…and of course, there is so much wrong with it. I’ll comment on a few points, and then leave you with Bush’s final statement on being “pro-life” in order to generate discussion.
Mr. President, this is the first head of state, Pope Benedict the XVI, you will ever greet on a tarmac. I was stunned to learn this. Why are you going and greeting him at an airstrip? Usually the heads of states come here.
THE PRESIDENT: Because he is a really important figure in a lot of ways. One, he speaks for millions. Two, he doesn’t come as a politician; he comes as a man of faith. And, three, that I so subscribe to his notion that there are — there’s right and wrong in life, that moral relativism has a danger of undermining the capacity to have more hopeful and free societies, that I want to honor his convictions, as well.
First, no, he speaks for billions. Secondly, to boil the Pope’s convictions down to the “notion” that “there’s right and wrong in life” may make EWTN watchers nod their heads in recognition of some vague agreement between Bush and the Pope, but is in fact a dangerous simplification. Of course there is “right and wrong in life.” The hard part is figuring out and committing to the particulars. On the particulars, Bush and Benedict hardly agree.
You read his book on Europe, I’m told.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I read parts of it, yes.
Bush’s initial reply here was omitted from the video. Regarding relations between the U.S. and Europe, Bush went on to say
My main objective is to make sure our country is strong and solid and remains in the lead. One of the tenets of my foreign policy is that there is an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child is freedom. And, you know, His Holiness speaks with that kind of clarity.
Here Bush juxtaposes a statement about the Pope’s “clarity of speech” with a statement about how Bush’s own objective is U.S. superiority, as if the Pope in any way shares this view. He, of course, does not.
I’m also, as you know, a believer in the value of human life for the — whether it’s — you know, the most vulnerable amongst us. And he speaks clearly to that, as well.
Does this even require a comment?
When asked about his recent trip to Africa, his administration’s increase of aid and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, the interviewer asked
Is there a compulsion of faith here, personally with this aid?
Absolutely. Well, it’s a combination of faith and practicality. From the practical perspective, hopelessness is the only way for ideologues who murder the innocent to be able to recruit their followers. No one who’s got a vision as dark and dim as al Qaeda can possibly say to somebody, follow me, my vision is hopeful or positive. Its like, you’re so hopeless, this is your only out. And therefore, dealing with disease and hunger and despair helps defeat this — these bunch of ideologues.
And then, secondly, I believe it’s in our individual and collective interests to use our great blessings to help others, whether it be at home or abroad. And so, “to whom much is given, much is required” is a part of my belief. And I say to people all the time that it’s in our national – it’s in our moral interests.
“Faith and practicality,” he says, then goes on to say that actually, it’s a matter of practicality and self-interest, dropping a scripture quote as decoration on top. Correcting himself at the end of the quote, he changes “it’s in our national interest” to the puzzling phrase “it’s in our moral interest.” Which means — what exactly?
The interviewer then goes on to ask about Iraq, completely side-stepping the Pope’s judgment of the war and his ongoing pleas for the war to end. Instead of focusing on that, the interviewer says, the Pope will focus on the murder of Christians in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. Bush appears relieved that the EWTN interviewer obviously does not share the Church’s critical view of the war, and that this spokesman for a “Catholic network” does not wish to speak in any way for the majority of Catholics in the U.S. who in fact oppose the war.
Apparently believing that Catholics are less intelligent than the rest of America, Bush then repeats the lie that Iraq attacked the U.S. on 9/11:
Even here on Capitol Hill, we’re hearing talk of withdrawals. They want this drawdown. General Petraeus is at this very hour saying we shouldn’t be doing this, we should have a pause. What is your take? Now, even members of your own administration in the Defense Department are saying we might not be able to respond to other events if we have our troops spread this thin.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I disagree with those people. There’s nothing — the real threat for the 21st century is dealing with these thugs and killers. They’re the ones who attacked us. We got to defeat them overseas so we don’t face them here.
EWTN’s interviewer goes on to ask Bush about how his faith keeps him “positive and upbeat” even in the midst of criticism and his decision to attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China (his stammering is amusing).
Finally, Bush is asked about the future of American politics and whether he will ever see a pro-choice Republican run for president in his lifetime:
Do you think it’s important, though, to have a pro-life President on the Republican ticket? What might be the ramifications?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it’s important for people to understand that a culture of life is in our national interests and that — it’s also important to understand that the politics of abortion isn’t going to change until people’s hearts change, and fully understand the meaning of life and what it means for a society to value life in all forms — whether it be the life of the unborn, or the life of the elderly; whether it be the life of the less fortunate among us, or the life of the rich guy.
As he has done in the past, Bush co-opts the term “culture of life” without knowing or being committed to the fullness of what the means from a Catholic perspective. Indeed, for Bush, the promotion of a “culture of life” is in our national interests rather than simply being right. Second, Bush’s thinking on changing the “politics of abortion” by “changing people’s hearts” doesn’t sound all that different from most of his pro-choice opponents, does it?
Well, what else could we expect from EWTN? Your thoughts on the interview? Let the (combox) games begin.
It was a good interview!!!!
I thought it was a well done interview as well.
By the way the Holy Father just said he would bring up the issue of immigration with Bush today. I am sure that Michael just forgot to mention that this was one area where the Vatican was glad that Bush not just once but twice expended a lot of political capital to bring forth. Despite the disagreement over the Iraq in 2003 the US has oftne been on the same side of the Vatican as as issues in at the UN and International forums. That too needs to be mentioned to provide balance.
Ah, sweet charity.
I would have thought that Michael would have used Raymond Arroyo’s name, and not just call him “the interviewer.”
I only rarely watch EWTN, but I can still recognize Mr. Arroyo.
I would have thaought that somone so familiar with EWTN to know what to “expect” would have known Raymond Arroyo’s name.
I just can’t understand this. Either Michael is drawing unwarranted conclusions about what one should “expect” form EWTN because he is not familiar enough with their programming to recognize Raymond Arroyo, or he is not showing the proper respect for him by using his name, and just calling him “the interviewer.”
Perhaps for the next few hours we can honor that quaint old AMerican Custom that the President of the USA represents us all and take pride that he be showing Hospitality and Honor to the Bishop of Rome in about a hour.
I feel a group hug coming on
jh – Immigration was not mentioned in the interview.
fed – Not going to play “who can be more charitable” games with you.
Perhaps for the next few hours we can honor that quaint old AMerican Custom that the President of the USA represents us all….
Judging from the interview as one of the latest public utterances regarding Catholics in america, it is clear that he does not “represent us all.”
And just who is the “us” you’re talking about? Catholics? americans? You need to be careful with your “us’s.”
Hm. I tuned in (online) earlier to see what the EWTN coverage was like and they were interviewing David Schindler of Communio. If your presuppositions of the EWTN bias are correct, I hardly think they’d invite him on.
“jh – Immigration was not mentioned in the interview. ”
I was referring to the statement that Pope Benedict made on the plane
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2008/04/3303/
And just who is the “us” you’re talking about? Catholics? americans? You need to be careful with your “us’s.”
I am referring to Americans
jh – I repeat, immigration was not mentioned in the interview, which was the focus of my post.
I am referring to Americans
Of course you are.
“The interviewer” was the commencement speaker at my undergraduate graduation ceremony proxi for a no show, Josef Cardinal Ratzinger – something “happened” to him that year.
By the evasion of this interview from the Pope’s “kind” words on Easter directly to the US on Iraq is just more proof of the hegemony that is being fed and causing the problems in the Catholic “EWTN watchin” right… I’m bracing myself now…
Just read the interview–was ok, not deep or anything. But that’s what to expect from the media, Catholic or otherwise. Arroyo also interviewed then-Cardinal Ratzinger a few years back, and I think it was kind of similar–simple questions for an audience that’s fairly middle-of-the-road.
“EWTN watchin right”. Hey we have a new slur. Imagine that.
Well, at least the interviewer did not ask him if he really was more Catholic than John F. Kennedy, as Rick Santorum recently claimed!
But seriously…. how could the interviewer have glossed over the elephant in the room over Iraq? I know that the Vatican was most unhappy with EWTN for refusing to address the pope’s criticism of the Iraq war at the time. I know that some of the contributors (including a certain priest) are avid Americanists. Just imagine if they spent a little less time on the tridentine rite, and a little more time on the Iraq disaster– out of which nothing good has come, says the pope.
And what’s Bush’s last comment all about? I admit that he starts off pretty well, talking of changing the culture when it comes to abortion (side point: this is why some of us are favorable to Obama) and even comes close to espousing a seamless garment style approach — and then he ends with “the rich”. Huh? Who is threatening the life of the rich? Or was this just a kneejerk response?
MM-
I would say that Bush is a far more Catholic president than JFK. I am willing to cut JFK some slack, given the time period he served as president (when anti-Catholicism was far more prevalent). But there’s no denying that President Bush has been greatly influenced by Catholic teaching throughout his two terms in office. Not as much you or I would like, to be sure, but it’s hard to deny the strong “Catholic wind” (as WaPo describes it) that has blown in the White House now for almost 8 years.
For some more context i to this discussioin is interesting to view Pope Benedicts remarks to our( Meaning United States here) new Ambassador to the United States that was had just a couple of months ago.
To the new Ambassador of the United States of America to the Holy See (February 29, 2008)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2008/february/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080229_ambassador-usa_en.html
An brief excerpt:
“I cannot fail to note with gratitude the importance which the United States has attributed to interreligious and intercultural dialogue as a positive force for peacemaking. The Holy See is convinced of the great spiritual potential represented by such dialogue, particularly with regard to the promotion of nonviolence and the rejection of ideologies which manipulate and disfigure religion for political purposes, and justify violence in the name of God. The American people’s historic appreciation of the role of religion in shaping public discourse and in shedding light on the inherent moral dimension of social issues – a role at times contested in the name of a straitened understanding of political life and public discourse – is reflected in the efforts of so many of your fellow-citizens and government leaders to ensure legal protection for God’s gift of life from conception to natural death, and the safeguarding of the institution of marriage, acknowledged as a stable union between a man and a woman, and that of the family.”
But there’s no denying that President Bush has been greatly influenced by Catholic teaching throughout his two terms in office.
Yes, you’re right. Bush’s speechwriters have inserted “culture o’ life” into his speeches, and Bush DID read (some of) a book by Benedict.
Catholic “wind” is right. That’s ALL that’s blowing through the White House.
“Yes, you’re right. Bush’s speechwriters have inserted “culture o’ life” into his speeches, and Bush DID read (some of) a book by Benedict.
Catholic “wind” is right. That’s ALL that’s blowing through the White House.”
Don’t forget his brother converted to the Faith. WHo knows what conversations they had and perhaps the impact it had on him.
Feddie– that’s wrong on so many levels. Do you think Bush gives due submission of intellect and will to the God who reveals, and recognizes the single sacred deposit of the Word of God, the memory of Christ as preserved by the Catholic Church? Do you think he adheres to the pope’s teaching in Dominus Iesus? Does he believe in transubstantiation, the sacraments, the Petrine primacy, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption? Does he reject scipture alone and faith alone?
All of which is to say: do not confuse faith with political positions.
First T. Blair, next GW…
“One of the tenets of my foreign policy is that there is an Almighty, and a gift of that Almighty to every man, woman and child is freedom.”
This is the key point, and it shows clearly where Bush goes astray. The interviewer could have gently pointed out that his definition of “freedom” is different from the Catholic one.
MM,
Bush isn’t a Catholic and Raymond Arroyo wasn’t giving him a theology test.
Holy cow!
MI-
Once again, your inability to see any good in President Bush is quite telling.
President Bush vetoed, not once, but twice, federal legislation that would have provided federal funding for ESCR. He supported numerous pro-life measure related to abortion, including the federal partial-birth abortion act. He also advocated an immigration policy that his base strongly opposed, and dramatically increased aid to Africa. Finally, he appointed two Supreme Court justices who, in turn, voted to uphold the federal PBA act.
But I suppose none of these things matter to you.
MM-
My point is that Catholic teaching greatly influenced GWB far more than it did JFK. I given several examples in a response to MI, which you are free to dismiss if you so choose. If you wish to make a case for JFK, then be my guest.
Being more Catholic in tone than JFK is such a low bar, I’m not sure that discussing it has any meaning.
Feddie
Confusing someone who is against abortion as being Catholic is a problem. The wholeness of the Catholic faith is far more than an issue about abortion. But you know, we have learned you don’t get this. Sure, Bush did things with immigration and with AIDS. Fine. JFK, however, what did he do? Oh, that’s right, Civil Rights. You don’t think there is a Catholic point behind it? And that isn’t all JFK did. Sure, JFK was a sinner, but he wasn’t arrested (as far as I know) for a DWI (which if Bush had been arrested, under his own laws, he wouldn’t have ever been president), and I don’t remember JFK gloating over the death of others… and he certainly wasn’t interested in finding excuses for going against the Geneva Conventions and human rights which oppose torture.
To say someone who isn’t Catholic is more Catholic than someone who is Catholic is not just absurd, it suggests to me someone who doesn’t understand what a Catholic is.
Is there any truth to the notion that Kennedy had the president of South Vietnam assasinated? Also I agree that the whole of the Catholic faith is more than an issue about abortion. Would you also agree it is more than an issue about war, the death penalty, or the Catholic Worker Movement?
Pretty exciting pictures on the TV. I truly hope this is a time of Renewal for the US or perhaps can spark something
Tim F
Read my posts on theology.
“Is there any truth to the notion that Kennedy had the president of South Vietnam assasinated?”
Not really. The Administration had advance knowledge of the coup and decided not to do anything to stop it, but that’s hardly the same thing as ordering it (also, one should distinguish between the coup itself, and Diem’s execution a day later, which the Kennedy’s apparently didn’t anticipate).
Don’t forget his brother converted to the Faith. WHo knows what conversations they had and perhaps the impact it had on him.
That means little to me. All kinds of Catholics — converts and cradle Catholics alike — have screwed up understandings of the faith.
The interviewer could have gently pointed out that his definition of “freedom” is different from the Catholic one.
The interviewer would have to know that himself first, and I would bet cash money he has no idea.
MI,
Raymond Arroyo most certainly does understand the Catholic notion of true freedom.
What good comes of insinuating these types of things?
“That means little to me. All kinds of Catholics — converts and cradle Catholics alike — have screwed up understandings of the faith. ”
JUst saying one never knows how and who God uses in History
Raymond Arroyo most certainly does understand the Catholic notion of true freedom.
If he knows the difference, then he missed an opportunity to teach Bush and his own viewers the difference.
How do you know for a fact that Arroyo knows the difference? What good comes of insinuating these types of things?
“If he knows the difference, then he missed an opportunity to teach Bush and his own viewers the difference. ”
Mr Arroyo is a Journalist. It is not exactly his job to teach “Bush” things when he is interviewing them
“I would say that Bush is a far more Catholic president than JFK.”
Would you explains this comment? Do you even know what being a Catholic means?
Did Kennedy predicate his entire administration on the politics of Fear, as has Bush? Absolutely not. Is the politics of Fear Catholic?
Your comments are just absolutely amazing.
JUst saying one never knows how and who God uses in History
Yet we DO know Bush’s actions which lead one to conclude, rightfully, that Bush does NOT know the Catholic faith, nor does he live by it. We can speculate all we want about hypothetical conversations you wish Bush and his brother have had, perhaps in a faith sharing group, about the Catholic faith. It means nothing. Bush and his administration have engaged in actions that are clearly anti-life to any Catholic who takes the whole of Catholic teaching seriously. By their fruits you will know them, not by wishful thinking about faith sharing with Jeb.
Mr Arroyo is a Journalist. It is not exactly his job to teach “Bush” things when he is interviewing them
Correction: he is allegedly a Catholic journalist who should approach interviewing from a Catholic perspective. His interview only served to stroke Bush up and to mislead viewers into thinking Bush is, mind-bogglingly, a “good Catholic.” The evidence is here in this thread.
“Correction: he is allegedly a Catholic journalist who should approach interviewing from a Catholic perspective. His interview only served to stroke Bush up and to mislead viewers into thinking Bush is, mind-bogglingly, a “good Catholic.” The evidence is here in this thread.”
He hit the question to Bush. Bush answered them.
I think we all know that Bush is not really Catholic. However I have been pleased how he has engaged Catholics in a serious manner and it sets a good precedent for the future. No matter what party happens to be in power
However I have been pleased how he has engaged Catholics in a serious manner…
You, my friend, have been had. Snubbing Vatican officials who come to the White House to deter you from starting an unjust war is not “engaging Catholics in a serious manner.”
Gerald-
I know enough about the Catholic faith to avoid voting, and engaging in hero worship, for a man that would deny basic medical care to babies who survive botched abortions.
“Did Kennedy predicate his entire administration on the politics of Fear, as has Bush? Absolutely not. Is the politics of Fear Catholic?
Your comments are just absolutely amazing.”
That is IMHO not very fair. Fear? Wow Bush during the Dubai Terminal Deal was not stroking anti arab senitment. That was people from both parties.
Bush for what 3 years now has tried to the best of his ability for people not to be afraid of immigrants.
Bush as to Free Trade things like the Columbia Trade Deal is not using fear to stoke up fears about uncertain and changing times.
I am not fearful
I feel Hope Not Fear
Is the dogma of the providential march of freedom–working mysteriously yet gloriously through the exceptionalist United States and its military hegemony, indiscernible to a secularist reality-based-community foreign policy analysis–a new elaboration of the Catholic Deposit of the Faith that I somehow missed during my adult lifetime?
Someone help me here.
Feddie
So I take it you are not voting McCain who is not working for universal health care? I mean, I don’t see him working for health care for infants, either. Or for many others who need it.
Henry-
Changing topics again, I see. I would too if I were a supporter of Obama’s.
Too bad that tactic is not going to work in the general.
BTW, not supporting universal health care is not the same as not supporting basic medical care for babies who survive a botched abortion. I am sure you know this, but I thought I would mention it anyway.
Feddie
Nice lie, once again. Please, speak the truth sometime. If you don’t know what the lie is, it is clear once again that you have come on Vox Nova with bad faith and don’t even listen to those who post here, and so it wouldn’t be a lie, just willful ignorance.
Well, if you are not giving universal health care, it is doubtful infants of the poor, whether or not from a botched abortion, would get governmental support. Has McCain said “fund healthcare for infants born from botched abortions”?
“I know enough about the Catholic faith to avoid voting, and engaging in hero worship, for a man that would deny basic medical care to babies who survive botched abortions.”
Perhaps you do. But you don’t justify your claim by what you say. Quite the contrary.
You’re a one issue person. That explains everything you say.
Feddie,
Aren’t your Southern Appeal and RedState minions calling you, in desperate need of your artless (and oftentimes violent) ideological drivel?
“That is IMHO not very fair.”
Have you read any of Bush’s speeches on Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Civil Rights, and so forth? Why have we become obsessed with a “war on terror” rather than a strategy FOR freedom.
If you don’t think these messages reflect a politics of fear you’ve deceived yourself.
But people eventually get tired of fear. Then they turn to hope, as they are doing now. In the next election, hope will prevail. People are tired of the omnipresence of fear.
Whether universal healthcare as proposed by a candidate will actually result in helping or harming the general populace is debatable. Whether killing an unborn child is wrong is not.
“Whether universal healthcare as proposed by a candidate will actually result in helping or harming the general populace is debatable. Whether killing an unborn child is wrong is not.”
Are you sure?
“Are you sure?”
Yes. Absolutely.
I haven’t read or seen Arroyo’s interview, but based on his Hannity-like show, I imagine he asked questions like, “Just how great of a burden is it, Mr, President, to heroically defend America from both the satanic leftists here at home in the Democrat [sic] Party, and the terrorists abroad?” or maybe, “Where on Mount Rushmore will they be able to fit your face, do you think, Mr. President?”
I guess health care may give the poor the false conception that there physical health means eternal happiness. Or, worse off, not earning what other secular states declare as a right, the poor may not dignify themselves (particularly, adult males) in living as Joseph the worker did, providing for his family on his own and (as he blessedly foreshadowed in sacred history) living the American dream.
“Yes. Absolutely.”
I’d like to see you going around the country explaining that position to the American people. That would really give a jolt to their neurotransmitters!!!
“I’d like to see you going around the country explaining that position to the American people. That would really give a jolt to their neurotransmitters!!!”
Would it?
Universal healthcare may very well be a good idea. But I have a hard time seeing that the standard of care would rise for the poor in that case. Take a look at how public schools fare in poor areas. I imagine that hospitals in poor areas would be much the same under most universal healthcare proposals I’ve read. In most places in Europe where people have the available income, they use it to obtain doctors outside the normal healthcare system that is provided for the rest of the population, at least in cases where they have a serious illness.
But that’s a debate for another time and place. I just find it hard to believe that you think that Catholic Social Teaching must needs be harnessed to a particular political remedy.
“But that’s a debate for another time and place. I just find it hard to believe that you think that Catholic Social Teaching must needs be harnessed to a particular political remedy.”
It’s not, of course. The way you put forth your initial remark it wasn’t clear to me that you had an alternative remedy in mind. I’m glad you clarified your intent.
Actually, I’m interested what you have to say about alternative remedies. Perhaps at some later time, there will be an opportunity to pursue them further. I do know, for example, that health care, without a viable prevention strategy, is unsustainable. But we leave this for later.
Thanks.
Wow – first glance at the transcript, and my suspicions are confirmed:
Q. Even your critics say they are amazed by you, and baffled by you, because you remain so positive, so upbeat — (laughter) — so on point. How much of that is a function of your faith?
[...]
Q. Let’s talk a moment about Iraq. The Pope will no doubt raise this.
THE PRESIDENT: Sure.
Q. I think his perspective is going to be very different from what we’re reading in the newspapers this week. I think what he’ll primarily talk about, and if my sources at the Vatican can be believed, he will probably talk about the 40 bombed churches —
Sheesh. I have just resolved NEVER to donate a cent of money or minute of time to EWTN. They seem to be the Republicans’ official Catholic Relations Bureau.
So I take it you are not voting McCain who is not working for universal health care? I mean, I don’t see him working for health care for infants, either.
Henry, you once again misunderstand the basic nature of a legal issue. The issue is whether doctors can just leave them to die with no duty to do otherwise, not whether the doctors will be paid by the government or someone else.
(Note: Health care isn’t the same thing as health insurance. Health care is what a doctor does. Health insurance is who pays the bill afterwards.)
JohnH: your points on universal health care are wrong. Single payer systems are cheaper and more effective than the awful American system. See the posts I did from last year on that very topic.
Did my last statement preclude that? ;)
Did my last statement say that you had? :)
BA,
You are always two steps ahead of me. I should have learned and just conceded from the get go.
BTW, I just purchased a used Blackadder III tape today, w/ Dish & Dishonesty, Ink and Incapabilty and Nob and Nobility on it. First time I’ll ever see these….
Mark,
You’re in for a treat (three treats, actually).
I would say that Bush is a far more Catholic president than JFK. I am willing to cut JFK some slack, given the time period he served as president (when anti-Catholicism was far more prevalent). But there’s no denying that President Bush has been greatly influenced by Catholic teaching throughout his two terms in office. Not as much you or I would like, to be sure, but it’s hard to deny the strong “Catholic wind” (as WaPo describes it) that has blown in the White House now for almost 8 years.
Ah, the Protestantization of Catholicism, where the elements of faith are the sole criteria for evaluating one’s catholicity. I suppose being confirmed Catholic and receiving the Eucharist doesn’t really make one that Catholic. I’ll take sacramental grace in a sinful life over vestiges of faith in flawed policy any day.
Policratus-
I think the key word that you and others are overlooking in the statement of mine you quote is “president.”
As for Mark and Henry’s name-calling comments, they speak for themselves and require no response.
It seems to me that many folks around here want is an echo chamber, and I strongly suspect that one day soon that is exactly what they’ll get.
Feddie
“name calling comments” pot kettle black.
Henry-
Well, I will certainly concede that you and I have done our fair share of name calling with respect to one another in the past, but I don’t see where I did that in this comment thread. Unless, you consider “topic changer” to be a slur. And if so, I certainly apologize. But it seems to me that calling one a liar is a tad more harsh.
Mr. Henry Karlson:
I think it is hard to compare JFK and George Bush, as times were different in 1960 vs. 2008. Families were largely intact, the sexual revolution, abortion, homosexual movements, had not occurred yet. In other words, the cultural in the U.S. has become increasingly secular-libertine and morally relativistic. We don’t know what JFK would have done with respect to Supreme Court judges and I am not aware of his views on abortion. I do not that his younger brother, Teddy, was once staunchly pro-life (publicly) but as the culture in the Liberal U.S. Northeast changed from traditional New Deal (FDR) and Truman Liberalism to Secular-liberalism, he changed his position on Abortion and has become among the staunchest Abortion rights advocates in the Senate.
Now, as for George Bush and war and peace issues. Was it not JFK that ordered the “unauthorized invasion” of Cuba (the Bay of Pigs). Was it not JFK who increased U.S. Milatary presence in Vietnam from under 1,000 when he took office to some 16,000 to 18,000 before he was assassinated. Was it not JFK who ordered the CIA to assassinate the President of South Vietnam in August of 1963 as he was seen as being too sympathetic to Communist/Marxist ideology?
History is far more complex to be put into short soundbites.
Pax Domine
Feddie,
I think the key word that you and others are overlooking in the statement of mine you quote is “president.”
I think that’s precisely Poli’s point. JFK, although a man whose personal life and, apparently in your opinion, political policies were not efficaciously Catholic, had the efficacious and Sacramental grace of being Catholic. President Bush cannot say this, nor can we say it of him. Let us not ignore or underestimate the important of the Sacraments.
St Dominic, see above. Even if your post told the whole story of each man and his faith life, that does not make Bush more Catholic then JFK. Sacraments and membership in the Body of Christ (as Church and as Sacrament) make on Catholic.
[...] at Vox Nova (my old blogging home), one of the contributors Gerald L. Campbell, accused me of being a “one issue” voter, noting, “[t]hat explains everything you say.” And I want to state publicly that [...]
JB-
My poins is that if one were to compare the policies of Bush and Kennedy during their terms as president, a strong argument can be made that Bush’s better reflect the values/teachings of the Catholic Church.
But I suppose one could come to a different conclusion.
Feddie
Either you have had willful ignorance and you purposefully ignored posts I’ve made on VN and thus, leads you to call me an “Obama Supporter” or you lied. Either way, there is a problem. You have labelled me something I am not. I would refer to you to my posts on Obama. I don’t support Obama. I do understand those who, through their prudential judgment of the situation, find themselves doing so; I understand those who do not. But I don’t understand how people make it as if it is a simple situation and if someone ends up supporting Obama, it indicates anything about their Catholicism. So I support those who, through good faith and a Catholic sensibility, go either way; I am opposed to hacks on both sides who look at things only in the realm of parties.
http://vox-nova.com/2008/02/14/some-of-my-thoughts-on-obama/
http://vox-nova.com/2008/02/23/lets-make-this-year-one-where-politics-is-not-done-as-usual/
These posts, btw, make it clear. But you know, Feddie, how you often ignored your fellow bloggers points out much about you and what your presence on here was about.
JB
It is interesting how many people seem to have a very Protestant ecclesiology and they use it to support a non-Catholic is more Catholic than a Catholic. It tells us much about their understanding of Catholicism more than it does about the Catholicism of JFK.
Henry-
You are right. You have never formally endorsed Obama, and I agree that calling you an Obama supporter is tantamount to name calling. Lord knows I would certainly be offended if someone called me one.
I humbly apologize and ask for your forgiveness.
Henry:
Why was it that in 1960, JFK got 80% of the Catholic vote and 44 years later, Kerry got 47% of the Catholic vote. Furthermore, the Catholics that went for Kerry while being in the same “Church” in many instances practice a different religion. In other words, many of the folks who voted for Kerry are probably in theological terms more Episcopalian or in some instances tending towards Unitarianism, which has been overcome by rampant marxist/deconstructionist principles.
I do not support Protestant ecclessiology at wall. God is one, a Trinity of Persons, Father, Son, Holy Spirt. The second person of the Holy Trinity (Christ) became incarnate of the Virgin Mary. Chrsit, as definitively taught is a Divine Person with a true Divine and Human nature. Since God is one and Christ is one, the CHurch, which is his body ontologically is one, as the Nicene Creed States. Thus, there is only 1 Church, which is Christ’s Body, and also his bride. Since Christ is not a two-headed monster or a polymagus, he has 1 body and 1 Bride, and that Church is most Fully expressed in the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church” in communion with the Pope of Rome.
So, given that President Bush was validly Baptised in the Anglican CHurch, and since he would have been baptized over 50 years ago before the Episcopal Church in the U.S. adopted radical theology (abortion is a good act, women priests, same-sex marriages, etc), one can safely assume that Mr. Bush was baptized in the name of the Trinity and not in the name of Mother God, Christ our brother/sister and the four winds of the spirit. Accordingly, Mr. Bush is in a communion with the Holy Catholic Church whether he knows it or not, albeit, not a perfect communion. Mr. Bush is also validly married to his wife, who is a Methodist Christian, so Mr. Bush is validly participating in 2 of the 7 sacraments of the Catholic CHurch, even though he is a member of a Protestant church community.
In summary, given Mr. Kerry’s public positions on conerstone moral questions such as abortion, euthansia, sexual-morality (e.g., same-sex marriage) embryonic stem cell research, and as Sony and Cher would say “the beat goes one”, one can legitmately make the case that Mr. Bush is in fact a more orthodox Catholic on Moral Theology issues than Mr. Kerry.
Pax Domine Christi
Apologizing for something that could be construed as name-calling? Wow, feddie, I think that’s a first on Vox Nova.
feddie,
I apologize for my disparaging remarks about your RedState and Southern Appeal Readers.
Mark-
Apology accepted, friend. I have been guilty of such comments in the past too. We all fall short every so often.
And btw, just so you know, your comment prompted me to edit an overly harsh post that I made on Southern Appeal yesterday. I thank you for that.
As I know none of them and have never read any of their remarks, it was most unkind for me to formulate anything about their modus operandi in matters of debate and/or intellectual inquiry.
“…I agree that calling you an Obama supporter is tantamout the name calling. Lord knows I would be ofended if someone called me one.”
I will ignore your further offense in regard to invoking the name of the Lord once again in your artless attempt to provoke and besmirch those who after long, long reflection show any sympathies for crucial aspects of the Obama candicacy.
I thought you were, say, 23-25, but was saddened to find out that you are closer to 40.
But I am 40. And this should should sadden me more, as I know my failings all to well.
Peace, my friend .
Mark-
My intention was not to besmirch you, but to apologize to Henry for asserting that he has chosen to support a presidential candidate. He has not. It does appear sometimes as if he is in the Obama camp, but that is just speculation on my part, and it is unfair to label someone as an Obama supporter when he is clearly not one. The decision to support a particular candidate, as you know, is a very personal decision.
Also, I have no doubt, having read many thoughtful and “artful” comments from you here at Vox Nova, that you thoughtfully considered the issues before deciding to vote for Senator Obama. To the extent I suggested otherwise, I certainly apologize.
Nevertheless, I continue to believe that there are not “proportionate reasons” that justify such a vote, and if that offends you then there’s nothing I can do about that.
*Fwiw, “Lord knows” is a Southern thing. It was not intended to offend. But if you were offended then I once again, I apologize.
Feddie,
I am genuinely sorry for all the heat and no light that I have contributed to our blog encounters.
No need to be /too charitable’, I have been oftetimes artless, and at a few too many times, downright offensive.
I am new to blogging, believe it or not, and that “send” button is all too easy to hit –unreflectively and many times regrettably. Blackadder’s wonderful post on the subject, after our terrible duel a few weeks ago, has been a tonic I have been only learning to take.
My apologies to you.
Mark-
Once again, apology accepted. And once again, I’ve been there, bro. There are many highs and lows to blogging. no doubt about it.
This last exchange is virtually unprecedented. I hope the VN bloggers themselves are paying attention.
Perhaps for the next few hours we can honor that quaint old AMerican Custom that the President of the USA represents us all and take pride that he be showing Hospitality and Honor to the Bishop of Rome in about a hour.
I feel a group hug coming on
Jay – The pres does not represent me.
Saying Bush is the most Catholic president we’ve ever had is like saying Clinton was our first black president. All it means is he panders to us more than any other president has so far. It also means Catholics and pro-lifers are more gullible than the black electorate in that they have gotten far less from Bush and the Republican party than African Americans have from the Democratic Party.
I’d bet my bottom dollar that if it weren’t an election year ol’W would be sittin’ at home eat’n a hot dog. I have nothing but distain for the Clinton’s who say or do anything to win an election. But they are rank amatures when it comes to the Bush family. Blue blooded liberal country club east coast Republicans who are willing to say or do anything to get elected to office.
So, given that President Bush was validly Baptised in the Anglican Church, and since he would have been baptized over 50 years ago before the Episcopal Church in the U.S. adopted radical theology (abortion is a good act, women priests, same-sex marriages, etc), one can safely assume that Mr. Bush was baptized in the name of the Trinity and not in the name of Mother God, Christ our brother/sister and the four winds of the spirit.
Maybe Margret Sanger was his godmother since she and his grandfather Senator Bush were such buddies when he was helping her to raise funds for Planned Parenthood.
Even if what you stated is true, it is obvious that Mr. Bush has not adopted the philosophy of Margret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, which of course promoted eugenics in its early days, and some of its actions still reflect a direct relation to that evil philosophy. A question that must be asked, what types of politicians get “millions of dollars of support” for their political campaigns from Planned Parenthood. While perhaps Mr. Bush’s ancestors did, he does not.
Good day