Thank you Gov. Cuomo for telling us how your coloring-book Catholicism since the Second Vatican Council has malformed you and your conscience. Maybe you can sue Vatican II?
It matters not to Gov. Cuomo that he has made himself into a despot. It matters not to him that he by signing a bill into law, now enables the murders of babies. Maybe he won't murder any. I don't think Hitler himself executed any Jews, but he made laws that allowed it and there were many willing to do the work for Hitler.
He can cry crocodile tears for how bishops have enabled the molestation of minors by priests, but he would be a hypocrite. Because he is enabling something even more heinous than that.
It is clear that Gov. Cuomo could care less if he is excommunicated, chastised by his bishop or even the pope or has some kind of interdict levied against him. That's his prerogative. But Catholics need for some sanction to be placed against him and his heresies enumerated as placing him and any others outside the full communion of the Catholic Church. Catholicism isn't a make it up as you go religion despite what we have been taught or have taught since Vatican II.
So here we have a post-Vatican II Catholic who is actually a Post-Catholic, Post-Christian. Here are his very own words to confirm this diagnosis:
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — Gov. Andrew
Cuomo on Tuesday shrugged off criticism and even calls from Roman
Catholic leaders for his excommunication from the church over his
support of a new state abortion law.
Saying he is duty-bound to
separate his religious views from his work as governor, Cuomo, a
Democrat, defended his support for the state's Reproductive Health Act,
which he signed last week.
The bill mostly codifies abortion rights
protected in Roe v. Wade and other federal abortion rulings.(Please notice how Associated Press thinks it is no big deal--the murder of children!)
"I have my own Catholic beliefs, how I live my life. ... That is my business as a Catholic," Cuomo said. "I don't govern as a Catholic. I don't legislate as a Catholic."
Catholic bishops in Knoxville,
Tennessee, and Tyler, Texas, tweeted support for excommunicating Cuomo
from the church after he signed the abortion bill last week.
My final comment: We now know that when the Democrats are in power in legislatures, state governors and in the Federal government, they will pass the most liberal and hienous abortion bills and allow babies to die full term at birth by legalized murder.
Is a day coming, and I hope soon, that Catholics who profess to belong to the Democrat Party will be excommunicated automatically? I personally hope so. It would be worse than being a Mason or a Fascist!
42 comments:
"I have my own Catholic beliefs, how I live my life. ... That is my business as a Catholic," Cuomo said. "I don't govern as a Catholic. I don't legislate as a Catholic."
What is so frustrating is that no self-respecting journalist will ever challenge that sort of thinking. It's obviously incoherent. And, of course, no one would let it slide in other contexts. For example, try this:
I have my own race-supremacy beliefs, how I live my life. ... That is my business as a white supremacist," Cuomo said. "I don't govern as a white supremacist. I don't legislate as a white supremacist."
(And, for the too-reactive and too-little-reflective, no, I am not equating the Catholic Faith to white supremacy; I am applying a proposed reasoning process to two, very different belief systems as a contrast.)
This is one of the things that makes me detest and not respect the journalistic profession. There are such obvious questions that they don't ask. Sometimes from bias, sure; but also from laziness and from not being very bright. It bugs me that these folks can't be bothered to challenge a public figure for obviously incoherent thought.
Serious journalist: "Governor, help me understand what you're saying. Are you saying that you never apply any insights or values of your Catholic Faith to public policy decisions? None at all?"
Cuomo: "No, but...I...it's just that I don't want to impose my Catholic beliefs."
Serious journalist: "Right, but that doesn't answer the question. What beliefs do want to impose, if not Catholic ones?"
Cuomo: "Er, well, no ones! I mean, we need to do what's right. The voters..."
Serious journalist: "OK, but I'm still confused. Do you keep your Catholic beliefs entirely segregated from your decision-making process? How does that work, exactly? Can you spell out what this process is when a bill or a policy comes before you. How do you 'wall off' your thought-process from your Catholic beliefs?"
Cuomo: "I never said I wall them off..."
Serious journalist: "That's the point, Governor; it's hard to follow just what you are saying. Do you mean to say that whatever the majority wants, is what is the right thing to do?"
Cuomo: "No, of course not! It's just that I think when we enact public policy, there needs to be a broader basis for determining what's moral and right than just one Church's doctrines and beliefs. Don't forget separation of church and state! We aren't a theocracy!"
Serious journalist: "Quite right. So what do you think is that broader basis'? I think the voters would benefit from knowing that."
Cuomo: "Well, you know...like human dignity...after all, we're all made in...um, nevermind; er...you know! 'Do unto others'..."
Serious journalist cocks eyebrow and grins.
Cuomo: "SHUT UP!"
I cannot judge the interior of politicians like Cuomo, but something mentioned here is very important, "the personally opposed to but publically for..." Of course this is hypocrisy but brushed off with the Enlightenment idea that religion is private and separate from politics. (Politics is based on Reason and therefore universal, religion not so.) I think the SPPX has a point here on the idea of religious freedom which the American Murray managed to convince the Council Fathers of, that all religions are the same (equal) in a society. That is a very American idea, coming from its Protestant origins which themselves are highly influenced by Enlightenment thinking, and led to a great distrust of Catholics (papists) and Catholicism in USA.
The Church is in big trouble because of Vatican II which dumped the defensive position and decided to join the Enlightened world. These Enlightenment ideas are not Catholic but fundamentally anti-Catholic. The Church had Thomisim as a defense against this world for a along time, and what happened? -> La Nouvelle Theologie which is a free for all of the "scholars." Looking at "Catholic" theologians today, you have to wonder if God even exists for many of them. And so you have colouring books since no one can decide what the truth is anymore, but at least they agree on the colours.
I think the Dem's action in New York and Virginia might even make Hitler and Stalin blush.
Here's an interesting political take on this:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/01/31/the_party_of_death_139331.html
Governor Andrew Cuomo has thrown in with Satan. The Governor has thrown in with the Culture of Death.
In different ways, the Church's left and right wings have rebelled against Holy Mother Church. Each wing in question places its ideology above Church teaching.
In so many ways, liberal Catholics are far beyond right-wingers in regard to the advancement of the Church's Social Teaching. In general, right-wing "traditional" Catholics despise Social Teaching.
Governor Cuomo's care for the poor, migrants, immigrants and the rights of workers is outstanding. In that regard, he is far more "Catholic" than "traditional" right-wingers.
Unfortunately, when it comes to various right-to-life issues, other than the death penalty, liberal Catholics, speaking generally, place their liberal ideology above Holy Mother Church.
They believe that the Church's approach to the women's "rights" is, at best, antiquated. Their progressive, 21st Century understanding of women trumps Church teaching.
In Governor Cuomo's world, in regard to abortion, the Democrat party's viewpoint trumps Catholic teaching.
In regard to the right to life, Governor Cuomo is a liberal fanatic.
Therefore, speaking humanly, the situation with Governor Cuomo and the Church's teachings on abortion is hopeless. He has shaken his fists at God.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I hesitate to enter into US party politics, but what does 'belonging to the Democratic Party' actually mean? Do some people join political parties at grass-roots level and pay their subscription (as happens in the UK)? Or are they regarded as Democrats because they vote for Democratic candidates? Does the Democratic Party have abortion as part of its manifesto?
'Conscience' issues in the UK were traditionally seen to be independent of party politics, although this tradition has been somewhat eroded of late. Labour is more doctrinaire than the Conservatives, although when David Cameron forced 'same sex marriage' through Parliament and had the nerve to claim that it was in accord with Conservative principles, I began to wonder why I bothered to vote Tory.
However, the best speech against it was delivered by the Conservative MP and staunch Catholic Sir Edward Leigh, an old friend of mine since university days. He actually quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the House of Commons - surely a unique occurrence.
MT,
Stop conflating the evil left-wing in the Church with the right-wing, which I call orthodox Catholics.
Here's a little test: please list for us the Church teachings that the so-called right-wing rejects. And being skeptical of PF, is not a rejection of Church teaching but commonsense.
Also, this statement of yours is pure nonsense:
"Governor Cuomo's care for the poor, migrants, immigrants and the rights of workers is outstanding. In that regard, he is far more "Catholic" than "traditional" right-wingers."
Killing off the poor in the womb is not caring. Burdening American citizens of all classes with more debt to support illegal aliens is not caring. Adding burdensome taxes and more regulations which costs jobs is not caring. Stop pedaling this left-wing drivel.
MT -
In the past, I have agreed with some of your thoughts regarding Left and Right Wing Catholics. But, we have been parting ways since that point. You really cannot compare Left and Right Wing Catholics for the reasons mentioned by TJM that don't require parroting by me. "Right Wing" Catholics, distinct from the "Left Wing", view matters pertaining to faith, morals and doctrine as non-negotiable. Those in the "Left Wing" seem to take a more fluid view. Just because some in the "Right Wing" do not care Pope Francis personally or, do not agree with some of the things he has done doesn't mean they are comparable to the Left's fluidity regarding non-negotiables.
Also, to me, it is an unfair characterization to state that "Right Wingers/Traditionalists" despise social teaching or, are less "Catholic" than folks like Cuomo. How would you know?
Practically speaking, as "Right Wingers" tend to have larger families, it may be unrealistic for some to adopt the "Left Wing" view on these matters. I liken some of the more left-leaning social tendencies to owning a boat - it is just something into which you keep pouring money but, often times, the boat doesn't run any better. There is simply a limit to what people can afford to fund causes x,y and z when the care of their families, support and upkeep of their parish so that they can avail themselves of the sacraments that ensure their salvation is paramount. I really dislike this more recent notion of: if not social justice warrior then, bad Catholic.
John Nolan -
"Do some people join political parties at grass-roots level and pay their subscription (as happens in the UK)?"
Yes. However, there is no concept of a subscription here. Rather, candidates and the party itself hope members are inspired to donate money.
"Or are they regarded as Democrats because they vote for Democratic candidates? Does the Democratic Party have abortion as part of its manifesto?"
To vote in a primary election (e.g. the election that reduces the number of candidates to 1 per party), one must belong to that party. For the general election, persons from any party can vote for any candidate without belonging to that party. As the Green Party, for example, rarely has candidates on the ballot (at least not where I live), members can only vote in the general election and, could very well take a more democratic view with respect to a given candidate's platform. Just because such a person votes for Democrats does not mean that they themselves are Democrats.
John Nolan,
In most states you register as a Democrat or a Republican (no fee) and in some states you may register as an Independent.
Abortion on Demand is part of the Democratic Party's official platform. You cannot run for national public office unless you swear allegiance to allowing women to kill babies in the womb since this is deemed the woman's "choice."That is why you see me make frequent references to it as the "Abortion Party" and why I am upset when I learn that a Catholic priest or bishop votes for the Democratic Party candidates. The Catholic Church in the US has been supine and has done effectively nothing to deal with this. If a politician read any part of the Catholic Catechism in Congress our left-wing national media would label that politician as an extremist. In stark contrast, killing a baby in the birth canal as the baby comes out is "reasonable" to our national media. No problem.
John Nolan, There was a time in this country when matters of conscience were independent of political parties. However, the Democratic Party in this country has, increasingly and willingly, identified with pro-abortion, gun control, pro-homosexual, radical feminist, and generally socialist policies. The party attracts those with unresolved anger issues, which they project onto any authority figure or representative of traditional Christian morality, and Freudian conflicts regarding Mommie and Daddy which tend to spill out everywhere. My brother in law is a psychiatrist and he calls these people "Oedipal Wrecks."
John Nolan, "An open primary is a primary election that does not require voters to be affiliated with a political party in order to vote for partisan (Democratic, Republican, Other) candidates."
States with open primaries are:
Alabama
Arkansas
Colorado
Georgia
Illinois
Indiana
Massachusetts (All races' primaries open for "unenrolled"/unaffiliated voters only)
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
North Carolina (All races' primaries open for unaffiliated voters only)
North Dakota
Ohio (semi-open)
Oklahoma (Only Democratic primary is open to Independent voters as of November 2015)
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Wisconsin
At the time one votes in a primary, he/she asks for the ballot for Democrats or Republicans or Other. A voter can vote in one party's primary, but not the others. (Sometimes this option may be used for "strategic" voting - voting for a candidate in a primary in the hope that that vote may benefit another party's candidate in the general election. In general elections one need not declare a party.)
Some people "belong" to a party by joining formally. Most, I suspect, do not.
https://www.catholicdemocrats.org/
Gene,
Yes I can remember a time when the Democrats and Republicans would have been on the same page morally: anti-abortion, anti-divorce, anti-gay marriage (unthinkable in those years), etc. What distinguished the parties then (allegedly, at least) is that Republicans were for smaller government and the Democrats were for larger government. I think the 1960s, just like it corrupted the Catholic Church, corrupted the Democratic Party.
I was a Democrat in those days and it was the left side of the Dems (Gene McCarthy) versus the moderate/right side of the Dems (Hubert Humphrey types). I have come to the conclusion that the Dems are just evil in their ethos and only dumb or evil Catholics (or a combination thereof) support them. Ironically, they claim to be for social justice, but they inflict far more harm than good. The facilitator of their evil is the corrupt, national media (even more evil), which serves as the propaganda arm of the Dems.
Anonymous Kavanaugh,
Thanks for posting a useless, propaganda website, designed to fool the gullible. Been there, done that.
What do we mean by "belong"? Most voters don't "belong" to a political party in terms of sending contributions or serving as a party officer or delegate.
And I wonder, do any clergy in the Diocese of Savannah ever vote Democratic?
The national party basically got taken over by the McGovern wing in 1972 and has never looked back---only gotten more liberal. I guess a reaction to the 1968 chaos at the Democratic convention in Chicago. Lyndon Johnson was in his final months at the time of the 1972 convention, and it is written that he was distressed at what he saw from the LBJ ranch---who were all those odd move stars at the convention? What about the delegates with long hair? And gay---what exactly was that? Makes you wonder how Jimmy Carter ever got the nomination in 1976 as a moderate? Them days be over!!!
The abortion part is bad enough, but there's more---Democrats want to lead us further into socialism---Medicare for all and expanded Social Security benefits at a time when we are running deficits of about a trillion a year. Wouldn't it be nice if anyone introducing a bill in Congress actually cited the constitutional authority for the legislation? Where does the Constitution mention federal involvement in education? The "right" to abortion---and federal funding of it? Medicaid? Medicare? Social Security? Federal arts funding?
Anonymous (definitely NOT Kavanaugh),
You call the Dems moving to be more "liberal" I call it crazy, evil, maniacal. Killing babies in the womb and impoverishing taxpayers is not liberal, at all. You forgot to mention "transgender bathrooms, gay marriage, proponents of "toxic masculinity, etc." The list of evil goes on and on and on. These are people of ill will, not good will and we should stop treating them as such.
Mark Thomas said:
In so many ways, liberal Catholics are far beyond right-wingers in regard to the advancement of the Church's Social Teaching. In general, right-wing "traditional" Catholics despise Social Teaching.
Oh bull-hockey!
Certainly some people "on the right" (so to speak) are weak on Catholic social teaching, but this generalization is way too sweeping.
Meanwhile, some on the left seriously misunderstand Catholic social teaching. For example, they turn the Church's solicitude for the rights of workers, including to form and affiliate with unions if they desire, into a mandate that all workers ought to belong to unions; and forcing them to support unions financially becomes a moral imperative -- which is certainly contrary to actual Catholic teaching.
The greatest problem with the misunderstanding many on the "left" make in this regard is viewing government action as the necessary means to implement Catholic social teaching. There is a huge difference between seeing a role for government, and calling people less than Catholic if they are skeptical about the wisdom of government taking too great a role.
TJM: I am neither Kavanaugh or a Democrat. The website simply was head of the list when one searches "Catholic Democrats." The reason that I did that search was in reference to Cardinal Dolans stating that the Democrats have abandoned us. I have always known the link between the Democrats (of 30-40 years ago) and Catholics. In some recent speeches very liberal Democrats, the types that should be excommunicated, starting mentioning their faith. I suspect it is because many Catholics started signing with the Republicans. Catholic-Democrats is their counter punch. Its a divisive political tactic.
Anonymous,
Good to hear that you are neither Democrat or Kavanaugh. I want to vomit when an evil woman like Nancy Pelosi calls a wall immoral when she is immorality personified: rabidly pro-abortion and pro- gay marriage while claiming to be a “traditional” catholic. Even that disgusting pig Ted Kennedy did not pull that crap.
ByzRC said..."MT - Also, to me, it is an unfair characterization to state that "Right Wingers/Traditionalists" despise social teaching or, are less "Catholic" than folks like Cuomo."
In general, right-wing Catholics despise Catholic Social Teaching.
Even Rorate Caeli has noted that the right-wing has problems in regard to the acceptance of Catholic Social Teaching.
ByzRC, I am surprised that you're unfamiliar with the reality that the Catholic right-wing is, at best, soft — that is a charitable assessment of the right-wing — on Catholic Social Teaching.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas said: In so many ways, liberal Catholics are far beyond right-wingers in regard to the advancement of the Church's Social Teaching. In general, right-wing "traditional" Catholics despise Social Teaching.
Father Fox said..."Oh bull-hockey!"
Sorry, Father, but we disagree about that.
There isn't any question that liberal Catholics, as compared to right-wing Catholics, accept and promote Catholic Social Teaching to a far greater degree.
It is not even close.
Liberal Catholics are tremendous in their support of the poor, minorities, immigrants, migrants, the rights and protection of workers, healthcare...on and on.
I am amazed that anybody would disagree about. Amazed. I am unable to imagine that anybody is unaware of that reality.
To argue that the majority of liberal Catholics are not staunch supporters of Catholic Social Teaching is bizarre to me.
To return to Governor Andrew Cuomo, he is very much in line with liberal Catholic thinking.
He is tremendous in regard to support of Catholic Social Teaching...absolutely tremendous.
He is horrific in regard to Church teaching on abortion/contraception...absolutely horrific.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
MT, The Christian Faith is not about social work.
"For example, they turn the Church's solicitude for the rights of workers, including to form and affiliate with unions if they desire, into a mandate that all workers ought to belong to unions; and forcing them to support unions financially becomes a moral imperative -- which is certainly contrary to actual Catholic teaching."
One wonders whether Fr. Fox could name the Catholics who have stated that workers should be FORCED to support unions, and have based that FORCE on Catholic Social Teaching.
One wonders...
I suspect that his statement is a generalization that is way too sweeping - we shall see.
First of all, MT needs to clarify what he means by right-wing, especially in a Catholic context. Secondly, he needs to realize that Catholic social teaching isn't solely concerned with such things as immigration, minority rights or welfare programmes.
At the heart of Catholic social teaching is the family, which for some time has not been supported by so-called liberals (easy divorce, approval for same-sex unions, you name it). Moreover, 'Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention' (John Paul II). He adds 'The term "nation" designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished from other nations by its culture.'
It follows that the left-wing icon of 'multiculturalism', also condemned by Benedict XVI, is contrary to Catholic social teaching, as is the encouragement of mass immigration which would undermine the cultural cohesion of the nation.
Then there is the principle of 'subsidiarity', enunciated by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno (1931) and reaffirmed by John Paul II sixty years later, and which is an important aspect of Catholic social teaching. Opposition to 'big government' and to the State usurping roles which should properly belong to individuals or smaller groups is associated more with the Right than the Left.
As usual, MT's Manichean Weltanschauung is too simplistic to be taken seriously.
Anonymous Kavanaugh at 8:42,
I suspect Nasty Pelosi would agree with that concept. She is all about the heavy hand of government and unions (except it doesn't apply to her husband's businesses). She only wants government off our backs when it comes to abortion, but really nothing else. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.
Those defending Coumo ought to consider the fact that they are saying it's okay to be Catholic only in parts of one's life. Is that really what they think?
Anonymous 666
John Nolan,
MT is one odd, confused young man. He LOVES the left-wing which adores abortion and gay marriage, treats them like sacraments, but claims he loves the EF. If in fact he loves the EF he is probably the first aficionado of the EF I have encountered who sides with the depraved left-wing of the Church whose ideas of "family" would not bear close inspection. I wonder if little MT even knows they want the Church to bless same sex unions?
Mark Thomas said:
There isn't any question that liberal Catholics, as compared to right-wing Catholics, accept and promote Catholic Social Teaching to a far greater degree.
It is not even close.
Liberal Catholics are tremendous in their support of the poor, minorities, immigrants, migrants, the rights and protection of workers, healthcare...on and on.
I am amazed that anybody would disagree about. Amazed. I am unable to imagine that anybody is unaware of that reality.
To argue that the majority of liberal Catholics are not staunch supporters of Catholic Social Teaching is bizarre to me.
I never said that "the majority of liberal Catholics are not staunch supporters of Catholic Social Teaching." So if that is meant to respond to me, that is incorrect. I made no such claim.
Meanwhile, you repeat the claim that "right-wing Catholics" are lacking in support of Catholic social teaching," yet without a scintilla of evidence. Do you believe this without evidence? Surely not -- that would be indefensible. So what is your evidence? It is a serious accusation to make.
Anonymous quoted me:
"For example, they turn the Church's solicitude for the rights of workers, including to form and affiliate with unions if they desire, into a mandate that all workers ought to belong to unions; and forcing them to support unions financially becomes a moral imperative -- which is certainly contrary to actual Catholic teaching."
Anonymous said:
One wonders whether Fr. Fox could name the Catholics who have stated that workers should be FORCED to support unions, and have based that FORCE on Catholic Social Teaching.
One wonders...
I suspect that his statement is a generalization that is way too sweeping - we shall see.
That is very easy. I have had this conversation many times over the years, face to face and in comboxes such as this. I have have self-described liberals and liberal Catholics defend the following propositions:
- Workers should be in unions;
- Not being in unions is selfish of them; a failure of solidarity;
- Existing state and federal laws that compel workers to accept union representation, even if they don't want it, are just and are what Catholic social teaching calls for;
- Existing state and federal laws that mandate workers pay union dues (or equivalent "agency fees" are just and are what Catholic social teaching calls for;
- Advocating the repeal of compulsory participation in union representation, and compulsory union dues, is immoral and contrary to Catholic social teaching.
I can cite people who make these claims, including Michael Sean Winters of the N"C"R, many, many bishops, various so-called "labor priests" through the years, many political figures who themselves are Catholic. There is a blog where you can find people making these very arguments, but I admit, I am not 100% certain of the name, so do not want to get it wrong. For purposes of a casual conversation here, this should be sufficient. But if you insist on more names to be named, then I respectfully ask you to make it worth my time to do the research, and I will gladly do so.
And I reiterate my disputation that these propositions are called for by Catholic social teaching. But if you want to offer the affirmative for these propositions, you have the floor.
Father Fox,
Most liberals idea of charity and helping the poor is tied to government forcing everyone, through taxes, to do what people used to do on their own. FYI, research study after research study shows that conservatives are much more generous in the charitable giving department than liberals are. I recall that when Al Gore and George Bush were running for president, an embarrassing report came out that Al Gore gave less than a $1,000 annually to charities, whereas George Bush gave in the tens of thousands. I was actually shocked that came out because the media is dedicated to suppressing facts embarrassing to Democrats.
To refer to Fathers original post: Cuomo is a despot, am absolute ruler. He is unchallenged in government, controls civil service Unions, strongly influences their membership and I suspect will start gaming the Church to serve his parties political ambitions. He will use Vatican 2 advantageously. To the argument of Catholic Social Teaching: are Democrats greater supporters of that because they popularized the phrase? Is it because they are supporters of liberation theology? I think so.
Alas, politics is in the matter of prudential judgement, so I don't think the day will ever come that being apart of a political party will get one excommunicated, that said, while neither party is perfect, one party makes it clear where they stand. And those positions can't be supported by any solid Catholic or Orthodox person.
How we go about caring for the poor, marginalised, etc, are matters of prudential judgement, In addition, how we deal with immigration/ migrants, etc are also matters of prudential judgement. (Deflating that argument before it's even brought up)
I just love how people bring up Catholic social teaching, as if there's some kind of absolute way to go about *insert your issue here*.
Principles that teds to be forgotten: "A higher power, shouldn't do what can be done more effectively by a lower power" and "Forced charity, is not charity at all"
Mark Thomas:
You do know what your problem is, don’t you? You are an oddball because you can’t be pigeon-holed into a category with its associated unthinking, knee-jerk party-line reaction (praise, demonization, etc.). And you try far too hard to be reasonable, to be fair and balanced. Please stop it. Accept that, in this era of dumbed-down binary thinking, you must be labeled, you must be “pinned and wriggling on the wall.” And as for reasonable, fair and balanced? Most people here can’t handle it, or don’t want to—it’s too much work. So, give it up. Don’t try to argue against unreason. You’re just tilting at windmills.
Take, for example, the suggestion that Catholics who belong to the Democratic Party should be automatically excommunicated (whatever “belong to” means). What’s the point in even asking whether this also applies to the one third of Democrats who identify as pro-life? There is no point. But here goes anyway (Vive Don Quixote):
https://www.democratsforlife.org/index.php
And now for some more tilting;
Joe Potillor says: “How we go about caring for the poor, marginalised, etc, are matters of prudential judgement. In addition, how we deal with immigration/ migrants, etc. are also matters of prudential judgement.”
Agreed. But here is the problem: What does it mean exactly to say that something is a matter of prudential judgment? Does it mean that one approach/policy is just as good or as wise (prudent) as another when dealing with “insert your issue here”? If it does mean this, then anything goes, right? So, provided the Constitution permits it (and we can always try to get some really so-called “conservative” judges on the US Supreme Court so it is interpreted to do so), we can take care of the poor by putting them in workhouses; we can deal with the “illegals” by putting them in forced labor concentration camps, or by sending them back where they came from even if they were brought here as innocent children or babies. Why not, if “prudential judgment” simply means that one person’s view of what is “prudent” is as good as another’s and there are no moral standards to guide the exercise of that judgment?
But if “prudential judgment” does mean judgment guided by some moral standards, then what moral standards might those be? Where will we go to find them? If not Catholic social teaching, then where? Utilitarianism? Kantianism? Libertarianism (of the Ayn Randian type or otherwise)? And if I go to these other sources for moral guidance, how do I know I am not just rationalizing my self-interest or that of my particular interest group or political tribe? Speaking for myself, I don’t. Therefore, Catholic social teaching, which is the result of long-standing and well-considered reasoned reflection by Catholic theologians and moral philosophers, is my safe harbor. How about you?
Anonyous 2,
Catholic Social Teaching has been hijacked by the left and have turned it on its head to pursue their evil agenda of undermining the sanctity of human life (they are all abortion droolers) and attempting to impose a huge, powerful state to control our lives . You would do well to revisit John Nolan's words on the basis for the Church's social teaching:
"At the heart of Catholic social teaching is the family, which for some time has not been supported by so-called liberals (easy divorce, approval for same-sex unions, you name it). Moreover, 'Catholic social doctrine holds that the family and the nation are both natural societies, not the product of mere convention' (John Paul II). He adds 'The term "nation" designates a community based in a given territory and distinguished from other nations by its culture.'
It follows that the left-wing icon of 'multiculturalism', also condemned by Benedict XVI, is contrary to Catholic social teaching, as is the encouragement of mass immigration which would undermine the cultural cohesion of the nation.
Then there is the principle of 'subsidiarity', enunciated by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno (1931) and reaffirmed by John Paul II sixty years later, and which is an important aspect of Catholic social teaching. Opposition to 'big government' and to the State usurping roles which should properly belong to individuals or smaller groups is associated more with the Right than the Left."
Nice try, though. Still defending your party's infanticide bills in New York and Virginia? If those do not affront Catholic social teaching, I don't know what does.
Anonymous 2
You are an intelligent and discerning man, but your ironic comment concerning Mark Thomas fails to take cognizance of the fact that it is he who pigeonholes people into 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' and then makes sweeping generalizations as to how these constructs of his imagination supposedly think.
Also, his papolatory verges on heresy.
When I take him to task, which I frequently do, it is on points of fact. To criticize someone who claims to occupy a middle ground does not make one an extremist; indeed a doctrinally centrist position is a form of extremism.
You are quite right to warn that prudential judgement can lead to adopting a utilitarian position, or embracing situation ethics; but Catholic social teaching must be looked at in its entirety. It cannot be cherry-picked to endorse a political prejudice. That was the point of my criticism of MT's quite absurd comments with regard to it.
John Nolan,
I am happy to reply to you, but it is pointless to reply to TJM for reasons that will become clear in my response to you. Those reasons and that response will also make it clear why we read Mark Thomas differently. In short, I believe it is because he is writing out of an American context while you are writing out of a British context and therefore do not have to endure, day after day, as he and I have to endure, the horribly polarized and unreasoning nature of politics on this side of the Pond (although admittedly the Brexit debate does seem to have some of this character).
I agree, of course, that one has to take Catholic social teaching in its totality (indeed. I thought I said as much in my previous post). However, I do not read Mark Thomas to be denying this point. What I do see him doing is responding to the convenient—suspiciously convenient—way in which the rejection of Catholic social teaching by so-called “traditional” Catholics, such as TJM apparently claims to be, lines up with their political preferences—in TJM’s case, Trumpism.
In sum, I accept Catholic social teaching in its entirety. I believe Mark Thomas does too. By contrast, it is very clear from TJM’s posts on this Blog that he does not. It is also very clear from his posts that he will say whatever seems expedient to defend the Leader of his Cult, President Trump, including his incessant slur that I support the “pro-abortion party” aka the Democratic Party, and by necessary implication that I myself am “pro-abortion” or even “pro-infanticide” (see the latest example in the last paragraph of his post at 9:17 a.m.). In fact, some people reading his intentionally divisive, insulting, and slanderous posts might be forgiven for wondering whether he takes his marching orders from Moscow rather than Rome.
Anonymous 2,
You likely voted for the most rabid Abortion Droolers in Presidential History: Barack Obama, who as an Illinois senator, voted against legislation providing a baby who survived an abortion with healthcare and said publicly that he didn't want his daughters to have to bear the "mistake" of an unwanted child and Hillary "greedy grandma" Clintoon who NEVER believed a woman who was molested by her "husband" and stated that a baby had "no rights" until being born alive. If these are your soulmates, you have ZERO credibility. You try your best to appear as a "sophisticate" but as a modern American "academic" you have no thoughts of your own and slavishly follow the "wisdom" of the New York Slimes which historically protected Stalin in its "news" reports and just today tried pathetically to provide cover for Governor Northam of Virginia's infanticide bill.
As an aside, President Trump has been the toughest American president on Russia since Ronald Reagan. He is destroying the Russians oil industry, has crushed their clients such as Syria and Venezuela, in stark contrast to your wooden god, Obama, who never met a dictator he did not like and the Clintoons who snagged multi-millions for their "charitable" foundation in exchange for selling 20% of America's uranium to Russia. Old Horndog Clintoon received $500,000 from the Russians for a 30 minute speech in Russia. Your simpleton, brainwashed students may buy your leftist bilge, but sentient Americans do not nor do sentient Catholics support "priests" who vote for the Abortion Party. You would do better to peddle your crap to the readers of the National Anti-Catholic Reporter. John Nolan, an orthodox Catholic, will eventually figure you out as he has that confused young man, MT. Does George Soros pay you to spread disinformation here as well as at your school?
I do not need to defend myself against TJM’s ad hominem rant and tactics of distraction. Their absurdity speaks for itself. On the only point at issue here, readers will notice that nowhere in his rant does he address the only relevant issue—whether he accepts Catholic social teaching in its entirety.
Moreover, as I explained on the previous thread, in forming my conscience when voting as a Catholic I do not have to follow the instructions of TJM (who is neither pope, nor bishop, nor priest) but instead seek guidance from the USCCB and those who have reflected carefully on the matter. Thus, for example:
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/forming-consciences-for-faithful-citizenship-part-one.cfm
https://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201603/can-catholic-vote-democrat-guided-your-conscience-30583
https://www.uscatholic.org/blog/201603/can-catholic-vote-democrat-moral-considerations-30587
The problem as I see it are the labels left wing and right wing. A true catholic is both orthodox (adheres to the truth)in morality but gentle in judgement of the sinner and compassionate to the downtrodden. Our job is to bring people to Christ by example, not drive them away. When we act in this manner, God's grace will be sufficient. He is running everything anyway.
Anon2, like you I gave up responding to TJM. His connection to reality is tenuous at best and his inability or unwillingness to respond to criticisms in something approaching a cogent manner is indicative of more serious issues.
Forbes Magazine, 8 April 2008: "An examination of the highest speaking fees ever paid puts Donald Trump Donald Trump on top with the staggering $1.5 million the Learning Annex paid him for each speech he delivered at the company's real estate "wealth expos" in 2006 and 2007, more than was earned from addresses by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair."
Post a Comment