A Catholic friend of mine has a bumper sticker on her van, “Another Pro-Life Democrat.” I asked her, “where’s the other one?” The sad thing about both her sticker and my question is that Catholics have never been very comfortable in the Republican Party, but if they are Mass-going Catholics and serious about their faith, they haven’t had much “choice.” Nancy Peolosi is a shame and dishonor to her “ardent” faith, but most Republican Catholic leaders are sliding her way.  But please, Tom, don’t link the sainted Al with the utterly agnostic JFK.

Amen Tom!

Prof. Willson:

Point taken about JFK and Al Smith.  But however scandalous JFK’s personal life was, at least he managed to avoid public conflict with Church teaching.

“Point taken about JFK and Al Smith.  But however scandalous JFK’s personal life was, at least he managed to avoid public conflict with Church teaching.”

Well, there was that little speech to some Texan Protestant ministers where Kennedy basically
said that he was an American first and a Catholic second.  Of course, at the time, there
was not “public conflict” over this.  Nowadays, oddly, there actually would be.  Maybe
the good side of dissent in the Church is that there actually is a significant body of
Catholics who do not docilely wait to see how bishops react before they ostracize dissident
“Catholic” politicians, which was not the case in 1960 if my historical impressions
are at all accurate.  And now even the bishops are involved.

To one brought up very firmly Protestant this issue is fascinating.  To me it’s a clear case of Caesar and Christ.  Each abortion is a tragedy, no question.  Should abortion per se be illegal?  No.  This is Caesar’s territory.  Should those who regard abortion as murder be allowed to act on their beliefs so long as they remain within the civil law?  Absolutely.  Remember that Goldwater said, flat and straight, that his kind of conservatism keeps government out of people’s personal lives.  If we really believe in God, let’s leave it to Him to sort this out on a case-by-case basis.  Or do we wish to become volunteer deputies with the horrific potential this incurs?  One-size-fits-all judgement cuts God down to fit the tiny box we imagine Him to fit.

JFK was a wishy-washy Catholic for most of his life (and the speech in Texas was something that Cardinal Cushing definitely should have challenged), but it is possible that he passed on in the state of grace (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1027338/posts); it IS quite an outside chance, but it puts rather a different light on all the monuments erected in his memory throughout the country’s Catholic neighborhoods. After his death, too many Catholics viewed him as practically a saint; today there is a risk of seeing him as a complete phony who surely was damned. The truth is more complicated, as it usually is with human beings.

I’ll agree, though, that Al Smith was in a different spiritual league than JFK.

there are probably fewer anti-war Catholics in the Republican party than Pro-Life Catholics in the Democratic party. As Joe Sobran has lamented, how are we Catholics to judge which party is the lesser of two evils?

The strange thing is that the Pelosis of the world stand fast behind Church teaching in welcoming the “stranger” among us (immigration), but then claim to have some sort of “personal choice” when it comes to supporting a woman’s right to choose to murder her unborn child.  At least the Brownbacks of the world are sensitive to the plight of the immigrant and also, presumably, oppose abortion.  Then again, what has Brownback et al done lately to stop a single abortion?  Likewise, what has Pelosi done lately to help feed an immigrant, other than voting money out of everyone else’s paycheck?

Mr Stocking, the Church teaches us that some things are secular, such as civil law, and others specifically religious, such as the precepts of the Church.  However, both fall under the social kingship of Jesus Christ; Caesar is legitimate only when his actions are in accordance with the Catholic Church.  Legalized murder is not legitimate, thus legitimizing any kind of “law” that legalizes any kind of murder (e.g. “abortion").

Ah, JFK, that scoundrel...a better Catholic than John Kerry, but not as good a Catholic as the Baptist Ron Paul...Face it, the American Catholic “faith” is constantly being torpedoed by the over(t)ly Protestant/secular American culture.

One last thing: is it appropriate to call Pelosi and Biden “Catholics”?  Isn’t there a rather strong argument that they have placed themselves out of Communion with the Bishop of Rome by their public statements regarding abortion?  I know we should expect our Catholic priests to withhold the Eucharist from those outside of the Church, but that’s a bit much to expect from our current crop of priests.  I take the position that these various “Catholic” politicians that continue to publicly support the “choice” of abortion and continue to receive the Eucharist are simply damning themselves further (either Hell or Purgatory), and the priests that feed them the Body are threatening their own souls…

Mr. Stocking - would that there were still more Americans like you!  Reading these so-called paleoconservative websites, I’ve learned how alive the divisions between Protestants and Catholics remains on civic matters.  It has become obvious to me that many Catholics have a hard time hiding their conempt for America as it has always been (founded by a bunch of English Protestants) and as they would like it to be (a central European monarchy).

Mr. Hall - by your logic, I have a divine mandate to stop paying taxes everytime I determine that a war or invasion or state execution can be classified - subjectively - as murder.  Church teaching must be subordinate to the ends of civil society.  That is the secret behind the monumental success of Protestant nations and the relative failure of Catholic ones.  Playing who’s the better Catholic is a game long-abandoned by Italy.  I suggest we follow suit.

Tobias:

It appears that Kennedy vetted his Houston speech with two well known Catholic thinkers and with a bishop precisely to avoid making a public statement that could not be reconciled with Catholicism:  http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=1623

Reg Stocking and Sebastian:

I do not see how your comments apply to abortion.  The abortion laws that Roe v Wade struck down had been enacted by predominantly Protestant state legistlatures in the 19th century.  The political goal of the pro-life movement is to overturn Roe v Wade and once again allow the people, through their elected representatives, to enact laws restricting abortion.  I don’t see how giving the Supreme Court the power to decide abortion law outside the scope of the democratic process--the political position taken by Pelosi and Biden and the like and apparently by you--is required by any reasoned understanding of the First Amendment or the like.

Another flawless one, Tom.  At the national level,
the only good Catholic is a bad Catholic.  But there
enough good Catholics to deny a bad Catholic office at the
national level.  May it always be thus.

The Bishop of Wilmington for many years has been Michael Saltarelli, a typical spineless, liberal prelate.  He has treated all of diocese’s pro-abortion Democrats with kid gloves.  But Saltarelli has just turned 75, offered the pope his resignation, which was accepted.  Joe Biden’s new bishop is Francis Malooly.  It will be interesting to see whether Bishop Malooly will be a supine as Bishop Saltarelli was.

“Should those who regard abortion as murder be allowed to act on their beliefs so long as they remain within the civil law?”

Ah . . . brilliant! If you don’t like dead babies, don’t kill them; if you do, go ahead and enjoy the butchery.

Oh profundis! Can we please have more of this priceless sophistry from “Reg?”

I didn’t see Pelosi’s appearance, so I should probably keep out of this, but I heard enought about it to have one thought upon reading the Cardinal’s response.

If Speaker Pelosi was making arguments from Scripture and/or prominent theologians, and the Cardinal is characterizing them as misinformed (which I have every confidence they were), shouldn’t he at least briefly, perhaps by way of illustrative example, make reference to her exegetical errors?  While modern science is compelling on this point, it would be strange for the Cardinal to look to it alone, where Pelosi has invoked theological sources.

Tom K
You are right; you should keep out of this; as a putative Catholic, Pelosi is obliged to submit her private judgment (however insipid, misinformed, self-serving, and downright puerile that judgment is) to the authority of the Bishops of the Church; the Bishop explaining fundamental Church teaching (of 2000 years duration) to a pro-abort Dem would be somewhat like a physician explaining the perils of alcohol abuse to a chronic drunk; it is not the ignorance, but the will that is peccant. And it is not her constituents, but her immortal soul that is imperiled.
(But then again, maybe the Bishop should explain the meaning of Hell.)

“Church teaching must be subordinate to the ends of civil society.”

You have that exactly backwards.

“That is the secret behind the monumental success of Protestant nations
and the relative failure of Catholic ones.”

I consider any nation - and most are ‘protestant’ (the USA, etc) - that have unlimited
abortion as the law of the land - to be the failures, and abject ones at
that. A hallmark of your ‘civil’ society, no doubt.

There is no such thing as a Catholic vote any more than there is a Baptist vote, a Anglican vote or a Unitarian vote. More religious Catholics will continue to vote Republicans and less religious and the secular will vote Democratic. That’s the divide we face, not what particular religion we are.

Too bad the media hasn’t caught up with it yet, they still think its 1960. That world is long gone and will be even without Roe.

Tony O:

Thanks for your affirmation of my initial judgment.  But even if it is not appropriate for the Cardinal to explain privately to a “putative Catholic” why her Scriptural or theological views are wrong (a premise you announce without the benefit of your own ecclesistical authority to excuse explanation), that does not explain whey he should issue a press release saying she is wrong in her reading of Scripture and theological sources, without supporting the argument. 

Thomas Aquinas made the point that argument from reason is not inconsistent with faith.  I don’t see why asking for explanations from reason, where they appear to be readily available, should be seen to be.

“Each abortion is a tragedy, no question.  Should abortion per se be illegal?  No.”

Reg Stocking, your entire post was nonsense. The Bible does not endorse a libertarian, live and let live (or let be killed in this case) civil order. Quite the opposite. The Bible is full of examples of laws that regulate people’s “personal lives.” Even the New Testament clearly states that the government is to be a terror to evil doers. It doesn’t make the kind of personal lives distinction you do, and that is without conceding the ridiculous notion that killing your kid in the womb is a purely private issue in the first place. If you are going to argue religion as a self described Protestant then you should appeal to Scripture and not Enlightenment liberalism to make your case.

“Church teaching must be subordinate to the ends of civil society.”

Sebastian, there is a word for that view. It is called IDOLATRY. The Christian must subordinate the state and all else to God. That is why the Roman Christians were persecuted. Rome didn’t care who they worshiped. It is because they refused to subordinate their religion to Caesar that got them in trouble. That you perceive an objective difference on this between Protestants and devout Catholics (and that may unfortunately be true), then that reflects a failure of Protestantism, not its virtue. (But no I’m not ready to convert.)

Why should anyone subordinate themselves to church or state Both seek to dictate their perverted ideologies to us.

Tom K:  Pelosi is a zombie, an unsexed heartless thing with a dead soul and a free-floating brain, and listing out “reasons” will not work, because she can counter with other “reasons”.  Only trying to restore a beating heart will work.

Marley Greiner:  I heartily recommend you disobey every possible law so you can be quickly put away in prison with other savages, where you belong.

@Sebastian:

“contempt for America as it has always been (founded by a bunch of English Protestants)”

...who were traitors to their Anglican king.  It is not necessary to be a Roman Catholic to condemn the rebellion of 1776, and indeed most American paleoconservative Catholics do not in fact hold my Tory/Loyalist position.

“and as they would like it to be (a central European monarchy).”

What’s wrong with that?  I’m not Catholic, but I’d take Franz Joseph’s Austria over George Bush’s America any day.

On a related note, I’ve been wondering if our use of “elite” is problematic. In general, an elite is to be found in the center of things, holding the fringes together, the old-fashioned “middle” that may or may not be able to keep us cooperating. Consider this quote from the above posting:

“Unquestioing fealty to abortion on demand is the price that the Democratic elite exacts of all those wanting national prominence in the party...”

But these aren’t elitists or centrists, they are fringes themselves, a cabal if you will, having hijacked the organization. Cabal is a much better label for fringe nutz than elites.

Torq--spoken like a true theocrat. But with a name like Torquemada…

Go ahead, Marley, do _something_.  I bet you’re a libertarian, which means you talk big but you’re a bigger coward than Bill Clinton.

Regarding Mr Harvey’s perceptive comment vis-a-vis Franz Josef’s Austria vs. Bush’s America allow me to say: hear! hear!