Deal,

You hit it right on the head. The Peace and Justice bureaucracy (aka, the Catholic left) is the biggest source of confusion in this election cycle, and apparently they have sown confusion in the minds of many posters to this website and also to Catholic intellectuals like Prof Kmiec.

Too many P&J Catholics get it wrong on multiple levels: 1) ignoring or minimizing life issues in favor of statist "solutions" to poverty problems and 2) favoring statist solutions to poverty problems (aka welfare state programs) when perhaps using the principle of subsidiarity they might find that local government or even -- gasp -- private charities and churches might help the poor better than federal or state programs.

I would hate to be a chancery bureaucrat favoring Obama and get to my particular judgment (after death) and have to face Our Lord surrounded by countless numbers of unborn babies. Our Lord would look at this person and say: Those who cry "Yes we can"; "the poor, the poor;" or "the earth, the earth", I will say, Truly I do not know you.

I agree that the peace and justice crowd are sowing the seeds of confusion. But Kmiec and Cafardi haven't been hoodwinked by anyone. They've mastered the art of sophistry. Those two aren't listening to any of the bishops. I would guess that Kmiec is going to get the smack down from the bishop level for writing a book (and profitting from it) and advising Catholics that it's okay to vote for Obama.

As one of my good friends just put it the other day to me, there are five non-negotiables in Catholic social teaching that get priority over all the others, and on all five Senator Obama is no better than (on most he is worse than) Senator McCain. ALL FIVE.

Excellent article. The "social justice", ethnic outreach, and religious education bureacracies of many dicoceses are riddled with boomers and pre-boomers whose commitments seem to be to causes other then orthodox Roman Catholic belief. The FIRST requirement for employment at any Catholic institution has to be commitment to the mission of the Church, and fidelity to her teachings.
One also wonders how many bishops remain silent, or hang so many caveats on and around their positions out of fear of the IRS. Be not afraid ! Follow the guidence of the Holy Spirit, not the advice of the diocesan attorney ! We venerate the martyrs who suffered and sacrificed all for the sake of truth. But we temporize and hem and haw and collabarate with evil so as not to risk our tax exemptions?
The case of Doug Kmiec is baffling. Just this past week, he wrote an excellent column for CNS on school choice and the Blaine amendments. Apparently, it's escaped Professor Kmiec's notice that the party he supports, and the candidate he espouses are great opponents of school choice, and have stoked up anti-Catholic sentiment to keep things like Blaine amendments on the books across the country.
Unreal.

is definitely NOT of the "peace and justice" crowd! I am in favor of peace and justice but as part of the full spectrum of Catholic teachings. Thankfully, our Ordinary is one of those on the above list, Praise be to God! The life issues take priority. If one does not defend the most vulnerable human life, how can we trust that they will work for real peace and justice for the rest of us! I can assure you that those being hired in "middile management" in this locale are forthrightly asked the question of fidelity and orthodoxy as part of the interview process. The times are slowly changing. The "We are Church" dissident mentality is beginning to fade. Those under 40 who have chosen to work in the Church tend to be very orthodox. So do the younger priests. I've even found a few of the 60's and 70's generation here that are orthodox but just went about their business quietly, patiently waiting for the coming change. The coming Church may be smaller in numbers but also more faithful to the fullness of the teachings of Christ.

It's amazing to see all these names in print. What a difference from 2004.

As this world slowly moves towards its destiny, the wheat and chaff are divided and the light is lifted, as promised.

Republican Catholics are doing lots of handwringing. It seems all too easy to blame those dupes in the pews--and funny how convenient it is that Bishop Trautmann is criticized for the same low regard that you all seem to have when it comes to politics.

More than that, you seem to think you're the only ones who can caucus, lobby, express opinions, or exercise prudential judgment.

Maybe Republicans are coming up short this year: the party is not without a significant pro-choice wing, the presidential candidate isn't lockstep on ESCR, and perhaps some Catholics are making a presidential choice based on competence. And let's face it: Senator McCain has not been an inspiring choice.

My serious advice for serious pro-lifers is to jettison the Republicans ASAP. Vote third party if you must, but you risk having your political issue buried in a landslide.

Eight percent of likely voters polled last week said social issues were the most important, falling behind the economy, the war, and energy issues. The social issues just have no traction this year. And I doubt anything is going to happen in the next five hundred hours to change that.

For heaven's sake, if you're not going to jump ship, the least you can do for the cause is drown with dignity.

Of course there are some liberal Catholics who are Democratic partisans first, and who read Catholic teaching selectively to help their side, just as there are conservative Catholics who do the same to support their GOP partisanship. But thinking that anyone who reads Faithful Citizenship in a way that allows for the possibility of an Obama vote is somehow part of a “P+J crowd” conspiracy misunderstands both the document and the people being accused.

I’ll let the document speak for itself. As for the P+J folks, please get to know some of them (the real people, not the caricatures). You will usually find people deeply opposed to abortion and who witness this teaching, often to the scorn of secular liberal fellow-travelers on other issues.

What you will also find is a deep commitment to Church teaching on other matters that threaten human dignity, especially that of the most vulnerable. Many of these folks embrace the radical, counter-cultural gospel message of life and solidarity in its entirety. They are good, loving, faithful Catholics. They experience real dilemmas in contemporary American politics given the range of issues they care about and their prudential judgments about what candidates can or will do on these various issues once elected.

I admire many of them greatly, and find calls for them to be purged from the Church alarming and unfair.

I don't see how any Catholic can vote for either of two major party candidates in good conscience.

Well....the way I see it.... is that barring some kind of a miracle....Senator Obama will be elected President of the United States of America. Furthermore, I believe that a vast majority of Catholics here in America will vote for him. The cancer in the Church is so vast and so deep, I seriously doubt that anything beyond Divine Intervention can turn things around. It is worldwide. It is diabolical. And...I hope I am wrong.

The Church has been acting for too long now.....somewhat like Senator McCain has been acting for the last few months.....in that...She won't stand up and fight. And the Church is the greatest "heavyweight fighter and champion" of them all and for all time. Simply put...she cannot and will not ever be defeated. Almost everyone in the Church shares in the blame. For the life of me, I have never understood why the Pope...the Bishops....especially in this day and age with all of the instant and mass communications available.....can't universally say publicly and in union...."with regards to this election only.....that this is what we believe as Catholics.... and we cannot vote for anyone who publicly supports the right of a woman to kill...to destroy her unborn child..... regardless of anything else and continue to call ourselves serious Catholics. Please....I am asking you in the Name of Jesus Christ....please do not receive Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament....until you are reconciled with His Church".

I don't know about you all...but I am sick and tired of talking about all of this. This really isn't rocket science,....and we just keep doing...talking.... the same things...over and over, again and again and again. Nothing really ever changes. Isn't that the definition of insanity. Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result.

Which has the abbreviation of "MO", not Michigan, which is appreviated as "MI"

Middle management was not responsible for the Faithful Citizenship document. Comparing that document to those produced by individual bishops or state conferences of bishops shows exactly where the problem lies. Until the USCCB puts out documents as sharply drawn as e.g. the bishops of Kansas have done this problem will remain. If "middle management" is presenting the document the way you say it is only because the document perfectly lends itself to that interpretation. No spin is required.

Only 61...does anyone know how many bishops, archbishops, cardinals there are in our nation? What does that say about our Catholic Church when ALL of the clergy can't even be on the same page, speaking in ONE VOICE?

"Only 61...does anyone know how many bishops, archbishops, cardinals there are in our nation?"

About 250.

"What does that say about our Catholic Church when ALL of the clergy can't even be on the same page, speaking in ONE VOICE?"

One thing it might say is that Rome doesn't trust a national conference to speak as a whole. The rules about how and what a conference may speak on have tightened up considerably under the influence of the curia.

If you think the collective witness of the bishops is weak, you have to pin some blame with Roman bureaucracy.

I will also point out that using terms like "middle management" and even thinking along those lines is not congruent to Catholic tradition. It might be an approximation if one thinks of Protestantism and business models, but it reveals a lack of understanding as to what the roles of bishops and clergy are.

The miracle you speak of would have to be something big enough to steal the headlines from economic collapse or depression. A terrorist attack might be the ticket....or at least a new war with Iran or somebody. Otherwise I think you're right--we'll be having a parade on Pennsylvania Avenue for President Obama. Which would we prefer--another terrorist attack or the savior of mankind in the White House?

Deal- I don't get how being pro-State's Rights on Abortion somehow qualifies a national candidate for automatic endorsement from a Catholic. This whole "it's a matter for the states to decide" is a non-starter for me- I wish you and others would spend more time pushing for a Natural Law solution to abortion at the highest levels of governance, and less time providing cover for the "State;s Rights" pro-choicers like McCain/Palin/Scalia/Thomas. If they are satisfied that the Constitution does not protect the right to life for the unborn, then how on earth can I endorse that notion- I may find a way to vote for that position as a lesser evil than a national pro-choice position candidate- but that is a much finer line than what I hear you or the EWTN/Catholic Answers people make of it.

It is true from the Bishops' document in paragraphs 34-37 that a candidate that is truly opposed (and will use the power of his office to oppose) to the killing of the unborn or other intrinsic evils will receive a preferential nod over a candidate that offers no such protections for the unborn. But in this situation with McCain and Obama- you don't have a clear pro-life/pro-choice distinction on the abortion issue with these two candidates. And the Bishops add that there must be "morally grave" reasons for a Catholic to vote for someone who is deficient on an intrinsically evil issue like abortion- This is the rub that you refuse to consider. A good Catholic cannot vote for someone like obama based on his pro-choice politics, but for other morally grave reasons- this is not a cop-out for Democrats, this is serious, serious business- don't belittle the struggle within for Catholics who are well-read on the issues, and have a heart for all kinds of victims of injustice.

I just finished Archbishop Chaput's excellent book, and he didn't deal with my first complaint about how state's rights on abortion is not really a pro-life position for national candidates, but he does a better job in presenting the moral struggle of pro-life Catholics sometimes voting for pro-choice candidates- see page 229 in 'Render Unto Caesar'. I would love to have a conversation with him as he seems to get the whole pro-life Democrat dilemma- I know you don't because your prudential judgment on a whole range of issues falls to the Republican side of things- so this makes it very easy for you- try to walk in another's sandals- the Bishops' guiding words are good ones- stop trying to replace our Bishops- take in what they say without first interrupting with your preconceived notions rooted in your extreme partisanship. Like I've said before I believe it is a scandal to openly endorse either Mccain or obama-

First, Mccain is pro-choice on abortion

I would echo Tim Shipe's comments above and add that I think GOP partisanship is too powerful a factor in how many right-leaning Catholics view abortion. Look at the post and comments on Sen. Casey this morning. Casey's is the same wishy-washy, middle-of-the-electorate, kinda-pro-life but kinda-pro-choice positioning that characterized Reagan, George W. Bush, and John McCain. His is the same formula these GOP candidates have long relied on to simultaneously attract pro-life and pro-choice voters for decades. But Casey’s crime is being a Democrat, so supporting or honoring him in any way is a sin, but a vote for Bush was a Catholic’s moral duty.

That last sentence wasn't complete- what I wanted to convey is: the idea that just because McCain may be personally opposed to abortion rights, if his public policy is only to make abortion a state's issue, then that is a pro-choice position ultimately.

If Obama came out and said- Look I'm pro-choice for legal abortion, but I believe it is a state;s rights issue ultimately- do you think the pro-choice community would accept him or that position? No way. Why have Catholics abandoned Natural Law as the basis of our Legal Framework? Originalism is no replacement.

Abortion- like Slavery before- must be decided at the highest reaches of our society- to call it a state's issue is a huge insult to our moral intelligence. If I believed that the Republican Party powers-that-be were deadly serious in establishing a right to life for the unborn, I would be very, very tempted to cross over and become a Republican politician- just on that one basis- but as it stands with two relativist pro-choice type options, I will remain a pro-life Democrat, and keep trying to re-establish the religious traditionalist presence inside the Dems. I've been saying for a long time now- the Repubs will lose not because of their pro-life convictions, but because those convictions are really very mild under the surface, and on the economy, foreign policy and other fronts where their leaders are much more active and passionate, they are really messing up creating all kinds of reasons for people who aren't interested in social issues primarily to vote for another Party. That has been my prudential judgment, and I haven't seen much to convince me otherwise lately.

The point of Deal's post, which is abundantly clear, is that chancery officials are distorting or misrepresenting the document and that bishops ought to pay more attention. What is it about this observation that you find unthinkable?

Good posts, Tim.

I am with you on this. I think it is even more reasonable at this point to support the Democrats for Life legislation than it is to be for the "states rights" approach to abortion, which is all we will ever get from the GOP, certainly all we'll ever get from John McCain, and if her latest stammering on the issue mean anything, Sarah Palin should she ascend to the presidency.

Instead of this argument that "Democrats are with the Church on 90% of social teaching so let's forget the life issues" approach, there is another simple and truthful argument: the GOP at a national level is not pro-life, there is no pro-life candidate. Sending abortion back to the states to decide will only mean that women will have to drive across state lines to get an abortion.

This is a cultural issue (not politics masquerading as a "culture war"), a culture of life is built from the bottom up. You want to talk about subsidiarity, it is ridiculous to assume that a culture can be imposed top-down. NEITHER PARTY offers a solution to this problem, but the Democrats for Life legislation provides a good start.

Also, in response to this by Sam:

"favoring statist solutions to poverty problems (aka welfare state programs) when perhaps using the principle of subsidiarity they might find that local government or even -- gasp -- private charities and churches might help the poor better than federal or state programs."

What do you think Catholic Worker is doing every day? I'm so sick of right-wingers and conservatives spouting off about things which they know nothing - it sounds like pro-choice left-wingers trying to explain the pro-life position, in other words, like so much nonsense. First minorities were to blame for the sub-prime crisis, in spite of empirical evidence which completely blows that theory out of the water. Then groups like ACRON are accused of being a radical left-wing conspiracy, in spite of the fact that a) they fire those low level workers that submit false registrations and b) Republicans themselves have used ACORN to register voters, include John McCain.

Now we hear that left Catholics only favor statism. This is a complete falsehood, at least if you actually look at the grass roots activities that many of these groups participate in. But that would require, I don't know, 5 minutes of inquiry into websites and publications that don't completely and wholly embrace every facet of your worldview, so it would be the equivalent of drinking a beaker of sulfuric acid, right?

I'm a distributist who prefers the welfare state to economic chaos and anarchy, yes. I think many left-leaning Catholics feel the same way - we greatly prefer subsidiarity, greater local power and control, greater community investment. But we don't live in a utopia. We need smart governance that provides us with the help we need to help ourselves, which stands somewhere inbetween supply-side, trickle-down, economic anarchy theories on the one hand, and top-down bureaucratic solutions that tie our hands on the other. From EVERY last thing I have heard Obama say or write about economics, he actually falls somewhere into this middle, and if he means and does what he says - a tall order for a politician, I grant - then we will all be better off for it.

Deal,

Bishop Farrell of Dallas is on the list twice.

Bishop Farrell is on the list twice because the first listing is for joining in the correction of Nancy Pelosi and the second listing is for the Joint Statement he just issued with Bishop Kevin Vann for the Dioceses of Dallas and Fort Worth. A must read.

Joe,

I don't mean to be unkind, but you remind me of the "Committee" brigade who shows up at roundtables claiming everyone is doing everything wrong, you propose a solution and then as everyone is executing it you call them back to the table to put the kibosh on that means too. It's been gumming up the works for decades.

Sending the abortion battle back to the grassroots level in the states is the building from the bottom up solution you propose. It's the means to round up your community, do the teaching and enlightening and then all work to lobby it into law. It's the vehicle with the keys to execute your plan.

Meanwhile, we work on the long journey of putting Supreme Court Justices onto the Court who will at some point give 14th Amendment rights to the unborn.

It's a two tiered approach which we refine on every level as we see how each are progressing, where our openings are. With Obama, whose made clear that the first thing he'll do as president is federally protect killing unborn children, whom he refers to as punishments for sex, and withholding medical treatment should they survive. Every pro-lifer in their right mind is doing all they can to see this tyrant does not storm the White House.

First minorities were to blame for the sub-prime crisis, in spite of empirical evidence which completely blows that theory out of the water.


Race has nothing to do with the credit crisis. The bulk of the foreclosures are in the ghettos. Whitey lives in ghettos too. It's about pocketbooks. Barney Frank and his high fallooting cronies insisted on creating a venue to lower creditworthiness standards while they were siphoning money for their own wallets. On the other end of the economic spectrum,the high falooting execs in Lehman Bros et al bailed themselves out when they saw the collapse coming from Barney Frank's plan collapsing the system.

Finally, Obama's terrorist connections are frightening and perfectly reasonable fodder for discernment, as is his disdain for religion, guns, government & whitey, whom he thinks are secretly injecting blacks with HIV - instead of his own reckless promiscuity ideology.

Getting back to the thread - the number of Bishops on this list when compared to the number in 2004 is edifying. Proving, once again, that as morals in a society decay, Saints are born.

DC,

I did know some P&J Catholics when I was a seminarian in the early 90s with a major religious order in the Midwest. They were passionately for "the poor and most abandoned" as called for by our religious order at the time -- as they interpreted that phrase. The formula under which they interpreted that phrase was Poor and Most Abandoned = homosexual rights, increased welfare state policies, open borders immigration, decreased defense spending. Mathematically speaking, an equivalent equation is Poor and Most Abandoned = Democrat Party interest groups. It was no wonder that, to a man, they voted for and advocated Bill Clinton. I suspect they are doing the same thing for Obama today.

When I was with them, I constantly prayed for the unborn, the elderly, the persecuted Christians in Communist countries, etc. I was scorned as a "narrow-minded, rigid, conservative, single-issue" Catholic. Contrary to your experience of P&J Catholics, I don't think these P&J Catholics cared one whit for the unborn, the elderly, persecuted Christians in Communist countries, etc.

Sam,
I'm sorry your experience was not positive. I recommend you go out and find some more to meet to get a more accurate sample. And I'm not sure "the formula under which they interpreted that phrase was Poor and Most Abandoned = homosexual rights, increased welfare state policies, open borders immigration, decreased defense spending" is all that damning. Except for the gay rights part (though even some parts of this are consistent with Catholic social teaching), these issues are part of the teaching of our Church. I think the tone of your post, as well as your classy use of "Democrat Party," shows that the real objection many right-leaning Catholics have to the P+J crowd is less their "dissent" in abortion (since this is rarely if ever the case) but their actual "assent" on other issues as well, an assent that keeps them from joining those in the tank for the GOP

Thanks Joe and "Piddidle" or some such entity- I really wish everyone who blogged used real names I think it elevates discussions- but I also know that people have to protect their identities sometimes to protect their careers- so anyway here's my take-

We need more dialogue in Catholic parishes, not less, we also need for all the pro-life and social justice activists to come to an agreement that the Church's teachings and Hierarchical documents/statements must be our baseline for finding common ground- without this there is no Catholic Church, just individualist Christians groping in the dark learning at the knee of our nation's ideologues and party partisans. So if we can't agree to be orthodox, we won't agree even to disagree.

I am not trying to make excuses for Barack Obama's position on Abortion, I am very strong in condemning the approach of ignoring the legal question of abortion, as well the contraceptive promotion that usually comes with the 'liberal'consensus. But there is a glaring hole in the national Republican pro-life approach that I believe disqualifies them from claiming pro-life status- lesser evil status on Abortion and other social issues - yes- but not truly pro-life-

I disagree that the State's Rights approach is a first step- I think it will be the legal endgame at the national level for a very, very long time- until we get the Democrats back to being pro-life in it's leadership. And I have seen firsthand in running as a pro-life Dem for statehouse in Florida- where the legislature and governors have been overwhelmingly Republican and "pro-life"- that this is mostly a smoke-screen. Florida's legislature couldn't even get an Ultrasound bill out of Committee- and not because of the Democrats- when the Republicans get comfortable in power they quickly toss pro-life goals onto a backburner it seems- some states may be the exception to that- but not Florida. I ran as pro-Catholic Conference, pro-Life, Democrat and I couldn't get any assistance from pro-life circles- my position was one where I was targeting the legality of abortion rights based on the 5th and 14th Amendments, and I was itching to write legislation every year if necessary to force the legal matter up the food chain. My Republican opponent received the automatic endorsement of Florida Right to Life based on his official pro-life voting record- there is no meritocracy in the pro-life movement- appearances matter most, and the Republican Party has so deeply infiltrated pro-life circles, it appears that the movement doesn't even want the Democratic party to return to it;s pro-life roots. That is my experience anyway. Part 2 coming up

When I was running for state house I was framing my pro-life position on the legal front- attacking it as the Natural Law level- and not trying to play Pontius Pilate games of calling it a state issue. My belief on this is that Republicans like McCain/Palin et al are trying to sound like moderates on Abortion, by couching their personal opposition to legal Abortion in legalese speak, hiding behind the 'send it back to the states- let the people decide'- sorry that didn't work for Pontius Pilate, and it didn't work for the Confederate nation. And if you think that the Justices appointed by Mccain are going to be motivated by Natural Law or will even be able to find a right to life for the unborn in our Constitution- think again- I have heard Scalia and Thomas in interviews claim that their Catholicism means nothing in their day jobs, and Scalia said that the original founders did not have the unborn in mind when they refered to human beings with rights- he said something like they meant the kind of humans who are walking around or some such thing- he was very flippant. So if you want to call these national Republicans pro-life heroes- count me out- check more closely.

I am also all about going after root causes of abortion- like the lack of family wages, which pushes both parents into the workplace and reduces their ability to take proper care of even one child. And I support the Feminists for Life push for monies to go to colleges to provide real support for female students with unplanned pregnancies- since 45% of all abortions are by 18-24 year old women, many if not most in college- we need to get a better economic and cultural infrastructure in place- there are bills in Congress like Fem. for Life's and Dems for Life that will go a long way in reducing actual abortions, without recourse to artificial birth control.

I have also proposed a frontal assault on the alcohol industry- banning alcohol ads from sporting events- tv or otherwise- ever notice how the games ads target young men and beer, have you also noticed that binge drinking at colleges is a growing problem- guess what happens when you are young and drunk? Hello campus unplanned pregnancy hotline! Sports is about the kids, not balding middle-aged men who should obsess over their relationship with God and family instead of ESPN.

Where are the Republican pro-lifers on any of these fronts in the war against Abortion? When will the pro-life movement wake up and go full force in promoting truly pro-life Democrats so that there can a healthy competition for pro-life voters? Enough of this partisan charade- A dynamic Two-Party strategy is the only way to go because both parties are fatally flawed in their own way on the various issues- there is no Party Of God, and someone needs to stop the Spin- the national Republican Party is not pro-life- they are pro-state's rights for legal abortion choice-

DC,

Can you tell me where in Catholic social teaching anything resembling so-called "gay rights" exists? I've read the social encyclicals of the Popes since Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum and I don't see anything there buttressing your argument -- whether explcitly stated or emanating as a penumbra of a right from the texts. Also, those I knew back then were active in the gay liberation wing of the Catholic left. Read Michael Rose's "Goodbye, Good Men" and you will see what I mean.

The key argument I kept making back then and still do today is, Catholics of good will can disagree on prudential means to help the poor, protect the environment, limit the use of the death penalty, etc which means Catholics can lean GOP or Democrat on these prudential means. However, as both Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI as well as our bishops have stated repeatedly, Catholics cannot 1) elevate these prudential issues to the same moral level as non-negotiable life and morality issues or 2) choose a candidate who might lean Democrat (for example) on the predominantly Catholic position on the prudential issues knowing that said candidate is also pro-abortion. I saw my colleagues doing this back then, and I tried to convince them otherwise, to no avail. To them, promoting the homosexual liberation movement and Democrat Party positions on the poor in the name of "social justice" meant cooperating with a candidate (in 92, Bill Clinton) whose positions and actions on the life and moral issues were directly at odds with the teachings of their Church. I see the same thing happening today with Obama.

"The bulk of the foreclosures are in the ghettos."

Untrue. Poor people and immigrants have very low foreclosure rates, which given the usurious interest rates charged, may be a minor miracle of sorts.

More damage is done by freespending rich people who overestimate their own abilities to pay, who are given cushy rates, and often, a pass on the same hoops any other individual citizen has to jump through to buy a house, a car, or finance an education.

If we're talking terrorist links, I think you'd better ask the Arizona senator about the mid-90's links of his campaign advisers to Saddam Hussein. For that matter, what about all those energy companies doing business in the Middle East. What's the attraction there, chumming with Muslims and Arabs and all?

Or maybe Republicans might consider it's better to hush up on terrorism unless they have a mind to empty their own beds.

That just doesn't jive with the loci of the houses with the foreclosed signs on them. Nor does it jive with the raw data, Fannie and Freddie collapse and the customer base the subprime lenders were taking to the cleaners.

To compare a veteran who spent years in a prison camp defending the honor of our country to the terrorist collaborators is too far into the gutter to bother responding to. The dishonor speaks for itself.

Tim,

Your point is well taken on the name.

I'm sorry to read of your partisan experiences. I'm unfamiliar with your platform but based on your stated credentials above, it's inexcusable that you couldn't get traction. I don't know anybody in my pack of activists who have allegiance for either party. Thankfully those dinosaurs are dying off. Unfortunately, comparing common ground with the Democratic party platform to the Republican party platform, there is a reasonable explanation why there's a bitter taste in our mouths for Democrats.

Most of us who have been exposed to dialogue sessions within the Church can say with conviction they are an exercise in futility. If there is an effort to present the teachings of the Church with a question and answer period and a leader who always responds with pastorally correcting the misunderstandings of the questioner, that's something we can all get behind. The audience doesn't go home with the understanding that talking about all our opinions and agreeing to disagree is the post Vatican II replacement of the Catechism. Moderators of Catholic dialogue forums have the duty to free the minds being held captive.

We don't have the luxury of playing one deck of cards. Too many babies are dying. We have got to play things on the state level while we are lobbying to replace the Court. This is not a cop out. It is strategy that even Fr. Pavone agrees may be necessary. If you question his sincerity, I fear none of us would pass your litmus test on sincerity.

"I don't mean to be unkind, but you remind me of the "Committee" brigade who shows up at roundtables claiming everyone is doing everything wrong, you propose a solution and then as everyone is executing it you call them back to the table to put the kibosh on that means too. It's been gumming up the works for decades."

I'm not exactly sure why I would remind you of such a person, since I don't ever recall having proposed a solution before. I don't even think I have one now, really. I don't know how you transform a culture in the face of overwhelming opposition. It took a war to abolish slavery, and I don't think there will ever be the will or the means to fight one over abortion. I know what won't work, though, and that is the state's rights solution.

"Sending the abortion battle back to the grassroots level in the states is the building from the bottom up solution you propose. It's the means to round up your community, do the teaching and enlightening and then all work to lobby it into law. It's the vehicle with the keys to execute your plan."

Maybe in some states. In others, in the most populated states, it will never fly. So there may be a victory in Kansas or Wyoming or Mississippi; there will still be abortion in California, Texas, and New York, where most of the country lives. I don't believe there will ever be the political support to ban abortion in those states. And the cost of an abortion for women living in the states where it is banned will only go up the price of a road trip. I'm not interested in Pyrrhic victories.

Now, regarding this:

"With Obama, whose made clear that the first thing he'll do as president is federally protect killing unborn children, whom he refers to as punishments for sex, and withholding medical treatment should they survive. Every pro-lifer in their right mind is doing all they can to see this tyrant does not storm the White House."

There are a lot of half-truths and de-contextualized statements here. Sorry, but I've done my own homework, and I know that Obama does not believe that ALL or even most unborn children are "punishments" (he does have two children of his own, you know), that he does not believe in withholding medical treatment (he did not vote on BAIPA because it was already against the law to withhold medical treatment - however invalid his other reasons were, this is simply a fact), and he is most certainly not a "tyrant". Leave out the scare words next time. I've heard the Jerome Corsi's and the Andy Martin's and I don't believe them, ok?

Most importantly as I already said, I do not believe he will stand in the way of pro-life legislation which doesn't aim at RvW. That may not sound like much to you, but have you read the Pregnant Women Support Act or the 95-10 initiative? They may or may not get the votes in Congress, but if they do, I see no reason to believe, and every reason to expect, that Obama would sign them into law. These are positive measures that may actually reduce the number of abortions and save lives.

As for the rest of the smears about Obama and Barney Frank, again, I don't accept any of that nonsense. It has no place in a serious discussion about the issues. However, on the sub-prime crisis, I encourage you and everyone else to read the study put out by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, which empirically clears the CRA (or so-called "social engineering") of responsibility and actually shows that it deserves credit for preventing the crisis from being much worse than what it is right now.

I don't know how I lost my train of thought on this one.

"I see no reason NOT to believe, and every reason to expect, that Obama would sign them into law"

:)

"I'm not exactly sure why I would remind you of such a person, since I don't ever recall having proposed a solution before. I don't even think I have one now, really."

And yet that doesn't strike you as in need of self reflection. What activist and warrior has not done brainstorming to come up with solutions, grabbed some territory for Christ and executed them? This is what activists do. It is who we are and how we get things accomplished. You're with the armchair warriors who sit around saying everyone's ideas stink but provide no solutions and never roll up your sleeves to execute anything.

You claim to be a prolifer but everything everyone else has done or ever will do has some kind of ulterior motive and is not the way to solve the problem. I don't ascribe any malice to your habits but your hand-wringing


"I don't know how you transform a culture in the face of overwhelming opposition."

This is because you confuse evangelization in the public square with winning a political struggle against the boogeymen, Pilate and Herod. I mystified that the entire mission and success of Christendom has escaped your protocols. Follow in the footsteps of Christ, whose 2000 year history of transforming a culture in the face of overwhelming opposition has produced billions of converts.

Near as I have read from your writings, you are frantically coveting your neighbors goods and sadly, you don't even know it. You are in this battle to obtain wealth without working for it. In good faith, permit me to offer you some advice: Get off the computer and go back to school, study, work many hours, climb the ladder of success for yourself and rid yourself of the spirit of envy at the confessional.

Grab yourself a map of foreclosed homes in your state from your local realtor. Check out where the large concentration is because you've been duped.

The last thing we want to do is put in a democratic administration because jobs will be cut and this will blow into a full scale depression.

"Most importantly as I already said, I do not believe he will stand in the way of pro-life legislation which doesn't aim at RvW."

Unfortunately, the only thing Obama has promise to federally sign into law is to protect the right to slaughter the unborn. This negates your beliefs - for if he federally protects abortion, that stands in the way of prolife legislation.

Finally, his record voting against inclusion of insurance benefits for pregnant women are not congruent with the Santa Claus act to "reduce abortions".

It's unfortunate that you have to respond to the valid if contestable points I made with these thinly-veiled insinuations about my character. It seems to be the season for that sort of thing, whether it's posts like yours, or McCain's campaign talking about "turning the page on the economy."

"And yet that doesn't strike you as in need of self reflection. What activist and warrior has not done brainstorming to come up with solutions, grabbed some territory for Christ and executed them?"

Who says it doesn't "strike me" in that way? I don't think you have a solution either, at least not a viable one, and I note that you didn't respond to the challenges I raised about the states rights approach.

I've done nothing but brainstorm on every issue I am concerned with.

"You claim to be a prolifer but everything everyone else has done or ever will do has some kind of ulterior motive and is not the way to solve the problem."

Not everything. When did I say everything? I think pro-lifers have done a lot of good, especially with crisis pregnancy centers and efforts to educate the public and especially young women about the dangers of abortion. These are worthy efforts, I don't condemn them at all. In fact I think they have worked well, because abortions have declined and the pro-choice ideologists are on the defensive now.

And if the Democratic Party continues to warm to pro-lifers in its own ranks, it will be even worse for them. That's my political "solution" as of now.

I do reject the idea that the distant goal of overturning RvW and sending the matter back to the states is going to have any significant impact on the number of abortions. It will simply transform the nature of the problem. Consequently I reject the idea that one must support the GOP at all costs. I don't have to be irrationally pro-life - I'm not going to pursue a strategy I think will do little good and plenty of harm.

"Follow in the footsteps of Christ, whose 2000 year history of transforming a culture in the face of overwhelming opposition has produced billions of converts."

Fair enough, but even so, what specifically do you suggest, and why would this mission of following in Christs footsteps have anything to do with the politics of RvW?

more to come

"Near as I have read from your writings, you are frantically coveting your neighbors goods and sadly, you don't even know it."

I think its pretty sad that you can't just discuss the issues, and instead have to resort to these ridiculous suggestions.

I do not desire great personal wealth for myself. I desire a rational society that places human needs and human dignity above the pursuit of massive personal fortunes. I've read the social doctrine of the Church as well, and I know that not only are the things I have proposed within its scope, but actually encouraged by it.

Sadly, you don't seem to know the difference between actual envy and concern for one's fellow human beings. You might begin with the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.

As for your remarks about what you think I should do, it's indicative of how insecure you are in your own ability to competently discuss these issues or persuade based on the facts. That is also sad to see.

I'll be happy to discuss the facts and theory behind these issues all day and all night, and respectfully disagree with you. But its clear that what you want to do is vanquish an enemy. I just want you to understand this: I disagree with you, but I am capable of respecting you. I am capable of stating my disagreement with you without going after your character, partially because I think that sort of thing is silly, but mostly because I have no idea who you are and I am not so arrogant as to presume to know who you are through a message box on a website.

"Grab yourself a map of foreclosed homes in your state from your local realtor. Check out where the large concentration is because you've been duped."

Why don't you check out the study I mentioned, which shows that major metropolitan areas where there are large concentrations of CRA-regulated banks actually have lower foreclosure rates?

Finally, I don't think the FOC act will get enough votes to even make it to a president Obama's desk. As for the insurance thing, I've never heard of that, but I'll look into it.

When I said "I don't know how you transform a culture in the face of overwhelming opposition", I was thinking about the Civil War and slavery. The abolition movement was deeply rooted in Christianity but it alone could not overcome the slavocracy. It took a war. I suppose we can argue as to whether or not it could have happened without a war, whether or not it was inevitable regardless of the means.

If we do discuss it, I hope we can do so without the dime-store psychoanalysis. Is that really sooo much to ask? And since you're so keen on reading what I've written, how about you look at the debates I've had with RC? He seems to be able to disagree with me without making up stories about my character or offering patronizing suggestions about what I should do. Follow his example. He's on your side, at least economically. And we've had some of the most fruitful exchanges I've ever seen here, or anywhere for that matter. Please, I beg you - it isn't that hard.

Joe,


I assure you that a silly, ridiculous, insecure person such as myself, ignorant of the social doctrines of the Church, unable to competently discuss the issues, getting up in these last few mornings to post here and see how many enemies I can vanquish, would never intentionally make thinly veiled insinuations about the character of a respectful, non-judgmental person such as yourself.

I was truly operating with the assumption that the comments boxes are open to interpreting what is being said and responding. The wealthy worked for their money, it's theirs and they earned it. It's a valid observation that envy is involved if you are taking an inventory of their assets and wallets, and then discussing the spiritual disorder of coveting. If you were not coveting, you would be paying no attention whatsoever to the possessions of others nor would you have the desire to take away their possessions. Also, I believe it is within the bounds of a warrior to express the pertinent facts that neither you nor the communists have any right in a democracy to demand a society that strips them of it to give to yourself or anyone else. I pray we are spared the godless communist society of these proposals and that which Obama will surely indoctrinate.

Incidentally, I really don't need the exercise of passing all the foreclosure signs in the ghettos to read a study in a climate of deception most especially since the study isn't actually reflective of the actual foreclosures. There is little time in this precious life to engage in such fruitless exercises.

Peace in Christ.

I never called you silly, or ridiculous - it is your tactics, which are unfortunately used by too many people, I find silly and ridiculous. As far as insecurity goes, prove me wrong and continue this discussion while sticking to the facts. No one who has a solid case grounded in the truth needs to resort to ad homoniem style arguments.

And I am capable of, without even a micro-seconds worth of hesitation, willing to forgive, forget, apologize for my own transgressions and move on with the substantive discussion, if that's what you'd like.

You say,

"I was truly operating with the assumption that the comments boxes are open to interpreting what is being said and responding. "

You didn't interpret me - you drew a false conclusion from my premises without anything to support it but your own conjecture. You could have simply asked me what I meant, but you decided to think for me instead and tell me what I really believe. Do you like it when people do that to you?

On the rest, all I can say is that we have very different economic philosophies and understandings of the word envy. I think I explained myself well enough in the last post.

I do encourage you to read the study I mentioned, because it is valid and it supports my claims. That's all for now.

Joe,

I am genuinely sorry that I'm making you feel as though I am making up stories about your character and offering patronizing suggestions. This is not my intention, as I doubt it was your intention to convey what I (tried to humorously) regurgitated in my first paragraph of my previous post.

People express themselves in all different ways. Some of us use allegory, some use sarcasm, humor, drama. Some are feisty as Mark Shea and Bill Donohue. I use all of the above. Surely there is room in the com boxes for all of us without playing word games that ascribe malicious intent and ill will.

When somebody comes into a Catholic forum and proposes ideology that is spiritually disordered, responding publicly to unravel it is not a personal attack upon you. The spirit of the response is to leave no wiggle room for readers to ponder as permissible in Christendom and the reasons why, least readers be indoctrinated.

Most Catholics are not going to engage in a discussion about the merits of communist ideology. Not just because it is not within our nature - but it is just not a good use of our time. We have enough to do to straighten out the basics and take care of the people in our lives, live our prayer life.

Please don't take personal offense.

Thanks for offering the olive branch, Anna. If we can keep the discussion to the issues, and away from character judgments -- as well assume the best intentions of others, as we'd hope they'd do for us -- we can keep everything cool around here and have a fruitful discussion.

Anna,

I never take issue with someone's disagreement with me on the issues, never.

I take exception to comments such as these:

"Get off the computer and go back to school, study, work many hours, climb the ladder of success for yourself and rid yourself of the spirit of envy at the confessional."

Now if you can't see why I would have a problem with that, I don't know what else to say. But I want to be clear on what I have a problem with and what I don't.

For the record, I have seven years of college, three of them post-graduate, and I hope that whatever success I may achieve will never blind me to the problems facing society and other people and the policies I think best address those problems.

Joe,

"Get off the computer and go back to school, study, work many hours, climb the ladder of success for yourself and rid yourself of the spirit of envy at the confessional."

The quote was a conceptual one in response to your proposals for society along with the spiritual contexts in which such proposals arise. It is borne out of just as much concern for you and society which you have - except it is spiritual and not monetary. The spiritual part is a much more important mission.

You seem to be blind to allthe implied inferences you made upon on my character. I don't care -but the standards you insist upon you do not use yourself.

Back in July 2007, Obama said "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," When a candidate pledges to promote – or to “sign immediately upon taking office” - the Freedom of Choice Act, Catholics and all people of good will have cause to question the sincerity of the candidate’s determination to reduce abortions, when these already existing limits have caused a decrease of more than 100,000 abortions each year. (cf. Michael New-Matthew Bowman, Combined Reductions in Abortions, with data supplied by NARAL Pro-Choice America)

Passage of FOCA would obliterate virtually all the gains of the past 35 years and cause the abortion rate to skyrocket. Such a candidate is asking voters to suspend the effort to constitutionally protect human life, and – at the same time - to discard all the good progress we have made to actually reduce the number of abortions in the last thirty-five years. Such a candidate is asking Christians to “give up” on abortion. They want us to deny our conscience and ignore their callous disregard for the most vulnerable human life.

For a careful legal analysis of FOCA by the USCCB's Office of General Counsel, see: http://www.nchla.org/datasource/idocuments/pl-foca.pdf

I certainly believe there are valid reasons not to vote for Sen. McCain, but I can't think of ANY reason to vote for Sen. Obama.

But I do use those standards, at least until I'm provoked.

You wanted to make it personal, so I followed your lead. I know I shouldn't do that, it is a flaw that I will readily admit to, but then, you shouldn't have made it personal to begin with.

One thing I didn't do to you was make assumptions about who you are - as you did when you assumed I hadn't been to school and am in need of some measure of material success in order to see the wisdom of your political positions. You don't know me, Anna, you don't know what I believe or why I believe it.

One thing I know the Church teaches - people of good will can disagree on economic policies. Given that possibility, the prudent thing to do is assume good will until further notice. I include under "good will" not assuming that a person's political position is linked to some unresolved sinful tendency in their lives. Again, you would have to know me personally to know that for sure, and you don't.

It should go without saying that you shouldn't try to assume things about people personally in order to discredit their arguments.

Now, I am so ready to move beyond this and be friends if you like. I don't hold grudges.

"One thing I know the Church teaches - people of good will can disagree on economic policies. Given that possibility, the prudent thing to do is assume good will until further notice. I include under "good will" not assuming that a person's political position is linked to some unresolved sinful tendency in their lives. Again, you would have to know me personally to know that for sure, and you don't."

Joe,

You are still mischaracterizing.

I never "assumed you didn't go to school". I told you that is a generalization that was directed towards the argument that if one wants wealth, one needs to get it oneself and stop peering into the glass windows of one's neighbor and salivating.

If you came to Inside Catholic as a single man proposing that society should share the wife of the neighbor next store with single unmarried men, it is righteous and in fact a duty to a warrior to reveal to the readers that you are describing adultery and the reasons why Catholics should discard your discretion and notify you that your own soul is in jeopardy.

You may be insulted by my message. You may retaliate against me in the ways that you did. However, my intentions are to protect Christ's people from being scandalized, society itself from being baited into this sinful way of living and to inform your. You have posted several times now that my intentions and my message is disordered when in fact, this is untrue.

Taking an inventory of the assets of your neighbors in society, the things they've worked for and possess and wanting them for yourself or anyone else is a transgression against the Commandments. It is coveting. We are to mind our own business about what others possess, hold no measure of envy or wishes to strip them of it. This is a fundamental teaching of the Church.

I am genuinely sorry that you are receiving this message and ascribing malicious intentions to me. As you are interested in how all the money ends up, my interests lie in where all the souls end up.

Please accept what I'm telling you with the good will in which it is all conveyed.

In Christ, Anna

I really don't. I don't think you are a bad person.

I think of it as a lack of tact on your part. I was stating a political position, and you made it personal. If you don't want to admit that, or admit that it is a tactless thing to do, fine.

Additionally, I don't think it is a valid argument, or an accurate representation of what I believe.

You speak about the duty of a warrior. Well, when I see massive inequalities in wealth that are threatening to tear apart the fabric of society, I think it is my duty to speak up about that. When I see that the mass of people who do the hard work that makes these massive fortunes possible, from China and India to Brazil and Africa, to right here in the US, barely benefiting from their own labor, I think I have a duty to speak up about that as well.

I submit to you that what you think is envy on my part is really just a call for social and economic justice in the true sense of the word. In short, I don't believe that 400 individuals "earned" 1.6 trillion dollars, I don't think there is a valid theory of economics that could possibly translate the labor of one individual into a billion dollars. These disparities in wealth are due to a disfunctional economic system and skewed social priorities.

I'd also encourage you, once again, to take a look at what various Popes have had to say about labor, the dignity of the worker, the aim of economic activity, and the common good. John Paul II's Laborem Exercens is a good place to start.

Joe,

Yet another insult. Well, I am not so fragile as to concern myself personally about your mischaracterizations. My use of big boy words has obviously shaken you, but nevertheless the nature of your proposals are what they are.

Coveting and Communism isn't the answer to thieves. I am no more interested in reading the propaganda than I would Playboy Magazine.

The Pope's writings hold no license for the communism you propose. That is another misguidance of the Deposit of Faith.

Cheers!

Is it possible for me to have a problem with the way you make a point without insulting you?

I think stating the problem as a lack of tact was rather charitable.

"This truth, which is part of the abiding heritage of the Church's teaching, must always be emphasized with reference to the question of the labour system and with regard to the whole socioeconomic system. We must emphasize and give prominence to the primacy of man in the production process, the primacy of man over things. Everything contained in the concept of capital in the strict sense is only a collection of things. Man, as the subject of work, and independently of the work that he does-man alone is a person. This truth has important and decisive consequences. "

"From this point of view the position of "rigid" capitalism continues to remain unacceptable, namely the position that defends the exclusive right to private ownership of the means of production as an untouchable "dogma" of economic life. The principle of respect for work demands that this right should undergo a constructive revision, both in theory and in practice. If it is true that capital, as the whole of the means of production, is at the same time the product of the work of generations, it is equally true that capital is being unceasingly created through the work done with the help of all these means of production, and these means can be seen as a great workbench at which the present generation of workers is working day after day."

"From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of human labour and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production. In the course of the decades since the publication of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, the Church's teaching has always recalled all these principles, going back to the arguments formulated in a much older tradition, for example, the well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae of Saint Thomas Aquinas"

All quotes from JP II's Laborem Exercens. You can read it online. There are so, so many more.

Your misuse of John Paul's words to attest that it is a promotion of a communist government is outrageous and frightening. The man grew up in the midst of it and he knew of it's evils.

Further, the way I make a point is not for you to judge, by your own standards. People express themselves in different ways. if it is your opinion I lack tact, it may be my opinion that you are fragile. But, if I say you are fragile in response to your accusation that I lack tact - you scream out for censorship.

This is a rather silly game which I don't have any time to give you.

Scream out for censorship? When did I ever do that? I'm simply asking you to rethink the way you address people. I'm not fragile - I'm frustrated that people like you can't just have a simple disagreement with someone without making it personal. It is totally unnecessary. If pointing that out makes me look overly sensitive, so be it.

Secondly, when did I EVER say anything about "communist government"? I'm talking about the basic principles of distributism here, of worker ownership and control of productive enterprises. You can have that with just about any form of government. What's frightening is your association of anything I've talked about so far with "communist government".

So, who decides what amount of money a person should have? The government? You insinuate that Rerum Novarum must mandate a distribution of wealth....so who does it?? How is that specific amount determined?

Does the same government who gave us AIG also decide to whom the money should go and what amount? or is it Obama, who sees no problem with abortion from conception to birth??

All right.
Absent a miracle or disaster (which might be one and the same thing,) one of the two major party candidates will be elected president in November.

Chances are overwhelming that it will be the Democratic one.

A Catholic can not in good consciences vote for either, and since my vote is nearly meaningless, it's only use might be to send a message.

What name do I write in to send that message?

What one name could we ALL write in to send that message? It's too late to change the outcome of this election, but imagine the future! Imagine if every orthodox Catholic wrote in the same name! Imagine the terror or encouragement that proof of the existence of such a block would send through every candidate for state or national office in every coming election!

It is NOT too late, through the power of the internet, to make enough noise to be noticed. How about, even though he could not serve, Citizen Charles Caput?

The statistics sound a bit hyperbole however, I can understand how Democrats, the brains , view these religious topics. Republicans , on the other hand, view the world a different way. Republicans seem to be motivated by $$$, which is not a bad thing. Unfortunately, they feel that issues can be solved by throwing money at it. Money does talk but it shouldn't be life. Life is much more than a couple million or billion dollars in the bank, although, most of us bloggers probably aren't in that range where we can call ourselves "Billionaires". I'm not saying that money is a sin, the way we use money can be a sin and Republicans are not bad, they just see that world with price tag on everything.