
Lets group 1 and 2 together. Biologically, most times during a woman's cycle, she cannot conceive a child. Yet, a couple can have sexual intercourse during any of these times of the month. If life were meant by nature to always be connected to sex, one would expect the opposite. And, it is not the case. However, lets even assume that it was. This is a physicalist case against contraception in which we are determined by nature because God created it. However, in so many cases, we don't argue that nature should determine our destiny (flying, diseases, space exploration, etc). So why in this case? The main argument in favor of why is because we are producing a life, that is Good. But we allow for natural family planning in order to prevent and frustrate life from being produced. So, the real difference here is artificial versus natural means in preventing life to enter in at all times. What is the real problem with this?
Well there are two possibilities. Humane Vitae first points to the nature of sex itself as procreative and unitive. However, as we just showed, not all sex acts are procreative in nature. So, this could not be the case.
The second possibility is #3. And, that is due to the negative impacts on women. And, lets be clear, it is obvious that our culture has devolved to this level. We see constant attacks on women sexually through magazines, increased rates of abortion, rape, date rape, etc. However, the problem with this reasoning is a full scale generalization to all people under this. There are plenty of religious Protestants, Catholics, and secularists who use contraception to plan out their families without resorting to any of these negative impacts.
In fact, 97% of Catholic women use contraception. Why? This is not to justify their actions. But most women do because the stress on the body of having multiple children under a quick period of time is hurtful to health, both physical and mental. Some use of contraception, whether natural family planning or artificial, is used by families in order to provide for the financial means necessary to raise a family, provide for emotional connections, provide for an intimate relationship between husband and wife, and to protect women from multiple different health stresses including ovarine cancer.
It is true in the end that the current Catholic doctrine under Humane Vitae argues that contraception is evil and not allowed. And, I would agree that the Church has not changed this position nor is it attempting to change this position. But historically it is not dogma. And, the reasoning behind the decision is, in my opinion, not sound.
But, I could be wrong. Please point out where I am.
None of these points are serious arguments from Mr.Zucker. They do amount to mental masturbation however.
Take for example his thesis that prices are rising in medicine due to increasing age and technology. Life spans and technology have been increasing for 100 years yet is only in the last 30-40 that we have seen costs rise dramatically. The correlation is not just tenuous but is the text book example of "post hoc ergo propter hoc" or the fallacy of correlation not causation.
This is symptomatic of a larger disease and it is one for which no medicine on earth can cure.
True enough except for two significant differences.
1. The life expectancies of individuals have gone up much more in the recent past due to the increased technologies of the last 30-40 years. Also, the medical profession has since post WWII received a much higher status due to new medicines like pencillin and the move away from fluid theory to germ theory in medicine. So, the medical field has become professionalized in a way that it was not a century ago.
2. And, far more important, the baby boom created a massive older population for today that is looming in the next 10 years. That group which will live longer, a goal that all Catholics want to see due to our commitment to life, will demand higher costs.
Again, can we actually deal with the arguments and stay away from personal attacks?
"So, the real difference here is artificial versus natural means in preventing life to enter in at all times. What is the real problem with this?"
The distinction would be in what is a normally infertile period – part of human biology vs. an artificially imposed, non-natural process. The first can be ordered to the Human good as part of God's ordering of the Human person, the latter not.
"Well there are two possibilities. Humane Vitae first points to the nature of sex itself as procreative and unitive. However, as we just showed, not all sex acts are procreative in nature. So, this could not be the case."
Clearly there are plenty of cases where nature is not fulfilled, this does not deny the nature of the thing. So the fact that most sex acts do not result in procreation does not deny the fact that this is part of the nature of the sexual act.
"The second possibility is #3. And, that is due to the negative impacts on women. And, lets be clear, it is obvious that our culture has devolved to this level. We see constant attacks on women sexually through magazines, increased rates of abortion, rape, date rape, etc. However, the problem with this reasoning is a full scale generalization to all people under this. There are plenty of religious Protestants, Catholics, and secularists who use contraception to plan out their families without resorting to any of these negative impacts."
Though it is becoming more and more clear that while some may use contraception without problems, society as a whole is being negatively impacted. Just as some families deal well with divorce, but in general society is suffering from its effects.
Though I might ask at this point, why are you so concerned with Catholic social teaching and adherance to it, while you disregard established teaching on contraception. One can equally argue according to standards that the preferential option for the poor ( a phrase which is actually not in magisterial texts) and other aspects of CST are equally subject to change. And since most social programs are now unsustainable, it is fine to cut them.
Zookster, buddy:
What has any of that got to do with giving Obama four more years for massive failures and to complete the devastation?
Great points. So, lets go through them.
The biggest problem with your argument is that you argue that certain things may not be so. But you don't provide reasons why they ought to be so.
Let me demonstrate. It is true that just because conception is not possible in every sex act, that this does not rule out procreation as important. But your argument does not show that procreation is essential in all sex acts. And, this is my point on the nature argument. In order for this part of the theological premise to hold, it would have to show that conception is essential to the nature of sex. The Church tried to do this through a physicalist approach. However, sex does not lead to conception in most cases. So, there is no essential nature to the case.
However, you could argue that the reasoning is more about the good of producing life. Therefore all sex acts should contain conception as possible since it leads to fulfilling this good. But now this would mean that we should not use natural family planning either since we would be frustrating life. You could argue that natural family planning follows the nature God gave us. But this runs us right back into the problems of the first issue that I raised.
So, we now get to the overall argument about the goods of contraception and sex. Yes, society takes good things and makes them into bad things. This does not make the original thing bad. For example, we have cures for diseases. Some evil people have used this and the scientific process to create biological weapons. So, we create a moral rule excluding the mal practice of science and biological elements, not science itself.
The reason why I support social teachings of the church is because I believe the rationales are sound. For example, from intuition, do you agree that the good should be pursued and the evil avoided. Well, of course. Is poverty a negative and possibly evil condition that some people live under? Well, I think we would both agree on this as well. And, do you agree on an intuitive level, that we ought to help our neighbor to avoid extreme suffering? Again, we probably both agree. And, for good reason. It is intuitive and morally common sense. And, it is the teaching of the Church.
Now, we just need to determine which agent is best: communities, individuals, churches, the State, or a combination. This is an argument of sociology, economics, and political science. But I agree with Church teachings on social teachings because we can easily determine its truth.
In the case of contraception, I don't see the authorities being sound in their reasoning.
"In this case, the Church is removing the ability of the individual to go to their insurer and make their own decision."
Except as pointed out above, the Church is the one funding the insurance so it is the Church, and those of link-minded conscience, who are forced to pay for what is readily and inexpensively available.
Again, which is why the bishops continue to resist the efforts of the Obama mandate.
Again, that depends.
The church would not be providing the insurance in the case of businesses who purchase an insurance plan for their employees. The employees than buy the plans. So, the Church is providing the overall insurance. But the employee chooses and buys the plans and the services.
You are correct in the case of church institutions that self insure. And, the Obama administration has made it clear that they are open for compromise on that one.
Either way, there is no clear violation of the freedom of worship. This is opening up choices for employees of Catholic Church institutions. And, by the way, many Catholic Church institutions already allow for this due to that choice like Georgetown.
I think you are referring to me.
"The Church tried to do this through a physicalist approach. However, sex does not lead to conception in most cases. So, there is no essential nature to the case."
No, it is not a physicalist approach. It never has been considered so. In fact Martin Rhonheimer, who vigorously argues against any physicalist arguments points out that Humanae Vitae is quite non-physicalist in its argument. That is, natural law, in all that means in reason, sees the value of every sexual act being open to, if not resulting in, conception.
"The reason why I support social teachings of the church is because I believe the rationales are sound. For example, from intuition, do you agree that the good should be pursued and the evil avoided. Well, of course. Is poverty a negative and possibly evil condition that some people live under? Well, I think we would both agree on this as well. And, do you agree on an intuitive level, that we ought to help our neighbor to avoid extreme suffering?"
Of course those "rationales" are the same basis for arguing against contraception. Again from the first principle of natural law, the good is to be pursued and evil avoided. The good of sexula intimacy is the gift of self in marriage. This gift logically (rationally) includes the gift of new life. This of course can be modified to include the resort to naturally infertile periods in expressing the unitive aspect which are not violations of the good. But that includes the gift of self-restraint to those periods which further logically (rationally) includes a deepening of virtue of the person and respect for one's spouse. Such is logically (rationally) not present in artificial contraception which reduces the other to an object of pleasure for the self instead of self-giving open to life.
Of course we also seek to restrain extreme poverty and meet basic human needs. Of course CST includes the concepts that such programs logically (rationally) must be sustainable and must actually help those it seeks to help without fostering dependency on the govt. The actual implementation of policies and legitimate differences as to these policies actually helping and being sustainable are logically (rationally) subject to debate among Catholics of good conscience. This is also part of the rationale of CST – that Catholics may licitly disagree among policies.
James Zucker: The Catholic Church needs to hire only Catholic workers to be eligible for an exemption? The Court in Hosanna-Tabor said that 9-0 the state did not have the right to determine who the religious organizations hired but now the Catholic Church will be forced to hire only Catholic people to be eligible for an exemption. The First Amendment says that Obama may not "prohibit the free exercise thereof." You have spent much ink telling us how much you are giving us freedom, defining conscience and redefining the human being and eternal truths and I tell you that freedom is granted by God, "their Creator".
James. Please explain why the HHS mandate was added by Obama after the ACA was passed by Congress? Obama violated the contract, by usurping and using an unauthorized Congressional power.
And please explain why Obama has given an unauthorized power to Sebelius to write anything Obama tells her to, whenever Obama tells Sebelius to, into the ACA. Obama removed the Mexico City Policy the first day in office as POTUS. A contract with the people and the Catholic church that only one side can change is no contract at all, it is simply bondage. Contraception is the bait. The real game is to overturn the Catholic Church and absorb all that the Catholic Church holds in trust for our posterity, all generations to come.
"You are correct in the case of church institutions that self insure. And, the Obama administration has made it clear that they are open for compromise on that one.
Except the it is actually the majority of Church institutions that are self-funded. It is so problematic that even the Catholic Hospital Association, which supported the Health Care Law, finds there is no room for compromise:
"The Catholic Health Association was a key ally in Obama's health care overhaul, defying opposition from church bishops to help the president win approval in Congress. But the group said Friday it does not believe church-affiliated employers should have to provide birth control as a free preventive service, as the law now requires.
The hospital group's decision calls into question a compromise offered by the president himself only months ago, under which the cost of providing birth control would be covered by insurance companies and not religious employers. While churches and other places of worship are exempt from the birth control mandate, nonprofits affiliated with a religion, such as hospitals, are not.
In a letter to the federal Health and Human Services department, the hospital group said the compromise initially seemed to be "a good first step" but that examination of the details proved disappointing. The plan would be "unduly cumbersome" to carry out and "unlikely to adequately meet."
"Either way, there is no clear violation of the freedom of worship. This is opening up choices for employees of Catholic Church institutions. And, by the way, many Catholic Church institutions already allow for this due to that choice like Georgetown."
Again, it does not follow given that the majority in the Church (even those that supported the law) find it untenable as noted above. There may be some institutions that do not have a problem with contraception (and perhaps abortifacients as these are also mandated.) But this does not deny the reality that the Bishops and many other organizations find it oppressive. As such, it is not only a restriction on freedom of worship, it is a immoral restriction on freedom of religion.
Okay, two separate points on this one.
1. Contraception falls under the same basic Catholic intuition that I expressed in support of CST.
2. We can disagree over the implementation of CST.
First, on contraception. I don't think the Church has ever explicitly argued that natural law is dependent on nature. However, the reasoning in Humane Vitae fell into that problem. The reason is expressed in your own argument. You argued that sex can occur throughout the month during periods of natural infertility. But we cannot use artificial means to stop conception because life is a good that should never be frustrated. However, under Catholic teaching, we do frustrate the possibility of life by planning through natural means to stop having sex at points when life would be created. Why would we do this if life is a good that we do not avoid wanting to create. The reason is because we understand families must be able to have some planning abilities on having children. But, then why not artificial means. Because artificial means would frustrate the natural process. But if physicalist arguments are not what we are aiming at then there is no basis to claim that sex always has a procreative element to it.
Your other argument is that by abstaining, we create a virtue of self restraint and a lack of selfishness. This may be true. But if the act itself is not immoral, then these side effects are simply possible benefits from abstaining, not necessary elements of determining if the act is moral.
In fact, couples who use artificial contraception often talk about the ability to create more loving and intimate relationship to the partner whom they are committed. And, that their intimacy expresses a lack of selfishness and a communication of love through this intimacy.
The problem with your argument again is that you are expressing why something may not be the case. You are not providing for reasons why it is.
My reasons are the following:
1. Sex does not have a physicalist or a spiritual reason for tying procreation to all acts of sex.
2. Artificial birth control is the same as natural family planning unless you are trying to argue that all of God's natural means are the basis to morality.
3. Artificial birth control allows for families to plan out their care for children while remaining loving and committed to one another.
"First, on contraception. I don't think the Church has ever explicitly argued that natural law is dependent on nature. However, the reasoning in Humane Vitae fell into that problem."
True, but I am not arguing that either. And neither did Humane Vitae. Read Rhonheimer.
"The reason is expressed in your own argument. You argued that sex can occur throughout the month during periods of natural infertility."
That's only if one thinks I am arguing from physical nature rather that the totality of what is invovled in natural law – the ultimate discernment of which comes through reason. This reason includes taking into account the physical nature of the act, its nature and ends, and the intention in acting.
"But we cannot use artificial means to stop conception because life is a good that should never be frustrated. However, under Catholic teaching, we do frustrate the possibility of life by planning through natural means to stop having sex at points when life would be created."
But only because reason discerns these infertile periods as part of nature and, through reason, we use these naturally infertile periods for legitimate ends (ie the health of the mother, financial resources etc.) Through restraint founded in reason, we reaffirm the meaning of sexuality even if new life is not created. This as opposed to chosing to have sex at any time based upon our control of fertility through artificial contraception.
"You are not providing for reasons why it is."
But I have. Perhaps an assertion without evidence on your part.
Okay there are a lot of issues to address here since there are three people giving me different arguments. Don't get me wrong. I am not whining about this. I am happy to answer the points in all of the arguments. But I am trying to do this in a timely manner. So, I hope that I don't miss any of the major points.
All three of you seem to be arguing the following in common points.
1. Obama violated rights by forcing all institutions including Catholic ones to provide for contraception to their employees.
2. Individuals have a right to work wherever they want so there really is no right to them to be able to force insurers into providing this "free" care.
3. Bonchamps made the point that the extreme inequalities don't matter and this is really just the point of envious people.
Okay, so first off, in order for Obama to have violated religious liberties, we have all agreed that he had to have forced Catholic institutions to materially support an evil action. But in order to do this, these institutions would have to be either paying for or passing out contraception. They are doing neither. The individual worker is going straight to their insurance provider. So, the employer is by passed. And, the church is not paying for the service or the good. The continuous argument that you or anyone else is paying for this is simply incorrect. The insurance company provides the plan that provides the coverage.
You are correct that this would be a problem for self insured institutions. However, the Obama administration has argued that it would be open to negotiations on this. Paul argues that most Catholic institutions are self insured. This may be correct. But, please remember that many Catholic institutions don't agree with the bishops on this one. And, many institutions of Catholic leadership also have such diverse communities that they are willing to provide insurance companies not self insurance. So, the issue is an implementation one.
The point is that there is no violation of the First Amendment and Bonchamps argument that this is tyranny exaggerates the issue. It is an implementation problem that is being worked out through compromise. And, as I argued before, there are greater side effects that come along with this since it can lead to the good of reducing abortions.
However, on to the point that I made about the violation of individual rights. Bonchamps missed the point of my argument. In today's environment of high unemployment, it is extremely difficult to make the argument that an individual could simply up and move to a new job. And, while it is true that contraception can be received at convenience stores, the product is often not good for all women due to health reasons. So, if a Catholic employer tells his or her employee that she cannot choose a certain insurance plan, then this is a violation of that individual's ability to make choices. And, referring that individual to the rigors of the market place right now would simply be forcing the individual into a difficult circumstance of unemployment.
However, this gets to the bigger problem with Bonchamps argument. This is not personal. But to claim that extreme inequalities are not important to CST is not consistent with papal teachings. I am not arguing from authority. You are clearly in your rights to tell me I am wrong. But the Popes of recent years have clearly pointed out that capitalism, while better than socialism and communism, has the negative problem of a concentration of wealth and the use of wealth for individual selfishness. The current numbers I gave you were not just regular inequality. They show extreme inequality driven by the greed of the top 10% of our society. These cannot be passed off especially when CST argues for economics to provide for the common good.
And, your argument missed the greater point that I was making off of this. My point was that under our current circumstances the party that is violating most of CST teachings are the Republicans. While Obama's implementation may be imperfect, it is the Republican plans that violate the needs of the weakest by curtailing spending on medical expenses for those with special needs, curtailing spending on heating oil for the poor, curtailing spending on education, curtailing spending for the elderly on health care, and trying to veto a health care bill that finally covers all people including those previously excluded due to no fault of their own.
You can definitely disagree with me on this. Even though the Catholic bishops and the Jesuits at Georgetown feel the same way. However, to argue that Obama is tyrannical is simply not accurate to the facts.
I did provide reasons. Let me argue this again.
First, let me point out that you argued that we ought to use reason informed by faith to point out the totality of the act. Agreed.
Your argument, if I am correct is that sex should be open to life but we can use natural family planning to plan when we ought to have sex to have children and when we ought to abstain from having sex.
But, this still does not address why sex should always be tied to procreation. True, it is one of its ends. However, sexual union between partners does not always lead to procreation. So, on what basis do you argue that sex and procreation are always linked? If your argument is that this is one of the great purposes of sex, I agree. But this does not mean that sex only has one purpose. Just as a hand does not have one purpose. Now, you could argue that we ought never frustrate any of the purposes. But we do with natural family planning. We just do it naturally. So, why cannot we do this through artificial means?
You asked for my reasons then why artificial means can be used. Here they are again:
1. There is no real difference between artificial and natural family planning unless you use a physicalist approach.
2. Artificial means do not violate life because married couples use it to plan out when they will conceive.
3. Artificial means allow for a husband and wife to create a committed and loving relationship without the fear of unwanted pregnancies when the cannot afford them.
4. Sex has multiple purposes. Procreation is not essential to all acts of sex.
JZ- For the sake of clarity and your Catholic bona-fides, can you please confirm or deny the following:
Do you believe that the use of artificial contraception is morally licit as a means of birth control?
So, I am unclear on the ends of this question.
I thought I made myself clear in the last few emails. Here is a clear and unequivocal statement.
I believe that artificial birth control is moral as long as it is within a committed relationship of marriage and used for the dual purposes of managing family size and creating a loving and intimate relationship between the spouses.
I hope this makes it clear.
Also, I reread your last post. I do agree with you on the method of Catholic reasoning. But, I cannot find in your argument why procreation is an essential part to all sexual acts of intimacy between spouses.
James Zucker,
Barack Hussein Obama is a godless, evil, wicked man of sin and depravity promoting the filth of homosexual sodomy, the murder of unborn children and the redistribution of wealth from those who earn to those who refuse to work. He lies. He cheats. He steals. He murders.
Everyone has a right to choose – and that choice ends at sexual intercourse. You don't want a baby? Then don't wallow in filth like a mindless irresponsible baboon, which is exactly and precisely the style of life that that narcissistic son of a snake promotes and deifies. No abortion! No contraception! You don't get to choose when life begins. You don't get to partake of the Fruit of the Tree of Life. If you have sex, then you made your choice.
And no, it is NOT the responsibility of the Federal govt to provide for the sick, the homeless, the poor, etc. That is your responsibility and mine if we call ourselves members of the Body of Christ. Everytime we abdicate our God-given responsibility to help our fellow man, we sacrifice on the altar of political expediency our citizenship in the Kingdom of God for a pale and worthless imitation that at root is satanic.
And that is exactly and precisely what you liberals want: Caesar Obama to be god. Never. Never ever. This was a Christian Constitutional Republic, NOT a national socialist democracy which is nothing other than two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner, which in this case is the bloody corpses of over 50 million unborn babies. Death to Democracy! Death to Liberalism! Down with Obama on Novermber 6th! Down with every single liberal progressive Democrat! Viva Cristo Rey!
There is a Philip in this thread and a couple different Pauls.Somewhere along the way my name got hijacked when you were addressing Philip, I believe.
Since the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is intrinsically evil (CCC 2370) then my rule of thumb is: if you don't respect the teaching authority of the Church instituted by Christ then you sure as hell won't respect anything I have to say.
You are an honest about what you apostate, but an apostate nonetheless. Of what point is discussion when you are your own vicar?
Okay, so its hard for me to respond to your argument given it is entirely based upon invective and name calling. So, let me try with some personal points first.
My wife and I have two beautiful girls. We are thrilled to have them and we are completely enthralled to watch them grow up and become the total gifts that God gave to us.
I also had a son. He was diagnosed with a genetic disorder while in my wife's womb. The doctors told us that he was likely not to live. However after some great pains in decision making over this, my wife and I believed that he had every right to live and that we had an obligation to love him and give him every blessing possible. He was born. He lived for two months. And, he died in my arms. I am not using this to brag or to praise myself. I went through some extremely dark days back then with many emotions that I am not proud of. And, I just hope that God was as close to me as I believed and felt in His presence during those days. i tell you this because your invective against me as a dark individual who supports a dark leader is simply not fair and not legitimate as an argument.
I simply asked you for your logical reason based upon reason informed from faith as to why birth control was evil. You have not provided this. You did provide a method of natural law reasoning. It is too bad that you could not follow through on that reasoning and provide a logical explanation of why sex and procreation are always tied together.
Finally, yes, actually the state does have a role in helping the sick and the weak. This is not because I assert it to be the case. This is the basic teachings of CST. CST preaches the principle of subsidiarity. Yes, we should attempt to take care of the poor locally and without government assistance. And, there are good reasons to do so. However, when local organizations cannot do this alone, the government is an instrument for helping with this. This is the teaching of CST from the popes of the late 1800s to Pope John Paul II. And, John Paul very specifically wrote that while socialism and communism were far worse than capitalism, capitalism tends towards a selfish inequality that does not promote the common good. He called for all citizens of capitalist societies to reorient their values to allow for individualism and competition but to be balanced by compassion.
Lastly, Paul, I respect you and your beliefs. But honestly, if you believe that persuading someone of the opposite belief system through invective and generalization is a good idea, I can only caution you that it is not. It ends up simply reinforcing the worst stereotypes of Conservatives. I wish you the best. And, I hope we can argue in a more rational way another time. God Bless.
Sorry, I just saw that this is another individual. So, let me address your points now more specifically.
I am now an apostate. Fair enough. Although I am not sure how you can come to that conclusion given that there has always been a dissenting in the church tradition.
You can definitely argue that I don't follow the Pope's every doctrinal command. But there is no rule that this must be the case. This follows a top down mode of the Church that was rejected in Vatican II.
And, protection of individual conscience is a main stay of the church. Nowhere is it taught that people who disagree on individual teachings are therefore outside of the church.
Even if I was, that does not mean that you can ignore my arguments. You actually have to provide some backing for your arguments even if they are based upon differences over faith.
Your only argument is by quoting an authority and its arguments under doctrine. However, doctrine has evolved and changed based upon differences.
So, you need to show why this doctrine is correct and why your interpretation has to be followed.
I don't argue, debate or have dialogue with liberals, James Zucker. I pray to God and work for your utter, total and complete defeat. Period. It frankly enrages me to see any self-described Catholic support that godless reprobate of sin and depravity. Death to Democracy! Viva Cristo Rey! I shall now be silent since I am unable to contribute anything to "dialogue." It's like dialoguing with the demonic, because that is what Obama and his supporters are.
James Zucker: The Catholic Church needs to hire only Catholic workers to be eligible for an exemption? The First Amendment says that Obama may not "prohibit the free exercise thereof." You have spent much ink telling us how much you are giving us freedom, defining conscience and redefining the human being and eternal truths and I tell you that freedom is granted by God, "their Creator".
James. Please explain why the HHS mandate was added by Obama after the ACA was passed by Congress? Obama violated the contract, by usurping and using an unauthorized Congressional power.
And please explain why Obama has given an unauthorized power to Sebelius to write anything Obama tells her to, whenever Obama tells Sebelius to, into the ACA. Obama removed the Mexico City Policy the first day in office as POTUS. A contract with the people and the Catholic church that only one side can change is no contract at all, it is simply bondage. Contraception is the bait. The real game is to overturn the Catholic Church and absorb all that the Catholic Church holds in trust for our posterity, all generations to come.
Bonchamps: Since your posting provides multiple arguments, I will respond to you first. Then, Mary I can respond to you in a separate post. This way, we can keep our points concise.
Your argument relies upon two essential elements. First, you are arguing that the Obama administration is violating the freedoms of the Church to practice its free beliefs as employers in America. Then, you are arguing that the policies of the Democrats cause massive problems to the society and the poor. These arguments are not really dependent upon one another. But, I would agree we ought to prioritize the first since it deals with values that are sacred both to the Constitution and to the religious faith of Catholics and other Christians.
You are arguing for the right of the Church to practice its faith. But there is no violation of the faith. And, here is why:
1. The employees who purchase contraception do so through the insurance company not the employer.
2. The employer purchases the insurance plans but the individual makes the choice of purchasing the services provided in the plan.
Your argument that AHA mandates purchasing plans with abortion services is simply incorrect. There is nothing in the AHA that does this. In fact, the AHA allows for people and companies to seek out different insurance plans in exchange markets. The AHA does mandate that one of the choices of insurance companies must have an abortion option. But this is not the same as forcing companies to buy an insurance company that has abortion options.
3. The closest you come to showing that there is a violation of Church freedoms is in the case of self insured institutions. However, as I argued, the Obama administration has been willing to work with institutions on this issue. You responded by saying this does not matter because there is a violation to freedoms. But this assumes your original point. And, you have not shown that the mandate itself is unfair to institutions. You have shown that there is a possible disadvantage in the implementation that needs to be compromised upon. And, the administration has shown a willingness to do this-not the quality of a tyrannical organization.
However, by the Church not being willing to compromise on this issue, there is a violation of the individual conscience of its employees. I argued you missed the point on this. You simply replied that I had not made a point. So, let me make it very clear. Employers have rights but employees also have rights. Employees have the right to bargain with their employers for decent health care benefits. For women, contraception is not only often expensive. It can also be important for their health. Your response to my points on convenience stores is that the consequences are not relevant. But, remember my point on Catholic natural law thinking, consequences are important to our overall evaluation of the decision. In this case, the reason why the administration wanted to open free access through insurance companies was to make sure that women's health issues were covered. If there is an essential violation of rights or morality, then this concern would be relativized or non essential. But you have not shown that such a violation has occurred. So, by not allowing individuals to access their own choices in what plans they can get through insurance plans, the Church is enforcing its own beliefs on their employees.
You then went further to argue that the economic effects of these decisions were not important due to morality and the difference between relative and absolute poverty. However, the difference between these two issues are not the basis to the papal decisions. Pope John Paul II and other popes argued that the problem with capitalism was not that it produced relative poverty and absolute poverty in different countries. Rather, he argued that the problem with capitalism was its tendency to concentrate wealth at the expense of the Common Good.
In this framework, my numbers become essentially important. Of course, in Capitalism and in traditional morality, inequalities are natural and a central part of life and capitalism. But extreme inequalities are immoral and harmful to society. 20% of people owning 80% of the wealth, 2% of people getting 97% of the share of the nation's income, an increasing rate of poverty in the country, and a decline in family income by $4000 over 10 years are example of extreme inequality and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. This is why the Catholic Church, the pope, and the American bishops have all condemned Republican policies that are contributing to this.
You have argued that the Democrats are to blame on these issues. On the abortion and gay marriage issue, these are social issues that are more relevant to another discussion on social morality. But on the economic issues, the Democrats are not the ones who have controlled the economic policies for the last 30 years. Since Reagan, top marginal taxes have been reduced to 28%. Under Clinton, they were raised to 39%. Also, since Reagan, we have seen deregulation of the banking and real estate sector. And, under President Bush the marginal taxes were lowered again. These changes led to the concentration of wealth that we see, an increase in poverty, companies moving overseas, an increasing debt and deficit. These issues are important for our assessing of the economy and the moral decisions we make about managing the economy.
You are welcome to argue if I have the right causes for these consequences. But here is my argument about Republican policies. They have supported tax and regulation policies that have led to the concentration of wealth, the lowered ability for the middle class to support their families, and an increase in poverty. These violate the CST teachings and allow for the richest to benefit from extreme inequalities.
All of these outweigh an implementation problem in trying to provide employees with the chance to choose their own insurance plans with or without contraception. And, this is hardly tyranny
Okay so time for your argument.
I am having a hard time answering your points because I am unclear on your overall point. You seem to be arguing that the overall point is to destroy the Catholic Church and establish the State as the authority on all issues. However, none of your evidence points to this conclusion.
First, you point to the issue of the exemption. But you missed the point of the mandate. The mandate is not telling the Church who it can or cannot hire. The point is that all institutions need to provide employees with choices whether or not these employees agree with the religious beliefs of their employers. Also, if Obama's main intent was to destroy the Church, you would think that the mandate would be targeted at Catholic institutions. It is not. It is for all employers. The problem is in the implementation due to the Church's beliefs.
Second, you argued that Obama gave Sebelius complete powers. he did not. He gave Sebelius the power to make a national mandate on contraception to provide for preventative care. I don't know why he did not go for this during the AHA debate. But I would guess that they assumed this was not a problem. The reason why is because moderate Republicans had been promoting the idea since 2000. And, this was already done in 28 states.
Thirdly you argued that Obama overthrew the Mexico policy. This is true. He did. The Mexico policy or the gag rule was established by President Bush. What it did was to prevent any family planning institution receiving American federal government money from telling people in foreign country about options including abortion. Liberals, not myself, disagreed with this. This can definitely be argued as immoral under natural law. However, this was not tyranny. The Mexico policy was established by executive order under Bush. So, it can be removed through executive order.
Lastly, I agree that our freedoms come from God. I just don't know how this is relevant to our arguments. Freedom of conscience ensures that we have the choice to make decisions unless we know of a direct moral evil that threatens others. In the case of contraception, none of this exists.
But most importantly you have not shown that Obama is trying to overturn the Church. This is a difference over policy decisions.
So your rebuttal at this point is that:
1. The employer still pays at some point.
2. The employer is purchasing abortion services through the mandate.
Actually, no the employer does not pay. Yes, the employer has to put some purchase into the insurance itself. But the plans and the services and goods are paid for by the employee through their own choice. And, this has been my argument from the start. This decision provides for the employee to make their own choice.
Yes, it is true that the mandate does cover some controversial contraception that is argued to be abortificient. However, this is not the same as the argument that this is a wholesale funding of abortion services. The argument is over certain pills that are considered to be abortificients due to the timing of the contraception around conception. This is very different from arguing that the mandate or the AHA is allowing for people to be funded by the federal government to receive abortion services when they are typically done at about the 8th week or after.
Finally, I think you are incorrect on the other issues that I brought up. They are connected to the larger argument that I was making. My point is that Catholics who vote Democratic are doing so based upon the weighing of much bigger issues than this. We note that the mandate, while problematic, is hardly a sign of tyranny. And, then we look to the overall policies of the Republican party and how, as we believe, they violate the other major principles of CST. So, we make a decision to vote Democratic because we believe that Republican values and policies actually lead to violations of subsidiarity, the Common Good and the preferential option for the poor.
Considering your original post argued that a true Catholic ought to vote Republican to stop the tyranny of Obama's policies, all of these arguments are well within the scope of the debate.
You provided a number of claims against Democratic policies. But you provided no evidence to support your arguments. You are welcome to do this in future posts. But, I would argue that these issues do outweigh the implementation problems that you cited on the mandate. And, you have shown no signs of tyranny or violation of freedom of religious conscience.
I probably wouldn't agree 100% with any of you, but I thought I would throw in my 2 cents…
James Z says:
However, as I argued, the Obama administration has been willing to work with institutions on this issue.
To me this is a, "put up or shut up", kind of thing. What really happened is Obama said, "We're willing to deal, but everything you want is off the table." It wasn't a sincere offer. It isn't a real argument. If it isn't in the Federal Register, it didn't happen.
There has been an attempt to redefine the Constitution's, "free exercise of religion", as, "freedom of worship", but that is bogus. Free exercise of religion means that you can't force people to take an action which violates their religious tenets.
In the end I think what's going to happen is that this will be struck down by the Supreme Court. It's pretty clear that it fails the RFRA law test. I don't think the actual threat is as large as people make it out to be. SCOTUS will kill it.
Mary De Voe said:
Please explain why the HHS mandate was added by Obama after the ACA was passed by Congress?
I'll explain it to you. It's because most of the folks in Congress are cowards, so they write things into laws that say things like, "The specific details will be worked out later by the applicable executive branch agency so we won't get blamed for it." They punted, as usual.
James Z says:
However, by the Church not being willing to compromise on this issue, there is a violation of the individual conscience of its employees. I argued you missed the point on this. You simply replied that I had not made a point. So, let me make it very clear. Employers have rights but employees also have rights. Employees have the right to bargain with their employers for decent health care benefits.
Yes, the church is not willing to compromise on the issue that forcing Catholics to pay for birth control for people is a violation of their tenets and the consciences of Catholics and Obama is not willing to compromise on allowing people who object to opt-out based on their conscience. The only legal rights issue here though is whether the government has the right to force people to take actions that violate the tenets of their religion. Nowhere in the Constitution does anyone have the right to employer provided health care or contraception. It does say you have the right to freely exercise your religion though.
Bonchamps said:
In fact, to portray inequality as bad in and of itself is nothing but an expression of deep-seated envy, one of the seven deadly sins.
I wouldn't argue that it is intrinsically bad, but I think it's quite clear to anyone who is paying attention that a lot of inequality is caused by rich folks and corporations successfully lobbying the government to stack the deck in their favor. It's a fairness issue, not an envy issue. Romney pays a lower tax rate than I pay but makes a lot more money. Doesn't seem fair. Multibillion dollar businesses with thousands of employees are treated as, "small business", by the tax code because they have a small number of family owners and get tax breaks that the local dry cleaner (an actual small business) can't get. This is a redistribution of wealth when these folks don't pay their fair share and the rest of us do. Same thing with these huge companies that pay billions in taxes to other countries but get tax refunds here and companies like WalMart which force their employees into government health insurance for the poor. They are the freeloaders.
These vulture capitalist guys like Romney and the multitude of CEOs who send jobs overseas and lay off thousands are just as dangerous to this country as Obama IMHO. I can't say I like either.
Oh yeah, and most of these CEOs didn't build these huge multinationals from the ground up using their own money and taking all the risk themselves. They are hired just like the rest of us. Go read Andy Grove's book where he talks about why CEOs are paid too much and Alan Greenspan's about how CEOs purposely wreck companies by trading long term viability for short term numbers that will boost the stock price because that's what gets them bonuses. Then when it goes south they take their golden parachutes and go wreck some other company. The incentives are all wrong…
It's unfortunate that according to studies, there are several countries that beat us now in the percentage of people who are able to attain, "the American dream", of rising above their socioeconomic class. Concentration of wealth here seems the most likely reason. It's counterproductive for the country.
"But, this still does not address why sex should always be tied to procreation."
Because sex is always tied to procreation. And if I (Phillip) were using a merely physicalist approach as you repeat, that would be the end of it. Because whether we want to accept it or not, sex is ordered towards procreation.
But as with many things the Catholic reason (and the reasoning in Humanae Vitae) is that there is more than this. The marital act (as opposed to sex itself) is ordered towards the good of the man in woman in their cooperation with God in bringing new life into the world. This cooperation is a reflection of the life-giving relationship of the Trinity. Thus why the unitive aspect also enters in as an expression of life-giving unity that is the Trinity.
Of course as an act of the human person, it must be a voluntary cooperation of responsible parenthood – a responsible cooperation with God. So if a spouse is ill or if financially one cannot in reason responsibly bring new life into the world, then one can abstain. This abstainance in turn is a cooperation in reason with God's reason – acting in a humanly responsible way. Using human reason in the given circumstances to cooperate with God responsibly instead of merely procreating.
But as merely acting on the sexual act without taking into consideration a responsible reason for doing so, using artificial contraception is also, in reason, a violation of the marital act. This because, as in the former, we discard reason in our act, in the latter we eliminate the author of that reason in that cooperation. We set aside our his will and make ours absolute. By casting aside the ability to procreate artificially, we take away our cooperation in that life-giving marital act and make our will absolute.
At the same time, by taking away the ability to abstain periodically, it is the one who artificially contracepts who reduces the marital act as one of life-giving love into merely a physical act unrestrained by reason.
All of that, PLUS . . .
If Romney gets elected, "ya'll will be in chains, again."
Great points on why sex and procreation are linked. Here are my answers.
First, I would accept that your argument is not a physicalist one. Rather, it is one based upon the purpose of creation that is a reflection of God and the Trinity.
However, here are the problems.
1. Remember that I have argued and you have agreed that most of the time sex does not lead to any possibility of procreation. I know this is a physicalist argument that you would disagree with. But this becomes important and you will see why in a minute.
2. Sex has multiple purposes including both procreation and unitive qualities.
3. We have already admitted that couples have a moral right to manage their pregnancies for a variety of reasons. You have just argued that couples ought to do this by not violating the purpose of sex which is essential to it-procreation.
Okay, so if these three premises are acceptable, here is my point.
Every act and thing was created with purposes. The question is whether or not a purpose is essential to the act or one of multiple purposes. Procreation is a purpose to sex and reflects the God given ability in the Trinity to create life out of love. However, if we observe that sex does not always lead to life and, in fact, most of the time does not lead to life, then its essential purpose cannot be for procreation. Rather, that is one of its purposes.
We have also already admitted that the couple has a moral capability or right to manage these pregnancies. By doing so, they are not frustrating God's will. They are simply acting in a way to manage their financial and emotional needs. By arguing this, we are showing that the human will and intellect can be used to manage the times and places when having children will be appropriate for their families. So, most of the consequences you claim about the human will distorting God's desires are really based upon the initial belief that procreation must be tied to all sex acts due to the essential nature of procreation.
Because of this, we are left again with the question of why artificial is different from natural contraception. Your argument does not admit of a physicalist basis. Rather, it argues from a purpose driven basis as a metaphor or reflection of the trinity. Fair enough. However, you do not show how sex always has this purpose because there is no foundation in your argument to suggest that this is the case. The only resort you really have is to look back at the physical qualities of sex. But to do so would undermine your argument that we are not looking at this from a physicalist perspective.
Thanks and look forward to hearing your reply.
I actually am beginning to wonder about your reading abilities (as well as reasoning abilities as a result) due to your inability to discern Phillip from Paul.
Either you are not reading (as is evidenced by this and your earlier errors on the Bishops' stance on the mandage which they clearly oppose) or are not able to assimilate the argument as to why artificial is distinct from natural family planning.
Read again. It is there.
I'm with Paul W. Primavera.
This whole debate is pointless. You cannot argue with someone who has turned his back on Church teaching and seeks to rationalize his own rebellion, albeit by faulty logic as well as patent misunderstanding (whether willful or not) of the issues at hand.
And so I leave you all with this:
2 Timothy:
[23] And avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they beget strifes. [24] But the servant of the Lord must not wrangle: but be mild towards all men, apt to teach, patient, [25] With modesty admonishing them that resist the truth: if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, [26] And they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil, by whom they are held captive at his will.
God bless,
P.S. James, I hope that God will open up your eyes and see that you are defending sin and error. It is a mortal sin to support a person who supports abortion and who has put himself at war with the Church. Period. The end. I pray you will come to repentance.
James – As to your last comment, it seems like you're arguing a position that's contrary to the Catechism. Given the amount of space devoted in this thread to contraception, I'm going to assume that this is an important part of your thinking on the overall question of Obama's candidacy. So you can't be making a Catholic case for Obama, or arguing against a Catholic case for Romney, if you're making non-Catholic assumptions. I'm glad that this long, long thread has focused the argument to its core (a rarity online). The core seems to be that you can surmount the obstacles created by the HHS mandate by framing the issue in a non-Catholic way. You're welcome to do so, but you can't call it a Catholic case for Obama.
The First Sorrowful Mystery: The Agony in the Garden.
Desire True Repentence for Sins.
Think of Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemani suffering bitter agaony for our sins.
Something very wonderful has come out of this blog. The fact that Obama added the HHS Mandate to the Affordable Healthcare Act AFTER Congress had passed it, nullifies informed consent and nullifies congressional consent and nullifies the will of the people. There is no valid ACA because of this unwarranted, unauthorized usurpation of the prerogative of Obama's constituency to participation in democracy. Obama cannot break faith with congress and his constituents and call it a contract. An Executive Order maybe but not a legal contract. C Justice Roberts ought to have picked that up. more on doctrines and dogmas and Humanae Vitae
Thank you, Lisa!
All of the arguments that James Zucker uses to support his position devolves into these: (1) I can have sex whenever I want to titillate my genitals without responsibility for causing a pregnancy, and I will call that "unitive" because I am uniting with my partner, and (2) I support Obama because government is the dispenser of social justice and human rights.
None of his arguments invoke holiness and righteousness before the Lord God Almighty, without which no man shall see God, nor do they recognize that our Creator in whose image and likeness we are made is the only granter of human rights. There is no support for chastity and abstinence, no admonition for being righteous and holy. There is every support for placing Caesar in God's position.
Now Mr. Zucker, you attend to this very closely:
"…if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." 2nd Chronicles 7:14
"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well." Matthew 6:33
There is no health, wealth or prosperity without repentance and conversion. Righteousness and holiness must always and everywhere precede social justice and the common good. Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them." Obama is evil because he murders unborn babies and sanctifies the filth of homosexual sodomy. He is a godless, wicked, evil man of sin and depravity. You are in league with him. What does that make you? And yes, 1st Corinthians 6:3 says, "Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" You call yourself a Catholic Christian and you make excuses to justify that man's candidacy. How dare you!
Death to Democracy, Liberalism and Progressivism! Death to the false gospel of social justice, the common good and peace at any price. Jesus is Lawgiver, King and Judge, NOT that perverse and perverted narcissistic excuse of a man sitting in the Oval Office. God our Creator (as I wrote above) is the dispenser of human rights, NOT that godless government in Washington, DC, and we as a nation deserve nothing but destruction as long as we tolerate such evil. It happened to Israel when King Sennecharib deported them. It happened to Judah when King Nebuchadnezzer deported them. Why do we think that we are exempt from the God who never ever changes?
I hate and despise and loathe liberalism with every fiber of my being, but I love Jesus the Christ and His Blessed Mother with all my heart.
Down with Obama, one of the little anti-christs that St. John talked about in his first epistle. Viva Cristo Rey!
And by the way, Mr. Zucker, you don't get to choose when life starts. You unzip your pants – you made the choice. Otherwise, keep it zipped, and I don't care how many excuses you use that you're monogamous and your doing it with only your spouse. You and I have no right to partake of the Fruit of the Tree of Life. That's why God cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden.
Liberal! Progressive! Democract! Three of the dirtiest words in the English language.
Thank you Paul W. Primavera, and Lisa and all: Herewith as I promised:
On the violation of the will of the people, Obama's constituency and their freedom to constitute government.
Obama does not have the authorized or sovereign power to add or subtract anything from a contract with the people of the United States, without voiding the contract, with or against the will of the people, after the contract was passed by Congress, which Obama did, by adding the HHS Mandate to the ACA after the ACA was passed by Congress for the people, violating the will of the people without their informed consent.
The penalties must fit the crime: Hidden in the ACA are penalties that are the DEATH to all Catholics. The penalty must be commensurate with the crime. And for the same reason that the Catholic Church, and all churches and religious like the Amish and Mennonites, are not taxed, because their tax exempt status is maintained by the taxes paid by their parishioners as citizens. To tax non-profits and churches would be taxation without representation, two taxes, one vote, for the citizens as parishioners. All physical property is held in trust for all generations, our constitutional posterity. The custody of church property is held in trust and cannot be seized by government, nor disposed of, except by the bishop who is responsible for the souls of all his people.
The punishment must fit the crime. If not accepting the ACA and its hidden agenda, the HHS mandate, is a crime, and it is not, and this is not martial law, the penalty for not taking the ACA, cannot exceed the suffering of not having insurance. How can there be "a money fine" for not having any money? Are we talking about debtors' prison? (Hillary Clinton had written a two year Federal prison sentence into Hillarycare. Clinton owns 10 healthcare corporations.) The ACA is not a sealed contract, as the addition of the HHS mandate indicates, and therefore prison sentences may be added as the punishment for acts that are not criminal. The ACA is an Executive Order being foisted upon all people as martial law, without the informed consent of the people and without the necessary will of the people. The ACA needs to be put on the ballot after informed consent, to let the people express their will, and freedom.
After the savaging the media did on Rick Santorum in the death of their newborn infant, and the support you, James Zucker, give to the INFANT BUTCHER in the White House, I must confess, I could not believe that you had any human compassion for another person, including the child you say you have lost to death. Not until this morning. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone could support another individual or policy which would try to curtail the existence of another human being who comes into existence through the will of "their Creator". Only through God's will, for until God creates the rational, immortal human soul, with its sovereign personhood and human life, there can be no other person.
ON DOGMAS Dogmas are discerned truths derived by reason and held by the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church as necessary to believe in order to have the fullness of Faith and salvation. The dogma of the IMMACULATE CONCEPTION is the truth of the preservation of the Mother of God from original sin and every sin as the Angel Gabriel proclaimed: "Hail Mary, FULL OF GRACE", the dogma of the ASSUMPTION OF MARY INTO HEAVEN comes by reason of Mary being the Mother of God, Jesus Christ.
ON DOCTRINES Doctrines are TRUTHS revealed by the Revelation of God, Jesus Christ, in His salvivic mission on earth, held and taught by the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church, as Jesus Christ spoke: "Our Father, in heaven" The Triune God, "I, and the Father are ONE", "This is my Body, This is the Chalice of My Blood" "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church" "Whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. "Go therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them"
BOTH DOGMAS AND DOCTRINES ARE GIFTS OF FAITH AND MUST BE BELIEVED TO RECEIVE THE FULLNESS OF FAITH. Otherwise our faith will dry up like the seeds that fell on the path.
ON THE INVALID HEALTHCARE ACT. Something very wonderful has come out of this blog. The fact that Obama added the HHS Mandate to the Affordable Healthcare Act AFTER Congress had passed it, nullifies informed consent and nullifies congressional consent and nullifies the will of the people. There is no valid ACA because of this unwarranted, unauthorized usurpation of the prerogative of Obama's constituency to participation in democracy.
ACA is an Executive Order. The Supreme Court must judge Executive Orders, and not as Obama has ordered the Court to enforce Executive Orders of the last fifteen years. Papa Obama would murder his own grandchildren instead of suffering the little children.
ON HUMANAE VITAE The Catholic Church teaches that when a man approaches a woman to quell his sexual desire it is the duty of the wife to do so. When the woman needs a man, it is the duty of the husband to satisfy, appease and fulfill his wife's sexual desire, that neither husband nor wife burn. Humanae Vitae speaks to the spiritual in the loving embrace of a husband and wife in exercising the graces poured out upon them by the Sacrament of Matrimony, the prayers of the church and God Himself, in expressing and fulfilling God's command to be fruitful, increase and multiply. Abortion defiles the fruit of the womb and the will of God in creating the life of the immortal soul and sovereign personhood in the fruit of the womb. Contraception denies the will of God in the creation of the Divine in mankind, Lord of Life, God Himself is thwarted in contraception. It is incumbent upon each and every person, having been given Divine Life in the Holy Spirit to cherish and respect the Gift of Divine Life. Contraception disrespects God, man, and man's procreative powers but most of all contraception, denies the spiritual motherhood and fatherhood of the human person, the husband's vocation to sanctify his wife and the wife's vocation to sanctify her husband. The transcendent nature of the Sacrament of human love is lost. Natural Family planning is always open to the divine gift of human life, because, as, in the words of my doctor, sometimes you pop and extra egg or two after menopause. A child so conceived would be extra special in God's plan for mankind. This, of course, would explain on a physical level St. Elizabeth's conception of St. John the Baptist, and Sarah's of Isaac, St. Camillis de Lellis, patron saint of the Knights of Saint John, Hospitalers, whose mother conceived him at the age of 68, and St.Ann's conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, but not wholly, because it is the work of the Holy Spirit, and none of this would have ever happened without God willing it. So, it is with every sovereign human being brought into existence.
How wonderful it is to know that someone loves you so much that they want there to be more of you.
Bon – Some people tend to think that anything before the Council doesn't count.
Most liberals, Pinky, don't give a hoot what the Church or Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition have to say unless it supports their own personal bias of social justice, the common good and peace at any price. Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae notwithstanding, they want license and approval to decide on their own when life begins so that they can titillate their genitals with complete abandon. They even want public acclaim for this. Their sin is NO different than what the serpent said to Eve in the Garden of Eden: "You will be like gods!" And using contraception is exactly and precisely that. It is unmitigated hubris for it says: "I am God and I have the wisdom to determine when life begins regardless that I rut in heat like a mindless baboon."
Okay so lots to comment upon since my last entry.
First, I do want to apologize to Bonchamps. And, I am sincere about this. I had read too quickly through your first entry and thought you were saying what a "true" Catholic ought to do with his/her vote. After a more serious reading of your blog, I would agree that you did not specifically argue for this. I apologize and retract my arguments on this.
One other thing, though, that I do want to point out. Is there anyway that we can avoid calling our differences "lies". A lie as far as I understand it is when an individual knowingly provides false information in order to deceive his audience. I don't know where I have done this. Please point this out. I may have provided incorrect information. And, you are welcome to state that I have made errors. However, a lie carries with it a moral connotation on my morals that makes all my arguments suspect. I would ask that you stop doing this.
Second, It is really too bad where most of this conversation has devolved. I received several comments from many of you that were simply not based upon a rational attack on my arguments. One of the responses actually stated that my position on contraception was based upon my desire to "unzip my pants" any time in order to satisfy my sexual urges. This was not my position. And, I would have to ask where the author saw me stating that. Also, I was attacked by one of the people here for not truly having compassion for my son who died because I took a different position on the issue of contraception. I am not sure how the author knows this about me or can make these types of accusations about a period in my life that was about extremely sad and filled with hope at the same time. My wife and I experienced great love and we believe God's support during that time. And, we were incredibly inspired by the life of my son. It is strange to me that any Christian of any denomination would choose to step on such sensitive grounds with the belief that they can morally evaluate my intentions at that time.
However, the really issue here is that we should be arguing over the reasons for our beliefs. And, those arguments need to be fair or reciprocal in nature. Yes, dogmas and faith do require that we believe on certain statements without question. However, dogmas, doctrines, and faith are also different in degrees of absolute faith. Otherwise everything would be dogma. Also, faith is clearly spelled out in the Bible as requiring defense and evidence. Faith is not simply an emotional acceptance of teachings. This is why various doctors of the Church including Augustine, Aquinas, and Rahner have challenged Church teachings while also upholding them at the same time. So, in our debates, proof texting the Bible and Church teachings while appealing to the authority of the Bishops and Pope is simply not adequate for claiming authority on these issues.
Rather, arguments must be provided in order demonstrate your defense of these positions. And, attack on my person, motivations, or faith, while they may be correct, are not proofs for the positions that you hold.
So, let me first deal with Bonchamps arguments from I believe last night:
You seem to be arguing two major points again:
1. It is morally objectionable to force Churches and you to pay for others' contraceptions (your words were for someone's ability to use a condom).
2. CST does not criticize the concentration of wealth in capitalism and is irrelevant to our discussion.
Okay, so on #1. No one is forcing you to pay for someone's condom. The federal government is mandating that employers provide plans to their employees that open up choices. This means that an employee, Catholic or non-Catholic, can go to their insurance and purchase a plan that includes contraceptive care for whatever reason they believe is necessary including for women's health issues involving cancer. You are not paying for the person's contraception. True, premiums might slightly rise. Although this is actually an area that probably is not true. The reason is because the use of contraception lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies lowering the cost on insurance and therefore dropping premiums. But, even if premiums did go up, you could offer this same argument about anything that insurance companies do with their plans since your money would eventually mingle with the overall money being spent.
Now, I will admit that self insurance organizations are a problem of implementation. And, you have repeatedly said that you will only believe it when you see the administration actually work with the Church. However, as long as the Church is suing the Obama administration on this issue, there is no room for compromise. This is not because the Church has not right to sue. It is because they are not accepting the invitation to work with Obama on this issue. You might say that they are doing so because the initial action is unconstitutional. However, you have not proven this given my answer above. So, there is no action of tyranny in this case. If you argue that I have not provided evidence for this, please look to these last 2 paragraphs for the warrants that I have provided. These will need to be answered.
Mary argues that this is still unconstitutional since they were done after HCA passed and through executive order. This is simply a misunderstanding of how the government works. Every president uses executive orders to pass rulings and mandates that are within the executive privilege. Reagan did it far more than Obama. And, President Bush also did this far more than Obama has done. You can argue this is a bad practice. But if the practice is non-unique you cannot claim that this is an act of tyranny while not blaming Reagan and Bush for also being tyrants.
Now you can argue that there was no precedent that he was basing this on and that this was an act to spread a pro-abortion agenda. However, this is simply not accurate. This policy is already in 28 states. And, 8 of those states did not have the exemptions that Obama offered in even the first mandate. True, there are differences between a state and federal mandate. But the point that this is an attempt to destroy the Catholic Church when it has been used by multiple governors and spread out over different denominations and secular organizations questions that belief. Also, keep in mind that moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe and about 12 others had promoted this idea since about 2001. Again, this is not to say that she is right. It is to point out that there is no hidden agenda. And, before Bonchamps says that all of this is irrelevant to the moral argument, keep in mind that your argument and Mary's argument is that Obama is doing this out of a mindset of dictatorship or in the fashion of the communist apparatchik. So, that is why these issues fall in the scope of the argument.
So, my overall point is that there is no violation of our religious freedoms here. There is a problem with implementation. And, before arguing that I provide no evidence for this statement, keep in mind that this is the conclusion of the previous paragraphs that include the evidence. So, that evidence must be answered.
But this leads to the issue of private conscience. This is important because it establishes why the government has the right to act on the side of labor on this issue. Bonchamps argues that the government cannot do this due to the violation of private property. However, he provides no definition of private property in his argument. Private property exists when an individual works or invests or risks in such a way to make his/her own property. To remove this from him or her would be a violation since the property is an extension of that individual and his/her creativity. The problem with the employer/employee relationship is that no such "private property" exists. Rather, property is invested by the employer and created by the employee. This is why the private property is thus jointly owned by the two and opens up a space for negotiations. The issue then is that employers and employees have agreed that part of the benefits coming from this is to have health care insurance. This is not really under question. The problem in this case is whether the employee has choices in the plans that such an insurer provides. So, the problem with Bonchamps argument is that he assumes that a part of the negotiations between the employer and employee was over the contraception issue. This is not the case. It is an agreement on whether or not insurance will be part of the employee's benefits. The particulars of what is in the insurance should be up to the individual consumer not imposed by the employers of any faith.
But this then enters us into the larger social political argument that I made on wealth concentration and inequality. Bonchamps clearly argued that this is not really his concern due to the differentiation between relative and absolute poverty. But this is not my argument. My argument is that the Catholic Church through CST has clearly argued that capitalism, while better than socialism and communism, tends to have the problem of selfish individualism in which profits are seen as for the good of the individual not that of the community. And, I pointed out statistics that demonstrate how this has been happening over the last 30 years. Bonchamps rightly argued that I did not point out why this is a problem in society. Fair enough. Here are two reasons. First, it is immoral since it does not reward the employee for his/her increased labor. Second, it is bad for the economy and the Common Good because it dampens demand and slows down economic growth. This then makes it hard for individuals and families to provide for the development of the ones given to them by God to care for. And, for those who questioned why I rely upon the Church's CST but not on their teachings on contraception, please note that it is because I have shown that the Church has valid and sound reasons for these beliefs. In the case of contraception, I do not think this is the case and I provided the reasons to demonstrate this.
I then finished by arguing that Romney and the Republicans do not offer policies that uphold the majority of Catholic positions on CST. I said that Bonchamps did not provide evidence for his positions on the positive points of Republican policies. He said I was "childish" for demanding this due to the limited space on website boxes. I am unclear on this point. How is asking for evidence on a position given on a theological/political blog "childish"? Evidence is the only way that we can evaluate between the soundness of the two positions. Bonchamps also argued that I did not provide such evidence. Fair enough-here goes:
1. Since the lowering of taxes under President Reagan and President Bush, we have seen a concentration of wealth while there has also been a rise in poverty.
2. Families have seen a fall in median income after the Bush tax cuts by $4000 and this has affected their ability to save money, purchase a home, provide for education, and provide for health care.
3. Before Obama's ACA, 40,000 people died each year due to a lack of health care insurance coverage.
4. During the era before Obama's HCA, insurance companies regularly dropped adults and children with pre-existing conditions due to the lack of regulations on insurance companies.
5. Companies are not hiring right now even though they are sitting on huge profits because as they say there is not enough demand. This has increased unemployment to a level only seen around the Great Depression. And, the Popes have said that such unemployment, lack of work and poverty is an immoral situation.
The point of all of these is to point out that there are overwhelming reasons for a Catholic to consider voting for Obama in this election. I realize that Bonchamps and others will disagree and state that this is simply my opinion and right to it. True. But one must also provide reasons why my warrants are wrong. Or why my point on how Republican policies don't uphold CST is wrong.
Again, I am very welcome to a rational and civil debate between us. And, you are welcome to try to proselytize. You are also welcome to believe that I am an apostate or a wayward Catholic. However, an argument cannot be based upon overgeneralizations and name calling. I will wait for your decision on how everyone would like to respond.
Do you have these comments ready/canned or do you type that fast? Do you get it from DNC talking points?
Anyhow, it would take me all bloody night to address all the counter-factuals you pose.
So, I will comment in two Latin words: spucatum tauri.
James Zucker said: "Also, I was attacked by one of the people here for not truly having compassion for my son who died because I took a different position on the issue of contraception. I am not sure how the author knows this about me or can make these types of accusations about a period in my life that was about extremely sad and filled with hope at the same time. My wife and I experienced great love and we believe God's support during that time. And, we were incredibly inspired by the life of my son. It is strange to me that any Christian of any denomination would choose to step on such sensitive grounds with the belief that they can morally evaluate my intentions at that time."
Mary De Voe said: "After the savaging the media did on Rick Santorum in the death of their newborn infant, and the support you, James Zucker, give to the INFANT BUTCHER in the White House, I must confess, I could not believe that you had any human compassion for another person, including the child you say you have lost to death. Not until this morning. It is incomprehensible to me that anyone could support another individual or policy which would try to curtail the existence of another human being who comes into existence through the will of "their Creator". Only through God's will, for until God creates the rational, immortal human soul, with its sovereign personhood and human life, there can be no other person. "
Mary De Voe said: " I must confess, I could not believe that you had any human compassion for another person, including the child you say you have lost to death. Not until this morning." Mr Zucker: You do not get to slander me for how I respond to you. Should you learn how to read and comprehend what you read, you will see that I found it impossible to believe you in any given situation, especally because of you supporting the INFANT BUTCHER, OBAMA. The rest has been removed by the author, except SLANDERER
"3. Before Obama's ACA, 40,000 people died each year due to a lack of health care insurance coverage."
It is getting late and I have to catch a plane tomorrow, but let's get rid of this myth:
"1. Since the lowering of taxes under President Reagan and President Bush, we have seen a concentration of wealth while there has also been a rise in poverty."
Or the continued break-up of the family, which likely is a much stronger contributor:
Ha! What T. Shaw wrote! Love it! Spucatum tauri! That sums up James Zucker and his arguments all in one neat nut shell. But he won't stop. He's got to prove himself smarter and more tolerant than any of the rest of us. He's got to prove that he has a right to contracept at whim and to prove he is correct to vote for a godless man of sin. He has to prove this most of all to himself because he knows deep in his heart that he is wrong. That's why he goes on and on and on. Meanwhile, in his hubris he defies God Himself by all his useless sophistry and wind-baggage.
A very long time ago I had a sponsor in a 12 step program who used to tell me, "Paul, ultimately the only person you can spucatum tauri is yourself." Of course, he didn't know Latin, but being a Puerto Rican, he did speak Spanish especially when exasperated by defiant, stubborn new comers who couldn't (or wouldn't, like our James Zucker) understand the phrase, "Take the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth because you don't know anything." I needed no translation at that point to hear the truth. 😉
"5. Companies are not hiring right now even though they are sitting on huge profits because as they say there is not enough demand. This has increased unemployment to a level only seen around the Great Depression."
Or other, more plausable reasons. From CNN no less:
Good night all.
So I lied. Just wanted to put up the money quote from CNN on why no hiring:
"Then there's public policy. Employers must fear that the future probably holds heavier taxes, more regulation and higher employee health care costs. The outlook might be worse under a President Obama than a President Romney, but it looks sufficiently ugly either way."
So, I wanted to address the economic arguments first since they are little less emotionally controversial
Phillip makes a number of important significant arguments. However, I would argue that I have the empirical evidence to show that the points that I am making are stronger. First, it is true that single families are a significant problem for the country. However during the 1990s as wages and economy grew, poverty decreased. This was during a period when single parents were still a significant problem. During a comparative period of lower taxes, the Bush era, poverty went back up. This suggests that single parent families while an issue is not the main problem.
Second, as for the argument on uncertainty. There was a survey done by the Federal of Businesses. It included both small and large businesses. 68% pointed to the lack of demand as the main contributor to uncertainty, not increases in taxes or regulations. And, I understand that Phillip is talking about long term uncertainty. But, keep in mind that we are currently still operating under the Bush tax rates. So, why aren't we seeing larger job growth. Even during the Bush administration, 3 million new jobs were created. During the Clinton era of higher taxes, 22 million new jobs were created. And, 11 million of these came before the Republicans took office in the Congress.
On the 40,000 deaths, I do want to thank Phillip. I was not aware of these problems in the studies. However, there have been more recent studies including a Harvard study that was peer reviewed, recent and controlled for all of the social behaviors that the criticism levied. And, this study showed a much greater number of deaths from lacking insurance care.
But, I want to address Mary's points since she continues to attack my character and intentions. I realize that Mary was putting her arguments in context. However, your points on my character as being lacking in compassion especially in the case of my son is extremely questionable.
So, here is my response to your arguments on the nature of sex and the use of contraception.
You argued that sex is primarily used for the husband and wife as an obligation to stop or quell the desire for physical pleasure within a committed relationship. You are partially correct. It is true that husband and wife are obligated to one another so that we do not fall to the temptations of adultery or divorce. However, this is not sufficient to the actual definition of the nature or ontology of sex. Your view of sex turns it into a necessary evil that must be satisfied for other purposes. This is not the purpose of sex. The Church herself teaches that sex within a committed relationship leads to a unitive function that helps couples to both satisfy their physical needs and grow in an emotionally compatible and joyful relationship. This is why I can make the argument that a responsible couple using contraception in a committed relationship can do so without turning into the selfish individuals that so many are arguing will happen.
As for your point that this stops God from producing saints and heroes, this is a highly problematic argument. For one, it is utilitarian in the use of the couples. Second, it would eliminate the justification for Natural Family Planning since the same risk could happen. Third, it would lead to the absurd argumentation that we ought to use abortions. What if Hitler's mom, Stalin's mom, or Mao's mom had had an abortion? We would not have had these terrors. But this is absurd because it leaves out the evaluation of the intent and the act itself.
My argument is that the couple can have sex with the use of contraception within a committed relationship that is open to life but manages family size for financial and emotional reasons. This is because unity is essential to sex. But procreation, while a significant purpose to sex, is not essential to all sex acts.
Again, you are all welcome to attack my character, throw out Latin phrases about my blindness and attack me. But none of these arguments are actually dealing with my argumentation. I am happy to leave the website if this is what people want. But please keep in mind that this simply reinforces the view that there is a lack of an openness amongst some to discuss and provide argumentation. Either way. I am fine with the conclusions.
" … However, your points on my character as being lacking in compassion especially in the case of my son is extremely questionable. … " – as is your using him here to argue against the will of God.
" But procreation, while a significant purpose to sex, is not essential to all sex acts. " – Feed the hungry, clothe the naked, comfort the sick, remember the Sabbath to keep it Holy, and have faith that NFP will fulfill your marriage.
8/16 @ 9:39 pm to Mary: "Lastly, I agree that our freedoms come from God. I just don't know how this is relevant to our arguments. Freedom of conscience ensures that we have the choice to make decisions unless we know of a direct moral evil that threatens others. In the case of contraception, none of this exists."
– The "unless" clause undoes your argument, almost as well as removing God from it.
"This suggests that single parent families while an issue is not the main problem."
It is one issue among others. Of which the economic policies of Republicans are a minor feature.
"But, keep in mind that we are currently still operating under the Bush tax rates."
Until Jan 2012. At which point no one knows what is going to happen. Include the 1.2 – 2.7 trillion dollars in taxes which the ACA will impose over the next 10 years. And the taxes that the Obama administration has already imposed. No, these are actual concerns.
"However, there have been more recent studies including a Harvard study that was peer reviewed, recent and controlled for all of the social behaviors that the criticism levied. And, this study showed a much greater number of deaths from lacking insurance care."
Except that studied is specifically premised on patients receiving the most up-to-date medications. Something that will definitely not be provided under the ACA. That means that the ACA causes deaths.
Zooks: Unadulterated male bovine excrement.
Great points. I am happy to respond to each of your points from my perspective. As usual, you are welcome to disagree with me on any of these issues.
I want to start with some basic definitional and valued based points on this debate. You argued that private property does not need a definition and it is rather objectionable for me to ask for this given that no one would ask for definitions of other terms like light. The difference is that private property is not as simple to define and is not as clear to anyone given that property is produced in an environment of relationships between employers and employees. Even in CST, there is a recognition of this problem. Popes have always defended the right to private property but they have always cautioned employers to look out for the interests of their employees. Why? Because employees have the dignity of work from God and therefore should be treated fairly in negotiations over property and wages. In this context, health care takes on a new meaning as a right.
Here are my reasons for arguing this:
1. Modern health care is absolutely necessary for both quality and quantity of life.
2. Modern health care while a product and service for sale upholds the dignity of life by looking out for individual's health.
3. Part of a society's obligation is to look out for the common good and provide opportunities for individuals to compete. Without health care due to problems of affording this care, some individuals would be left far behind while others would be promoted due to their wealth.
As I am sure you know, businesses agreed after WWII to provide for health care plans in their wage structures in order to avoid a single payer system that President Truman and others were pursuing back in the 1940s. So, while I agree with you that until the ACA, there was no forced health care on businesses, there has been a general consent in society for businesses to include this for employees for some time.
The ACA has changed this environment. Now businesses must provide some health care plan for their employees and there are requirements of what must go into these health care plans. I never argued that this was not the case. What I did argue was that employers are not being required to purchase plans with contraception. Rather they are contracting companies to come into their business and offer options for the individual to purchase. If an individual chooses to purchase a plan without contraception that will be fine. If an individual chooses to purchase a plan with contraception that will be the individual's choice. The point of my argument is that when the Church says that the individual should not have the choice, the Church is violating the individual's ability to make that decision within and between the plans being offered. The employer is not involved in this choice because he is not purchasing the plans or the contraception. And, none of his money is going directly to the plans or contraception. You can disagree with my reasoning. But this is not a lie.
But this leads us to your overall claim that Obama is enacting a form of tyranny. This is where my objection about the states comes into play. Again, you can disagree with the states proposals. But, there was never a cry of tryanny when the states did this. And, there is an obvious reason why. This policy is one of difficult tensions over public health versus religious freedoms of conscience and personal choice. So, there were attempts to accommodate as many people as possible. And, the same is now happening at the federal level. If your argument is that any law passed by the federal government is viewed as an act of tyranny, then most of the regulatory structure of the federal government would lead to such an indictment. Rather, you must show that there is an attempt to violate individual's conscience and religious beliefs. And, due to many of the arguments here, you must also show a committed attempt by the Obama administration to go directly after Catholics and Christians in general to do this.
I have provided arguments above why individual employers are not being violated due to the choice of the employee. And, because this idea has already existed in 28 states and was promoted by moderate Republicans like Olympia Snowe, this idea, while objectionable, cannot be claimed to be a new idea based upon a conspiracy against religious groups.
So, this gets us to the connected issues of CST thinking and the overall reasons for supporting the Democratic platform that would aid the poor.
You are right that I am using and relying upon Keynesian thinking. However, I am doing so in order to elaborate upon the general principles of CST.
CST generally teaches that:
1. Capitalism is better than the alternatives of socialism and communism.
2. However capitalism can lead to the selfish acquisition of wealth at the expense of the weakest members of society.
3. Employers and governments in capitalist societies should both protect individual rights and look out for the common good.
If you disagree with my summary of CST please tell me where I got it wrong.
Having started from that basis, I would argue that the Republican policies have exacerbated the difference between the groups in society creating excessive inequalities that are unfair to workers and endanger the Common Good of the economy. Yes, our poor live at a higher level than poor in other countries. But this does not demonstrate that the actions of the rich here are moral if they are not rewarding their employees at a fair level.
You are right to argue that there is no way for me to determine an exact measurement of what is a fair wage. However, we can show that employers are acting in a way that is not looking for the common good. When the richest are earning 300% increases in their wages as the middle class has only gained 30% increases in wages, when the rich earn 97% of the income in the country, and when the richest 20% have 80% of the wealth, this suggests that the rich are not looking out for the common good but are focused on their own individual interests. And, while Keynesian thought is the basis of my point on dampening demand, this is an issue with the Common Good since the economy cannot grow for the good of all.
You also correctly pointed out that we cannot draw an exact cause and effect relationship between statistics. So, every argument and stat that I use can be questioned. However, questioning is very different from dismissing. My argument is that the Austrian belief that increased taxes always leads to a drag on the economy does not explain why the Bush 1 and Clinton raise in taxes was followed by an economic boom that helped all classes and made a lot of money for the rich while the Bush 2 tax decreases led to a very weak economy, weak employment creation, and an eventual economic crash in 2008. True this does not prove anything for certain. But it opens the point of criticizing Austrian economic philosophy.
Lastly, you argued that the deaths of 40,000 people due to a lack of health care is tragic but irrelevant. I would argue that this is the exact problem with our two worldviews. The Austrian world view believes that society is an atomized group of individuals who are only responsible for their own self-interest through competition. However, CST teaches that we are ultimately responsible to one another. So, the deaths of 40,000 people calls us to seek out solutions to solve this for the Common Good. Now, this does not mean that government is the solution. It may be solved through churches, volunteer organizations, or church risk pools. But dismissing the issue is not something that would be allowed. So, my criticism of the Republican policies using this example is definitely within the scope of this debate.
In the end, the point is that the Obama mandate is not an act of tyranny. It does show a tension of how policy in a diverse society requires accommodations. And, while we will still disagree on voting for Obama v. Romney, I have provided an argument that the Democratic platform does a better job comparably of working on the issues that CST calls for in any society.
One correction. I reread the section on the 40,000 deaths. I was incorrect on my reading. You did not argue that we ought to dismiss this issue as irrelevant. You did argue that this does not lead to an acceptance of the Obama ACA. I would agree with you on this point. But, I do think that there is a responsibility under CST to look for what is the best possible solution. And, the principle of CST for subsidiarity opens up the possibility for a government action.
Once again, an excellent debate showing the clarity and differentiation in our opinions. Here are my responses to your points:
I think the primary part for us to look at is our difference on the role of the state and private property. You are right that Rerum Navarum called for a protection of the labor that we produce and that the state cannot infringe upon this. But there was a also a call under this document to be careful of selfish pursuit of private property without regard to the Common Good. Why would this be the case if an individual is simply protecting his or her own creation. Because a business is not entirely the creation of the owners. Yes, the owners do put in the risk, investment and overall vision. However, the workers also participate in the creation of the products and services. So they are entitled under morality to a fair share in the eventual rewards. You are correct that I cannot establish an exact number of the fair share. However, we can point to when the economy has tilted in an unfair way towards a concentration of wealth in fewer hands. And, we can evaluate that as hurting the common good. I have provided the statistics to demonstrate that this happened in the country for the last 30 years. And, I have provided evidence of how this hurt our society through increased costs to the poor and middle class. This is not supporting of the Common Good. You are right that the solution is not automatically through the state. But CST does teach the principle of subsidiarity in which the State does have a role in reducing the problems in society in order to help local organizations when they cannot do so.
This gets us to health care. You are correct that showing negotiations between workers and employers does not lead to a direct right for health care. But this was not my argument. My argument was that workers should have a right to health care for the following reasons:
1. Modern health care is necessary to quality and quantity of life.
2. Workers cannot afford health care on their own due to rising costs.
3. Severe inequalities have hurt the ability of workers to access health care in a way that allows them to fully participate in society.
You answered in two parts. First, you pointed out that we have done without health care for several centuries. True, but there is a reason why we moved away from this. In previous centuries, the rates of deaths and diseases were also much higher. And, life expectancy was much lower. And, this was largely due to the lack of a professionalized health care system. Catholic teaching would praise our current improvements in health care because it allows for better quality and quantity of life and it protects the sanctity of life.
This leads to your second criticism. You argued that inequalities are simply a part of life. I agree. And, in fact, most people would agree with you. But this is not the argument. The argument is not that anyone wants to get rid of all inequalities. I have repeatedly argued that CST teaches that capitalism is far superior to socialism and communism. However, there is a difference between general inequalities due to differences in birth, talent, skill and choices and excessive inequalities in which the market is not adequately distributing wealth and income as rewards for work. In fact, your own argument admits of this. You at one point in a previous posting said that capitalism diffuses wealth. But when I gave evidence of the concentration of wealth, you then argued this does not concern you. This was a tacit agreement that concentration of wealth is happening. And, the stats that provided demonstrate an extreme concentration of wealth. When the market does this, another agent, the government, is necessary to break this concentration in order to spread out the rewards. This is not necessary in a socialist or communist manner. But as we have done for the last century, it can be used to make sure the market spreads out the rewards in a more fair manner that is not excessive as the stats that I have provided.
But this leads us to the HHS mandate. Again, I have to disagree with you. This is not a "sickness" or a "lie" on my part. It is a disagreement on how this system works. You are welcome to disagree with me. But using terms like sickness and lie are not arguments. They are simply personal characterizations. My point is simple. Yes, the ACA does force all employers with 50 or more employees to provide insurance. And, there are some basic requirements for these plans. The HHS mandate adds to this. However, you are wrong that the HHS mandate has employers purchase contraception. Rather, it has employers contract with insurance companies that provide that option to employees. So, what is the difference here between my point and yours. My point is that:
1. The employer contracts the insurance companies not pays for the plans.
2. The employee makes the choice to purchase contraception from the company. The employer does not pay for this.
3. The employee pays for the premium, not the employer.
In order for your argument to be correct, you need to show:
1. The employer purchases the actual plan with contraception.
2. The employer purchases contraception for his or her employees.
3. The employer contributes directly to the premiums for the contraception.
I am arguing that none of these conditions are true.
Furthermore, I realize that you don't care about the Olympia Snowe example. And, I realize that you believe the 28 states are also acting in a tyrannical way. But, your response missed my point. My point was that this was not an attack by the Obama administration on the Catholic Church or any other religious institution. Buy using Snowe and the 28 states, my point was to show that this idea was developed over a long time by different constituencies, was already used in half of the states, and covered all employers not just Catholic ones. So, there is no evidence of a conspiracy to attack or take down the Catholic Church. You can say you don't care about these issues when it comes to morality. And, you would be right. But this is not my argument. My argument is that these points of evidence show that there is no evidence for a conspiratorial attack on faith.
This brings me back again to the overall argument on my end for why a Catholic can vote for Obama based upon CST thinking. I realize that you believe Austrian thinking is solely a moral argument about the state. However, they also have an economic argument on their side as well.
As for the economic argument, Austrian thinkers influenced thinkers like Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of economics. Their overall view on society is an atomized view in which individuals pursue their own self interest and in the process benefit all people. They advocate policies like lowering taxes believing this will help the suppliers to provide more supplies and therefore more jobs to produce those supplies. I think this is a fair way of understanding their argument. I have provided evidence in the past that suggests that they are wrong. I am happy to repeat that argument if you wish.
But as for the moral argument, yes, they believe that the state is an institution that can perform basic functions like security but has no moral obligation to do anything further. This belief about the state violates the CST teaching on subsidiarity. CST clearly teaches that as many actions as possible should be left to local institutions. However, in the cases where that cannot take place, the state does have a role to help in order to achieve the common good.
My argument is that, especially on health care, there is a need for the government to do this. The private sector has not shown an ability to lower the costs on health care and provide for all people including those with pre-existing conditions. And, local churches and voluntary organizations do not have the money to cover these costs especially with the increased inequalities of wealth and income. So, the state has a role to regulate and create the conditions where people can access such a basic need for quality and quantity of life.
You argued that to do this would be immoral due to not having people pay for the costs. But the ACA does not make health care free or entirely based upon taxes from one or multiple groups of people. The ACA provides for regional markets in which businesses and individuals do purchase health care. They do have "skin in the game". However, what the ACA does is provide subsidies to the poor who cannot afford the health care entirely on their own. And, the ACA mandates everyone purchase some health care policy in order to spread out costs and hold people responsible for using health care in order to solve for the free rider problem-a conservative position until 2008 when Obama advocated for it. Again, I know you will argue that you don't care because you don't support all Republicans but a libertarian position. This is fine. But, my point is that this is not a radical left wing policy searching for absolute equality by a tyrannical government position. It is a mainstream position to hold people responsible to pay for a system that they will eventually use.
So, once again, I would argue:
1. There is a right to health care because it has evolved into a system necessary to maintain the quality and quantity of life in today's society.
2. The state has a role in protecting the Common Good under CST and in today's environment of extreme inequalities the state needs to step in to solve this problem (not strict equality).
3. The HHS mandate allows for employees to make choices on the goods and services that they want-not to force employers to pay for contraception.
As usual I look forward to your response. And, can we please admit that we have a difference of viewpoint not a sickness…
"But we allow for natural family planning in order to prevent and frustrate life from being produced."
That's only part of the picture. Natural family planning can be used just as easily for a couple to GET pregnant as to avoid pregnancy. At its root, NFP is simply a series of observations that a couple uses to be aware of the woman's likely fertility, or lack thereof, at any given time. This knowledge has many other uses besides just avoiding pregnancy — for example, it can help a woman know when to expect her menstrual cycle and can also provide her early warning when she may be approaching menopause or experiencing other hormonal disruptions. In fact there are secular teachers of NFP (usually they refer to it as "fertility awareness") who embrace the method not for any moral or religious reason but simply because it works WITH nature and not against it — for much the same reason that they embrace organic foods or alternative medicine.
Z's problem isn't what he doesn't know. It's that what he knows just ain't so.
Thank you for debating through these issues with me.
I do have to say that I did find something that I believe I made an error about. I was mistaken in my understanding on how the plan and contraception is paid for. I had thought that companies only contract for the insurance. After doing some reading last night, I now know this is wrong. Employers and employees do both contribute to the policy. Obama's compromise will have the insurance company pay for the contraception in order to try to separate out the spending. However, if premiums go up, you have a valid point that you are contributing to something you find morally objectionable. I do apologize for this mistake and I thank you for making me aware of this misunderstanding on my part.
Thank you for your time in this debate. It was informative and enjoyable.
Good post, Bonchamps!
I believe that to introduce the morality of homosexual acts into a debate about civil marriage is a distraction. The argument is a simple one: (1) Mandatory civil marriage, makes the institution a pillar of the secular Republic, standing clear of the religious sacrament (2) The institution of republican marriage is inconceivable, absent the idea of filiation – the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father – enshrined, not in Church dogma, but in the Civil Code (3) The sex difference is central to filiation..
The state has a legitimate interest in marriage and it is important to note what precisely that is. Mandatory civil marriage originated in France on 9th November 1791 and was a product of the same Revolution that had just turned 10 million tenant farmers into heritable proprietors. This was no coincidence.
The Code of 1804 contained no formal definition of marriage, but jurists have always found a functional definition in the provision that "The child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father," which mirrors the doctrine of the Roman jurist, Paulus, ".pater vero is est, quem nuptiae demonstrant." (Marriage points out the father) [Dig. 2, 4, 5; 1].
This was the opinion of the four most authoritative commentators on the Civil Code, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003), covering the period from the introduction of mandatory civil marriage down to our own day and long before the question of same-sex marriage was agitated. In 1998, a colloquium of 154 Professors of Civil Law, including Philippe Malaurie, Alain Sériaux, and Catherine Labrusse-Riou unanimously endorsed this interpretation of the Civil Code. This led to the introduction of civil unions (PACS) for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike in the following year. Given this background, it is no wonder that, in the Bègles case, the attempt to establish the right to SSM on equality grounds was rejected by every court that heard it – the Tribunal of Grand Instance, the Court of Appeal in Bordeaux, the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Council and the European Court of Human Rights.
No one will deny that the state has a clear interest in the filiation of children being clear, certain and incontestable. It is central to its concern for the upbringing and welfare of the child, for protecting rights and enforcing obligations between family members and to the orderly succession to property. To date, no better, simpler, less intrusive means than marriage have been found for ensuring, as far as possible, that the legal, biological and social realities of paternity coincide. And that is no small thing.
It is significant that, in a country so committed to the principle of laïcité as France, no one has suggested that the opinion of the jurists, or of the courts which have endorsed it, are either the result of religious convictions or an attempt to import them into their interpretation of the Code.
It was intended to demonstrate that defence of traditional marriage need not concern itself with the morality or otherwise of homosexual behaviour. It is, after all, a juridical question and not a moral one.
Claims to SSM on equality grounds have been successfully defeated by concentrating on the simple question of how marriage differs from other forms of life for couples and the state's interest in marriage as a legal institution, alongside, but different from these other forms.
Otherwise, civil unions for smae-sex couples will be regarded as "marriage-lite" and civil unions for opposite-sex couples, which are proving very popular in every country that has introduced them, are unintelligible.
What Mr.Paterson-Seymour wrote has plenty to do with what you wrote. His argument, as I understand it, is that Christians confuse the immorality of the act that we are forbidden from doing by Christ's law with the actions of the state to secure peace and public order.
These "gay rights" groups exploit this confusion full hilt by making the issue entwine the legal, social and ethical aspects of marriage in a way to normalize sodomy.
How are we to argue FOR a secular marriage (which the state provides) as a pillar of society between a man and woman if we can't speak with clarity on what a secular marriage pertains and what the state's interest in such a marriage is.
I agree with Mr.Paterson-Seymour that it confuses the audience of our times to combine the immorality of the Sodomic act with the legal and social aspects of marriage- which relies on a patrimony that is not possible by redefining marriage to include same sex couples. There is a reason why same-sex marriage (at least in the United States) started out as something pushed by the American Hard Left 60s activists, the SDS. The purpose, as it has always been, is to destroy the last vestiges of patriarchy and the traditional Western family. Forgive me for the long quote but it's better to quote the essay, "The Emergence of Gay Liberation" by Estelle Fredman and John D'Emilio found within the textbook: A History of Our Time: Readings on Post-War America Forth Edition Edited by William H. Chafe and Harvard Sitkoff:
Appearing as it did at the end of the 1960s, gay liberation adopted much of the revolutionary rhetoric of the new Left. GLF's [Gay Liberation Front] statement of purpose announced that "we are a revolutionary homosexual group of men and women formed with the realization that complete sexual liberation of all people cannot come about unless existing social institutions are abolished. We reject society's attempt to impose sexual roles and definitions of our nature…Babylon has forced us to commit ourselves to one thing…revolution!" Rather than fight the ban on homosexuals in the military, radical gays urged resistance to the Vietnam War. They marched in solidarity with groups such as the Black Panther party, and saw themselves as an integral part of the larger movement of oppressed minorities seeking the overthrow of a destructive social order.
In articulating a critque of America's sexual mores, gay liberation borrowed heavily from the new literature of radical feminists. It argued that the oppression of the homosexuals stemmed from a rigidly enforced system of heterosexual supremacy that supported the primacy of the nuclear family and the dichotomous sex roles within it. Sex was just one more vehicle used to enforce subordination and keep the system functioning. For some, gayness itself symbolized an act of political resistance to conventional roles. "We are women and men who, from the time of our earliest memories, have been in revolt against the sex-role structure and nuclear family structure," wrote Martha Shelley of GLF. Rather than being abnormal, homosexuality was seen as a natural capacity in everyone, suppressed by family and society. Gay liberation promised an end to all that. "Gay is good for all of us, " proclaimed Allen Young, a former SDS member who joined GLF in 1970:
The artificial categories "heterosexual and homosexual" have been laid on us by a sexist society….As gays, we demand an end to the gender programming which starts when we are born…The family…is the primary means by which this restricted sexuality is created and enforced…[O]ur understanding of sexism is premised on the idea that in a free society everyone will be gay."
(Any highlighted parts were the work of this writer:)
This is clearly the political fight we are facing, and the integralist-Catholic position shouldn't concede by placing the ethics of the Church into the fight as well.
God thinks the moral dimension of SSM (or rather, the lack of one) is of greatest importance, and it is God's opinion, not the State's, that ultimate counts.
Personally, I don't care how homosexual behavior is removed from the public square, so long as it is.
Paul W Primavera
Traditional marriage can be defended on its own terms as the legal institution that establishes the legal bond between fathers and their children. It is, thus, irrelevant to same-sex couples. In other words, there is different legal treatment of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, because their situation is not analogous. Surely, this is something on which unprejudiced people of good-will can agree.
Why cloud the issue by arguing about the morality of homosexual relationships? How does that advance the case?
Michael, everybody knows marriage can be defended on its own terms. The point is, we are not in a DEBATE about whether we should allow gay marriage in addition to traditional marriage. We are quite literally in a battle over the imposition of gay marriage by people who don't give a damn about your well crafted arguments because they are too busy engaging in lewd public acts with the express purpose of offending people with small children and then using the opportunity to shame them into acceptance by calling them disgusting, breeder homophobes.
Obviously, whatever one says will make no impact on partisan gay activists, but what the example of France shows is that such arguments can prevail with opinion-formers.
Virtually every professor of Civil Law took part in the 1998 Colloquium and they were unanimous in their opposition to SSM, although a majority approved of civil unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples alike, as an alternative, not to marriage, but to unregulated cohabitation.
This, in turn, convinced the courts, which always take their cue from the jurists and even convinced that bastion of liberalism, the European Court of Human Rights.
That was the debate worth winning and it was won decisively.
In the US, by contrast, the supporters of traditional marriage have used arguments that allowed them to be cast as motivated by irrational animus or religious dogma. In France, such a charge would have been palpably absurd and no one ventured to make it,
I would simply endorse what Hmmm says above
Well, "We learned that being grossed out by homosexuality hurts us." is Hoopes's complaint and I think it is well-founded.
You, in turn, seek to justify expressions of disgust – "Homosexual behavior is repulsive to us because it is harmful to society (more on that later), and we are social beings." This may well be so, but prudence would suggest that we should not allow ourselves to be drawn on the topic. Rather, we should make clear our opposition to SSM is based on its absurdity.
One other thing is required: an acknowledgement that the pro-tradition side has developed rational, secular arguments in favor of its position, instead of a default assumption that it is all either based on "eww gross" or decontextualized passages from the Pentateuch.
I don't know. Perhaps someone read the above and thought it was saying "we need to develop these rational, secular arguments".
But Michael, if you read that, it clearly asserts that Bonchomps knows there are rational secular arguments like the ones you're making and calls upon the activists to acknowledge their existence.
I don't think Bonchamps was looking for a discussion of "Hey let's come up with all the best rational, secular arguments in this post that we can use to win this culture war."
I still maintain that the two issues have been unnecessarily linked by the champions of traditional marriage in their discussion of the issue.
I do not suggest that "disgust with homosexual behavior – especially when it is deliberately provocative – is a moral failing, or something that needs to be thought-controlled at all times," any more than my dislike of Crème de menthe is a moral failing/ But, I should not mention it in a discussion of the liquor licencing laws.
"2. Being okay with heterosexual sexual sin hurts us."
OK, this is a fair point. Does anyone think that Newt would have received as many votes as he did if he'd had two dudes in his past? I think this is even more of a problem among evangelicals, who emphasize fidelity to one's *current* spouse but ignore past marriages.
I hope that we can defeat the militant homosexual movement at the election booth and in the court of public opinion. I also hope that those homosexuals who are trying to live chaste and celibate lives will not be discriminated against, harrassed or subject to persecution on the basis of their same-sex attraction or any other basis, for that matter.
However, when God was faced with militant homosexuality, He destroyed it with fire and brimestone. Yes, that was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah (contrary to liberal revisionist history and liberal theology). Of course, I do not advocate the first use of force against militant homosexuals any more than I advocate first use of force against the militant abortionists of Planned Parenthood. But the Democrats will give up neither homosexuality nor abortion without a fight. The Democrats proved this in the 1800s with slavery and it took a bloody civil war to put them down that time.
Now call me a pessimist and perhaps I am. But these evil, wicked, diabolical people will hold onto their sexual depravity and child-murdering in the same way that the people of Judah held onto theirs in spite of the warnings of the prophet Jeremiah. And let's remember this one little thing: God does NOT change. If He was willing to prune the branches of the tree that was Israel, then He will do the same to us grafted in Gentiles exactly as St. Paul describes it in Romans chapter 11. Whether He does that by an asteroid strike on an evil nation (perhaps that was the fire and brimestone rained on Sodom and Gommorah), or He does that by allowing another bloody civil war is open to debate. I don't want either of those alternatives and am praying for mercy, but unless we repent as a nation, then we can, must and should expect exactly one of those alternatives: natural disaster or war. We deserve no less, and indeed, because we have put up with "luv, tolerance and nice-nice-ness" these freaking godless sex-perverts, we are no better than the children of Israel who intermarried with the pagan Canaanites.
Cancer must be excised lest the patient die, and the excision is long overdue. We better repent before the Surgeon's knife of eternal justice approaches.
"– that any aversion to homosexuality on the part of a heterosexual is a sign of repressed homosexual desires – is a way of making their positions and lifestyles unfalsifable. If you accept them, great. If you don't, it is a sign that you secretly do. There can be no legitimate opposition. If you think gay is gross, you probably are gay. A fascinating self-defense mechanism, but one not supported by a shred of serious evidence." "There can be no legitimate opposition"
On the contrary: " I DO NOT DO THAT". "I WILL NOT DO THAT" "I VALUE MY IMMORTAL SOUL" "I AM GREATLY DISTRESSED FOR YOUR IMMORTAL SOUL" Pray with your body
Using the persona of Jesus Christ, claiming "in persona Christi" is a lie by the homosexual practitioners. Jesus Christ crucified is the only expression of Jesus Christ's love for mankind allowable. Jesus Christ did not do the things these homosexual practitioners say He did. Therefore, they are kidnapping the Person of Christ to forward their position without Jesus Christ's permission. It is like me saying that Proctor and Gamble makes Colgate toothpaste. It is a lie, like uttering a bad check, plagiarism, or perjury in a court of law. Make them put up or shut up, and stop using Jesus Christ's name to further their own business until they bring forth evidence that Jesus Christ gave them permission to use HIS HOLY NAME. Holy Orders.
"In articulating a critque of America's sexual mores, gay liberation borrowed heavily from the new literature of radical feminists."
Actually, it is the radical feminists who have prevented the maturation of the males amongs us. It is called emasculation. Homosexuality was, at one time, diagnosed as 'arrested development' by the American Psychiatric Association. The change to 'normal' was forced and demanded by the homosexuals themselves, kind of like practicing psychiatry and self-diagnosing oneself without a license. Now, I think I will elect myself president. Oh, Napoleon already has the job. It is late
Mary De Voe,
One cannot reason with or apply reason to baboons whose sole aim and goal is the publicly sanctioned – even glorification – of the titillation of their genitals. These people are without conscience and have demonstrated themselves to be less than sentient. There is a cure for such rabidness, and God visited that cure on Sodom and Gommorah. I pray that doesn't have to happen again.
Paul W. Primavera: And this in San Francisco waiting for the big earthquake. Except what you say is true. The homosexual will be shaking his fist at God while he goes down into the inferno. The Catholic Church is the only person authorized to act "in persona Christi" and like Mary who escaped into Egypt to protect baby Jesus, the Catholic Church can ask the court to cease and desist using the NAME of Jesus Christ on the grounds that these individuals are not ordained to do so. Real people have just as much right to be in the public street as anybody else. A procession with the crucifix will do.
One touch is assault and battery. Make my day.
It is not freedom of speech to utter another person's name without the other person's authorization. In legalese, it is called power of attorney. The Catholic Church has the authorization. Now, the homosexual agenda has to prove that they, too, have the authorization, or power of attorney to speak for Jesus Christ. It appears that the homosexual agenda does not have power of attorney to speak for Jesus Christ and a cease and desist order from the court is in order.
Paul, these people do not even know what "titillation of their genitals" is, having coarsened themselves into oblivion. That is the trouble with addiction.
As Jesus would say: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's (civil marriage, including gay marriage), and unto God the things that are God's (religious marriage)."
"For the love of all that is holy, we are not discussing the law here. We are discussing the battle for public sympathy and support."
But public sympathy and support for what? For a change in the law. To achieve this, activists have had some success in persuading the courts that laws restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples have no rational basis. They also seek to persuade the electorate and legislators that the law can be changed without affecting the public, legal purpose of marriage.
The distinction between "civil marriage" and "religious marriage" does not hold water.
Marriage in its origin is a contract of natural law; it may exist between two individuals of different sexes although no third person existed in the world. In civil society, it becomes a civil contract regulated and prescribed by law and endowed with civil consequences. In most civilized countries, acting under a sense of the force of sacred obligations, it has had the sanctions of religion superadded; it then becomes a religious, as well a natural and civil, contract; for it is a great mistake to suppose that because it is the one, therefore it may not likewise be the other. But marriage remains one and the same for all that.
It is, perhaps, worth noting that, although the Mosaic law prescribes many ritual provisions for various offices and transactions of life, there is no ceremony prescribed for the celebration of marriage.
You wrote, "There's a difference between the battle and the merits of the objective"
And the battle will only be won by convincing those who have the power to shape public policy, in the courts and in the legislature of those merits. We will not do that, if our objections appear to be the rationalisation of anti-gay animus, or an attempt to impose religious values by law.
I certainly did not intend my remarks to have any personal application
Not everyone who is against sodomy is "grossed out" by what is considered homosexual actions. (I include myself in that category.) The irrationality of act and how they define themselves is much more bothersome to me quite frankly. I don't believe I'm too inured from having such a reaction but it may be the case. And that case, whether habituated or natural, is felt by an equal number of humans who don't share your disgust for these actions. As I understand it, any argument (especially in modern-liberal milieu we exist in) that is premised on one's disgusts isn't go to go very far for this reason: People's disgusts and reactions are predicated in a complex and not fully understood manner and when everyone is sovereign, there is no reason for me to entertain your disgusts more seriously than my own or any Joe and Jane American. From there, it is very easy to entertain the liberal's propaganda that since his anthropology is uncertain; his ideas incorporate the universal (and natural) actions of all men as good or useful and makes no outcasts of those who agree to tolerate all differences despite anyone's conventional and "small-minded" thinking. The "universal man" has no time for such the unsophisticated and petty reactions that arises from disgusts. And the majority of people, tepid in thought and action, would surely side with this for fear that they may find their habits and lives questioned for inducing a similar revulsion in one group or another down the line.
To portray or characterize Jesus Christ as virgin, innocent, as the TRUTH and perfect charity is true. Judas Iscariot hung himself and he burst open. Judas Iscariot literally "spilled his guts" for betraying Jesus Christ with a kiss. We have four witnesses to the TRUTH, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The bible tells us to add or subtract nothing from the TRUTH. Jesus says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, as "it was not so from the beginning".
When Jesus defined the relationship between the sexes "from the beginning", Jesus defined human sexual behavior to eternity. When Adam knew Eve and Eve brought forth Cain, Abel and Seth, Eve was of the age of informed sexual consent. Both Adam and Eve were adults. Violating the law of God is known as "adultery" that is, not behaving as an adult would behave, but faking it.
Any sitting judge, who cannot discern the good from the evil or the TRUTH from the fake needs to be impeached, which simply means that the judge would be sent to live with his own ignorance or sin.
Now, these individuals claiming to portray Jesus Christ are liars and perjurers, or show me where in the Holy Scripture, the story of Jesus Christ's life, does Jesus bless and approve such behavior. Jesus only denounces any sexual behavior outside of the bond between male and female, from the beginning unto eternity.
If I may intrude on Bon and MP-S here, the traditional marriage crowd does have legal arguments, along with cultural, moral, and Biblical arguments. There's also the visceral argument: the feeling that a lot of people get in their gut when they see homosexual acts. Everyone has a different personality, and that means that different arguments will reach different people. I don't find Michael's argument persuasive at all, but that's just me. There isn't going to be one argument that wins the day, I'll bet.
Maybe I'm wrong. The natural law argument seems irrefutable. But that's just me. I think a lot of people need some intellectual framework so they can say that their opposition to gay marriage isn't just based on discrimination. For the past several decades, we've been retraining ourselves as a culture not to react to individuals outside our comfort zone. That's a good thing, but it's made us unable to trust our guts on gay marriage.
To a Catholic or an evangelical, the Biblical argument suffices. But it can always be rebutted by pointing to O.T. laws that no longer apply. Because the evangelical doesn't understand ecclesiology, he can't reply to that. The Catholic can, but he's got to explain ecclesiology first, and a lot of people won't bother to listen. An evangelical can bring up St. Paul's writings, but then that degenerates into an argument about whether Paul was an apostle, the authenticity of the Bible, translation from the Greek, et cetera.
Anyway, my point is, we need to get all our arguments in a line, and know how to respond to the rebuttals. Even with all that, some people are still going to assume that we're motivated by bigotry. The comparison to the pro-life movement is apt – but remember, we've only really begun that fight, and on our best day 45% of the population still disagrees with us.
The reason we feel disgust at Homosexual acts is because the are against the natural law and are unnatural. By definition these acts go against nature and are perverted.
Homosexual acts are not the same as Heterosexual acts. When a man fornicates with a woman, there is nothing disgusting about the act itself. Sex between a man and a woman is natural and normal. There is nothing unnatural or perverted about it. The problem is not the sexual act, but that the act was outside of marriage and is the sin of fornication. Sodomy and other Homosexual acts are always intrinsic evils and unnatural.
If it is from God it will continue. If it is not of God it will die of itself. The homosexual does not being forth offspring which pretty much assures that the homosexual will die out. What is so outrageous is that the homosexual agenda is being enforced through the courts as legal, being taught in school as real. It is not real. A fake husband and a fake wife, a fake mother or a fake father is not real. No court ruling can make it real. There have been homosexuals since Sodom and Gomorrah but only now has homosexual behavior been codified as real. (In Sodom and Gomorrah the homosexuals had the upper hand, but that did not change the law of God) Here in America, homosexual behvior, abortion and prayer ban have become the law of the land. It is wrong to force a lie on anybody with a rational soul, especially someone who constitutes government and pays for government through taxes. The homosexual will argue that he pays taxes but like the atheist, the homosexual must have something to come home to and that is the truth.
MPS; " or an attempt to impose religious values by law." All religious values are imposed by law, leaving only vices on the outside. That is why they are called outlaws. "Render unto Caesar" Caesar belongs to God. Or do you think that Caesar created himself?
Hmmm: " From there, it is very easy to entertain the liberal's propaganda that since his anthropology is uncertain; his ideas incorporate the universal (and natural) actions of all men as good or useful and makes no outcasts of those who agree to tolerate all differences despite anyone's conventional and "small-minded" thinking. The "universal man" has no time for such the unsophisticated and petty reactions that arises from disgusts. And the majority of people, tepid in thought and action, would surely side with this for fear that they may find their habits and lives questioned for inducing a similar revulsion in one group or another down the line."
The "universal man" has a rational and immortal soul and a destiny in eternity. The man is composed of human body and rational soul. Homosexual behavior ignores the transcendence of man, the evil to avoid and the holiness that must be pursued.
Our founding principles are grounded in Divine Providence and our unalienable rights are endowed by "their Creator". Without God, man has only himself, as you stated. But with God,"their Creator" man has been guaranteed FREEDOM,TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
Mary De Voe wrote MPS; " or an attempt to impose religious values by law." All religious values are imposed by law, leaving only vices on the outside.
But that is simply not true. When the Code Napoléon was adopted in most of Europe, it expressly abolished offences against religion, notably blasphemy, sodomy and witchcraft. This was in accordance with the Roman principle, deorum injuria diis cura – offences against the gods are the gods' business. If they are food citizens in this world, the magistrate need not concern himself with their destination in the next.
"…but rather to impose social equality and criminalize religious institutions that refuse to recognize homosexuality as morally valid". Marriage is an act of God. Militant homosexuality intends to impose the state over the will of God among the people of God, destroying the knowledge of the human being as composed of body and soul and the state as servant of the people of God. Same thought, dfifferent words.
Michael Paterson-Seymour:
Again, religion is man's response to the gift of Faith from God. The Triune God is Three Divine Persons in one God. It is the Person of God in man's human, rational, immortal soul, WHO gives man his sovereign personhood and all endowed unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is the Supreme Sovereign Being WHO gives the human being existence. God is existence; which begs the question: "If the atheist rejects God, Existence Himself, does the atheist exist?" Hmmm, being fallible has its perks. (Isn't this why the devil himself acknowledges almighty God, refuses to obey, but, the devil himself knows God)
Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights.
The Supreme Sovereign Being is perfect Generosity, perfect Charity and perfect LOVE. God is VIRTUE, all VIRTUE, no vice. God created man in original innocence with sovereign personhood. Man constituted government for the purposes inscribed in our founding principles, acknowledging "their Creator", "unalienable rights", "Divine Providence", "to secure the blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity" among other rights. The right to the TRUTH, the whole truth and nothing but the TRUTH is every man's right expressed in a court of Justice. Man as a sovereign person, as a human being with body and soul, has a right to the TRUTH. The TRUTH is found only in virtue. The TRUTH is never found in vice.
FREEDOM is granted by God. Would one impose Rousseau's, Napoleon's or Roman FREEDOM on man to bless the human race, or God's FREEDOM?
Sorry, Michael Paterson-Seymour, I espouse the perfect FREEDOM granted by God in all virtue without vice, and as far as the imposition of Divine Providence on the American citizen, it has already been done in the Declaration of Independence.
People, you are missing the point. The objective is not to convince the homosexual activists. The objective is to convince the society at large, that may not share our religious values. They have to be convinced using secular arguments.
Nardia: "People, you are missing the point. The objective is not to convince the homosexual activists. The objective is to convince the society at large, that may not share our religious values. They have to be convinced using secular arguments."
How secular are the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution or even the Emancipation Proclamation, and/or the Gettysburg Address?
Plato: Gorgias: "the passive homosexual" as ridiculous, loathsome, disgraceful, shameful, and wretched.
Plato's writings contain numerous condemnations of homosexual intercourse. See Laws 636c. Plato, speaking through the character of the Athenian stranger, rejects homosexual behavior as "unnatural" (para physin), describes it as an "enormity" or "crime" (tolmema), and explains that it derives from being enslaved to pleasure. Plato, and other great pre-Christian thinkers, rejected homosexual acts on moral grounds.
Gay marriage is solely about those getting "married." This narcissism is the main difference with valid marriage.
Sodomy is solely for and about those engaging in it (mutual masturbation). It is illicit, sterile, and separated from God. It denies God as Creator. It denies the purpose of God's creation and His participation with us in the Creation of children. To put forth this foul abomination as equivalent to marriage denies the barrenness of sodomy, which is the goal of all this bloody nonsense.
T Shaw
Aristotle's comments are interesting.
"Others arise as a result of disease [??????] (or, in some cases, of madness, as with the man who sacrificed and ate his mother, or with the slave who ate the liver of his fellow), and others are morbid states resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these sex with men [?????????? ???? ???????]; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit." [Nicomachean Ethics Book 7:5] [Arist Eth Nic 1148b 27-30]
His equation of sodomy with nail-biting or eating coal may seem fanciful, but what they have in common is their essential futility. I am sure that Aristotle intended these rather bizarre illustrations to emphasise the main point: that there are no "reasons" for bad choices- just causes.
Michael Paterson-Seymour:
Thank you.
I never dreamt I could say the following, "Apparently, Aristotle, Plato, and I have something in common."
It seems liberals think they are smarter than Aristotle, Newton, Plato; not to mention God Almighty.
T Shaw
You can add St Thomas Aquinas to your list
St Thomas obviously had the passage I cited in mind, when he says
"It happens that something which is not natural to man, either in regard to reason, or in regard to the preservation of the body, becomes connatural to this individual man, on account of there being some corruption of nature in him. And this corruption may be either on the part of the body — from some ailment; thus to a man suffering from fever, sweet things seem bitter, and vice versa — or from an evil temperament; thus some take pleasure in eating earth and coals and the like; or on the part of the soul; thus from custom some take pleasure in cannibalism or in the unnatural intercourse of man and beast, or other such things, which are not in accord with human nature." (S.T. I-II, Q. 31, Art. 7, cor.)
The bestiality bit is St Thomas's own, perhaps from a mistranslation of Aristotle's ????????, which occurs in the previous passage, where Aristotle discusses cannibalism at some length – what the word actually means is anyone's guess (brutish, animal-like or something of that sort; goodness knows what St Thomas's Latin version said and he misses out plucking the hair and biting one's nails, which are two of Aristotle's illustrations. I do, however, like St Thomas's point about sweet things seeming bitter &c.
It all emphasises that there is no reason, no rational motive, for such behaviour, just instinctive or dispositional causes This, by the by, is what I take "intrinsically disordered" to mean.
Michael Paterson-Seymour:
Thank you.
Michael Paterson-Seymour and T. Shaw. Thank you both for these very interesting informative posts. They are a joy to read.
The homosexual practitioner is not denied his homosexuality, nor is the homosexual practitioner denied his marriage. The homosexual practitioner's God is the devil himself, and therefore, the homosexual practitioner is demanding from almighty God what he cannot get from the devil himself, and that is love and affection.
When the homosexual practitioner leaves his demands for love and affection, and begins reverencing God, loving and cherishing human beings, the homosexual practitioner will be given love and affection packed down, spilling over.
"hordes of bleating drones"
"you didn't build that". If one of my tax dollars built that, I built that… road, bridge, public school. Obama is taking away from the sovereign person his identity: "I AM". I built, I have. I am in reality a human being, who is created by "their Creator", not by Obama's fiat, acknowledgement or recognition, but by the existence and name given to me by God; "I AM".
This is posted anywhere and everywhere any one will read it, because it is what it is. One very important clarification: The Affordable Health Care Act is written so that Sebelius has complete power to rewrite any portion or clause. If President Obama were to give the whole Catholic population an accommodation, for conscience, for freedom of religion, for any value system, the accommodation can be withdrawn or redrawn the day after election. That is the way the contract for the Affordable Healthcare Act was written. No informed consent from any citizen. No ballot, no will of the people. Only dictatorship from Obama.
The day after his inauguration in 2009, Obama did this with the Mexico City policy which had prevented American tax dollars to be used to abort Mexican people.
"The layers of insanity go even deeper. ….. Obama himself has created the conditions under which businesses with 50 or more employees must eventually provide health insurance (by 2014). He has forced this responsibility onto the employers of America. … He then proceeds not only to insult them with his "you didn't build that" remarks (some potential business owners won't be building anything thanks to Obamacare), but … to prohibit them from exercising their preferences, moral or otherwise, in how they go about doing it. … And yet to hear Obama speak, one might think that employers themselves demanded Obamacare just so they could have power over their employees that they didn't have before, … and that the HHS mandate had to exist for this reason. ….. This isn't just a false picture of reality, but a deranged one."
From bookkeeping experience, thankfully past, I saw that the first priority of an operating budget with integrity was payroll which included health insurance and federal/state taxes.
Where will the HHS braintrust be when Affordable Care reveals its nature to those who will begin to be denied coverage for this or that, when copays etc. are raised and changed? Affordable to the government, the employer, or the employee?
Just looking at the national debt ticker tape in the light of bailouts and money blown on privileges already, that the government can't afford this is plain to see.
Employers have access to state and federal programs which benefit them to employ those already receiving free medical from government social programs.
Employees have choices from employers which ACA will end.
And the nitpicking enforcement of the whole reproductive issue is laughable because the offerings are already in place and have been. No issue.
The filling of a tooth cavity may not be so. I know a caring elderly dentist who has special prices for this necessity for patients denied coverage by Medi…. .
Speaking of these symptoms of psychosis, which appears to be contagious, a growing contagion, the empty talk about helping the poor is pretty empty.
A food pantry/soup kitchen is looking for funding from churches, businesses, and organizations this year. Because –
Federal Government: 10/08 to 9/09 gave $22,200
10/09 to 9/10 gave $12, 000
10/10 to 9/11 had No Offer to help with 2012
Catholic Charities: from $17,000 to $15,000 for 2012.
Where does admin get off talking about helping the poor while slamming the Catholic Church?
(Many of the people fed were misusers of food stamps but that money went into the economy intensive care unit – so good.)
Here I paraphrase Alabama Football Coach Bear Bryant. It ain't psychotic if it's a lie.
Each day It becomes more apparent. Liberals are stupid.
I like a good generalization, T. Shaw, but 'liberals are stupid' doesn't work for me. How about, liberals are tree-hugging morons? How about, liberals are a stupid-spreading virus that's turning America into a retard-state? Put some punch and exaggeration into your generalization, and it'll work a lot better. Trust me, I have experience.
I guess I could be serious for a moment, and recall that both democrats and republicans are (generally) liberals, in the Pre-Vatican II Catholic lexicon. And Liberalism, at heart, is the religion of the Age of so-called Reason, by which God became either non-existent or non-important. Liberals are, unfortunately, quite clever and thoughtful, and wise in a worldly sense. It has allowed them to make TVs and rocket ships, as well as condoms and nukes. We poor Catholic who are born into this Liberal Utopia-project are mesmerized by its technological idols. We even rant against it with their most faithless creation — the computer.
And yet our rants reveal the problem: we aren't thinking anymore. We are venting, and mostly to (or against) one another. We play their game nicely by pretending that one side or the other is wrong, when in fact the game is rigged: both 'sides' are liberal.
Traditional Catholicism (which includes the Catholic Worker movement), offers a powerful critique of the doomed modern project. The summary is simple but astounding: we are all on the Titanic, folks. This ship is going down, regardless of who captains it.
Whether Obama or Romney is elected matters less than whether we maintain our faith to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and to Christ its King. 'Flee to the Fields' has been the Traditional Catholic teaching since Chesterton and Pius and Dorothy Day. Spend your angry energy not on painting up Obama as the psychotic problem, but on the psychotic iceberg called Liberalism: an iceberg that has already ripped an unfixable hole in Western Civilization. All we can hope for is to get enough people to the lifeboats, and to teach people why it all went down.
I recommend Spe Salvi and Peter Maurin's Easy Essays.
All generalizations are wrong including this one.
Only two corrections for your post:
One, I am thinking. I am wracking my weak brains to come up with means for my children and grandchildren to survive the impending economic and societal cllapse.
Two, I ain't smart enough to understand all that essay stuff.
Here's a generalized (remember: all gener . . . ) statement for how we got where we are: "The general causes of the great recession (I don't tink it's so great!) are depraved US government fiscal/monetary policies and similar profligacy in the private sector."
I'll vote for the man who doesn't mock the builder of the lifeboats.
"Catholics ignore secular politics at their peril." American citizens ought not have to fight to have the Affordable Heathcare Act, same sex marriage and prayer in public school on the referendum. They ought not have to fight to have crosses in cemeteries and American flags in public places, school and construction sites. The builders of the bridge they were building over Rt. 1 in North Brunswick, N. J. had beautiful American Flags hanging from their cranes. They were ordered to take the American flags down…then 9/11 happened and they were left alone to have our flag. WHO makes the call to atrophy our liberty if all men are created equal?
"Spend your angry energy not on painting up Obama as the psychotic problem, but on the psychotic iceberg called Liberalism: an iceberg that has already ripped an unfixable hole in Western Civilization."
Another facile generalization. Liberalism has many aspects some of which are positive. For example, John Paul II (not entralled with philosophical liberalism) in Memory and Identity discussed the positive aspects of Liberalism particularly in its recognition of individual rights. He went on to note the positive effects of this aspect of Liberalism on Church thinking in regards to the legitimate place of individual rights.
We are dealing now with a level of dishonesty that is so open and aggressive that reasonable discourse, upon which social peace ultimately rests, is fast becoming impossible.
You nailed it, and it's really quite frightening thinking of where all this is leading.
vThe dishonesty and hypocrisy are all the procince of American Catholic and its right wing crazies. I hardly recognize the church of social justice and democracy I grew up in. Frightening? Yes, but not because Barack Obama and other moral leaders are still able to stand up for the poor and the powerless against religious hypocrites like you and yours.
I concur with the post whole heartedly. We really are a nation divided against itself at this point. There is only one way to resolve this…. When in the course of human events….
Other political discourse developments: Obama's favorite journalist suspended for plagiarism. Forward!
Factchecker reports a first: pro-Obama ads' so totally dishonest, they don't know where to start.
And, Obama zombie-women promise to send the GOP National Convention snapshots of their private parts. Yes We Can!
You may forgive the stupidity, not the evil.
3 . . . 2. . . 1 . . . Paul Ryan is worse than Hitler!!!!!!
"Otherwise, you're just hurling nonsense."
"vThe dishonesty and hypocrisy are all the procince of American Catholic…"
It starts with this first phrase. r eastburg, what are your trying to say there?
Eastburg: more proof that liberals are stupid.
That would be "porcine", genius.
If your point is that everybody that isn't a idiotic, liberal loser is a hypocrite, a liar, or a pig . . .
You've got nothing!
Again, more proof that using the words "idiot" and "liberal" in the same sentence is repetitive.
r eastburg says:
Friday, August 10, 2012 A.D. at 8:34pm
vThe dishonesty and hypocrisy are all the procince of American Catholic and its right wing crazies. I hardly recognize the church of social justice and democracy I grew up in. Frightening? Yes, but not because Barack Obama and other moral leaders are still able to stand up for the poor and the powerless against religious hypocrites like you and yours.
There is no such thing as "the church of democracy" In fact, there is no such thing as "the church of social Justice" without the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, which are the virtue of charity, a free will offering to God, the free exercise of free will, conscience and the response to the gift of Faith from God. Now tell me, your eastburg, where is the Supreme Sovereign Being and the sovereignty of each and every citizen in the Affordable Healtcare Act, same sex marriage, abortion, prayer ban. Where is the Person of God? When the Person of God may be ostracized, who is the next peson to be persecuted? all free men.
r eastburg
You mean the 'moral leaders' who are
the ones who point fingers to harass and intimidate and insult?
the ones who can't get the facts straight?
the ones who tell people want they 'want to hear'?
the ones whom the truth hurts ?
the ones who bailout their big business campaign donaters with money they don't have?
the ones who are so into legalizing infanticide and indiscriminate sex acts?
the ones who fly in the face of the US Constitution?
the ones who make sure they are protected from the 'poor and powerless'?
the ones who mock the Catholic religion relentlessly?
the ones who won't have dinner with the 'poor and powerless'?
the ones who can't check or prepare budgets to see whether they can keep promises to the 'poor and powerless'?
the ones who end up making fools of their 'poor and powerless'?
the ones who have lavishly partied without inviting the 'poor and powerless'?
the ones who can't explain their personal wealth – but want that of others?
the ones who don't qualify for what they aren't doing?
the ones who cheapen and degrade their Catholic identity?
" vThe dishonesty and hypocrisy are all the procince of American Catholic and its right wing crazies. I hardly recognize the church of social justice and democracy I grew up in. Frightening? Yes, but not because Barack Obama and other moral leaders are still able to stand up for the poor and the powerless against religious hypocrites like you and yours. " – r eastburg
You have to stop, look, and listen. In and out of church.
Romney and Ryan do care about the USA and all its people. They will make sense.
I think r.eastburg means to say…
"….the PROVINCE of American Catholic"
Anyway, he's wrong.
Thanks for the post. I was just wondering about this last week.
Looking forward to reading more.
I have been off for awhile also. Does anyone know anything about the Dolan invitation to BO for the Al Smith dinner? Or is this old news. I went to the mountains and literally could not get anything to work! as in tech. It was great though. I was able to get to Mass and Holy Hour everyday!!!. Pretty sad when you have to go a thousand miles and 10,000 feet up to find daily confessions heard, Mass, and daily Holy Hour.
Um… members of the party should never be in a situation where they are far enough away from the telescreen to be that uninformed.
I would have thought that you would be aware of that.
I despise, loathe and abhor Barack Hussein Obama not because of the color of his skin Heck, I love Congressman Allen West, again, not because of the color of his skin. I abhor Obama because he is an evil man who will not repent. I love West because he is unfraid to tell the politically incorrect truth in the public square.
But by accident of birth my skin color is white, so by definition I suppose that makes me racist.
Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. Three of the dirtiest words in the English language, even more so than the "N" word.
The President is definitely cool in the sense Lincoln used the word in 1860:
"In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear and mutters through his teeth, 'Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!' "
"Vote for my economy-destroying programs or YOU will have destroyed the economy."
If I think Obama is "cool" and use the word to describe him, I am a racist (had I used the word to describe him when Ebony magazine and CNN did, I would have been fine). Logically, therefore, if I don't think Obama is cool, I am not a racist. I've never really thought Obama was cool. Most of the time he bores me to sleep.
Yep. I'm with Mark Steyn in that I don't think he is or ever was a great orator. He speeches are more like those tempermental shower faucets that go from freezing to scalding with a mere twitch. One minute it's "Audicity of Hope"; next minute we are all going to die. Blech.
Here's a reason I refuse to waste my eyesight or money on HBO, the NY Times, Newsweek, etc.
Reportedly, HBO ran a scene in its (I assume) crappy series "Game of Thrones" depicting the decapitated head of President George W. Bush on a pike.
Counterpoint: the lying liberal press "goes nuts" over every imaginary insult against the Won.
If you don't watch the news, you are uninformed. If you watch the news, you are misinformed.
@Klansman Paul. Thanks for proving my point \. You racist slimeball. Yes you ARE a racist. Allen West is an Uncle Tom who insults African-Americans for not thinking like him!
Barack Obama is not an "evil man." I voted for him in 2008 and will do so again in 2012.
On the night of Barack Obama's presidential election victory, Americans seemed to shed our troubled legacy of racism. Or did we?
Obama's victory did offer at least one gift to conservatives. It gave them a new excuse to tell black Americans to stop complaining about white racism.
people like Klansman Paul
It seems as if questionbumbler is a liberal.
How is Col. West an Uncle Tom? Because he doesn't think like the worst POTUS in history?
One thing for sure Col. West wasn't educated and raised by Indonesian muslims and white, commie hippies.
Why do you blacks and liberals hate whites?
What's your beef with Oceania?
Do you understand Oceania as I do?
Or are you using "Oceania" as Thomas More used "Utopia?" 😉
Growing up in the US I was always annoyed with the notion that I owed black people more regard than white people because there were black people enslaved two hundred years ago in the south. First off most black people I knew did not assert this and second the idea that because of something somebody did before I was born I should be punished seems unjust and I am pretty sure that other than my my Dad, my Mom, and for a short while just as a long trip my Uncle have been the only ancesters I know of who lived in America. Unless you include Brasil when talking about America than my Grandma and her parents might be included other than that no one else.
The problem with the way people like questionman is they act like the way you act or what you believe changes your genetic makeup. the reasoning people like that have goes like this: If a black man wheres a clean cut suit, thinks baggy pants are stupid, and thinks Marijuana is a deadening drug than he is obviously white because black people in the hip hop business are otherwise.
Oh my, what are all the former college students who voted for Obama going to do about this? They BANKED on the idea that they were voting for the "cool" candidate and not the old, non-exotic white guy! All these poor twenty-somethings are now… uncool?!
Oh well, they're probably too busy with Koby 2012 or whatever the latest Internet cause is at the moment to think about it.
I can see where the CBC is coming from, though. Positive stereotypes (the cool black guy, the magic negro, the wise old Asian) can be damaging. However, Obama's campaign didn't seem to notice the "cool black guy" vibe they were giving off – or if they did, they milked the heck out of it.
Kristin I specifically remember lot's of people being vicious towards this one boy from Georgia who had a McCain shirt on but as you said the Obama campaign did not take much notice of people going insane over the fact that he was a black candidate (he is mulatto by the way not black or white).
Yeah, I've always wondered why Obama identifies as black instead of mixed race or white since he never really knew his black father. I guess he looks more black than white, so growing up, people labelled him as black. I'm not asking this to criticize him; I'm genuinely curious about how people of mixed race identify themselves.
I have seen Romanians with darker skin than Obama they're caucasion.
Ah – George Orwell.
Its many years since I read 1984, and being so vague in my (rapidly deteriorating 😉 ) memory, didn't even register.
Of course, where I am, NZ, Oz, and the Pacific islands make up the current Oceania. 🙂
This is exactly what happens when a society turns it back on God, and more specifically on it self. The issue here isn't homosexual marriage (incidentally as long as Christians continue to misuse the beautiful word "gay" to describe sodomy the problem will never improve). the issue is homosexuality at large.
We have ignored an entire generation that euphemistically describes mortal sin as " hooking up". We go to unmarried couples homes and treat them as married, then wonder why their generation doesn't marry anymore. Anyone with young adult children knows that the entire generation no longer sees homosexuality as deviant. Now if we have turned our backs on God in order to mollify our children, how dare we wonder what has become of our society. Is this travesty of homosexual "marriage" not entirely logical, given the cowardly state of we, who were called by God to resist it.
These Laws will only be reversed when we have the courage to stand and call homosexuality what it is; sin. Only then, when we have the courage to teach our children that sex is the sacred bond between a married couple that leads to babies (I know it sounds simple, that's the point!) can we, as Christians, claim the right to our faith. As long as we continue to turn our heads the other way and inadvertently encourage heterosexual sin in our "enlightened" children, have we any right to wonder how things like this happen?
"As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism."
You omitted a prefix. It should read:
"the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism."
To quote a famous 20th century American philosopher, John McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"
PS: Us knuckle-draggers ain't forcing youse to accept our "hate, intolerance, etc." However, you, your presumed moral superiority, and the moral bankrupts on the bench are . . .
God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin. Do you get that, Leo?
By the way, if you want to play with another man's genitals, then I won't stand in your way. But kindly do it behind closed doors and don't call the action marriage because it's not. It's filthy dirty. Yet I concede to your "right" to be a filth dirty pervert so long as you do not force the rest of society to follow you in your filthy dirty ways. God does allow you to be a filthy dirty sexual pervert. However, filthy dirty sex perverts like you want to force the rest of us to concede that your filthy dirty sexual perversion should be sanctified as marriage and that filty dirty sexual perverts should be treated the same as those united in the Sacrament of Holy Marriage. You are no different than those filthy dirty sexual perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah who tried to beat down the door to Lot's house so that they could have anal sex with the angels whom Lot had welcomed inside. See Genesis 19:1-11. And you know the end of those men. First they were blinded (but they still didn't give up – verse 11) and then their cities of wickedness were destroyed by fire from on high (buckle up, pervert, because God won't withhold His justice forever. See Genesis 19:12-29.
Well God says: NO! In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:
9 Don't you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk [addictively and excessively], who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.
Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. Demonic and Satanic by any other name. It's time for disgusting, perverted, rancid sexual filth that your kind supports to be called what it is. We all have to repent – daily – lest we burn in hell for eternity. That include me repenting of my sin. That also includes you repenting of your filth. But you say that this call to repentance is unloving, unkind and unjust. You won't say that before the Great White Throne of Judgment, but it'll be too late:
11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Yes, I want people like you defeated, muzzled and emasculated (politically) so that you can't drag others to the fires of hell with you.
Opps – editing error.
"In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:"
should be
"In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul (which a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear) in Corinthians 6:9-10 concerning dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:"
Arrrrggghhh – got so upset that people like Leo say the fecal stuff that he said that I did not edit correctly.
Paul: Thank you for proving my point.
T. Shaw: You presume to know me. You don't. I don't judge others, and I would appreciate not being judged in return. Only God judges (Deuteronomy 1:17).
Wow, Leo.
I really appreciate how you gave your reasons and examples along with your explanation, as opposed to a baseless drive-by accusation.
Nope, no hate, intolerance, bigotry, or totalitarianism there!
Keep it up, liberals. If I ever had any doubts on the subject, you're settling them for me.
Have a great day and God bless you!
Need any more evidence that Satan is sitting on the Throne and God has been thrown out of the window???? But have a heart, people of goodwill….. God has the Final Word and the Casting Vote. And Christ voted on the Cross at Calvary…..stand up Christian Solders and fight for God……yes we love, and embrace sodomites….but we hate the Sin as God does….let all of us practice the First of the Spiritual Works of Mercy here : Admonish the Sinners…..never compromise with Satanic perversions.
To you, Leo. I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions. Do not misquote Him on "Do not judge, lest you be judged". He tells the adulterous woman….."neither do I condemn you. But go AND SIN NO MORE. You see, Leo, God loves sinners. He died such a horrible death for us all. But He HATES SIN like all level headed, normal, intelligent and decent men and women do. Sodomy, Lesbianism, Abortion, Euthanasia and all those bestialities now dominating the Western World are Satanic, evil and filthy. That is, as I said above, doing what Jesus told us to do : ADMONISH THE SINNERS. And you are sinners par excellence, who are so arrogant and want to force your pervesities upon us all. WE SHALL NOT ACCEPT THAT, NEVER, NEVER AND AGAIN…..NEVER
I should never so early in the morning read and respond to the kind of stuff that Leo Salazar writes. The only proper response is what Mary42 gave: "I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions." Thus do verses 9 and 10 in the Epistle of Jude state:
9* But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you." 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.
"the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism."
Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way)
This is a bit curious – I have heard some argue it is in-born, others it is a choice, others it is a combination, and others that it can be in-born for some, choice for others, and a combination for yet others. But I have never heard someone say it is neither (which would seem to exclude all of the above). Do you consider cultural conditioning as a distinct cause from "choice"?
I think Bonchamps is correct. The propensity or inclination to homosexual behavior is a disease like alcoholism or drug addiction. Being an alcoholic or drug addict is not sinful. Indeed, millions are in recovery and abstinent from intoxicants. For the person afflicted with same sex attraction, the behavior is his or her intoxicant of choice. Being so afflicted is a cross perhaps similar in certain ways to the cross of alcoholism or addiction. We can choose to take up our cross and follow Jesus, denying our selfish wants, or we can give up and wallow in the intoxicant of our choice: homosexual behavior, alcohol or drugs.
This is not a condemnation of those who drink alcohol in an adult manner, nor of the abstinent homosexual or lesbian. Not everyone is an alcoholic just as not everyone is a homosexual. Furthermore, there is only one place for sexual activity: in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. If a heterosexual is unmarried, then he is held to the same rules that a homosexual is held to: chastity. If a heterosexual is married, then he is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with anyone other than his spouse. It is utter selfishness (not love) to rut in heat like a mindless baboon expecting no consequences for one's actions, whether that rutting is homosexual or heterosexual. Yet today's liberal progressive society would have us believe that such animalistic rutting is freedom and liberty instead of what it really is: slavery to whatever titillates the genitals. That, my friends, is drug addiction "par excellence". We are not baboons or bonobo chimpanzees. We are human beings created in the image and likeness of God Almighty Himself, and He expects and requires that we behave as such. Failure to so behave can result in being cast into the hell of addiction in this life time, never to end in the burning fires of hell in the next.
Use your God-given brains, Leo, instead of the stirring in your loins. You're better than that.
Both national legislation and international conventions are casting their net ever wider.
The following is typical:- "Discrimination comprises any distinction applied between natural persons by reason of their origin, sex, family situation, physical appearance or patronymic, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, sexual morals or orientation, age, political opinions, trade union activities, or their membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion."
I apologize.
Everything in life is some combination of genetics, environment, and individual decision. I don't understand the need to pretend to know the ratios. We're responsible for our choices to the extend that they were freely made and understood. Beyond that, we're just guessing.
Leo – I think you missed the point. If someone writes an article entitled "A Penny Saved Is Not A Penny Earned", you wouldn't show up and reply, "no, that's incorrect; a penny saved is a penny earned". The title of this piece and the image accompanying it are shocking for a reason. They're intended to jostle your thinking. At a time when the President is depicted with a rainbow halo, an image of a rainbow swastika is incongruent. A vibrant mind would ask why, not just reply that he agrees with conventional thinking. Maybe you did get the point of the article, but nothing in your comments indicates it.
Bonchamps said: "I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder." I do too.
Paul W. Primavera: I enjoyed reading your posts on Holy Scripture and still say my Hail Mary in Latin.
Mary @42: You cut to the chase and clarified the issue quickly.
Leo: What would the Holy Virgin say about your inexcusable defense of sinful behavior? The Holy Virgin weeps…and weeps.
Live and let live. Problems, accusations, and anti-stuff only happens when people impose upon other people and form 'movements' to do so.
If aids and abortion didn't kick up in the 80's as an alert that something has gone off balance with humanity, then all this antagonizing, righteousness and division could move beyond emotional insanity to rational behavior and growth to calm 'diversity'.
We all have the possibility of achieving an integrity of our beliefs which are unique – we don't need to butt heads or force change for another's view of 'integrity'. It's just not right, practical, or any good to be 'my way' or else for anyone.
This 'anti' bit is creepy because it is dehumanizing for all sides. Animals, away from man's influence, have more intelligence and instinct. We could learn from them – and they are cute and beautiful.
As someone who makes a living in the visual arts, (including photography) this kind of ruling is rather chilling. One statement of the ruling stuck out to me:
By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message. Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.
The notion that this sort of photography is being 'merely asked to take photographs' is absurd. Artistic photography is as much an expression and message of the photographer as of the client. It's not simply pressing a button on a camera- if that was the case, no one would hire photographers. Rather, the whole point of selecting a particular photographer over another (or over a family member with a camera phone) is that the photographer has a particular style, quality, etc.- even message- that is communicated by that style. Often times you even have to be careful with the clients you choose to work for so that your style and message don't get diluted.
Perhaps whoever made this ruling needs to open a photography business and see how well they do by merely 'taking photographs.'
"I don't hate homosexuals . . . I do hate the radical gay movement."
First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible. If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the "radical homosexual movement" (whatever that's supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here), you haven't sufficiently defined it in your article. One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.
Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise. The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there's nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.
Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your "arguments" and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, "If I don't want to deal with black people, then I should't be forced to! It's my right to refuse." This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is