For The Record
Writing elsewhere Policraticus said,
In fact, the three [contributors of Vox Nova] who did vote for Obama were quite clear of their reasons, disavowing his abortion policies and hoping for a reduction in the number of abortions by way of his social policies. It is quite clear to me retrospectively that these members of Vox Nova made a poor judgment and were not correct in their predictions.
At this point, a brief retrospective of that decision seems appropriate. I can only think of one contributor off hand though that thought Obama’s election might lead to a reduction in abortion. Maybe there were two. I did not have that view though, and I thought I had made that clear. If I remember correctly, Policraticus declined to vote in protest.
My opinion was that in choosing between the election of John McCain and Barack Obama, the difference in advancement or decline of abortion policy would be trivial. As of today, the trivial gains of Bush have been repealed and no real advancement in the pro-abortion agenda has been made. As I stated in a variety of ways, the election was about the issues placed before us, and not the issues that we desired to be placed before us. In fairness, our nation was probably better for the fact that abortion wasn’t placed before us as an issue, because we would have most likely lost horribly. (See South Dakota at the local level.) This wasn’t the Miss America pageant where points are awarded for what we desire absent any connection to reality. Regrettably the pro-life movement has been reduced to throwing temper tantrums in the absence of a real agenda. They have cocooned themselves into believing that they are the only ones that care. Anyone that cares about health care, immigration, war, or even just how they are going to put food on the table and shelter over their heads isn’t just someone that is wrong about priorities, but a person that doesn’t care about the unborn. There are lessons to be learned, and I’m afraid that they aren’t being learned.
Comments are closed.
M.Z.,
Thanks for the post. I agree with your points. Regardless of whom we vote for, we’re never going to achieve anything by sitting in the comfort of our own homes. We need to organize as Christians–as citizens–to make a difference.
I see that I did misrepresent some viewpoints in my comment. I am sorry about that.
I did vote in the presidential election for Ron Paul.
As the kids might say, we all cool.
Regrettably the pro-life movement has been reduced to throwing temper tantrums in the absence of a real agenda. They have cocooned themselves into believing that they are the only ones that care. Anyone that cares about health care, immigration, war, or even just how they are going to put food on the table and shelter over their heads isn’t just someone that is wrong about priorities, but a person that doesn’t care about the unborn.
Is it foolishly optimistic of me to hope that one day, people who think that abortion is the most important issue in America will be portrayed on this blog with anything other than open contempt?
Not just as people who are “wrong about priorities,” but people who are “reduced to throwing temper tantrums” and who are utterly lacking in a “real agenda”?
Yeah, that’s what I thought.
As best I can discern, the present agenda of the pro-life movement is to loudly object whenever anyone that supports abortion is appointed to a government position and to make any forum a referendum on abortion, such as invitations to publicly speak. I consider that a poor agenda for advancing the interests of the unborn.
I try to reserve any contempt I hold for leadership. The power of poor leadership to ruin a movement is amazing.
Is it foolishly optimistic of me to hope that one day, people who think that abortion is the most important issue in America will be portrayed on this blog with anything other than open contempt?
You seem to imply that the pro-life movement in the public arena is coextensive with “people who think that abortion is the most important issue in America.” I’m not sure this implication is very accurate.
Even if one had made the prediction that Obama’s social and economic (especially health care) policies would lead ot reduced abortions — much as we saw the steepest decline in abortion over the Clinton years — it would be supremely idiotic to expect results after a few months. For a start, the data are notoriously unreliable, and are only available with a couple of years lag.
I believe that abortion under Obama would be lower under a hypothetical McCain presidency. But I fear that abortion rates may possibly increase– and that has absolutely nothing to do with any of Obama’s decisions on the matter(these have negligible impact on abortion rates), but it arises from the deepest recession in half a century. The poor always suffer most in times like this, and abortion is unfortunately most prevalent among the poor and marginalized.
Remember, the Declaration on Procured Abortion (which remains the most detailed and authoritative statement issued by the magisterium on the subject) insists that Catholics have twin obligations: to provide legal protection for the unborn, and to address the underlying social and economic problems that spur abortion. Why is it that nobody calls out the Catholic Republican voters for supporting the kinds of awful policies that lead to continued high abortion?
And I can ask a deeper question: why is it that some Catholics seem to think that publicly supporting the act of abortion but not being implicated in any particular act of abortion is so much worse than ordering the death or torture or prisoners, or ordering the invasion and occupation that led to a million deaths? This simply boggles the mind.
I’m tired of manking these same points over and over. But I’m also tired of being told that I am somehow a worse Catholic than those who gave the thumbs up to all the other evils brought about by Republicans, simply because they talked about how abortion is bad, not actually doing a damned thing about it. Or that the only options were to abstain or support the party or war and torture. And I am told this simply because I made the assessment that Obama would do the least harm of the choices available, a decision that would not cause Catholics outside America to bat an eyelid. I’ve said it many times, and I’ll keep saying it– too many American Catholics are overly-influenced by the southern evangelical culture which seems to have fully swallowed the Republican party. It’s time to wake up.
“I’m not sure this implication is very accurate.”
Entirely accurate, no. “Very” accurate, yes. I do not know anyone who thinks abortion is the MOST important issue in America who is not associated with the pro-life movement in the public arena.
I know many people who are pro-life who think OTHER things are more important, and they are NOT associated with the movement.
There seems to be this implication that people in the pro-life movement are not interfacing with reality in terms of realistic priorities, making the perfect the enemy of the good etc. It is a fair criticism but I protest that for the most part it is not true at all. There needs to be a recognition that in general, what may appear to be movement peoples’ stubbornness is actually a refusal to compromise their integrity. You may feel this refusal to be foolish or unnecessary or even false, but that is how they view it: as a choice between integrity or betrayal.
MM,
Is it possible that the Republicans were able to so thoroughly capture – and subsequently distort – the pro-life movement because the Democratic Party had first so thoroughly embraced the principle of abortion on demand? And if that’s true, doesn’t the Democratic Party deserve at least some blame for the sorry condition of the pro-life movement in the United States?
I’ll have to go back and look, but I seem to remember a promise of lower abortion rates being made by someone here. But I could have easily misread.
However, my count must be off, because the three number is kinda low. If I remember right, RCM, Minion, MZ, and Iafrate voted for Obama publicly and wrote posts defending that decision(so that’s at least 4). I seem to remember that Katerina voted for Obama too, but didn’t write about it (I think she mentioned it after the fact and did so far less eagerly but I could be wrong). I don’t remember if Gerald, Nate, or Henry took any positions. I’m just curious how we got atthe three number. Not a serious issue, obviously, but I was curious.
MZ:
As of today, the trivial gains of Bush have been repealed and no real advancement in the pro-abortion agenda has been made.
We could debate the merits of “no real advancement” but I think that’s been exhausted elsewhere (and someone else will surely bring it up on this thread).
What I’m more interested in you defending a position that real advancement has been made in “health care, immigration, war, or even just how they are going to put food on the table and shelter.” SCHIP is back, but that was going to be back and we’re still waiting on other health care. We’re no closer to immigration reform, which is clearly on the backburner (he promises a fight next year-we’ll see). Obama has been fairly hawkish, expanding the war in Afghanistan and not opening up prosecution for torture criminals.
It seems to me that on these issues you resemble the pro-lifers who put far too much stock in small victories (though again, how small the pro-life victories are is quite debatable).
“And I can ask a deeper question: why is it that some Catholics seem to think that publicly supporting the act of abortion but not being implicated in any particular act of abortion is so much worse than ordering the death or torture or prisoners, or ordering the invasion and occupation that led to a million deaths? This simply boggles the mind.”
This is the one millionth time that question has been asked, and a similar question – “why is it that some Catholics seem to think that publicly supporting the killing of the unborn is not as bad as torturing prisoners or ordering war?” will probably be forthcoming. The other side has a set response to your question ready: the possibility of just war, quotes from documents etc., and you have a set response to them. I have never been involved in one of these conversations where conversion happened or new ideas were developed. It is almost like a farce.
I am not sure that either side is actually interested in listening to the other. Both have their ground staked out and are not going to give an inch. On the right wing there is always the resort to the same documents over and over again – Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter is a favorite – to the point that it is comical. Original thinking is not their strong suit. On the left wing I think there is a whole lot of self-deception going on. That’s just my impression and my own analysis of how someone with a properly formed conscience could come to vote for Obama.
The problem is that people come to this conversation looking to convert others when they should be looking for conversion for themselves. Not what document ripped out of context can I use as a club. Not what sanctity-of-life issues math can I do to make my guy out to be less anti-life than he is. “He’s bad but the other guy’s worse!” Give me a break.
What can I learn from my brothers and sisters in Christ who feel differently? What is God trying to teach me through them? How many people who spend hours in heated arguments about this are open to the Holy Spirit doing something new in them. Not many in this day and age when so many of us are formed first by ideology and then by the Church.
Denton’s right about the number: more than 3 of us voted for Obama. The majority of us, in fact, did so from what I recall.
I think with a system such as ours, all we can hope for are small victories until the whole thing comes crashing down. But there is certainly a difference between small victories and no victories at all, and the latter is what we are bound to see when we put our hopes in a “pro-life” political party in which each and every presidential candidate they put forward is a formerly pro-choice republican who switches sides at the last minute in order to get elected.
Michael I
I think the total might be four.
We have 4 years to evaluate. On health care, the ground work seems promising. Hopefully we’ll have legislation in 12-18 months. On immigration, talks appear to have begun. This issue appeared to be back burnered, but appears to have been resurrected in an attempt to appease Catholic officials. The latter part is obviously speculation on my part. Obama’s actions in Iraq have been disappointing. His commitment to Afghanistan is consistent with his campaign promises. My opinion on Afghanistan would require more nuance than I can offer here. In regards to torture, I don’t believe justice requires prosecution of those that authorized torture; I’m open to other opinions, but that is my present one. In regards to the economic side, I would have supported nationalizing Citigroup among others. There doesn’t appear to be the political will for that at this time. I would have had no faith in McCain and his advisors on this point though.
Paul, my post is delayed for a few days. I’ll try to answer your question then, but short answer is of course you can work for legal restriction of abortion. I’m a little surprised you didn’t address anything else, though.
MZ:
That doesn’t sound like a rousing endorsement, but you are right, it is very early.
I do have a hypothetical for you: if Obama doesn’t deliver the promised legislation on immigration and health case,and the pro-abortion steps stood, would you reconsider your vote (and by that I don’t mean vote for McCain but maybe not vote/ third party)? Asked a different way, if what we’ve gotten so far is all we get, would you feel differently about your decision to support him?
Nate:
You took away the post just as I was commenting on it. Sad.
That’s the second time that’s happened to me today; first was at American Catholic when they took away an Iafrate comment I was about to comment on.
My timing’s just off, kinda like my poor Hornets last night :_(
Originally I had given strong consideration to a third party vote or abstention. The reasons I offered then for not going that route I think would be true under the hypothetical: I do not believe voting for third parties or refusing to vote are effective forms of protest. If what we get with Obama’s presidency is only what we have gotten, I will consider his presidency a failure. Off the top of my head, there are three things that would lead me to conclude his presidency was a failure: 1) enaction of legislation giving abortino rights statutory authority (FOCA); 2) Troops in Iran; 3) Our present economic situation persisting. Okay, and a fourth: A significant troop presence in Iraq 2 years from now, let alone 4.
…first was at American Catholic when they took away an Iafrate comment I was about to comment on.
Gotta move fast with my comments over there. They don’t take too kindly to being told the truth.
“As of today, the trivial gains of Bush have been repealed and no real advancement in the pro-abortion agenda has been made.”
I had no idea that Roberts and Alito had been tossed of the supreme court. I learn so much over here.
Gotta move fast with my comments over there. They don’t take too kindly to being told the truth.
By this I assume you are referring to childish name-calling and a refusal to engage in civil discussion?
It is quite clear to me retrospectively that these members of Vox Nova made a poor judgment and were not correct in their predictions.
I was surprised by this assertion. I don’t think there have been any big surprises in the Obama administration so far; and he may yet enact health care reform, immigration reform, etc. My guess is that no one would change much retrospectively at this point because basically everything he’s done was in-keeping with expectations prospectively.
By this I assume you are referring to childish name-calling and a refusal to engage in civil discussion?
I am referring to that tendency among a few of your bloggers, yes. You’re one of the few there who approaches some semblance of what I would call civil.
I was referring to your incivility rather than theirs, but this is not a very productive conversation to have; I should have ignored your comment. Apologies to M.Z. for bringing the thread further off topic.
I had no idea that Roberts and Alito had been tossed of the supreme court. I learn so much over here.
I hadn’t realized Obama had removed them from the court. The things I learn from commenters.
No regrets, no apologies!
If we (because it is our job, not just the President’s) fail to get health care reform and employee free choice in this Congress, then my work will be to elect some more good Democrats in 2010.
However, I welcome and appreciate the participation of other Catholics and people of good will with different analyses and views in the public forum and hope they are active in civic life. Let a thousand flowers bloom.
I should have ignored your comment.
Or at least you should not have responded with falsehood.
I ain’t here to babysit. Stay on topic please.
I don’t remember if Gerald, Nate, or Henry took any positions.
As for Gerald, boy did you ever miss out on some of the most over-the-top rhetoric ever (look for this sentence: “Obama has the capacity to summon heroic forces from the spiritual depths of ordinary citizens and to unleash therefrom a symphonic chorus of unique creative acts whose common purpose is to tame the soul and alleviate the great challenges facing mankind.”).
each and every presidential candidate they put forward is a formerly pro-choice republican who switches sides at the last minute in order to get elected.
Not true about Reagan; not true about G.W. Bush; not true about McCain.
http://vox-nova.com/2009/04/21/i-guess-i-should-reveal-my-politics/
I take issue with Policraticus’ assertion that we regret Obama.
What I regret is that the political system’s best offering was a choice between
McCain
Obama
And Ron Paul.
I regret that. And amongst the choices given, I had to choose Obama.
Nate -
I’m a little surprised you didn’t address anything else, though.
I’m having time issues these days. Real life. You understand.
Not true about Reagan; not true about G.W. Bush; not true about McCain.
Wow, those are precisely the three I had in mind. You might want to look into them a little more… All of them were pro-choice.
No, they weren’t, unless you’re using the term “pro-choice” to mean “anything short of 100% anti-abortion in all circumstances.” McCain had an overwhelmingly solid anti-abortion voting record, for example; it wasn’t perfect, but no informed person would call him “pro-choice.”
No, they weren’t, unless you’re using the term “pro-choice” to mean “anything short of 100% anti-abortion in all circumstances.” McCain had an overwhelmingly solid anti-abortion voting record, for example; it wasn’t perfect, but no informed person would call him “pro-choice.”
I see… and yet, I oppose abortion in all cases but because I voted for Obama, I’m a “proabort.”
Good logic, that.
Well, genius, that isn’t a quote from me. And the inaccuracy of someone else’s term for you doesn’t prove that your term for McCain (etc.) is accurate. Try again.
Didn’t Reagan shepherd abortion rights legislation while governor of California? As for McCain, one could point to statements of his (one if San Fran if I remember right) that suggest he is closer to what I’ll call a pro-choice federalist than a pro-lifer.
Reagan signed legislation allowing abortion for the life or health of the mother, but later said he regretted it. No one who has read Reagan’s essay in the Human Life Review would suggest that his sentiments were anything but wholehearted and sincere.
Kurt:
No secret ballot = “Employee free choice.” Orwell would love it.
Mike,
I’m happy to accept as an alternative to the Employee Free Choice Act legislation that extends our civil election procedures to union and shareholder elections. I can even deliver AFL-CIO support for such an action. Ring me up when you can get the Chamber on board.
Reagan signed legislation allowing abortion for the life or health of the mother, but later said he regretted it.
Yep, he regretted it because he decided to run for president!
Don’t blame me, I voted for Mickey Mouse.
Why shouldn’t I blame you Nate? You literally might as well have not shown up because you spoiled your ballot. (If I’m not mistaken, Policraticus’s ballot was likewise spoiled since Ron Paul wasn’t a registered write-in candidate and Texas doesn’t count those votes, but registration varies in different areas of Texas even.) That, and Mickey Mouse is a clear supporter of individualism and materialism.
Actually, Reagan regretted his 1967 decision as soon as the next year, as he saw that the abortion statute was being used to allow abortions that weren’t really for the life/health of the mother. See http://www.lifenews.com/nat3790.html
Funny guy, Reagan. A pro-lifer who oversaw the largest expansion of legal abortion to date at that time. A hater of nuclear weapons who oversaw a huge expansion in the miltary budget and the deployment of nuclear weapons across Europe.
A pro-lifer who oversaw the largest expansion of legal abortion to date at that time.
Partisan tripe. It wasn’t the largest expansion by percentage terms: as always, you’re leaving out what happened after Roe in the 1970s. And what harm came from the deployment of nuclear weapons across Europe? We didn’t have nuclear war with the Soviets, did we now?
508. The Church’s social teaching proposes the goal of “general, balanced and controlled disarmament”.[1067] The enormous increase in arms represents a grave threat to stability and peace. The principle of sufficiency, by virtue of which each State may possess only the means necessary for its legitimate defence, must be applied both by States that buy arms and by those that produce and furnish them.[1068] Any excessive stockpiling or indiscriminate trading in arms cannot be morally justified. Such phenomena must also be evaluated in light of international norms regarding the non-proliferation, production, trade and use of different types of arms. Arms can never be treated like other goods exchanged on international or domestic markets.[1069]
Moreover, the Magisterium has made a moral evaluation of the phenomenon of deterrence. “The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them”.[1070] Policies of nuclear deterrence, typical of the Cold War period, must be replaced with concrete measures of disarmament based on dialogue and multilateral negotiations.
509. Arms of mass destruction — whether biological, chemical or nuclear — represent a particularly serious threat. Those who possess them have an enormous responsibility before God and all of humanity.[1071] The principle of the non-proliferation of nuclear arms, together with measures of nuclear disarmament and the prohibition of nuclear tests, are intimately interconnected objectives that must be met as soon as possible by means of effective controls at the international level.[1072] The ban on the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical and biological weapons as well as the provisions that require their destruction, complete the international regulatory norms aimed at banning such baleful weapons,[1073] the use of which is explicitly condemned by the Magisterium: “Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and man himself. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation”.[1074]
510. Disarmament must include the banning of weapons that inflict excessively traumatic injury or that strike indiscriminately. This includes anti- personnel landmines, a type of small arm that is inhumanly insidious because it continues to cause harm even long after the cessation of hostilities. States that produce them, sell them and continue to use them are responsible for seriously delaying the total elimination of these death-dealing weapons.[1075] The international community must continue its committed efforts aimed at mine-clearance, fostering effective cooperation — including education and technical training — with those countries that do not have adequate means to clear their territory of mines with all due urgency and that are not able to offer the necessary assistance to victims of mines.
511. Appropriate measures are needed to control the production, sale, importation and exportation of small arms and light weapons, armaments that facilitate many outbreaks of violence to occur. The sale and trafficking of such weapons constitute a serious threat to peace: these arms kill and are used for the most part in internal and regional conflicts; their ready availability increases both the risk of new conflicts and the intensity of those already underway. The position of States that apply severe controls on the international transfer of heavy arms while they never, or only very rarely, restrict the sale and trafficking of small arms and light weapons is an unacceptable contradiction. It is indispensable and urgent that Governments adopt appropriate measures to control the production, stockpiling, sale and trafficking of such arms [1076] in order to stop their growing proliferation, in large part among groups of combatants that are not part of the military forces of a State.
512. The use of children and adolescents as soldiers in armed conflicts — despite the fact that their young age should bar them from being recruited —must be condemned. Obliged by force to take part in combat or choosing to do so on their own initiative without being fully aware of the consequences, these children are not only deprived of an education and a normal childhood, they are also trained to kill. This constitutes an intolerable crime. The use of child soldiers in combat forces of any kind must be stopped and, at the same time, every possible assistance must be given to the care, education and rehabilitation of those children who have been involved in combat[1077
Compendium of Social Doctrine
The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them”
As applied to the Cold War between the Soviets and the US, that was a false prediction.
The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them”
As applied to the Cold War between the Soviets and the US, that was a false prediction
In one nice little sentence, you showed your true colors. Not only does history show that this statement was correct ( and not just with the Cuban Missle Crisis), the ease you have of disputing the Magisterium, and willing to ridicule it, without engaging it, says all we need to know on VN.
SBMickey Mouse was the most realistic candidate for change in the 2008 election. But even Mickey was a pretty poor choice. I mean, he doesn’t even exist.
That, and Mickey Mouse is a clear supporter of individualism and materialism.
Is he a supporter of it, or a victim of it?
S.B. – Riiight. Lifesite is probably a good source for an honest, critical look at Reagan’s presidency.
Do you have a point to make?
Henry, go have a long chat with Gerald first before you feign that you care about other people’s adherence to the Magisterium.
SB
Gerald affirms the Magisterium, and affirms the goals and position of the Magisterium. That he does so in a way which is different from your methodology is neither here nor there. Even IF one thought he differed from the Magisterium, he isn’t crass with the Magisterium and simply dismiss offhand like you just did, he argues with his understanding of the Magisterial teaching and from it, explaining his position. That is exactly what is expected in interaction with the Magisterium. Not offhand, confrontational refutation without even giving a basic analysis as to 1) what you think the Magisterium means 2) your own position and 3) why the difference. That is expected when dealing with the Magisterium on low-level doctrines.
1. There’s no question that Gerald has made NO argument, none whatsoever, for his rejection of the Church’s teaching both as to school vouchers and as to gay marriage (which he has mentioned only to say, in an “offhand” way, that the Church should change its approach to fall before the vanguard of history, or something like that). So yes, he is “crass” with the Magisterium as to these issues. Or, rather, he just completely ignores the Magisterium.
2. Contrary to what you seem to believe, Gerald has NOT “affirm[ed]” the Magisterium’s teachings as to abortion. The Magisterium says that it’s our duty to try to pursue legal restrictions on abortion; Gerald says it’s “insane” to do so. The Magisterium says that no one may participate in a propaganda campaign on behalf of the legality of abortion; Gerald has done so (he has praised the pro-choice position as wise and ethical, as “justified” by subsidiarity, etc.)
To be sure, maybe you’re (unduly) impressed by Gerald’s ability to put together some flowery language justifying his positions.
And what harm came from the deployment of nuclear weapons across Europe? We didn’t have nuclear war with the Soviets, did we now?
Correlation does not imply causation. You must overlook CIA Team B’s role in trumping up the Soviet nuclear threat to believe that “mutually assured destruction” was a sensible strategy. Then think of the opportunity cost tied to proliferation: trillions of dollars that could’ve been devoted to social programs or returned to/never taken from taxpayers.
And that, of course, is to say nothing of the magisterial teachings listed above.
Mickey Mouse is a wonderful choice. He is as absurd as the logic of the politics itself.
Gerald affirms the Magisterium, and affirms the goals and position of the Magisterium.
How you expect anyone to take that statement seriously baffles me. The Magisterium says we should seek legal restrictions on abortion. Gerald says we should not. His objections may be thoughtful, sincere, etc.; but let’s not pretend disagreement is affirmation.
John Henry
Gerald has said the goal is to end abortion and put legal restrictions in. Don’t take comments out of context of the whole. His question is when and how, not the what.
1. You conveniently ignore the two issues besides abortion where Gerald completely ignores the Magisterium.
2. As to abortion, why would you be fooled by that supposed concession, when everything Gerald writes about abortion is dedicated to persuading people of the futility of legal restrictions, to praising the government for leaving abortion to private choices, or even to defending government PAYMENTS for abortion as a matter of “equity” (to name yet another remarkable thread wherein none of the VN contributors had the stones to disagree with Gerald).
So are there any pro-life groups which are recommended by the V. Novans, or are they all considered corrupt?
OK, don’t take my comments “out of the context of the whole.” My position on nuclear disarmament is this:
1. I’m in agreement with the ultimate goal of nuclear disarmament. I am therefore fully consistent with whatever “magisterium” exists on that question.
2. My disagreement is not with the “what,” but with the “when and how.”
3. That is, I think the American people are far from a consensus on unilaterally disarming as long as someone else in the world has nuclear weapons. In fact, I think they are much further from a consensus on that point than they are on abortion.
4. Therefore, the best way to achieve nuclear disarmament (someday) is to abandon any attempt to change the governmental policies on nuclear weapons. In fact, it’s “insane” (to quote Gerald) to try to change the government here.
5. The best thing to do, instead, is to elect a President who said in a speech to the Nuclear Manufacturers of America that one of his highest priorities would be doubling spending on nuclear weapons. In addition, although my putative goal is to change people’s hearts and minds, I won’t lift a finger to argue against nuclear weapons; quite the contrary, I’ll come up with ingenious arguments whereby some obscure Catholic doctrine actually requires nuclear weapons, and I’ll urge upon people the necessity of having the “choice” of using nuclear weapons.
How all of this will get me to my ultimate goal is completely unclear, of course, but don’t anyone dare question that disarmament IS indeed my ultimate goal. I’ve said so, and I cannot be questioned.
* * *
There you go, Henry — a position that perfectly mirrors everything that Gerald has said re: abortion. It’s consistent with the Magisterium, right?
No, it doesn’t mirror Gerald’s position, it mirrors your strawman of Gerald’s position.
So are there any pro-life groups which are recommended by the V. Novans, or are they all considered corrupt?
See the sidebar. There are many.
The rhetoric here is deteriorating fast on account of some caustic remarks by one visitor. Let’s see if we can engage things with a bit more civility.
I agree that things are too caustic. E.g.:
Riiight. Lifesite is probably a good source for an honest, critical look at Reagan’s presidency.
And:
In one nice little sentence, you showed your true colors.
Wrong.
And Gerald has said that government subsidies to abortion are a matter of “equity.” Try as you might, you can’t square that with the Magisterium in any way.
And you’re still ignoring the other two issues. So again, people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Or, as Jesus put it, get the log out of your own (blog’s) eye first before looking for specks of dust elsewhere.
S.B
Once again, take things out of context, absolutize the comment outside of its proper context, and you can make people appear to contradict the Magisterium. Not understanding the Magisterial documents and the context in which the statements are made giving them a specific meaning allows you to manipulate them like a Protestant does with the Bible (or Luther did with the Fathers). What Gerald said went against your INTERPRETATION of the documents which is different from the documents and the Magisterium. He has explained why he believes his position is in line with the Magisterium. Your discussion on school vouchers, for example, showed you did not grasp his point and you did not demonstrate that a specific method was the only means by which the Church expects the state to act. Moreover, you need to understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive writing. That would help a great deal in understanding what people write. I will say no more. You will continue to misrepresent (as you always do), and like many a Protestant with a contention against Catholicism, never let up on your false interpretation of others even when they tell you “That’s not what I believe/said.” Go ahead and just scream and repeat and repeat and repeat as if it makes for truth.
This thread has exhausted itself. Thanks for commenting.