08.07.08
Posted in Church, Society, Abortion, Politics, Culture at 10:51 am by Sheila
They don’t vote as a bloc.
This snip from a New York Times piece about the value of winning over Catholic voters in this election has a message beyond these words:
Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, lost the Catholic vote badly to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, who, like Mr. Obama, is a supporter of abortion rights, during the primaries in states like New Hampshire, Missouri and Ohio. In Pennsylvania, Catholic voters preferred Mrs. Clinton to Mr. Obama by a 40-point margin.
Both are supporters of “abortion rights”, which points to the division among Catholic voters. And this article skims through the ramifications of that, but remains misleading in its handling of a critical issue. Like where it says Denver Archbishop Charles Chaput’s “views had not changed.” They aren’t his views, his words are the constant teaching of the Church. Which is not relative to the political climate.
Clearing up this cultural confusion is an ongoing project, and Knights of Columbus leader Carl Anderson explicitly devoted his address to the annual convention to this.
“Imagine if this year millions of Catholic voters simply say ‘no’ — no to every candidate of every political party who supports abortion,” he said in comments sent to LifeNews.com.
“It’s time we stop accommodating pro-abortion politicians, and it’s time we start demanding that they accommodate us. What candidate or political party can withstand the loss of millions of Catholic voters in this election or the next?” Anderson asked.
If Catholic voters stand up for pro-life values, Anderson says they can transform the national election and make a major impact on the 50 million abortions that have occurred since the Roe v. Wade decision.
His address on Faithful Citizenship says we need change alright.
Real change is possible, but it is difficult. First, we need to end the political manipulation of Catholic voters by abortion advocates. It is time to end the entanglement of Catholic people with abortion killing. It is time to stop creating excuses for voting for pro-abortion politicians. Catholics should no longer be asked to be partners in the abortion regime by voting for politicians who support abortion.
Just wait until the Democratic convention. They will. By some prominent fellow Catholics.
Permalink
Posted in Church, Society, Culture, Bioethics at 10:03 am by Sheila
These things are necessary to officially declare….or remind….with the right-to-die movement finding new ways to justify ending lives they deem unworthy of continuing life. Cardinal Justin Rigali and Bishop William Lori have taken to the pages of America magazine to clarify Church teaching recently misrepresented on those pages by two theologians, on end-of-life care.
What is “medically ordinary” can be “morally extraordinary.” This is a valid distinction, but there is an aspect of patient care even more basic than the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary medical treatments: the “ordinary care” owed to sick persons because of their human dignity, which the Declaration said should be provided even when certain medical interventions have been withdrawn as useless or overly burdensome. Pope John Paul II and his successor held that food and water, even when their provision may require technical medical assistance, constitute the “basic care” that patients should receive.
One would think this to be inherently obvious. But Pope John Paul II found it necessary, during the Terri Schiavo ordeal, to address the condition referred to as “persistent vegetative state” and spell out the moral obligations to such patients, who are persons with dignity…and not actually dying.
In the case of medically stable patients in a “vegetative state,” who may live a long time with continued nourishment but will certainly die of dehydration or starvation without it, the obligation to care for our fellow human beings presents a very direct challenge. Such a patient’s condition should not be characterized as “unstable” or terminal simply because it would become so if the patient were deprived of food and water.
Anybody would become terminal if deprived of food and water.
John Paul II drew attention to this problem, insisting that such families “cannot be left alone with their heavy human, psychological and financial burden,” but must receive assistance from medical professionals, society and the church. This is the true meaning of “compassion” in the face of illness and disability, to “suffer with” the afflicted and lighten their burden through our support.
Permalink
08.06.08
Posted in Abortion, Politics, Law at 9:55 pm by Sheila
LifeNews has an informative editorial about where the two presidential candidates stand on the Supreme Court and abortion.
I’m always interested in conversations about judges, so this piece caught my attention.
When pro-lifers think about the importance of presidential elections, near the very top of the list is the kind of Supreme Court nominee the candidate would send to the Senate. (Lower court appointments are also hugely important.)
An important point. From where does the president draw his nominees to the Supreme Court? Usually the federal judiciary. (Harriet Miers was an anomaly.)
The next President will nominate hundreds of lower court judges who will rule on state legislation promoting or limiting abortion…The choice could not be clearer.
Permalink
08.05.08
Posted in Society, Geopolitics at 10:07 pm by Sheila
Which echoes the Gospel about moral truths.
WSJ gives us Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s words, at Harvard. Where they weren’t exactly warmly received.
Very well-known representatives of your society, such as George Kennan, say: We cannot apply moral criteria to politics. Thus we mix good and evil, right and wrong and make space for the absolute triumph of absolute Evil in the world. On the contrary, only moral criteria can help the West against communism’s well-planned world strategy. There are no other criteria. . . .
WaPo’s tribute honors his work as a champion of the human spirit.
Driven, principled, frequently arrogant, a bearded figure with the fierce visage of a prophet, Solzhenitsyn was regarded as one of the greatest and most influential writers of the 20th century.
Like Leo Tolstoy and Fyodor Dostoyevsky, the 19th century masters of Russian letters, his subject was considered to be the struggle between good and evil in the Russian soul. The line separating the two, he said, ran through every heart.
Fr. de Souza’s column notes what the modern world must remember, that Sozhenitsyn’s was a critical voice against an ideology of moral failure — just like JPII and Benedict. Call things what they are.
His argument was that communism needed the gulag, not as some ancillary measure, but as the logical consequence of its assault on human conscience, dignity and liberty. When Ronald Reagan delivered his evil empire speech ten years after The Gulag Archipelago was published, he was summarizing Solzhenitsyn’s argument. Communism was not only economically inefficient, politically destabilizing and imperially expansive–it was evil.
In his own words…as it turned out, the last interview published.
Q: And your strength did not leave you even in moments of desperation?
Solzhenitsyn: Yes. I would often think: whatever the outcome is going to be, let it be. And then things would turn out all right. It looks like some good came out of it…
I was always optimistic. And I held to and was guided by my views.
Q: What views?
Solzhenitsyn: Of course, my views developed in the course of time. But I have always believed in what I did and never acted against my conscience.
Q: All your life you have called on the authorities to repent for the millions of victims of the gulag and communist terror. Was this call really heard?
Solzhenitsyn: I have grown used to the fact that public repentance is the most unacceptable option for the modern politician.
Read this man’s works. Like all great thinking, based on transcendent truth, it is timeless.
Permalink
Posted in Media, Church, Culture at 9:20 pm by Sheila
He slipped under radar and fooled the press.
Pope Benedict XVI managed to dodge journalists and crowds during his first outing in the mountains near his holiday retreat in Bressanone, in Italy’s northern Alto Adige region, Vatican sources revealed on Monday.
While the American media are focused on political campaigns playing ‘gotcha’, the pope actually did it.
Permalink
08.04.08
Posted in Society, Culture at 5:59 pm by Sheila
I heard the news last night from one of my very literary sons that Alexander Solzhenitsyn had died. I think my jaw dropped. Though we are all mortal, the finality of giants is always jarring.
Those who don’t even know Solzhenitsyn as such will get a pretty consicse summary of why in this New York Times article.
But here are a couple of appreciative reflections today on the life and impact of a man whose great pursuit of the truth of the human person is legendary and timeless.
John Mark Reynolds has one of the best pieces of the day.
Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a great man, but not a man of our age. Like Jeremiah, he spoke hard truths and uncomfortable words that made him sad.
Solzhenitsyn, who died Sunday at age 89, always told the truth even when his audience wanted congratulatory lies.
Many Russians and much of the American Left still do not like to admit that millions were butchered in horrific camps in the name of secularism…
In the West those opposed to communism, on the left and the right, welcomed his genius, until the prophet turned his clear eye on them.
Some Western secularists, libertine materialists, made the mistake of assuming that any enemy of their Soviet enemy was their friend. Solzhenitsyn was opposed to cultural degeneracy in Soviet and Western guises. A culture of consumption and an age which assumed that the ability to do a thing meant that it should be done had no place for excellence or the carefully cultivated soul. Solzhenitsyn saw plainly that much of what we called progress was what most people at most times would have called rotting from the head down.
Secular Harvard gave him a prize, but he made the mistake of thinking Harvard wanted his best thinking at a commencement. I will never forget talking to a witness of that event so infuriated by it that he was still shaking with rage years later.
What infuriated the Harvard crowd? NRO’s editors explain:
Truth was the essential ingredient of his controversial 1978 commencement address at Harvard: “A World Split Apart.” He told the graduates, “[T]ruth eludes us if we do not concentrate with total attention on its pursuit. And even while it eludes us, the illusion still lingers of knowing it and leads to many misunderstandings. Also, truth is seldom pleasant; it is almost invariably bitter.” Solzhenitsyn went on to discuss the multiple ailments of the West.
This speech rocked the country, with many prominent liberals — e.g., Arthur Schlesinger Jr. — denouncing him for it. Sidney Hook wrote, “Rarely in modern times . . . has one man’s voice provoked the Western world to an experience of profound soul-searching.”
This is a good reminder to re-connect with the great books, large thought, the relentless pursuit of truth.
Malcolm Muggeridge called him “the noblest human being alive.” After passing away yesterday, he is now one of the noblest human beings on earth or in heaven. He is one of the greatest witnesses in all history. And, like all great witnesses, he was inspired by love, the crowning quality of his work and life.
He was a faithful servant.
Permalink
08.03.08
Posted in Society, Education at 6:22 pm by Sheila
Our children are apparently not learning some basics we take for granted, at least in some school systems.
Children have lost touch with the natural world and are unable to identify common animals and plants, according to a survey.
Half of youngsters aged nine to 11 were unable to identify a daddy-long-legs, oak tree, blue tit or bluebell, in the poll by BBC Wildlife Magazine. The study also found that playing in the countryside was children’s least popular way of spending their spare time, and that they would rather see friends or play on their computer than go for a walk or play outdoors.
This is a British article, so the wildlife species may vary on different continents. But the article actually states some obvious points we may have missed in our global concerns these days. Like the fact that our public schools are filling their curriculum with lessons on melting ice caps and threats to polar bears and carbon footprints and preservation of wildlife refuge. But…
Sir David Attenborough warned that children who lack any understanding of the natural world would not grow into adults who cared about the environment. “The wild world is becoming so remote to children that they miss out,” he said, “and an interest in the natural world doesn’t grow as it should. Nobody is going protect the natural world unless they understand it.”
Permalink
08.02.08
Posted in Media, Politics at 11:18 pm by Sheila
It’s risen a notch. But the candidates are still looking for key words to level blame on their opponent that will stick in this campaign.
Obama is now saying McCain isn’t racist….he’s cynical. This story is all over the news.
“In no way do I think that John McCain’s campaign was being racist,” Obama said in his first meeting with reporters since predicting that McCain and other Republicans would try to scare voters because Obama looks unlike “all those other presidents on the dollar bills” — most of them older white men.
“I think they’re cynical,” he said. “And I think they want to distract people from talking about the real issues.”
Hold on. Note that Obama took the initiative to predict “that McCain and other Republicans would try to scare voters…” because Obama looks different than all the presidents on American currency. Come on. That’s goading. And distracting.
But at least Sen. Obama retracted it (in a way) and re-framed the blame. Now McCain is cynical.
As for McCain….I’m listening to the car radio this evening and hear a news update on a Chicago station that says McCain calls Obama a “big spender”. I’m thinking…’okay, at least the name-calling is rising to a different level now, still political, but not as ugly as it has been and could be.’ So when I do an internet search for any news story on that McCain clip, it really only came to this Chicago Tribune blog piece. It has some remarks McCain said at the Racine, Wisconsin Civic Center.
Senator Obama says he’s going to change Washington, but his solution is to simply make government bigger and raise your taxes to pay for it. We’ve been doing that for years and it hasn’t worked. In the few years he’s been in the Senate, he has requested nearly a $1 billion in pork barrel spending for his state. That’s nearly a million dollars for every day that he’s been in office…
And my friends, Senator Obama is an impressive speaker, and the beauty of his words has attracted many people, especially among the young, to his campaign. I applaud his talent and his success, and all Americans should be proud of his accomplishment. My concern with Senator Obama is that on issues big and small, what he says and what he does are often two different things. And he doesn’t seem to understand…
What doesn’t he seem to understand? Tax and spend policy consequences.
Senator Obama says he’ll only raise taxes on the rich, but in the Senate he voted for tax hikes that would have impacted those making just $32,000 a year. He’s proposed tax increases on income taxes, capital gains taxes, dividends taxes. Pretty much anything you can tax, he wants to tax more. My friends, on Social Security, he wants to raise Social Security taxes. My position, and I am opposed to raising taxes, including Security Taxes. I have no doubt about my opposition.
If the campaigns could continue on the tenor of this battle over ideas, risen above the level of ad hominen attack, Americans may listen more and think about what they’re both saying on the merits of the argument.
Tonight’s Journal Editorial Report on Fox will be interesting to look at once it’s up on video archive on Fox News. It scrutinized both candidates for positions they take on economics and how much is still “on the table” for both Obama and McCain. Bottom line: they haven’t found themselves yet in a policy position that sticks. Both Obama and McCain are still drifting, and the economy is sagging.
Congress just recessed in spite of failing to reach agreement on domestic oil production, though some members of the House stayed after Speaker Nancy Pelosi ordered in-house cameras and microphones off and lights out. At least some of them want to do something for the people who think we elect leaders to send to Washington and solve problems.
Permalink
Posted in Media, Society, Abortion, Culture, Bioethics, Law at 3:47 pm by Sheila
The right to exercise moral, ethical or conscientious objection in the medical field is eroding as the definition and scope of “rights” is expanding.
A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients’ rights.
What makes this debate bitter is usually the anger which which abortion proponents argue, and the language they use. So it’s no surprise that…
the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women’s health activists, and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control.
‘Family planning advocates’ and ‘women’s health activists’ are about the business of abortion, not family advocacy and women’s health and well-being. And what “overwhelming obstacles” would it create to allow individual doctors or health professionals to remove themselves from the list of others who provide abortion and controversial drugs? It’s a bogus claim.
There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would — apparently for the first time — define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.
For purposes of clarity, those critics should define ’scientific research’, and for that matter, their subjective views of the “fertilized egg” that is aborted as anything other than human life that is ended.
This article is alarmist. And virtually all one-sided, until the end. At least WaPo added a few thoughts from the regulation’s supporters.
“This would essentially simply require people to comply with laws that they have been required to comply with for decades,” said M. Casey Mattox of the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law and Religious Freedom. “That does not mean any organization or state can’t keep doing exactly what it’s been doing. It means they have to make room for people who have sincere moral or ethical concerns about doing something.”
And:
Richard S. Myers, a law professor at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Mich., said: “Religious freedom is an important part of the history of this country. People who have a religious or moral belief should not be forced to participate in an act they find abhorrent.”
Permalink
08.01.08
Posted in Society, Geopolitics, Culture at 10:25 pm by Sheila
A possible alternative headline to this Time story out of France. It’s wine terrorists, of course it’s France.
Hurting from over-production and cheap imports, and punished lately by the rising cost of gas, a small group of local wine growers has resorted to “wine terrorism” in a violent attempt to shock the French government into helping them.
This is how they do it. The latest acts, prompting this story, are just two in…
a series of violent and destructive acts by local grape growers over the past three years that has targeted public and private buildings, supermarkets, tanker trucks hauling cheap imported wine, and businesses accused of gouging growers with ever-shrinking prices. Claiming responsibility: a clandestine group known as the “CRAV”, or “Regional Committe of Viticulture Action”.
This has created “vivid tension” in the region.
Jérôme Soulère’s lawyer, Jean-Marie Bourland, doesn’t justify his client’s avowed acts of destruction, but sympathizes with his client’s predicament…”Many of these people are agonizing and dying a slow death,” he says. “For some, I suppose, posing a bomb is their attempt to pose a question.”
Moral equivalence, violence and social issues, grab headlines these days. Sure fire path to anarchy.
There are better ways to pose a question.
Permalink
« Previous entries ·