The following is a story that is running in the new edition of the Catholic Anchor. The paper asked the Senatorial candidates a series of 10 questions most closely connected to Catholic doctrine and teaching. For us Catholics all we have to read is number #1 and know how we can and can't vote. There are non-negotiables we must adhere to as Catholics, regardless of our ideas about government. Some will try and paint the positive law as the highest law of the land, but it is not. Natural Law is supreme, and in fact guided the positive law our founders used as the philosophical basis for the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and federal statutes. We must not be confused and tricked by political rhetoric.
The following excerpt from the Senatorial profile in the Anchor is more than enough information to read to know that as a Catholic it would be WRONG and Anti-Catholic to vote for Lisa Murkowski. I challenge ANYONE, lay or religious, to debate me on this. I will accept that challenge publicly if need be.
At the Red Mass held at the Cathedral in Anchorage a few weeks ago, I was violently assaulted while going up to receive the Body and Blood of Christ when I saw a woman with a Scott McAdams button on. I was assaulted in the same way when watching the recent KAKM debate and Sen. Murkowski espoused what essentially equates to the Albigensian Heresy. We can not and must not elect officials like this, especially ones like Sen. Murkowski who stand behind the banner of The Faith.
Alaska U.S. Senate candidates answer questions about abortion, immigration, ‘gay marriage’ and capital punishment
The Catholic Anchor asked each of the Alaskan candidates for U.S. Senate to respond to a list of questions related to the issues of abortion, immigration, religious freedom, embryonic stem cell research, school vouchers and capital punishment. Candidates Joe Miller (Republican), Lisa Murkowski (Republican), David Haase (Libertarian) and Ed Gianoutsos (Non-affiliated) responded below. Candidate Scott McAdams (Democrat) did not respond to the questions.
1. Do you support overturning the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, which asserted the existence of a federal constitutional right to abortion?
JOE MILLER: Yes.
LISA MURKOWSKI: No. As a life-long Roman Catholic, I am personally opposed to the practice of abortion. As an elected official however, I am required by the Constitution and my oath of office to uphold the law of the land.
SCOTT McADAMS: Did not respond.
DAVID HAASE: Life begins at conception; life is given by God to the woman carrying it to care for it, not the federal government. Government needs to get out of God’s business. I would do everything in my power to persuade a lady not to have an abortion. However, to call in the government to stop and or punish her, that is past standing in the way of a sinner.
TED GIANOUTSOS: I support replacing Roe with a “Prevention first, abortion last” law that is more restrictive. Preventing unwanted pregnancies is the only practical way to dramatically reduce abortions.
As most of you reading this are probably well aware, I have stayed out of the political fray during the general election cycle. In fact, I have stayed away from my blog for quite a while. My readership is down, and I regret that for one reason. This post is possibly the most important post I have made pertaining to Alaskan Catholics, and American Catholic Politics in general for that matter.
•°- the kingdom of man -°•
You see, here in Alaska we currently have 2 Senators. Both, list themselves as Catholic. Tragically, neither of them would ever pass a test given to Catholic public officials of whether they uphold the faith in their actions as public servants. Even more heart-wrenching, Lisa Murkowski goes not only against her party and her faith, but publicly flaunts her hypocrisy and heresy by attending Mass around the state and receiving communion, while voting for and sponsoring legislation in clear contradiction to the precepts of the faith.
St. Thomas More, one of the patrons of this blog and featured in the masthead, said famously during his trial where he faced punishment of death that "...I am the King's faithful servant, but God's first." This is how ALL Catholic public officials should live, with this as their Motto. Unfortunately, if you asked Lisa Murkowski this question: "Whom do you work for, whom do you serve first and foremost?" I am deathly - eternally, afraid that she would say, "The people."
•°- not in good conscience -°•
We know Sen. Murkowski's record on abortion. (If you dont, you can read it here: [Link]) The most troubling part, is how she explains her basic stance on it. It relates to her vision of the role she has as a Senator. It relates to whom she feels she serves first and foremost. That master is not God, that master is man and the state. She has stated repeatedly that:
As a woman, and as a mother, I believe that abortion is a very personal issue that must be left to a woman and her physician, and not to elected officials.
For those that haven't read Archbishop Chaput's book, Render Unto Caesar, I beg of you... I plead with you, please go read that book before voting. [You can buy the book here.] He puts out in print what we as Catholics need to understand as people that are engaged in society and the responsibilities placed upon us. Voting and public service are part of the highest duties we must observe. What we must not do, is ignore our Catholic conscience and operate in a manner that is pragmatic, self-serving, or that focuses on the needs of man before the will of God.
I prayed about this post heavily, for weeks. I obviously was a Joe supporter during the primary, mostly because of Murkowski's past record, and what Joe offered that she did not. Joe is not Catholic, although his wife was raised Catholic and still adheres to the faith, his values and principles are much more in-line with Catholic teaching than Sen. Murkowski's. Therefore, my humble little blog endorsed Joe. Not that it mattered.
At this point, not only am I endorsing Joe again, but I am pleading with fellow Alaskan Catholics that we must not, and can not vote for Lisa Murkowski in good conscience. Look, we know Joe has made mistakes in the past, and some of them seem to be contradictory to where he stands today. But all of these things were in the past, and he stands before Alaskans today with a new vision, and a new resolve. He doesn't make excuses for his transgressions.
Lisa on the other hand does. Her record on Abortion is ghastly. Her explanation is different depending on the audience and the proximity to an election. Lisa side-steps the abortion question, side-steps her faith when it is brought up, and side-steps how her faith intertwines with her duty as a Senator. Her record on Native Issues, those in disadvantaged situations, is weak. Her stance on spending, taxes, and jobs is that of a statist. Combined with her apparent socio-political philosophy, she is the furthest thing from a More-ian or Chaputian Catholic official. She was over the top in last nights debate when she disagreed with teaching Creationism in schools, in any way shape or form, although she did want to note that "God gave us our souls, but..." I won't even get into how she essentially asserted the Albigensian Heresy, I think you get the picture.
•°- this isn't about politics... -°•
I don't want to mention the economy, jobs, spending, the deficit, Obama-care, or anything of the sort. I want to mention one thing... when we get to Heaven, every single action or inaction that we make in our lives will be weighed against us. I pray that I will be convicted of being faithful to God and choosing him above all else. That is why, I must compel you all to vote for Joe Miller and not vote for Lisa Murkowski. Scott McAdams is so anti-life, pro-Obama Care, anti-family that he shouldn't even enter the equation.
This is about life. This is about God. This is about family, country, freedom, and eternity.
A Catholic in good conscience can not, and must not vote for Lisa Murkowski. There is no sound, valid, or legitimate argument that a person can have that could justify a person to vote for her. If you think you have one, I ask you to email me, and plead your case. I am confident that based on CATHOLIC TEACHING, and not my own opinion, I can convince you otherwise.
This post isn't about her as a person, or her heart. I cannot judge her in that way, and I shall not. I have had limited personal interaction with her. (I was hoping to see her at the Red Mass this fall, but she was absent although she later that day had a RALLY only a couple of miles from the Cathedral where she invoked the "Yes We Can" rally cry of Barack Obama.) This post is about her as an elected official, one that calls herself Catholic.
Lisa Murkowski is the closest thing to a modern day Richie Rich. It profits a Senator nothing to trade their soul for the whole world, but for Alaska?
Lisa Murkowski is wrong for Catholics and wrong for Alaskans.
I know, I know... I am supposed to be on hiatus, and here I am posting... about, of all things, Politics. There is a method to my madness. That being said here is part of the story:
This time, in Missouri, Democrat Russ Carnahan has coordinated a smear against his rival Ed Martin. Reboot Congress has details.
The attack alleges that Ed Martin was complicit in shuffling pedophile priests around St. Louis Catholic Churches while he served at the St. Louis Archdiocese
The people driving this campaign have been in the employ of Carnahan, which makes it more than a little futile for Carnahan to deny any connection. And that the Democrats have done this in multiple places in multiple campaigns tells you all you need to know about how they view Catholics.
There is a whole list of places where Catholicism is coming into play during this election cycle. I wish I could speak to it more... I just dont have the time. That being said here in our fair state we currently have two sitting Senators, both of which are allegedlyCatholic. Now I know that I should not be judging hearts or souls, and I am not. I am judging actions...
Read Archbishop Chaput's book: 'Render Unto Caesar' before you vote. Know your duty to God when it comes to politics.
From the Catholic Anchor: On Sunday, Oct. 3 at 9:30 a.m. at Holy Family Cathedral, Archbishop Roger Schwietz will celebrate the annual Red Mass, and all are invited. Held annually in many American cities, the Red Mass is a special Mass at which the church prays for all who practice law, especially asking the Holy Spirit's guidance for attorneys, judges and politicians. After the Mass in Anchorage, there will be a brunch at the Marriott Hotel. Alaska Governor Sean Parnell, Attorney General Dan Sullivan and Superior Court Judge Frank Pfiffner are the keynote speakers. The origins of the Red Mass are traced to the 13th century, when the first known Red Mass was offered on behalf of the supreme court of the Catholic Church, the Roman Rota. Clerics wear red vestments, since the color signifies the Holy Spirit. The annual Red Mass celebrations in Anchorage are sponsored by the St. Thomas More Lawyers' Society of Alaska. All are welcome to the Mass. To make reservations for the brunch, contact Jenny Michaelson atjmichaelson@caa-ak.org.
Just a friendly reminder - Today is voting day in Alaska.
To vote on Proposal 2 in Alaska, you may have to turn the ballot OVER in some places. Make sure you remember to vote for this measure as it is listed LAST on the ballot.
I haven't blogged about proposal 2 in a while. This is due mostly because of the happenings in Anchorage. For my non-Alaskan readers... I promise I will get to more universal topics, but this one is important even if you aren't an Alaskan Voter.
We haven't heard it in our area during any homilies lately... but that doesn't mean that this issue isn't CRUCIAL to Alaskan Catholics. (For the record, I cannot make it to daily Mass, due to my job and the times in which daily Mass is held in my area.)
As you can imagine, the Catholic and Conservative blogging world will be set aflame over the next few days regarding this issue. Since this blog focuses on legal topics that touch on the Catholic faith we almost feel obligated to discuss it at some point. That being said, I can guarantee that most of us will get more than our "fill" of posts regarding this issue.
I am not suggesting that it isn't an important topic, but at some point too much of anything creates an adverse reaction to the subject and folks will begin to ignore these posts altogether. That is why a unique perspective is important, so that blog posts aren't simply becoming echoes of one another.
Therefore, the policy of our blog will be to try to ensure that when we do discuss it that we will try to present an angle or take on the subject that is fresh and interesting. Surely most blogs try to do this regardless of the subject matter, but because a case like this will garner so much attention and commentary, overlap is bound to occur from blog to blog. That is why we will do our best to present this issue to you in a way that will give you reason to read it. Please look forward to our posts, once we have been able to read the decision and determine what implications it has. For reporting on the issue, or other people's "takes" please see the bottom of this post.
Lastly, this decision has important effects that will reach far into our justice system, due to the way that it was written. I have not been able to read the entire thing yet, but from some of the sections that I have... there seem to be some very strong legal implications that will echo much deeper than simply the issue of same-sex marriage in California. So please continue to pray for our judges, legislators, and people involved in this situation. It is far from over.
Planned Parenthood is bringing in the big bucks in its campaign to persuade Alaska voters that they should not support a ballot measure in August that would allow parents to know when their minor daughters are considering an abortion. Jim Minnery, the chairman of Alaskans for Parental Rights, is battling back.
Nearly 50,000 Alaskans signed a petition distributed by Minnery's group saying Alaska voters should be able to vote on parental involvement. "Planned Parenthood, the $1 billion abortion corporation, is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to deceive Alaskans through radio and television stations statewide," Minnery said today.
"Currently, they are outspending us roughly 10 to 1. Their message is inundating the airwaves and there is a very real chance that they will defeat us at the polls on August 24," he added.
Alaskans for Parental Rights is fighting back and has just released a hard-hitting television to share the pro-life side of the debate with Alaskans across the state.
As Catholics, this is a MUST VOTE. Also, if you can spare a little money, you might think about donating to help the cause. When you are going up against a Goliath like PP, you need all the money you can get.
The American Catholic had a great post yesterday about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square Massacre.
Here is an excerpt:
Yesterday, June 4, was the twenty-first anniversary of the brutal suppression of the pro-Democracy protests in Tiananmen Square in Beijing. Over 3000 of the protestors were murdered by the Communist government of China. Tyranny won that round, but I have absolutely no doubt that Democracy will ultimately prevail in the Middle Kingdom. When it does, the heroes and heroines of Tiananmen Square will be remembered and their murderers forgotten.
“The bravest are surely those who have the clearest vision of what is before them, glory and danger alike, and yet notwithstanding, go out to meet it.”
Robert P. George, a pre-eminent Catholic writer and thinker, is the founder of the American Principles Project (APP). The APP is a a non-profit policy institute dedicated to preserving the principles upon which this great nation was founded. Mr. George is a leader in the field of ethics, constitutional law, and political philosophy. He is a Natural Law philosopher and lawyer. This is important, because it says something about how he views the law and the role of law in society. There is really no one better to speak on the nomination of Elena Kagan, than a person like Mr. George. He published his statement on Elena Kagan's Nomination to the Supreme Court over at APP, but I have it here for you. My emphasis:
In Elena Kagan, President Obama has nominated a person of great intellectual attainment, and unquestioned personal integrity. In these important respects, she is a nominee much in the mode of both nominees of the President's predecessor, George W. Bush, namely: John Roberts and Samuel Alito. There are some who argue that intellectual ability and personal probity are sufficient qualifications for someone to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. President Obama disagrees with that position, and I believe he is right to reject it. In explaining his decisions to vote against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, then-Senator Obama explained that a suitable justice must have a sound view of the role of the courts in our Constitutional system. Again, I agree.
Where I believe President Obama errs is in his view of the proper role of the courts. In envisaging courts as agents of social change unconstrained by the text, logic, structure, and original understanding of the Constitution, he misunderstands the important but limited role of judges in our constitutional system. The judicial office is not a license for jurists to usurp the authority of legislators, or impose on the nation their preferred ideas about social justice or personal rights. When judges do that, in the name of a right to abortion, for example, or to redefine marriage or drive religion from public life, they betray the Constitution in whose name they purport to act.
So, Solicitor General Kagan's nomination to the Supreme Court provides an important opportunity for a national conversation on the proper role of the judiciary in our system of democratic republican government. Senators, in particular, should follow the President's lead and advice in questioning the nominee closely about her view of the role of judges, and oppose confirmation if they find that she espouses a view contrary to the one they believe to be proper under the Constitution. To this end, as Kagan herself noted in relation to previous Supreme Court nominees, it is imperative that she answer questions about particular issues, including abortion, marriage, and the role of religious faith in American public life. For her to decline to answer such questions would be not only to contradict herself but to undermine the valuable opportunity for a serious discussion of the role of courts that her nomination presents.
Because I know Solicitor General Kagan to be a person of integrity, I do not expect her to attempt to evade questions whose legitimacy she affirmed when the nominees of previous presidents were under consideration. Moreover, with an overwhelming Democratic majority in the United States Senate at the moment, her candor would be unlikely to place her confirmation in jeopardy.
As Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan's openness toward the serious engagement of competing points of view led to discussions that enriched the intellectual life of the community she served. By making possible a serious discussion of the vital question of the role of courts in our constitutional system she is in a position to confer an equally-valuable gift on the nation.
This is no time for her to go silent.
Robert P. George is the Founder of the American Principles Project. He previously served as a Judicial Fellow at the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as on the United States Commission on Civil Rights, and was a member of the President's Council on Bioethics
Political sound-bites will rule the media debate on Ms. Kagan. It will be a left v. right debate, talking around the periphery of the important issues. I don't want to sound like some pseudo-intellectual, for I am NO INTELLECTUAL, but Mr. George is right in what he says about making sure that we focus on what is important in this confirmation proceeding.
This woman obviously is intellectually trained. We could argue over what "is" ...is all day long, and not get anywhere. The fact that she has no judicial experience, is important, but not vital to whether or not she is qualified. There is a reason why judicial experience is not a requirement for service. As a Justice, you have the brightest and best law clerks and staff you could ever get your hands on. People that become Senators, Congressmen, Presidents, other Supreme Court Justices, so you are not lacking in supporting staff. So what is important, and what will shape who she is as a Justice, is her view on the role of the courts. If you look at any of the current Justices, their jurisprudence is more closely tied to their view of the role of the Court, than their political leanings. For example, Stevens was appointed by Gerald Ford, Kennedy by Reagan.
Confirmations have always been an interesting political game. The Confirmation History
When you read a book such as Stephen Breyer's "Active Liberty" you get a very progressive and newly created political philosophy and a very strange jurisprudential view. This is especially true if you compare it to something such as "A Matter of Interpretation" by Antonin Scalia; Scalia takes a more traditional approach grounded in a philosophy outlined in the original documents of the founding of this country. So when comparing the two, you can gleam where their decision making comes from, more so I think than whom they voted for in the most recent election.
Rightfully so, I think that personal jurisprudence should be the focus of inquiry on newly appointed persons to the Supreme Court. This should be the investigatory target of the Senators in the confirmation hearings. No topic will more clearly reveal their qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice than a thorough examination of this area of their personal beliefs. There are plenty of smart people, smart judges, and highly educated persons that could be nominated for the Court, that could be argued for as a good fit by the media. In reality though, their political leanings or the person that nominates them shouldn't matter. Only their view on the role of judges and the courts should matter.
This isn't about policy or strategy like it is in politics. It is about proper function. Let us hope that we can gleam what function Ms. Kagan believes she would play as a Justice, and what role and function the Court should have within our government and country. If it rings untrue, then she should not be confirmed, but if it rings authentic and proper then she should be confirmed. Not to worry though, because things like Abortion, Marriage, and other topics close to the hearts of Catholics will be encapsulated in this inquiry. Properly a nominee will be asked about their personal beliefs on hot-topic issues and how those beliefs and ideas relate to their role as a Justice. In the end though, it should be about jurisprudence and not preference. The role of a Justice is not legislation or policy, but legal interpretation. If the role of a Justice is done properly, the will of the people and the laws of congress are hardened, they aren't made or even reconstructed.
I have not talked about immigration on here for a multitude of reasons. The first being that I have zero qualification to do so. But I realized that I should at least get the ball rolling because, if nothing else this blog is a place for me to put some ideas out into the world, get feedback, and have a chance to reflect on what others think.
I decided to blog about this, after reading these posts:
If you were to ask me where I stand right now, I would say I really don't know. I think that unfortunately we are at the point that any real reform or debate is out of reach, because we have simply come to the point of political maneuvering. What I mean is that, our legislators and government officials are more worried about political gains, wins, and losses than actually devising a plan that helps fix the problem.
That being said, I will say that there is a problem. I think Thom makes some good points in his piece over at AmP. He first lists Archbishops Chaput's points (Thom explains their importance after the "/"):
Illegal immigration is wrong and dangerous for everyone involved.
The new Arizona law, despite its flaws, does unintentionally accomplish one good thing / the urgency of immigration reform and the human issues that underlie it / once again have moved to the front burner of our national discussions. Our current immigration system is now obviously broken. Congress needs to act.
No credible immigration reform will occur if the effort becomes an exercise in partisan maneuvering / If the immigration debate divides along the lines of party advantage and slogans / then real people will suffer. And nothing enduring will result.
Finally, we need to remember that America is a nation built by immigrants / The American Catholic community has a long history of welcoming immigrants and helping them integrate into, and enrich, our nation’s life.
So, objectors to the new law may think that I am all for the new law. I am not, at least not 100%. I think unfortunately what happened is that Arizona felt as if they were pushed into a corner, and this was their only way out. Think about cornering a dog, a child, or anything for that matter. Do they generally want to calmly talk their way out? No, they aggressively, and usually with ferocity, claw their way out. I am not saying that this is OK, I am simply explaining a reasoning for their behavior.
Legalize the Undocumented (a path for undocumented immigrants to earn legal status after paying a penalty and returning to the back of the line)
Create a Guest Worker Program (current work visa quotas are too limited and have been set arbitrarily by Congress)
Promote Patriotic Assimilation (immigrations should learn English, identify with America’s founding principles and study U.S history)
Will this work? I dont know. I don't see it being followed step-by-step anytime soon. The main reason being that there is still a racial and cultural divide in this country, and it is actually might be getting worse. Thom seems to think this list is pretty logical and makes a lot of sense. If you were to sit down and discuss the issue with folks from "both sides" you could at least agree on these 5 issues. But he asks the question I did above, in a different way: Why is the issue so inflammatory? He seems to think that a lot of the problem is in the deeply "un-Christian and... xenophobic" rhetoric that is used when discussing the issue.
I think he is right in part. I also think that the racial divide I mentioned is problematic. The reason I posted this link: Apartheid in Ann Arbor - by: Moonbattery via CMR is to show that things aren't really getting better. The ends cannot justify the means. I won't sit here and pretend that things are fine, and equal access exists for all people in all situations. I know it doesn't, but Rawlsian - "justice as fairness" type programs cannot, and will not work. First and foremost they strike at the core of hypocrisy. If nothing else they inflame people to a point where they are unwilling to accept the solution. Secondly, they intrinsically contain within them the same prejudices and beliefs that created the problem in the first place. "Justice as Fairness" is one of those theories that a lot of folks work really hard on in college classes perfecting in some social situation to construct the perfect "method." Unfortunately, they might look good on paper, but are horrible in practice.
So then how do we move forward? Thom stayed away from the Arizona bill, and I think I will too, at least for now. Sure, many could view this is a punt, but in reality examining this bill in a vacuum is pointless. The bill wasn't created in a vacuum, in fact it was created while in a corner. If you don't consider the fact that we are in economic hardship, that there are border violence problems, and all the other political and social issues that tie into this, then you aren't really examining the true problem. Are their those on the left that are making this a political issue? Of course, all the rhetoric about "Show us your papers"; "I might be an illegal"; and "Latinos look more Native than Whites" is simply inflammatory and misses the point. The right is doing the same thing though. They have exacerbated the problem by talking about extraneous issues that really have nothing to do with this debate. Thom lists things such as overpopulation and the environment as examples.
We have gotten to the point that we are talking about this issue in sound bites. We have also let the situation get to this point because of some of the more lenient laws. Immigration is vital to the history and success of this Nation. We need to find ways to allow people to come to this country, live, work, and assimilate just like most of our ancestors did. At this point, I don't think there is a perfect solution, at least not one that has been forwarded by anyone. I think that to make this a MORAL issue aside from a political issue is to ignore the truth of the matter. I also think, that to make it purely political is to likewise ignore a major component of the issue.
Again, not to seem like I am punting, but if someone like Thom from AmP doesn't think it is right to comment on this, I surely am not qualified to do so. I did however want to mention something. I think it is important as Catholics and Americans to discuss this issue and find a good solution.
Please feel free to comment on this issue, but let's do so in a productive manner. Also, be sure to keep checking in on blogs like AmP, CMR, and the rest. They do a much better job of staying on top of these issues than I do.
One of my favorite "spiritual treat" blogs: Adoro Te Devote has an interesting post, that really got me thinking. The basic premise of the post, at least what I took from it, is that 'we should all be charitable when we blog' and that we cannot 'make a living' off of tearing others down and further our goals and ideas at the expense of others.
She explains that our blogs cannot exist for the purpose of making ourselves seem as if we are "good Catholics." For example she argues:
We CANNOT, as bloggers, base our blogs on tearing down others in order to make ourselves look good in the eyes of other sinners like us who will be fueled to add their own gripes, their own judgments, and their own form of superiority at the expense of sinners who apparently aren't like us.
I think she is on to something here. She is essentially arguing that if we make ourselves look good at the expense of others, we really aren't making any positive strides. She does recognize a need at times to bring truth forward and shine light on evil, but seems to think that this should be the exception and not the rule. She it explains it as such:
I can't speak for other bloggers, nor do I judge their souls, but I do judge their actions and this, in particular. Do we need to shine a light on what is wrong at times? Certainly! The Church Fathers were not adverse to such things! The modern question is this, though: Is it really necessary to focus our lives on ripping on thy neighbor in order to proclaim the Truth?
Now for much of her post I agree with her. I know that there are some blogs, sometimes unintentionally that solely focus on 'tearing others down.' This is how they exist. But is it really necessary? Many would argue that this DOES go beyond the limits of what is charitable and just.
Where is the line though? What is the demarcation? Is charity the same regardless of the issue? Must we always refrain from pointing out scandal, heresy and illicit teachings? At what point do we choose to 'flip over the tables' instead of 'turning the other cheek?' This is a very difficult question I think.
Sure, we could take advantage of every little scandal and blog about it. The thing is, 50 other blogs will be doing the same thing... so what are we REALLY accomplishing at the end of the day. I think this is a key point, that might go unstated in Adoro Te Devote's Post. She explains that personal gain through complaining or 'tearing down' really isn't a gain for God. So how then do we accomplish gain for God and at the same time deny and destroy the falsity that is perpetrated by many in the name of Catholicism? Must we do one without the other?
I ask you the reader... how do we make this difficult decision? I wonder if the answer lies in the intent of the post. I don't offer consequentialism as an answer to anything. I mean intent in terms of the virtue and ethic of the core meaning in the post. Is that where our line of demarcation sits? What say you, readers and writers of the Cathologosphere?
Paul Haven, Associated Press Writer, On Thursday March 25, 2010, 12:39 pm EDT
HAVANA (AP) -- It perhaps was not the endorsement President Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress were looking for.
Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro on Thursday declared passage of American health care reform "a miracle" and a major victory for Obama's presidency, but couldn't help chide the United States for taking so long to enact what communist Cuba achieved decades ago.
"We consider health reform to have been an important battle and a success of his (Obama's) government," Castro wrote in an essay published in state media, adding that it would strengthen the president's hand against lobbyists and "mercenaries."
But the Cuban leader also used the lengthy piece to criticize the American president for his lack of leadership on climate change and immigration reform, and for his decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, among many other things.
And he said it was remarkable that the most powerful country on earth took more than two centuries from its founding to approve something as basic as health benefits for all.
"It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago," Castro wrote.
The longtime Cuban leader -- who ceded power to his brother Raul in 2008 -- has continued to pronounce his thoughts on world issues though frequent essays, titled "Reflections," which are published in state newspapers.
Cuba provides free health care and education to all its citizens, and heavily subsidizes food, housing, utilities and transportation, policies that have earned it global praise. The government has warned that some of those benefits are no longer sustainable given Cuba's ever-struggling economy, though it has so far not made major changes.
In recent speeches, Raul Castro has singled out medicine as an area where the government needs to be spending less, but he has not elaborated.
While Fidel Castro was initially positive about Obama, his essays have become increasingly hostile in recent months as relations between Cuba and the United States have soured. Washington has been increasingly alarmed by Cuba's treatment of political dissidents -- one of whom died in February after a long hunger strike.
Cuba was irate over the island's inclusion earlier this year on a list of countries Washington considers to be state sponsors of terrorism. Tensions have also risen following the arrest in December of a U.S. government contractor that Havana accuses of spying.
In Thursday's essay, Castro called Obama a "fanatic believer in capitalist imperialism" but also praised him as "unquestionably intelligent."
"I hope that the stupid things he sometimes says about Cuba don't cloud over that intelligence," he said.
A blog I frequent (listed in the sidebar) is Musings of a Pertinacious Papist. Well, he recently had a very interesting take on the way Catholic Congressmen voted on the recent Obama-Care bill; and we might just be in trouble:
There are a whopping nine faithful Catholics in Congress who oppose the public funding of abortion. That's really good news. Faithful, shining witnesses to the truth of the Gospel. Nine. Out of 136 Catholics in Congress. The rest of whom support the public funding of abortion.
Let me see ... When Abraham was negotiating with God on the number of righteous men in Sodom for the sake of which God would not destroy it, how many was the minimum, do you remember?
Genesis 18:32 -- Then [Abraham] said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?" And [the Lord] answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
Oh, crap.
Oh crap is right! 9!? That is it? Really? 9? That was just on the first vote... other bills and votes weren't as good.
So I had a huge long post ready for this... and then I decided what I have to say really doesn't matter. If you want intelligent, educated, and well thought out posts about the health care bill passing please visit: Creative Minority Report American Papist
For those of you NEW to the blog (directed here from American Papist, Creative Minority Report, Mark Shea, and the rest of the Cathol-ogosphere) ... WELCOME! Please read some older posts and check out the side bar, as per usual, there is lots of good info over there!
A quick note about this blog and what is posted here: I try and discuss things that have to do with the defense of our faith, family, culture, country, the law and kids. Essentially, this blog is about Defending us as Catholic Citizens, the Body of Christ, against the evil that seeks the ruin of our souls. That being stated, oddly enough, I try to limit the purely "political posts." The main reason for this is thatI am not nearly as capable in this realm as other Catholic bloggers... so you should focus your time reading them (i.e., AmP and CMR). But once and a while a story will come up that touches on a cross-section of several of the things, and when that happens a political post will appear, like this one:
The Heritage Foundation describes quite well the worries that accompany the warming of relations between Obama, the US, and the ICC. It also explains the irony evidenced here:
It is highly ironic that the Obama Administration is warming up to the ICC, a court that does not guarantee American due process rights to American citizens, while at the same time insisting that terrorist suspects should have access to American civil courts, Miranda rights, and the right to trial by jury.
During law school I had the opportunity to participate in one of the most well know Moot Court competitions dealing with "International Law." I saw the way that the up and coming legal minds, mostly liberal in this competition think, and trust me it is a scary thing. Ideas of "due process" and "rights" become boxed up in an "American" wrapping that is not allowed to be "exported" beyond our borders; yet, in a sign of "peace and cooperation" we are willing to extend these "prohibited items" to the most serious of offenders contrary to our own laws to show how "democratic" we are.
This is a scary idea, subjecting our citizens to a foreign law. A day could soon well come, where a terrorist has more rights after they blow up a building in new york, than a soldier fighting for America, has while on the battlefield in some foreign land - and the only entity we could blame would be these here United States.
Thomas Peters from: American Papist will be on the Sean Hannity Show tonight at 9:00pm ET.
So... check him out :) The topic is quite good as well... he will be discussing the Harry Knox issue regarding the anti-Catholic comments recently made by Knox.
Alaska is an amazing place. I saw 6 moose today in my travels, 4 of which to and from Adoration. The laws here are also pretty relaxed and therefore personal freedoms don't face as many restrictions as other states, for the most part. Yet, there are some anomalies in the statutes, and it is by no means perfect.
One of the worst laws is the ability of a teen to have an abortion without parental consent. This is actually codified in statute. (This means that as opposed to case law, it is more firm and therefore difficult to repeal.) We know that such a law should be removed; we also know of the hypocrisy of such laws in light of other restrictions on teens. For example a lot of states prevent ear piercing without parental consent before a teen is 18.
The following article blows that out of the water. A recent documentary on energy and global warming is being circulated in Alaskan schools. The film: Not Evil Just Wrong, takes a look at the "costs" of the climate change debate is having on our country and world. Not just economically, but socially; the climate change agenda is affecting more than just the wallets and economies of the world. So Alaska seems like a perfect proving ground for the movie. (A state where energy is literally the life blood of the state) The film is circulating in the same schools where An Inconvenient Truth by: Al Gore has been shown time and time again in several circumstances and instances.
This time though, Not Evil Just Wrong required a PERMISSION SLIP from the student in order to watch it. It just shows the double standard we have in our society; movies about science are REGULATED but the murder and reproductive actions of our children can rest solely in their discretion.
So I ask this: "What exactly do we hold as the pinnacle virtue or right that we are protecting and defending in these situations?"
I guess it is just another example of the "culture of death."
