Choosing Governor Palin is a real 'setback' for liberals, feminists, and lefty cultural Catholics who predicted rise of environmental issues over 'settled' issues such as abortion.

Hopefully this is a clarion call to all the fencesitters and moderates of both parties that issues such as defending the lives of the innocent unborn and protecting tenets of western civilization still have a hold on large segments of the population.

But this isn't it. At best, it's rearguard action on one issue: abortion. But as far as beginning to configure a truly Catholic society, we haven't even begun. Neocon Catholicism simply wishes to attach a few Catholic beliefs onto the greater American polity, without questioning whether the two are compatible. In some cases, it even distorts Catholic teaching to accomodate Americanism (i.e., support for the Iraq War, public discourse on Catholic teaching, etc.). So, neocon Catholics content themselves with engaging in little programs that involve the laity spreading the message of Christ, without considering whether society itself is ready to support, or even hear, their already-Americanized "message of Jesus." It's basically smoke and mirrors, a con game perpetrated by those who see themselves as Americans first, Catholics second.

Some of this is sensible, some of it is not:



That is often true, but it is also true of most left-leaning "Catholics."



Primus, you have selectively edited certain elements, like Just War Theory, out of the Catholic Tradition and perverted your vision such that you see in Catholicism only what you wants to see! At least, that is my first impression when I see statements like this. Besides, the heresy of "Americanism" was clasically understood to be that of democratizing the Church.



Again, this is trues, but it is equally true of most left-leaning Catholics. It disgusts me that so many of those who call themselves Catholic are actually more committed to their country and/or their political party and/or their political fellow-travelers withing their party than to what the Church actually teaches. I suspect, Primus, that you are as guilty of this as those whom you criticize, though.

There must be some random Republican name-calling generator out there. Push a button and you get a selection of "neocon", "theocon", "McSame", "McShame", and so many others to choose from!

Primus, I don't know how pushing that life is dignified and elevated over all other benefits from government is incompatible with our Bill of Rights, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence. Please enlighten me.

Deal, as usual, you are able to see what others, like Primus, above and several others who frequent this site are not.

Perhaps they lack the experience of a woman's woman. I would never vote for a Hillary or Nancy Pelosi type to be the first President or VP; they represent everything that has disappointed me and undermined me throughout my journey as a woman. I believe that we must, as women, lead without abandoning the loveliness and goodness of our uniqueness as women. I believe that is what is missing in Washington.....

Palin caught America's attention by storm because she embodies "IT"! I firmly believe that her journey and the choices she has consistently made has brought her to this moment. I believe her choice not to compromise our commonly held core values, especially the nurturing of LIFE from conception on.... serves as a strong foundational platform upon which her LOVELINESS shines through. And that my friends will pierce through all of the hateful attacks that will come from the WEARY, now jealous, Feminist women who have lost their way due to a compromise of core maternal values! They will make it about how beautiful she is on the outside...... whatever, but in the end, America can recognize "IT" when it shows up..... and thankfully "IT" showed up just in time..... McCain/Palin is "IT"!!

show me how Deal Hudson is not an American first, Catholic scond.

I don't believe the flames of the culture war were ever extinguished. They've been going on since the early 60's and things seem to have quieted down lately because there has not been anyone who has truly epitomized the pro-family position as well as Sarah Palin has on the political front. The Left in the US (and around the world) is in a struggle to the death. They advance nothing that is positve and only seek to destroy that which appears formed in God's image. But I think that Sarah Palin has become the lightning rod of the Left for one main reason - she represents the future and ongoing cultural struggle, not the past or present. The 'old guard' -those who came of age in the 60's are now approaching the sunset years. The Left believed that in Obama's youth, the future was theirs. Sarah Palin's candidacy has reminded them that the future just might belong to those who advance a pro-life, pro-family, limited government, low tax, populist agenda.

Time will tell, but I suspect it's not quite as Deal says here.

Let's keep in mind that Sarah Palin, for whatever plusses she brings to the campaign, is one of two things. If she and her position are relevant, she's an appointee of a candidate, not an elected official nor even a Senate-approved officer of the executive branch. And if she and her position are irrelevant, this is a bone thrown to the loyal troops in the culture war.

While I've seen some unfair and inappropriate words uttered her way in the media, some from conservative Republicans, the print media has generally been nice to her. They're more concerned with generating a profit than taking a side in the culture war, so if they position themselves for self-benefit, that's not really a surprise.

Let's also keep in mind that criticizing a woman candidate is not automatically sexist. It depends on standards the critic holds for other politicians. Find somebody who has a bad word to say about everybody, and you might call bashing a psychological deficiency, but you probably can't accurately call it sexism.

Speaking morally, if Palin truly stands against the kind of corruption we've seen from the Republicans the past eight-plus years, then she's a welcome change. She's only the bottom half of a ticket, though. And the continued insistence on the Iraq War as a replacement windfall for the old, embittered Cold Warmongers remains problematic to the point of voting Republican being a moral issue on the abortion level.

Is Palin a moose-trussing TR, a hypocritical Agnew, a doomed-pioneer Ferraro, an irrelevant Quayle, a trial balloon Miers, or something else? If it has to be Republican brand, TR would be nice, but we'll see.

I too have felt like her presence up there is a breath of fresh air. However, has she got the necessary experience? I know the Dems are saying this, and that in many ways they haven't got a leg to stand on given Obama's scant record, but still: you've got the oldest candidate for a first-term presidency in history, and a VP who's never done politics at the national level, and whose executive career in mostly rural Alaska spans two years. That seems risky to me.

Re: McCain as the oldest candidate. Did you see that elegant, well-dressed, white-haired woman in the audience? She's in her 90s. That's McCain's mom. He's just not that old; not in this day and age. What we know now about life expectancy, health care, medicine, interventional measures, surgical procedures, etc. has increased exponentially even in the last five years. 70 is the new 50; take it from there.

Todd: "...the print media has generally been nice to her."

Quite simply, I don't think I've read anything else about her that is as dishonest as that. Or delusional.

Primus, the fact that you are receiving as much ctiticism as you are means you have struck a nerve. I believe that true conservative Catholics must fight a tougher battle against neocon, Americanism (exemplified by the Republican Party) much as ultrmontanists took on Gallicanism in the 19th century.

I like Sarah Palin: I think she is a true woman of the Right (properly understood). Plus, she is the hottest v.p. candidate in American history lol!
Unfortunately, she simply is going to become a mouthpiece and defender of another neocon, warmongering Administration that will speak the language of smaller governmnet while continuing to bankrupt the Republic through ballooning federal deficits and unending wars.

There was a great picture in the Convention section of the WaPo the other day, showing all the McCain (7!) and Palin (5!) kids on the tarmac waiting to greet McCain. Palin's children are all her own and Todd's, but despite all the ugly-talk about McCain's first marriage, I find his family fascinating.

He adopted his first wife's 2 sons from her first marriage--and continued to raise them even after his divorce. In fact one of them runs part of Cindy McCain's family business. Then he and first wife had a daughter. He and Cindy had 3 of their own before they adopted from Mother Teresa. That daughter had a severe cleft palate and they knew she'd have medical troubles when they agreed to adopt her. But what is so nice is how this entire mixed up family all gets along and are involved in each other's lives, instead of being separated off into warring factions.

So not including kids and grandkids (McCain's oldest son is older than Palin), that's 12. Can you imagine what Thanksgiving is going to be like at the White House if they all get together! LOL

Deal,

The next time you speak with John McCain tell him I said Thank you.

It is time for Catholics to make a difference in this world. A time to force Democrats to change their party platform with regards to abortion. To change Republicans to meet our requirmenets on all issues. A time that we unite and become a voting block that changes our country and this world. This world would change tomorrow if Catholics united and voted as Catholics. It is that simple. Stop being cafeteria Catholics and make a difference in this world!

When I heard McCain stated that we are a Culture of Life, I heard John Paul II, the author of that statement. I heard that McCain stands for all that that phrase embodies. I heard it as a clarion call for all Christians to consider the ramifications of that policy.

History has shown McCain to constantly seek reconciliation (post war Vietnam), welcoming the immigrant (inculturation of new arrivals from foreign countries), Life issues and opposing abortion, euthanasia, keeping healthcare choices private but championing reform in Medicare and other vehicles to help those who are sick, fighting corruption in political financing, being the Biblical strong and vigilant man who protects and prepares himself and his people from enemies who would harm them, cutting out wasteful and corrupting earmark spending, appointing judges who don't seek to alter or target the laws by sensing "penumbras arrising from emanations" whatever that is, as well as so many other things.

Conservatives bristle about him in the same ways I bristle at my conservative bretheren. I consider myself a conservative but see myself as Catholic first, so the social issues affect my reasoning toward much of public policy. When I disagree I say so and work toward finding solutions.

Before now I've never quite understood his style of Republican; it was too courageous to hope for, but after the primary's education and the choice made on the ticket, I do understand what he's been about and I embrace it. He lacks cynicism, a great blessing.

I believe Deal is spot on in his analysis. The political and journalistic pundits say that hope and change were the exclusive property of the Democrat National Party. The primary process has shown that Republicans also desire hope and change with traditional American values intact. Dems ought to be worried. McCain/Palin clearly redefine, embody, meet and exceed what it means to be on the other side in the cultural and national conversation with hope and change.

I heard McCain's speech hitting the points of the Republican platform, but what was the final agreement made by the Republican convention delegates as to the Republican Platform items? Where can I see this item by item on the internet?

One certainly has to wonder as to what planet some of our commentators are living on. The national news media favorable to Palin? That is delusional! The news media is still smarting over being blindsided with McCain's selecting Palin without their omniscient sources scooping the announcement before hand. It's not nice to fool Mother Media, you know.

.....over the Palin selection, we'll be left with reality, which is something most people don't like.

Vice presidential candidates are selected to help the ticket get elected and raise money. This is Palin's most important role for the next four or eight years. She's a pretty face on a campaign poster and she has a bunch of kids.

Vice presidents never oppose their boss in public.

The only possible difference between the two parties is the appointment of Supreme Court judges. There are no guarantees that pro life judges get approved by the senate judiciary committee.

John McCain has already assured us he won't do what the Rebublican party wants him to do. This should concern Catholics since the newly minted GOP platform has apparently removed exceptions for rape and incest.

Palin will not object to more neocon wars. Thus further squandering federal money. Notions of limited government will become even more archaic.

Palin is the fresh face in Washington. Fresh faces don't change Washington. Usually Washington changes fresh faces.

Catholics still have no friend in the White House and wishful thinking won't change that

"The national news media favorable to Palin? That is delusional!"

Nobody said anything about the national news media. I mentioned the print media I've read. I subscribe to a paper with a fairly liberal editorial board and I live in a college town. The worst I've seen is on the internet.

As for the cable media, MSNBC pulled Olbermann from convention coverage to watch the rain come down on the Gulf Coast.

"The news media is still smarting over being blindsided with McCain's selecting Palin without their omniscient sources scooping the announcement before hand."

Yeah, kind of like Joe Biden: they horned in on a few million points of tm lights.

Much of this is subjective. Conservatives expect a firestorm, so they go looking for it. There's little enough substance on Governor Palin, so the Corporate Media Masters go rummaging for whatever they can find. Pretty amusing, actually.

Get real, friends. Politics can get dirty, and the American brand has always been so. If you really see yourselves as standard bearers in the Culture Wars, for heaven's sake, stop whining about kid stuff. Considering what happened to Jack Abramoff, count yourself lucky Governor Palin was far away from that mess.

Deal is wrong when he asserts, "In this respect, the nomination of Sarah Palin . . . represents the rejection of the feminist movement and all the promises made in its name." Quite the opposite, the nomination reinforces and reaffirms the feminist movement along its original intellectual course - which was brutally disrupted by a radical shaming and rejection of women's reproductive capacity. The enthusiasm for Palin reflects the feminist tradition that women can - and should - have equal opportunities with men without becoming men. This is the "new feminism" Pope John Paul II urged - and which so many of us have labored to bring to blossom. While cloaked with emotion, the core issues are more intellectual than cultural: whether women's reproductive capacity provides a natural and unique component that inextricably links feminine virtues to female success or whether it is a nuisance to be shamed, managed, controlled and repressed so that women are not "enslaved" - as Justice Ruth Ginsburg would phrase it - by their womb. It is easy to distinguish the womb-rejecting feminists from the feminine feminists, and very hard to straddle the fence. Just ask Oprah.

Convince me that the "disruption" was not a predictable consequence of the original intellectual course of the feminist movement and I might agree with you. If you're suggesting that feminism in it's full and originally intended bloom was an improvement over the patriarchal eras of the past you need to provide the premises for your inconclusive assumptions.

Marjorie,

I agree with your point; I do see why you would want to make that distinction. Women have fought hard to be viewed as equal.
It has been my experience however that overcoming a term's negative connotation once it has been successfully hi-jacked is near impossible! Feminist is just such a term, as is thongs and buns. "New feminism", I don't know if I could ever stomach a re-birth of the word myself. It works with cereal branding and detergents, I just don't know if it is worth the fight! I can appreciate the fact that there are a lot of women, like yourself who have not compromised your values along the way. Your writing is always very thought-provoking and often quite humorous! I will have to think on this.... it could be that I have never been too keen on labels anyway!

My question is once equality is acheived do we have to rub it in the faces of the next generations who don't know what inequality we're talking about? I would prefer a new label if we must have one!

Mother of Two Sons ~ thank you! Here are three reasons to try:
1. Feminists for Life, http://www.feministsforlife.org/
2. Susan B. Anthony List, http://www.sba-list.org/site/c.ddJBKJNsFqG/b.4009925/
3. Pope John Paul II, "In transforming culture so that it supports life, women occupy a place, in thought and action, which is unique and decisive. It depends on them to promote a "new feminism" which rejects the temptation of imitating models of "male domination", in order to acknowledge and affirm the true genius of women in every aspect of the life of society, and overcome all discrimination, violence and exploitation." ~Evangelium Vitae

Ditto.

I love Palin. I had said before that only Brownback as VP could get me to vote for McCain, but I may end up eating those words now - Palin is spectacular. I echo those wishing/asking "Can she be president instead?"

My fear is that McCain will try to "form her in his image," as it were. I pray that doesn't happen :(

Is it really going to happen with McCain-Palin?

I really don't think so. First of all, you don't impose a culture from the top-down with legislation. You build one from the bottom up. Maybe you need a "community organizer" for that.

I think the grass-roots pro-life movement has done a lot to create a culture of life in this country. The number of abortions performed in the US has been on the decline for a while now; the number of doctors willing to perform abortions is declining too. These are the real efforts that are going to turn this country around on the abortion issue.

When McCain-Palin are finished gutting the economy and have embroiled us with wars against Iran and Russia, I just hope they've done the one thing most people want to send them to Washington to actually do, and that's overturn RvW. I don't see it happening.

Yes, it's certainly a triumph for feminism, albeit of a different sort. I am as yet unable to be convinced that it is a triumph for the two youngest Palin children, however, who need a mother more than a Vice President.

I agree with you. The real legacy of a McCain/Palin administration will me more wars and more dismantling of the economy. Roe vs. Wade may get overturned, but there is nothing to predicate that the commitment to do so is really there.

Moreover, when Pope John Paul II wrote Evangelium Vitae his main objective was to provide a guide for establishing a culture of life. He linked contraception and abortion. While they are distinct acts they they're connected. Contraception isn't on the decline; it's virtually ubiquitous. Many Catholics have conveniently ignored this "victimless crime". Are the "new feminists" as committed to opposing contraception as they are abortion?

I just hope McCain checked her background thoroughly. I can assure you there's 100 scouts out there from the Liberal Democratic crowd trying to dig up dirt on her! If they "get her" the Democrats will win, no doubt!

But Sarah *is* a feminist--one who believes in protecting the unborn, just as the original feminists, women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, did. She's a member of the organization Feminists for Life (http://feministsforlife.org/), as the group's website proudly proclaims on the home page.

Jill, you should be well and truly ashamed of yourself. Your vicious attack on Mr. Hudson was insulting and cheap -- not only to him but to all the good people here.

Steve, I wonder if you have ever met a stay at home mother who really, really should not be staying at home? Probably Betty Friedan was one of those women and I suspect it fried her brain. Some women, who dearly love their children and mother with a full, whole heart when they are together with their children, absolutely must have a work environment to use talents, energy - even callings -that have been given to them ... or to earn an income for their own or extended family. There are so many variations that can and do work, just like musical compositions. I would not disagree with you that are critical components to the healthy physical, spiritual and emotional development of a child, but making Mom stay home 24/7 is not one of them. That, in fact, can be quite detrimental in some situations, I assure you.

The main evidence being used for the claim that Palin neglects her children is Bristol's pregnancy. If Palin truly neglected her children, then Bristol would have been seduced by some guidance counselor or teacher or whomever who would have said, "Imagine if your Religious Right mother found out you were pregnant out of wedlock! You'd better get an abortion!"
A teenager's fornication is not a sign of parental neglect: a teenager taking responsibility for the consequences of her fornication is a sign of parental involvement.

Otherwise, there is no indication at all that the Palin children are in any way deprived of maternal love. Many have commented on the "hair licking" and passing the baby around: all signs of children who interact with their Mom and see how she operates. She breastfeeds and changes diapers--while working.

I see plenty of male politicians' children who seem horribly emotionally neglected and totally shut out of their fathers' lives.

In response to my friend Marjorie. Yes, I am aware there is a feminism of another sort, a Catholic feminism, but it was clear the kind of feminism I was talking about, the feminism of the Gloria Steinem variety. Steinem, in fact, issued a statement attacking Palin today for the precisely the reasons I outlined above. I should have, however, included a reference to the "other," and authentic, feminism.

This article attempts to elevate McCain's "brusque and matter-of-fact" persona over Obama's more nuanced speaking style, which is apparently a sign that Obama is not a "real man." Apparently, men who have "sensitivity training" are not men at all.

That's fine if you believe that. I don't.

We live in a world in which international relations are getting tricker to navigate. Our next president is going to require a great deal of diplomacy, tact, and finesse.

McCain scares me here. He's known to have a temper (just ask the press corps), and to fly off the handle. Those are not qualities I admire in any man, let alone one who will be meeting with world leaders.

Let's not forget that we've had eight years of a president who is "brusque and matter-of-fact" (though perhaps less irascible than McCain) and that during that time, the perception of the U.S. abroad has been materially damanged. If you think it doesn't matter how other nations perceive us, you have a view of the U.S. and of the world that needs a reality check.

I've been reading some very, very disturbing reports about racist comments Palin is alleged to have made. I don't know if they're true or not, and I am sure they will be denied.

But if there is ANY truth to this article, I don't think I can vote for this ticket, this time not merely as a citizen who is worried about the fate of the country, but as a Christian.

http://tinyurl.com/6zetn4

It could just be "liberal smears", it could be. I'm not saying I buy it or that you should. But if it can be confirmed, then it isn't just liberals who ought to be afraid of this woman.

Gussie makes a good point -- there is another way to interpret the contrast between the personal styles of the two candidates. At the end of the day the most important thing to consider is where they stand of issues, not the subliminal dynamics that may be brought into play by the Palin nomination for VP.

Otto von Hapsburg, son of Karl and Zita and the heir to the Hapsburg Empire, has an interesting idea about how to restore the family as the driving cultural force in society. He suggests that the right to vote be reserved for the father of each family and that he be given the same number of votes as there are members in the family; wife and 10 children = 12 votes, wife and 2 children = 4 votes, etc.. The more children a family had the more influence they would have upon society.

Politicians would recognize families an important special interest group and legislation would be proposed that took family values into account. Candidates would be much better and voting would be seen as a responsibility and not merely as a right. Family values would not just be paid lip service and they would be front and center of every political agenda. Secularists and feminists would, of course, prevent this from ever occurring in our enlightened age, but I think the point is well taken.

To Joe H and RK,
We aren't at war with Iran or Russia. Who told you we were? We are not at war with any other country either.

Sarah Palin is a professional politician. Her job is, at the moment, Governor of Alaska and candidate for Vice President of the United States. Hillary Clinton is the Jr. Senator from New York and Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House of Representatives. They all run campaigns -- which I remind you all was originally a military term -- raise money, direct their staff both campaign and official -- and do the work of their respective offices. Governor Palin disagrees with Senator Clinton and Speaker Pelosi only in the policies she advocates. If you agree with her policies, fine, do so. But please don't insult the intelligence of your readers by suggesting some fundamental difference between Governor Palin and the women whose policies you reject.

Karen:

To whom/what are you responding?

Respectfully, I don't understand how your observation that, like Clinton and Pelosi, Palin is a politician, matters.

Teri, I'm not sure whether that was with a wink or a nod, of if you've forgotten that we're fighting two wars and that I used the word "when", meaning, "in the future, when...", as in, "hasn't happened yet, but probably will if McCrazy and the gussied-up pit bull go to the White House".

I was raised Catholic and I also was honored in crowning the blessed Virgin Mary. After doing some research regarding Sarah Palin I am truly troubled.
The woman does not represent me. Killing God's creatures (which includes bears and their cubs) for profit; destroying the environment (God's creation); praying to God to make homosexuals straight; race intolerance, etc., the list goes on is disrepectful and an insult to the creator. In honoring the God that I pray too....I will not vote for this ticket.

Both the Republican and Democratic cultures have beliefs that are very much anti-Catholic in nature. Both McCain and Palin espouse very anti-Catholic values. The same goes with Obama and Biden.

We should be keeping our eyes on Chuck Baldwin. He is the best choice a true Catholic can pick among the current candidates.

Really? And smart bombs are smart because they never kill innocent people--they only kill guilty people. And napalm helps people die peacefully.

I guess, in reading this article, I don't understand. I grew up in the southwest and have grown up fiercely independent. My New Mexican grandmother was a life-long republican who had her heart broken the day that Mexican students were no longer bussed up to be taught at her school. This has definitely shaped my view, as it has many politicians that live in the southwest (ie Bush and McCain). My grandmother would also be nervous to see "evangelical" and "catholic" linked and likened to one another (evangelicals who, many, believe in the death penalty which is very unCatholic). but I digress.

I have become disillusioned with the Republican party and Catholics in the Republican party. As far as the Republican party, My years in the southwest turned me in to a Libertarian and one that can independently lead. I thought this was McCain. What I loved about Nixon was that he went to China. What I loved about Reagan was his dealing with the Soviet Empire and his economic policies. Now Republicans run in a group that can't talk to Syria or Iran (although they still talk to Israel who used US aid to trade with Iran, and that was post '79). Catholics can't be silly enough to believe that this is wrong so we can placate Israel for evangelical reasons. Hasn't St. Augustine taught us not to pretend to know when the rapture will occur, that would be smug.

Republicans have also been able to be both capitalist oriented (which actually is not a Catholic ideal) and still be able to be conservationist minded. The fact that the Republican party has not jumped on the idea of creating new jobs in the United States by creating new industry through green technology. New industry breeds new jobs. Instead George Bush has turned our government into a large government that attacked a country with no basis for doing so (not that I agree with Clinton's policy of bombing Iraq quite frequently). As we will also find with Woodward's book it looks as though McCain was never really in favor of the war either (nor is the Pope).

I don't know what it means to be a traditional woman. Most Catholic women I know are strong, family oriented and not just subservient. I also don't know why people think Palin has family values just because her and her daughter procreate. Keeping a child then forcing the child in to a marriage (when she is off at parties with this boy getting drunk and not paying attention to her mother's teachings about abstinence) doesn't mean you have values. The truth is I have nothing against Palin or her daughter, I wish them both the best. I definitely view them as a family that has issues and a lot of love, but I don't view them as people that I hold up as an ideal or who I look up to.

I don't vote based on pro-life or pro-choice because I don't believe it's a political issue. It's been turned in to one by two sides that can't discuss the issue. The truth is, and where I will lose any credibility with many readers here, is that I am pro-choice. I have become this, because of my libertarian viewpoint, because I believe that once we make abortion illegal we will start to see a lot of women going to extremes to lose their child. This will result in horrible situations. Education and not legislation (wow, classic Republican idea) is the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancy. And I guess, as my life long Republican/Catholic grandfather has told me, we have to sometimes admit that birth control would be something to discuss.

And lastly, it has taken me a while to admit this, and sometimes "flip-flopping" is just someone also being a life-long learner and having evolving thought (I had all of the same beliefs as I did when I was 15 or 21 I would be sad), but taking care of our earth is a Christian thing to do. Warming temperatures bringing more mosquitoes and flooding will kill people.

It disturbs me that so many people on here believe that McCain is a warmonger, and that he will start a war with Russia and Iran. The next president will have to take on both those countries, especially Russia, and they will have to walk a fine line. McCain reminds me of what Non wrote about Nixon going to China and Reagan dealing with the Soviet Union. Standing up to them did not start a war. The next president will have to talk Russia down, without abandoning our defense of justice among our European allies. I believe justice is supposed to be important to Catholics . . . We can't do nothing, and I just don't think Obama can impress the Russians when his bright idea was letting the UN security counsel (on which Russia has a veto) handle the conflict in Georgia. It is a very grave and tricky situation, and we as Catholics cannot ignore it. I am just barely old enough to remember praying for the conversion of Russia during the Cold War, and the politics in this century are going to need the same combination of strong faith and strong leaders.

I may be biased, since I'm from Arizona, but I have always had a lot of respect for McCain, and I believe he is a very honest and reasonable man. He doesn't express himself smoothly, but he also never equivocates. Is he perfect? No. Is Palin? No. If you want to vote for someone who is perfect, you should just stay home. (Or vote "present" by voting for a 3rd party candidate) In the USCCB's statement on faith in political life, they say one of the things you should consider is if a candidate can do what they want to do, and also if they can make even small gains, it is worth voting for them. For example, can McCain reverse Roe v Wade? Probably not, although he has the knowledge of the Constitution to make a good case for it, as well as being a federalist. But he is for stronger parental consent laws, informed consent, tighter limits in general, and for whoever said they were worried about him breaking with GOP now that they have stopped supporting abortion in the case of rape and incest - he did not break with them on that. He does not ever think it is ok to allow an abortion, and neither does Palin. So he can work to achieve small victories, which, if Catholics and others in local organizations do their work too, we can change the culture. Of course no politician can change the culture - that is not their job.

I realize it is just a speech, but I encourage everyone to either read or watch McCain's speech from the convention - it was boring for a while, but the end was incredible. And it made me actually enthusiastic for him, whereas before I thought he was just better than Obama.

Another point about the USCCB's advice about considering whether the person you vote for can actually achieve the goals and principals that made them attractive - Can Obama make us energy independent with out drilling and nuclear power? No. Can this be done in 10 years? In his dreams. Can he save jobs while raising business taxes, investment income tax, capital gains taxes, and business income taxes, while forcing small businesses to provide health care? No. That would worsen the recession for years, if it didn't cause a depression. To say nothing of his ability to keep the peace (although he volunteered to attack Pakistan). And I know someone will come after me for talking about McCain's knowledge of the Constitution and tell me how Obama taught Constitutional law, but he also said he didn't favor a marriage amendment because historically we haven't defined marriage in the Constitution. I guess he wouldn't have favored the 13th Amendment, because before that, we hadn't defined slavery in the Constitution.

I don't think McCain/Palin is perfect, but I hear Palin has a great record, and I know McCain has a great record. I for one will not be voting "present" and handing Obama victory.

You are biased. If you are a true Catholic, you would be rejecting both Obama and McCain, not McCain alone.

If you read my post I'm not rejecting McCain - I'm rejecting Obama. I said I may be biased because I'm from the same state as McCain, where we happen to be very proud of him, and grateful for his hard work. I said he wasn't perfect, but he is honest, and except for his support the Iraq war, is very compatible with a Catholic vote. Also, the Iraq war may not be just, but unjust war is not intrinsically evil. It is certainly grave and problematic. Deliberately targeting innocent civilians is intrinsically evil, and that is not what's going on there.

Support of a war is a prudential judgement. Slaughter of the unborn is not. I do not appreciate you saying I am not a true Catholic, when I'm being very careful to prayerfully and reasonably consider both candidates in light of the USCCB's document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship". I think the war in Iraq was unjust, but I also think General Petraeus and the troops over there have finally been able to make the best out of a terrible situation. Voting for a third party candidate will not let you wish away the evils in the world. It may hand the unborn children of this country over to those who do not care if they die. Also, McCain is not pro-war. I would encourage you to read his book, listen to him speak, and take a look at his record. Do the same for Obama. If you do for Obama, you will see that when there is an issue that was too controversial, or that he knew would come back to haunt him, he would vote "present" (which means no), particularly on limiting abortion.

I still say that a vote for a third party candidate is the same as a vote of "present".

If you read my post I'm not rejecting McCain - I'm rejecting Obama. I said I may be biased because I'm from the same state as McCain, where we happen to be very proud of him, and grateful for his hard work. I said he wasn't perfect, but he is honest, and except for his support the Iraq war, is very compatible with a Catholic vote. Also, the Iraq war may not be just, but unjust war is not intrinsically evil. It is certainly grave and problematic. Deliberately targeting innocent civilians is intrinsically evil, and that is not what's going on there.

Support of a war is a prudential judgement. Slaughter of the unborn is not. I do not appreciate you saying I am not a true Catholic, when I'm being very careful to prayerfully and reasonably consider both candidates in light of the USCCB's document "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship". I think the war in Iraq was unjust, but I also think General Petraeus and the troops over there have finally been able to make the best out of a terrible situation. Voting for a third party candidate will not let you wish away the evils in the world. It may hand the unborn children of this country over to those who do not care if they die. Also, McCain is not pro-war. I would encourage you to read his book, listen to him speak, and take a look at his record. Do the same for Obama. If you do for Obama, you will see that when there is an issue that was too controversial, or that he knew would come back to haunt him, he would vote "present" (which means no), particularly on limiting abortion.

I still say that a vote for a third party candidate is the same as a vote of "present".

However I explain it, you would just rationalize it away. You are biased for McCain. Check the guidelines. Neither of the two deserve to be president.

If you look at the post of Fr. Joe in another thread, you would realize that McCain is in an adulterous relationship presently. He has been in that relationship for decades with no signs of repudiating that relationship. That definitely does not qualify one to get a Catholic's vote. If one can't be faithful to his vows in marriage, much more to his country. Think about that.

Life is no longer an embarrassment in America. Pride in hardship no longer a path only for the ignorant Christian. Dignity in decency -- Palin shows us it is worth it.

Jinny Lee:

Did you really just cite "praying to God to make homosexuals straight" as an example of a morally wrong act?!

Dear, if we are obedient to the Lord, we will not only be praying homosexuals to chastity, but praying tax-cheats to honesty, drunkards to sobriety, corrupt politicians to integrity, people of other religions to faith in Christ, people of other denominations to reconciliation with the Church, and misinformed Christians into being better catechized!

There's nothing bigoted or disrespectful of God's creation about any of that. If anything, failing to pray for persons to be saved from sexual sin and disordered affections (whether adulterous, or pornographic, or homosexual, or sadomasochistic, or anything else) is a failure of charity, a substitution of tolerance ("I'll put up with this person") for love ("I want God's best for this person.")

We should all of us befriend sinners, sexual or otherwise (we'll have no friends at all, else!). And we should all of us pray for our friends ("even pagans" do that).

And, with that in mind, "My friend, gay or straight" is not unlike saying, "My mother, drunk or sober."

I've been hearing about Palin endorsing the "pray away the gay" idea.

Does that really work? I probably need to update myself on what the Church says about an individual struggling with homosexuality, but am I wrong in my assumption that it does not say that you can "pray away the gay"? Doesn't it suggest other ways to manage homosexuality?

Please don't insult my intelligence by assuming I will rationalize whatever points you raise. I just haven't heard any real points - if you can tell me policy, tell me.

As for Fr. Joe's point, and me reading the guidelines (I did re-read them), it never says any single issue can qualify a candidate for a Catholic's vote. It says that support of an intrinsic evil in their POLICY must DIS-qualify them from that vote. McCain's marriages and personal life are different from his policy, and we vote for policy. On the other hand, I do believe that a person's life shows his character, and that indicates what kind of leader he will be, but look at his family now, and how he regrets letting his first marriage fail (he said it was his greatest moral failing), and PLEASE look at his history as a politician. He has had policies over the years that have frustrated me, and he has tried to do things which haven't worked, but he is honest, and his policies have even improved over the years as he's learned how to stand up to his party. He has character, and he has not tried to hide any of his past.

I realize now I shouldn't have said "I may be biased" in my first post. I was half joking, and I mostly meant I am excited that someone I, as an Arizonan, have liked for a long time finally has a shot. And the reason I like him is because of how hard, and how humbly he has worked for my state, and the country. Apparently I can't admit something like that even in jest, because it seems like you took it as permission to dismiss all my opinions as bias.

We as Catholics should pray for McCain in his personal life, and that he will find the fortitude and moral courage to actually do what he says. Because that's going to be hard. As it stands, he is the ONLY candidate who has a chance of protecting the unborn and working for justice in other areas. And that chance to actually achieve just laws is one of the considerations the Bishops specifically ask Catholics to consider. So respond however you want, but please tell me specifically how a third party vote is responsible to the unborn. Also please look at the list of issues that disqualify a candidate from a Catholic vote, and notice that the candidate's moral failings in his own life are not on it. They bear consideration, and they show flaws in character, but that is all. Therefore you have no right to call me a bad Catholic for leaning towards McCain.

I am not saying you have to vote for McCain. I just would like you to stop judging my faith. I would be interested to keep discussing this, especially if you can answer the points I made with specificity. Your last two posts to me were not arguing, they were dismissive and rude.

Joe:

I'll risk putting words in the Church's mouth to say that (I think) she teaches:

1. In response to petition, God may completely remove homosexual desire from a person, or, He may not. (Far more often "not," but, it has happened.)

2. Prayer is an invaluable assistance to obedience even when the temptation is as strong as ever;

3. "Gay" is variously defined as:
(a.) Only being attracted to persons of the same gender;
(b.) Mostly being attracted to persons of the same gender;
(c.) Having even a small percentage of one's sexual attractions focused on persons of the same gender (a standard mostly applied to Republican politicians and Christian preachers with addictions to risky sex encounters);
(d.) Regularly having sex with persons of the same gender;
(e.) Being willing to regularly have sex with persons of the same gender, even if the opportunity does not present itself.

So, one can "pray away the gay" in senses (d.) and (e.) when prayer assists with obedience.

And, one can "pray away the gay" in sense (a.)-(c.) if God chooses to give that blessing, but that's up to Him and He usually does not.

However, long-term obedience can reduce the strength of temptation somewhat, and better yet, give the individual a hard-fought knowledge of how to avoid certain situations which are rife with temptation.