Friday, January 24, 2014

BELIEVING AND PRACTICING CATHOLICS BEWARE: FASCISM FROM THE PROGRESSIVE LEFT IS PUTTING YOU ON THE TRAIN TO NOWHERE

 Are we on the slippery slope of history repeating itself and pro-life Catholics who also support the traditional understanding of marriage being forced on a train out of communities that fear Catholics? It happened to Jews for simply being Jews and they were slaughtered by the fascists. Could it happen to another religious group? Is New York's Governor and New York City's mayor fomenting such a turn of events? 

New York's radical and former Catholic mayor agrees with Governor Andrew Cuomo that pro-lifers and those who uphold the traditional definition of marriage are not welcomed in New York because they are opposed to the rights of women and foment violence in our society. This is what it has come too.

Both the mayor and the governor are from Catholic backgrounds and formation. Their political dogmatism is pre-Vatican II authoritarianism but without God or moral values. There current attitudes are a result of not only mortal sin but deep rooted corruption and perhaps fomented by coloring book Catholicism of the 1960's and 70's. 

Read it for yourself:

New York Mayor Bill de Blasio emphatically backed New Governor Andrew Cuomo’s controversial remarks that “extreme” conservatives – which he defined as being pro-life, second amendment advocates, or supporters of traditional marriage – “have no place in the state of New York.”

 

“I stand by that 100 percent,” de Blasio told reporters at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. on Thursday. 

“I agree with Governor Cuomo’s remarks. I interpret his remarks to say that an extremist attitude that continues the reality of violence in our communities or an extremist attitude that denies the rights of women does not represent the views of New York State,” he added. 

Governor Cuomo riled up conservatives in New York state as well as all over the country when he told a local New York State radio program last Friday “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay....have no place in the state of New York, because that’s not who New Yorkers are.”

The remarks have snowballed into a major controversy, with Fox News host Sean Hannity vowing to leave New York City, prompting a bidding war between Republican governors to persuade him to move to their states. Hannity is reportedly eyeing a political bid in Texas. At the March for Life yesterday, one participant pushed back at Cuomo, telling Breitbart News, "We're here, we're pro-life, get used to it."

De Blasio conceded that “we all understand there’s a right to free speech. I wouldn’t disagree with that right and neither would Governor Cuomo.” 

But exercising that free speech could put you on the wrong side of New York “values,” de Blasio maintained. “I think he’s saying that the attitude of those who want to continue the status quo on guns or want to challenge and deny the right to choose does not reflect the values of New Yorkers. He was absolutely right to say what he said,” de Blasio stated.

When asked by a reporter if he does not feel the need to reach out to those who disagree with him and would rather others share his values instead, de Blasio responded, “The first point is, we represent our people and Governor Cuomo is right and I believe I’m on firm ground in saying our people, the people in New York State and the people of New York City reject extremists views against a women’s right to choose and in favor of the proliferation of guns in our society. And I stand by that 100 percent.”

De Blasio is under fire in New York for the city's disastrous response to the recent snow storm, which prompted questions about why he was in front of the television cameras in D.C. instead of working to fix the roads back home. De Blasio admitted Wednesday "more could have been done."

24 comments:

Gene said...

It will take drastic and possibly violent means to recover this Republic. It should have begun years ago, but the Leftist educational system and the techno-distractions knowingly purveyed by the Leftist media and corporations have kept people "dumbed down." Hopefully, they will eventually wake up and become angry at what has happened. It may be too late, however.
Do I advocate violent means…no. Would I support the use of "extraordinary means" to recover our freedoms in a Constitutional Republic…yes.

Anonymous said...

I haven't heard any response from Cardinal Dolan, or any other bishop except Bishop Malone, regarding these unbelievable comments. Maybe I missed something but I doubt it. Once again our shepherds are leaving us defenseless. I am speechless. All of these bishops who have made the choice to ignore the coming onslaught against Catholics in this country will have to answer for this before God. The bishops carry the crozier to remind them to watch over and protect us, the souls entrusted to their pastoral care. Why will they not protect us in the face of the wolves?

Gene said...

Anonymous, one word: unbelief.

Anon friend said...

Yes, Anonymous (whichever one you are!), you have nailed the problem. I lived in NYC area just before and during legalization of abortion. We laity heard NOTHING from the Bishops around the country, and almost nothing from any clergy. What a travesty...

Anonymous 2 said...

According to the NYT, it seems that Cardinal Dolan has spoken to this in fact:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/nyregion/cuomo-comment-elicits-retort-from-republicans.html?_r=1

qwikness said...

Sean Hannity retracted his statement to leave. He said this: "I think people might have interpreted it that I'm leaving the next day....As soon as I am able, some time probably when my son graduates from high school."

Anonymous said...

Why does Anynonmous 2 only respond to my observations and thoughts but never has an original one of her own? It's creeping me out.

George said...

We should resist this secular mindset and the forces that are arrayed against us. As always, we should do this primarily with prayer and fasting. We should however be ready to suffer, and even give our very lives (if it come to that) in defense of all that is good and holy and true.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous:

First you thought I was a priest. Now you think I am a woman. It's creeping me out. =)

And I didn’t know you were the same Anonymous btw. I have suggested before using a more precise identifier. If you are Anonymous 1, then why not stick with that? It would help avoid unnecessary confusion – just a suggestion.

Oh, and I thought I might be furthering the conversation by providing some missing information about Cardinal Dolan. And you did wonder whether you had missed something.

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous wants me to say something original. Well, if I must.

Why is the abortion debate in this country apparently so intractable? And why does it give rise to such passions on both sides? Yes, we know about the pro-life side but what about the “pro-choice” side? Let’s start with that.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

Please do not take this the wrong way. I understand that you want to be provocative in your red headline paragraph and are seeking to stimulate further conversation about this topic. But I also understand that we now live in such an incendiary social media environment that some people (not you) seek to whip up hysteria. I suspect that many (again, not you) have tried to do this over the Governor’s unfortunately phrased remarks, and I fear that such headlines as in your post just feed into this.

There has to be a better way to address these deeply divisive issues than metaphorically screaming at one another. Many people, including myself, are committed to trying to find this better way. If one does exist, doesn’t it behoove us to try to seek it? As George suggests, prayer can and should inform these efforts. And I agree with Gene that drastic means are necessary to recover the republic, although we might disagree about how precisely to frame the fundamental problem facing the republic and about the best strategies to try to solve it it.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

A2, sometimes appeasement just doesn't work especially in the face of fascism. You of all people, being from the United Kingdom, should know this as it regards one of your statesmen in the fascist period prior to World War II.

Gene said...

The UK is a Socialist sump. Are you kidding? The Brits somehow seem to live with this without losing their soul. I do not understand how because, given their history of creativity, independence, and world leadership it just does not make sense to me. Perhaps their high degree of cultural homogeneity and historical self-awareness gives them a buffer against the oppressiveness of the socialism that is taking over Europe and the world. Go figure.

Socialism and Catholicism cannot co-exist. Leviathan will not allow the Church to interfere with his designs. Christ will triumph, but it will not be from within this culture or from within a Church that is in the state she is in now. The Church is even now being chastised. Her Bishops and Cardinals are seeking political solutions to spiritual problems. Re-read what Amos and Hosea had to say about this. There is another Prophet you also may want to review…"by the waters of Babylon…"

Gene said...

Speaking of Babylon, anybody want to consider that Vat II is the new Babylonian Captivity of the Church? See: Martin Luther.

Anonymous 2 said...

Father McDonald:

Thank you for your response.

If what the Governor (and now Mayor) are saying and doing is truly “fascism,” I agree that one must be very careful about a strategy of “appeasement.” But is it really fascism? I think that is the threshold question. (Fascism is another of those labels that gets thrown around days with gay abandon – often with mention of Hitler thrown in for good measure). And the answer to that question depends on what the Governor (and now Mayor) are really saying. I tried to get some perspective on this in an earlier post, which you may have missed. I don’t want to take up space unnecessarily and I will understand if you prefer not to re-post my comments, but making them again (with very slight modification) may help to clarify my position. (Please note too my very last point and my comments earlier in this thread. While being very careful to avoid appeasement with evil, what is wrong with trying to find a better way to address the deep divisions in our body politic?):

Descriptively, I find little to fault in the Governor’s words. He sees, to paraphrase, a “struggle for the soul” of the Republican Party in New York (and nationally) and characterizes the “extreme conservative Republicans” in New York as being “pro-life, pro-assault weapons, and anti-gay.” Although I suspect that the term “anti-gay” is somewhat loaded and likely unfair, the other two descriptors seem accurate, and he is surely correct about the struggle between “extreme conservative Republicans” and “moderate Republicans” (although one should be very careful about such “labeling”). The Governor seems particularly exercised about the opposition of candidates belonging to the former group to the SAFE Act of 2013, in contrast to the moderate Republicans in the New York Senate who supported it and helped pass it. Here is some background on the SAFE Act, which imposes various types of gun control (especially on “assault weapons”):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NY_SAFE_Act

Normatively, the Governor’s words may be more objectionable. For me that depends on what he means when he says that such extreme conservative Republicans “have no place in New York.” because “that’s not who New Yorkers are.” If he means they should not be permitted to run for office or express their opinions, then of course he is dead wrong, morally and constitutionally. But if he is making a prediction that they will discover they do not belong in New York ( in the sense of being a political party/faction with realistic prospects of electoral success) when voters reject them at the polls, well, isn’t that how our Republic is supposed to work nowadays?

Assuming he means the latter (could he really mean the former?), and assuming his prediction is correct, then the deeper question would concern the “character” of the “people” of New York, at least as judged by the expression of their “will” at the polls. Another deeper question, of course, would concern the integrity of the electoral system itself, in New York and nationally. And perhaps the deepest question of all would concern how a democratic people should engage in healthy political conversation about these deeply divisive issues.

Gene said...

Anon 2, I really am beginning to find your rationalizations and contorted efforts to justify any moral outrage disgusting.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene:

I would love to talk to you more about these fascinating matters, but perhaps I can already give you my own personal take on this. I think a large part of the answer you seek is that the British have found a way to combine and balance a strong sense of individualism with a strong sense of community. This in turn results in a predisposition towards moderation. In some senses this is true of the United States, too, as Tocqueville observed. But over here it is my sense that the sense of individualism is stronger and the sense of community somewhat weaker. Of course various demographic, cultural, and environmental factors and influences, both historical and contemporary, have promoted the respective balances. One example is the strong element of Puritanical zeal in the States that contrasts with the Anglican taste for the via media of Richard Hooker (even though he may not have used that actual term himself).

And so I bring this sense of balance and moderation to most of what I do. I think sometimes you misunderstand this as being a liberal or a socialist or something. It isn’t. If I were in the U.K., I would most likely vote Tory (as I always used to when I voted in British elections). But British conservatives are not the same as American conservatives, although they became closer during the era of Thatcherism.

John Nolan may want to weigh in on this one too.


Anonymous 2 said...

One more thought–but let me preface it by making it absolutely clear that, as a Catholic, I believe what the church teaches about life beginning at conception and oppose abortion and I look forward to the day when there will be no abortions because there will be no unwanted pregnancies (even if some of them start out that way).

There is an irony here. If Roe v. Wade is reversed and a state criminalizes abortion, for example, or refuses to recognize same sex marriages, then couldn’t those women who want an abortion and those gays who want to marry also say “The state is saying we are not welcome here” and call it fascism, perhaps even with greater justification because the state’s will is being expressed through the coercive prohibitory force of the law? (So again, how helpful is that label?) And what will they do if they can? They will go to another state where they_are_welcome in the sense that they can procure an abortion or have their marriage recognized. Well, then, why not criminalize abortion and ban gay marriage throughout the entire country? Even assuming that were possible, we all know what the result would be – overseas or backstreet abortions and a gay lifestyle pursued even more irregularly.

I think Pope Francis understands this very well, and that the real battle is for hearts and minds. Isn’t that where the most effective battles will be fought and where the real victories will be won? And even if the coercive force of the law must be enlisted, it should be coupled with love, so how the law becomes enacted makes a big difference. If people are interested, I can provide links to good discussions of these issues and projects pursuing these goals, including some in which I have been involved myself. But only if they are genuinely interested in exploring whether there might be a better way than the mutually uncomprehending screaming to which we are now treated.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene: Do you still feel that way after reading the next post responding to your earlier post?

Anonymous 2 said...

And Gene: I am not seeking to justify “any moral outrage.” Indeed, I made it quite clear that if the Governor intended one type of meaning (“get out of town”), it was completely unjustifiable. Didn’t you read that? The question I raised concerned what he really intended, because if he meant something else (as I suspect) then I don’t see a moral outrage, just a descriptive statement of fact – “you will lose at the polls.”

Please do not fall victim to the peddlers and manufacturers of moral outrage, on the left and on the right. They make a lot of money with their game and play us for suckers.

Gene said...

BTW, I liked the era of "Thatcherism."

Anonymous 2 said...

I apologize for the frequent postings but I have just come across this letter from Governor Cuomo’s General Counsel. It has been reported on but again, to get a full and accurate sense, the actual letter needs to be read. It supports the more charitable interpretation of the Governor’s unfortunate choice of words that I speculated about. To be fair minded people should read this letter and then make up their minds about what the Governor really meant. Gene would probably call this naïve; I call it reasonable:

http://www.governor.ny.gov/012014-mylandenerstein-stmt



Gene said...

I simply do not care. Cuomo has shown his true colors many times. So have you.

Anonymous 2 said...

It does not surprise me that you do not care, Gene. You are part of the problem. I would love for you to be part of the solution, however, and have made several overtures to you, but each of them has been rebuffed. That is your choice.

Yes, I have shown my true colors and they are a flag you cannot recognize and cannot pigeon-hole, which drives you crazy I am sure.