Politics: July 2004 Archives

"What does it mean when people are huddled in blankets in the cold, sleeping in Lafayette Park on the doorstep of the White House itself," Senator John Kerry asked in his acceptance speech.

Most days, I work in an office building that's about 50 yards from Lafayette Park, so I pass by it frequently. I even go on walks through it with my co-workers. Only rarely are homeless people sleeping on benches, and if they're huddled in blankets, they're nuts, because in D.C. it's usually 80 freakin' degrees by 8 a.m. in July.

The homeless people usually sleep near the steam grates on 15th Street, south of the White House and next to the Ellipse, but I guess that doesn't sound good in a speech. And even if they were sleeping in Lafayette Park, "what does it mean"? I guess it means that the park benches are comfy....

I hereby declare that since Senator John Fightingman Kerry did make no reference to abortion, overt or oblique, in his acceptance speech, I lost the wager I made with Alison Schieber. I have already asked her for her address so I can send her a check.

There is one more opportunity to take $5 from me: I will bet that none of the pro-abortion Republicans will mention abortion in their convention speeches.

I don't envy John Kerry having to face the NARAL harpies' wrath, when they realize he neglected to mention the Feminist High Sacrament.

This post is for all the left-leaning Catholics that arrive here at CL.

What's the difference between charity and social work? What's different between Mother Teresa bringing in lepers off the streets of Calcutta and the Fairfax County Homeless Shelter?

One word: Jesus.

Social Work happens because people care about the community, the people in the community, their health, welfare and quality of life. It provides temporary aid and comfort to those in need. In some cases, it gets people through a tough time so they no longer need assistance.

Charity happens because people are touched by the one living and true God who came down to earth to teach us how to love one another. Each act of charity is grounded in eternity: it's not just relief from the cold, it's an act of love that means we confess with our hearts, minds and lips that Jesus is love and we should live out our lives as an example of his love for us.

Charity points to heaven. Social work points to the here and now.

The government, being a secular instituation, can't engage in true charitable work.

And if you are one of those Catholics who thinks the Democrats have the Republicans beat on "social issues" then you misunderstand where the efforts, energy and earnings of Christians are best spent.

Below is a photo depicting the Mount Vernon High School Young Republicans, circa 1989-90. At that time, I was just beginning my faith journey toward Republicanism. Pope Bush I was on the throne. As the arrow indicates, I am the one with the Rolling Stones t-shirt and the unshaven face.

By the way, Schultz boys -- I've got the yearbook open. You want me to scan in some pics of you?

Our current gadfly, Nathan, has been hounding us to declare that we are more Republican than Catholic for a while. At first, he gave actual reasons for this, but now he says "just admit that if the Church ordered you to vote Democrat tomorrow you would still vote Republican, and we can all move on."

Well, his forcefulness has worked. I am switching my religious allegiance from Roman Catholic to Neo-con Republican. My baptism, effected by the sprinkling of coins on my forehead, is scheduled for next Monday, the beginning of the capitalist work-week, at the moment the New York Stock Exchange opens for trading.

I hereby embrace the solemn teachings of the Republican Party, as defined in its party platform, which I have not read yet, but my faith, like my love for Republicans, is blind.

Saint Calvin Coolidge, ora pro nobis thou shouldst deign to offer intercessions to the Most High on our behalf!

Zionist masters of Israel, what is it you require of me?

Rev. John B. Ardis will give an invocation later this week at the DNC. He's director of the Paulist Center, a progressive Catholic church and outreach center that focuses largely on social justice income redistribution and hugs. Eric posted about the center recently, commenting on a piece by Jonathan V. Last. The Paulist Center is John Kerry's home parish faith community.

Father Ardis on pro-aborts receiving communion:

...it is "contrary to the meaning of the Eucharist to use it as an instrument of division and as a weapon in political battles" and that it would be a "misuse of our authority" to do so.

Father, I reply respectfully that the Eucharist is not a metaphor, it is a Person. The Eucharist is not only a shared meal; it is the sacrifice of Christ who gives Himself freely in atonement for our sins. Christ came to free us from sin, a freedom we find tangibly in the Sacraments. But freedom from sin is not free. We cannot accept so great a gift without an understanding of its demands and implications. We must accept those demands in we are to received Our Lord worthily. Otherwise we eat and drink judgement on ourselves.

I agree with Eric that the Center knows precisely what it is doing. “Woe to those who lead the little ones astray! Better they had died in their mothers’ wombs than to walk the earth to destroy souls.”

Here’s a scuplture of a dead tree and a man hanging from the ceiling and the mission statement of the Paulist Center.

The mission statement reads: "Attentive to the Holy Spirit, we are a Catholic community that welcomes all, liberates the voice of each, and goes forth to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ." Liberates the voice of each? As I said, the freedom from captivity that Christ preaches in the Gospel is freedom from sin, not freedom from or of conscience. Freedom of conscience at present means license to do whatever one wants, and this leads to the very enslavement Christ wishes to liberate us from.

Are the Paulist Fathers are getting many vocations these days? No, their order is contracepting vocations with this perversion of the Gospel. They squander and profane our greatest treasure, Chirst in the Eucharist. Where are the post-concilliar reformers as there were after Trent?

No, I haven't been watching the Dems' convention live, but later Monday night I saw some clips from Bill Clinton's speech. He was talking about how John Kerry volunteered to serve his country in several capacities, and his refrain was that each time, John Kerry said, "Send me." The former president was speaking in his "preaching" style, and he made that refrain sound like a little echo of Samuel the prophet. Of course, Clinton himself used to say something like that: he told the state troopers, "Send me that woman over there."

Alison Schieber of St. Joseph, Missouri, has taken me up on the first wager I offered. I say that Senatory Kerry will mention abortion in his speech; she does not. Alison thinks Kerry he will mention the Supreme Court, but not abortion by name. However, she wins as long as abortion (including obvious synonyms like "reproductive rights" or "choice") is not mentioned. Of course, no politician will say the actual word "abortion" at either convention, at least not while television cameras are running.

Lest you think she is hoping that Kerry mentions abortion, Alison hastens to point out that she is not a liberal, and that she likes Catholic Light; therefore, we at Catholic Light like Alison.

That Diogenes is onto something. Since donations to campaigns for Federal office are a matter of public record, he's found some Catholic clergy and college presidents whose donations funded pro-abortion politicians.

Is it any surprise that the same is true of the Rev. Fr. Robert Drinan, S.J., professor at Georgetown? His donations to Peace PAC and Council for a Livable World funded an array of candidates for the Senate and House.

All the Senate incumbents on the CLW list and most of the House incumbents on the PPAC list had a 0% NRLC rating.

I guess these organizations are indifferent about peace in the womb.

Well, readers, now that you have the links at hand, try your own research. Post any interesting results in the comments.

I will bet $5 that Senator Kerry will proclaim his support for abortion in his acceptance speech.

I will bet another $5 that none of the pro-abortion Catholic Republicans will mention abortion in their speeches.

Anybody want to put their money where their mouth is? I'm serious about this --I'll take the first one to contact me on either wager. Nathan, I'm glancing over at you....

On the Weekly Standard's site, Jonathan V. Last reports from Boston's Paulist Center, which proudly gave Senator John Kerry (D-Moloch) the Eucharist after promising to work for the holy good of abortion on demand. I don't have much to add to Mr. Last's observations -- read his article, shake your head, and pray for God to have mercy on the clergy, staff, and supporters of the Center.

Their mission statement did catch my eye, though. Last says:

The ideology which brings people to the Paulist Center is best explained by the Center's Mission Statement which declares, "Attentive to the Holy Spirit, we are a Catholic community that welcomes all, liberates the voice of each and goes forth to live the Gospel of Jesus Christ." (Before Mass, this Mission Statement is projected, in large type, onto the wall above the alter, on either side of the statue of Christ.) In their Vision Statement, the Center goes on to explain that they aspire to serve "those persons searching for a spiritual home and those who have been alienated from the Catholic Church."

The subtext here--with talk of liberating voices and welcoming those alienated from those other mean Catholic churches--is that the Paulist Center is Catholic, but not really: more Episcopal lite; or orthodox Unitarian.

This appears to violate Eric's Fifth General Observation ("an organization formulates a mission statement because it doesn't know what the hell it's doing.") The Center knows precisely what it is doing: conducting an openly subversive campaign against the teaching of the Catholic Church, her faithful priests and bishops, and (by implication) the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I ask again: how many times will the bishops allow the Body of Christ to be betrayed and flogged? If not for the sake of your offices, won't they intervene to defend the honor of God?

Jesus told us to pray for our enemies. He didn't say that Christians didn't have any enemies, or that the Church's enemies would never arise from within her.

Bill Bennet gives the Democrats some excellent advice. One can't help but think they won't take any of it. Here are some excerpts.

As you continue your efforts to defeat President Bush, I hope you will not abandon your legacy nor President Clinton's remorse. Today we are learning about the CIA's failures to get the facts right about Iraq's WMD program. But those failures do not belong to President Bush alone — and before you allow the various reports coming out to become your next platform of attack, take a moment and ask yourselves why former Kerry advisor Sandy Berger said the following in 1998: "He [Hussein] will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Ask yourselves why Kerry adviser Madeleine Albright said the following at the same forum: "Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Ask yourselves why President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 that made it our foreign policy to change the regime in Iraq.

The liberation of Iraq was a positive good, with or without WMDs — a haven for terrorists is now a genesis of democracy; the mass graves where tens of thousands were buried are being emptied rather than filled; one of the worst human-rights violators in the world is now out of power — no longer able to torture, no longer able to invade neighbors, no longer able to threaten the world's oil supply, no longer able to subsidize homicide bombers in Israel.

If someone used the phrase "girlie men," what comes to mind? Physical weakness, certainly. You might think of the recurring "Saturday Night Live" skit which used that phrase.

But if you're a California Democrat, you think this is the equivalent of calling someone gay. Governor Schwarzenegger called Democrats blocking the state budget "girlie men" because they are being used as supine tools of special interest groups. I can't say for certain if that charge is true -- I suspect it is, since the governor singled out "unions and trial lawyers" as the special interests behind the obstruction, and the Democratic Party gets most of its money from those two groups. I do know that it's kinda funny, and that one shouldn't go ballistic over a little joke, even if you think it's unfair.

Unless you want to tag a political opponent as a thought criminal, that is. Does it fascinate you that when the Democrats in that article hear "girlie men," they hear "fags"? Doesn't this remind you of the famous "Seinfeld" episode where other people think George and Jerry are gay, and they violently deny it, but then quickly add "not that there's anything wrong with that"?

I mean, if the Dems think "girlie men" is a code word for "homosexuals," how can they possibly think that's insulting, unless you think calling someone a homosexual is an insult? If the New York Times and "Queer Eye" have taught us anything, it's that the gay lifestyle is the epitome, the apotheosis of all that is good and right in the modern world. Isn't calling someone "gay" like saying they are cultured, well-dressed, and worthy of our utmost respect and admiration?

You may say, as State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Neptune) said, that the governor used "an image that is associated with gay men in an insulting way, and it was supposed to be an insult." Effeminate men are associated with homosexuality, and so if you call someone effeminate, you automatically are calling them gay. How does that follow? The CIA used to reject homosexuals because they thought gays were a national security risk; does that mean if you call someone a national security risk, you're calling them gay?

The term "homophobic," like "racist," has ceased to have any meaningful content. It's just a word like "idiot," used as an insult rather than a descriptive term.

Stunning media bias and the presidential campaign. How about that story of lawyer Edwards "channeling" an unborn girl in arguments at a trial? And how he avoided paying $600,000 in Medicare taxes even as he was attacking tax shelters that shortchange Medicare on the campaign trail? Imagine if Cheney did that! Kerry and Edwards would rend their designer garments at every campaign stop across the USA.

What is news anymore? The dishonesty in the media and the Democratic ticket is astounding. And believe me, they have been using the same techniques and double-talk to marginalize Catholics in the debate on moral issues. I'm going to drink some decaf now.

Links to news of Bishop "You've got Porn" Krenn and his reflection on authentic Catholic healing in the wake of these scandals.

Regarding Bishop Krenn and the diabolic shennanigans at his seminary, I'd be ready to leave the country if I had any of his newly-ordained priests in my parish. After being formed in an environment like that it's highly likely they would be psychologically and spiritual unwell. Perhaps some of our priest readers would care to comment on how the environment of a seminary influences candidates for the priesthood. It's imagine the influence is tremendous and a seminary like Krenn's could have become a freak factory in recent years.

On my local infotainment show this morning, they mentioned that President Bush devoted his Saturday radio speech to supporting the federal marriage amendment, defining marriage as one man and one woman. Instead of mentioning one of his reasons, they immediately characterized this as "playing to his base."

No politician acts out of conviction these days, especially not conservative Republicans, if you listen to the mainstream media. While that is true in spades for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, it isn't true of all politicians. The public is better served when moral ideas are discussed as such, not just as election tactics. Gay marriage is a moral issue, and has dimenstions that stretch far beyond the merely political. Would it be so hard for the media to acknowledge that?

Ron Reagan, who gave disloyal, backstabbing sons a bad name in the 1980s, will speak at the Democratic National Convention later this month. He wants Dr. Mengele's spiritual descendants to create and destroy tiny human beings at will, and he doesn't like the Bush Administration's opposition to such things.

"This gives me a platform to educate people about stem-cell research," Reagan said. "The conservative right has a rather simplistic way of characterizing it as baby killing. We're not talking about fingers and toes and brains. This is a mass of a couple hundred undifferentiated cells."

Of course, when we are talking about entities with "fingers and toes and brains," the Democrats want to destroy them, too -- but not for any high-minded reasons like curing heart disease or Alzheimer's or whatever stem cells are supposed to fix this week. They think it's fine to rip off the arms and legs of live babies in utero -- abortionists need something more substantial to grip than fingers and toes -- or suck out the brains of babies who could survive on their own. The reason isn't medical research, but how can you possibly question the tough, personal decision to stab an eight-month-old fetus in the back of his neck as he's being born?

Characterizing the killing of babies as "baby killing" may be simple, but it is not "simplistic." There's no nuance here: either an embryo is a living, human entity with a separate life from its parents, or it isn't. If it is a human being, then it needs to be treated with more respect than toenail clippings.

Sir, you were an embarrassment when your father was in office, and you are an embarrassment now that he has left us. Please sit down and stop talking.

(via Mark Shea)