Now that everything is dying down, I thought I would blog a little wrap-up on the Katholics for Dean controversy. (BTW, here's the text of the flame war between Kathy Shaidle and Katholics for Dean) As I noted in the comments section of Against the Grain, I now seriously question whether Katholics for Dean is pro-life when it comes to abortion.
When I first visited their website, something troubled me, but I couldn't quite finger what beyond Dean being the most extreme pro-abort among the Abortion Party's presidential candidates. Upon further reflection, however, here's what IMMEDIATELY turned me off of the Katholics for Dean website. Admittedly, the first point is relatively minor when compared to the second.
First there is the smugness and arrogance, in my opinion, with which Tim approached Kathy Shaidle. I know Kathy from around St. Blog, through her writings and through private email correspondence. I don't know Tim from a hole in the ground, not even by reputation. Therefore, his coming to St. Blog and demanding to ball with us, according to his rules and not ours, over something most of us consider highly distasteful, just turned me off. St. Blog is a pretty open community, but since Tim is the one seeking to foster his strange ideas upon us, it is up to him to play by our rules and not us to play by his.
Yet this is only minor compared to the next point. The website only pays lipservice in my opinion to the pro-life movement, especially with regards to abortion. It was obvious to me from my first visit there that Tim expends the utmost effort trying to convert Catholics into Democrats, and very little (at least on the site) trying to convert Democrats into pro-lifers. While there is an admission that Dean is not pro-life, Tim simply rolls over and play dead in the name of tolerance and working together. He offers both excuses and apologies for Dean and the Abortion Party's extreme support of abortion but no calls to account. He attempts no correction of his comrades within the Abortion Party, and avoids any confrontation with the pro-abort Deaniacs on the site.
This is not good in my experience. Politicians who often start out pro-life, but who refuse to call their own party to account in public, usually end up selling out to the pro-aborts in order to move up the food chain. Dennis Kucinich is a good example. While he's a little loopy on a number of other issues, he did more or less have a consistent pro-life position up until he launched his presidential bid. Had he held to his previous pro-life position, he likely would have pulled in support from the Casey Democrats and a number of other pro-life Democrats who haven't yet crossed over to the GOP. But Denis sold out because he wanted more money to finance his campaign. One cannot serve both God and money, and Denis's previous pro-life constituency quickly abandonned him when they found out which one he served. (As an aside, it profits a man nothing to gain the whole world if he loses his own soul in the process -- but for two percent of the Abortion Party faithful? Why would he sell his soul for that?)
This is why, while I may not always agree with Democrats for Life or JCecil's blog, I'm willing to respectfully listen to them as they make their case for supporting the Abortion Party. Unlike Katholics for Dean, these latter websites firmly rebuke the DNC for positioning itself as the Abortion Party and they call the DNC to account. You don't see this with Katholics for Dean which, like the battered wife, tries to hide the problem until forced to admit it, then makes excuses for it rather that firmly stand against it.
Again, most of us at St. Blog parish were deeply involved with the Terri Schindler-Schiavo situation. Come the ballot box in November, we will remember President Bush's firm support for his brother in Florida as well as Gov. Dean's (although it is doubful he will be the Abortion Party's candidate) outrage against the intervention of the Florida Governor and Legislature. We will remember Terri in the ballot box. So Tim would be better off trying to convince the Democrat Party to become pro-life rather than try and convince orthodox Catholics to support the Abortion Party.
Pete,
I think you left your bold tag open.
Is it just me or does Tim seem to pretty much lurk and post?
And I think your post concerning the other issues on which Dean clearly isn't in line with church teaching closed the issue for me.
Anonymous: Thanks! I'll correct this right now.
Jayson: Yeah, I kinda got the same impression. On another note, you gonna join up with us in Brooklyn in a couple weeks?
I'd really love to Pete, my best friend lives in Brooklyn. It's just that my 4th and 6th graders have Ohio's Proficiency Tests coming up at the beginning of March and I'll be working in high gear until then.
Good post, Pete. I've just added a response to an email Tim sent me the other day at my own weblog. God bless.
Will someone explain how I was more rude than Kathy? Is a moral relativism creeping in...?
Pete, my website is directed at Catholics first and foremost, who I assume are overwhelmingly pro-life. A Catholic considering voting Democrat or Dean will go to a site called "Catholics for Dean" much more readily than a pro-choice Democrat would go there thinking, "I wonder if this site will convince me to be a Catholic and oppose abortion." Those people don't come to my site!
I admit that I need to do a better job challenging Democrats and especially the folks who come to my site and try to defend "pro-choice" even from a Catholic perspective! If you'll have a look, you'll see that I have already begun to do this, having edited "Why should a Catholic vote for Dean" and adding replies to some of those misguided pro-choice souls.
Yet, would you admit that your blog doesn't even pay lib-service to most Catholic social teachings? Abortion, euthanasia, bioethics, homosexuality -- those are the only social topics I find here. (Feel free to correct me.) Your site certainly conveys the sense that Catholics are free to disregard those parts of Catholic teaching that are not so "conservative" -- the bishops' recent document on hunger, for instance, or the Pope's support of the UN, the Catechism's demand that society ensure access to basic health care and affordable housing for all, etc.
Pete, my website is directed at Catholics first and foremost, who I assume are overwhelmingly pro-life.
If they continue to vote for the Abortion Party, that's a poor assumption. Most pro-life Catholics have more or less crossed over to the Republicans or third parties. Regardless, if what you say is the case, then you should stick to Democrats. The majority of St. Blog, since we are pro-life, is as I think you now realize either Republican or third party.
A Catholic considering voting Democrat or Dean will go to a site called "Catholics for Dean" much more readily than a pro-choice Democrat....
The very fact you have bought into pro-abort rhetoric makes me (and my readers) wonder whether like Kennedy and Kerry, in claiming to be a "Catholic Democrat" you place more emphasis on the noun than on the adjective. Let me repeat. SHE IS A CHILD AND NOT A CHOICE. As the deliberate and willful killing of a child in the womb is never a legitimate moral choice, "pro-choice" means pro-pre-natal-infanticide. Period.
Yet, would you admit that your blog doesn't even pay lib-service to most Catholic social teachings?
First, it is a personal blog. We blog on whatever we feel like blogging. If you do not like it, then start your own blog. Secondly, if you follow this blog for any length of time, you would realize that we eventually touch upon a wide variety of subjects. Thirdly, the United States contributes more to alleviating world hunger each year than the entire GNP of socialist Sweden.
Tim:
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference in Catholic social teaching with regard to abortion and things like "world hunger", and how it plays out in American politics. Catholic social teaching instructs that abortion should be ended, and that more prosperous nations have a responsibility to the less fortunate ones to ensure an end to, or at least alleviate world hunger. On the first teaching (abortion), Republicans agree abortion should be ended; Democrats don't. They flat out reject RCC teaching.
On the second teaching, Democrats agree world hunger should be ended. Surprise - so do Republicans. They both agree with Catholic teaching. What Republicans and Democrats DISAGREE on are the means to acheiving that end. Democrats believe we should hand out aid and money, and use only certain types of "approved" foods. Republicans believe the best way is to encourage self-sufficiency through development, but give less aid in the form of handouts and used enhanced foods.
Do you see the difference? The Church has defined principles, not specific means. You must agree on principles, but there is some latitude with respect to specific means. Democrats disagree w/ the Church on a very important principle. Republicans don't.
Republicans don't? What did John Paul have to say about the invasion of Iraq? An Unjust WAR. Republicans disagreed. Killing lots of grown-up fetuses.
thelrd in TEXAS
Larry, can you back that assertion up by citing a papal quote that calls the invastion "an unjust war"?
It's easy to find statements from, e.g., Abp. Martino, but then he's not the Pope.
RC,
maybe not, but try to interpret this passage from the Catechism as saying anything but that the Iraq war was unjust:
"At one and the same time:
-the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and CERTAIN;
-ALL OTHER MEANS of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
-there must be serious prospects of success;
-the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated"(2309)
By my count, that makes the Iraq war unjust in 2 distinct ways.
c matt, your characterization of the views of Democrats and Republicans is inaccurate. More importantly, you don't seem to realize that the Church gets pretty specific about what "means" are morally valid as well as specifying the ends that we are all to strive for.
For example, "Those responsible for business enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects of their operations. They have an obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits."(2432)
"Remuneration for work should guarantee man the opportunity to provide a dignified livelihood for himself and his family on the material, social, cultural, and spiritual level... Agreement between the parties is not sufficient to justify morally the amount to be received in wages." (2434)
"[Solidarity among nations] is even more essential when it is a question of dismantling the 'perverse mechanisms' that impede the development of the less advanced countries. In place of abusive if not usurious financial systems, iniquitous commercial relations among nations, and the arms race, there must be substituted a common effort to mobilize resources toward objectives of moral, cultural, and economic development, 'redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values.'" (2438)
Let me be, perhaps, the first to declare most of St. Blog parish to be pick-and-choose Catholics. Please stop cheerleading for Bush and start applying the standards of the Gospel to all public figures, including the ones you personally like.
The pope has clearly indicated - see Mark Shea's blog, and my own recent posts on HMS - that abortion/euthanasia are issues like no other "life issues" these days - including war. Tim's propaganda is semi-Catholic gasbaggery.