One of the things that has come to deeply concern me about the Thing that Used to Be Conservatism is the way in which it has bought into the identity politics which used to dominate (and make stupid) the left thirty years ago. What matters is tribal affiliation. The search is not for converts, but for heretics. Anybody who is less than 100% pure in their tribal (not moral) fealty is to be shunned, even when they are doing something we agree with. This produces the weird situation of Catholics boosting for some politician who endorses torture and pre-emptive war (because the Tribe says that’s okay) but rejecting as ritually impure people who voted for Obama, but who now want to oppose him because of his assault on religious liberty.
An example of the latter is Fr. Z’s completely unnecessary rallying of the troops to jeer at and reject Doug Kmiec’s letter to Obama protesting his assault on religious liberty. A mentality that is asking, “How can we mount a successful fight against Obama’s assault?” would be rejoicing to see, not just Kmiec, but the National Catholic Reporter, and blog like Vox Nova denouncing Obama’s actions. That’s because those seeking to oppose Obama successfully realize that it is necessary to win the hearts and minds, not merely of those who absolutely despise Obama already (they *lost* the last election, you will recall), but of those who voted for him. And they must win those hearts and minds using the kinds of persuasion that actually persuade, not the kinds of persuasion that are really a form of cathartic self-medication for people who just want to settle scores, not change hearts and minds.
Kmiec is, quite obviously, a lefty writing for the benefit of other lefties, attempting to make clear that he is not writing out of mindless hatred for the Prez, but out of a genuinely offended conscience. He is making the case that this is not merely some savages with sexual hangups getting offended about nothing (the comforting narrative our civilizers in the Obama Administration tell themselves as they stoop down to bestow their draconian rules on us), but a real issue of conscience that threatens actual American liberty. He is *far* more likely to get a hearing from from the sort of Catholic who (only getting information from the press) has been told that the HHS mandate is much ado about nothing. Such a Catholic (the majority in this country, recall) is not likely to understand immediately the gravity of the Administration’s assault because he is contracepting already and figures “No skin off my nose.” Kmiec’s letter, as well as people like Michael Sean Winters at the Reporter and the various bleats of protest at America and Commonweal, are the people who stand the best chance of speaking to the majority (there’s that word again) of Catholics who don’t grasp the gravity of situation.
So what are conservative Catholics at Fr. Z’s blog and elsewhere doing? Attacking their allies who are trying to win the majority in the mushy middle over to their position for them. Because Kmiec is ritually impure. It is more important to punish and ridicule him for past sins than to let him do the right thing in the present. What matters is pure tribal identity, not the success of the struggle to defeat this atrocious attack on religious liberty. We don’t want to win converts or form alliances. We want to settle scores and gloat over heretics. We want to hate Obama more than we want to defeat him.
Insane.
Now, doubtless somebody will charge me with hypocrisy here because I refuse to vote for candidates who ask me to support grave moral evil. For them, I have a simple question: How will welcoming Doug Kmiec, Michael Sean Winters, or any other lefty into the struggle to oppose Obama’s assault on religious liberty make me an accessory to grave intrinsic evil? Answer: it won’t. So welcome them, and let them do their bit to reach those Catholics who must be reached (the majority, recall) if sufficient numbers are going to stand up for religious liberty. Welcome Jews, Protestants, Muslims and atheists too.
Or sit in the bunker, priding ourselves on our impotent purity and watch religious liberty go down the drain.
While Fr. Z certainly has tendancies to tribalism, I didn’t read his response to Kmeic as a manifestation of that. I read it as him being baffled and angry about Kmeic still trying to be cordial to the president who so clearly used him and betrayed him. I think you both want Kmeic to see the light, but where you’re happy that he’s starting to see it, he’s angered that he isn’t seeing it fast enough.
The difference is, the net effect of my approach is to hasten the process of Kmiec changing hearts and minds on religious liberty, while the net effect of Fr. Z’s approach is to whip his readers into a frenzy of perfectly unproductive hostility that says’ to Catholic Obama voters, “Screw you. You’re the enemy and you’ll never change and you are not welcome here.” it’s won’t take Catholic Obama voters long to get that message and decide, “You know what? It *is* no skin off my nose. I’ll vote for Obama again.” Brilliant.
But Mark, you know attacking this approach with your usual scathing style will very likely result in the same folks starting a “let’s you and him fight!” thing between CAEI and WDTPRS.. also rather unproductive for all involved, and unpleasant for those of us that read and appreciate both blogs.
Just to be clear, I agree with what Mr. Anderson said above and also with your larger point.
Yep. Casting stones from a glass house doesn’t make a lot of sense. As long as you operate on the notion that this one breach of power has the same unifying affect as the battle of the gates of Mordor, you’re lost. This is all a political stunt that will end in even greater praise of the god-king from the minions that Shea is so eager to call his allies. Obama will overturn this at the moment of greatest political expediency at which point the new “allies” will shout at Shea saying, “see, he listened to us… we have our freedom… you’re just an Obama hater… shut up, stupid” as they march with their Obama banners all the way to the polls, leaving Shea behind sulking, “but, where are you going? I thought we were friends!”.
So… it’s more important to you that Obama be hated than that religious liberty be protected. I frankly don’t care if somebody cheers should Obama back down. I care that Obama backs down. I have no delusions that people who reject large portions of the Church’s teachings will magically stop doing so once this fight is over. I care about winning this fight.
But the question remains, if victory is achieved, how long will it last?
Victory for the sake of claiming victory means nothing if that victory is just window dressing or a temporary hold…
Worry about that after victory is achieved.
Mark – that’s what Truman said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki…
We will be talking about this again…sooner rather than later. If Tyrant Obama gets re-elected this will come back hard and fast…no one year waiting period.
“So… it’s more important to you that Obama be hated than that religious liberty be protected.”
Sure. Whatever you say.
I wholeheartedly agree…
Sorry – posted agreement in wrong spot –
I wholeheartedly agree….
Joseph – I agree with you…
I’m often called a liberal, sometimes with justification. But I am by the Catechism in my religious beliefs. I did vote for Obama in 2008. I will not vote for him in 2012, a decision I have reached solely on the basis of the HHS contraception mandate. What’s more, I will not vote for him even if he changes his mind on the mandate, because I will anticipate another sucker punch.
In 2008, as always, I voted for what I considered to be the lesser of two evils. Father Z had no impact on my decision. Should he revile me now, I still won’t vote for Obama. Father Z just has very little, if any, influence on my political thinking.
At the same time, I don’t resent those Catholics who opposed Obama the exercise of their crowing rights. Right now, they’re looking fairly prescient.
This is perhaps the most honest, heartfelt comment I have read in this thread….
I believe there are many more Jack Quirks out there than any of us realise.
From your mouth to God’s ear…….
i think not- there are many bishops like jack – mine went to barry’s 08 inauguration to celebrate- stupid is as stupid does – and the bishops have failed the flock and now the piper will be paid……..
Mark, You can’t have it both ways. Fr. Z’s Kmeic letter was mischaracterized by you. I reccomend principle over calculation. It is not about hating Obama, but hating evil.
I characterized Fr. Z’s letter as a “completely unnecessary rallying of the troops to jeer at and reject Doug Kmiec’s letter to Obama protesting his assault on religious liberty”. What about that characterization is wrong given the reaction that follows in his comboxes? That is precisely what it succeeded in doing, so the only possible mischaracterization I can see is over the question of whether it was completely unnecessary. I submit that it was completely unnecessary. What is needed at present is to form whatever alliances can be formed (within the pale of moral action, of course) and defeat this act of tyranny. It was entirely unnecessary to kick Kmiec to accomplish that. The gloating and piling on in the comboxes sends one loud and clear message to any lefty who might be tempted to listen to Michael Sean Winters and go to the aid of the Church on this: “You are scum and you are not welcome. Get lost.” Folly.
I am afraid Mark that you give far too much wieght to Fr. Z’s comments which I find more principled than would be a calculated response intended to get “lefties” on board. Ideology is far too strong to be influenced by attempts to persuade with honey. It was best to speak truthfully as Fr. Z did. Now for the resonse of his followers, amongst whom I am not, their responses may leave something to be desired, but I would think his responsiblity would be to speak truthfully and not worry about calculating a response.
I think your take on the entire matter is a little in the vein of the tail wagging the dog.
Mark,
I guess the question is whether Kmiec is genuine in his appeal, or is it a sorta ,”hey…what are you doing? You’re making us look bad…” type letter to keep his street cred?
I don’t know. My hope and prayer is that he IS genuine and is feeling betrayed. You once supported the thing called “conservatism” in the past, as did I. I was once a straight ticket card carrying member of the GOP, but getting stabbed repeatedly in the back finally made me to burn the card and tell them to go jump into the fiery lake.
The true answer will out in the end. What will happen if Tyrant Obama decides to reverse his decision? Will Kmeic et al go running back to him?
To paraphrase Roger Daltrey, “I won’t get fooled again.”
On the one hand, it is good to see the booze is wearing off Kmiec. On the other, the toadying tone of the letter indicates to me at least that he still intends to vote for him. Don’t be a battered wife Kmiec. Leave the house now.
Grossly overstated and the rush to condemn “conservatives” looking to lynch “heretics” is tiresome.
I’m no fan of many of Father Z’s fans either. But Shea has to keep up appearances. If he attacks the so-called “left”, he has to find opportunities to attack the so-called “right” in the same scathing manner in order to appear “fair and balanced”. I agree with him most of the time, and I do agree with him that the tribalism he perceived on Fr. Z’s blog (which is pretty much as bad as Vomitus Nova) is stupid and counterproductive. But if I were to break out scales and weigh who is more right and who is more wrong in this situation, I think I’d still have Fr. Z and his followers on my side… even if just out of sight, than I would the swirling bile from Vomitus Nova and friends.
Regardless, it will all be moot in the end. The whole design is to make the breed of Vomitus Nova appear to be authentically Catholic and the Catholics who are tired of being walked on appear to be unhappy malcontents that don’t represent Catholicism at all. And when Obama repeals this, that’s what will happen. Kmeic and his ilk will become a hero and will appear to be the best ally of the American bishops while the concerned Catholics who want to use the perceived momentum to ask, “… what about… ?”, will get shut out and appear out of line.
It’s my guess that this is all a well organized stunt.
Yes. Obama is crushing religious liberty in order to raise the street cred of Vox Nova and Doug Kmiec. Why didn’t I see it before? We therefore can’t take the risk of opposing that assault with everything we’ve got because if Obama backs down, Kmiec and Vox Nova and other lefty Catholics might look good, and it is more important that those people look bad and we feel pure than that religious liberty be preserved.
Sheesh.
You aren’t getting it, are you? You know when I speak of your newfound friends I’m speaking about a broader group of people, right? In case you haven’t noticed, one of the things Obama was determined to do and has accomplished quite well has been creating a Catholic “civil war”: dividing Catholics along ideoligical lines. Why else would he pick bad Catholics for almost every cabinet position, for SCOTUS nominees, for vice president… then pretend that they represent Catholicism? Why else would he be so interested in speaking at Georgetown, Notre Dame, etc. about his love for religious freedom and his care for the poor? Why else would he get the public nod and apologetics from men like Kmeic to deceive the Catholic public on his pro-life stance?
This is another move in the game that he’s been playing since before his ascension to the presidency. And it will turn out exactly the same. The eve of the election, all of your newfound friends (speaking of the broader perspective of who they represent, of course) will get the floor with the media. Obama will be praised by these glowing examples of Catholicism. Any Catholics who dissent from their precious light of knowledge will be branded as fundamentalists worthy or being ignored and/or ridiculed.
And since Americans are more concerned with “fitting in” and “looking intelligent” than they are with matters of their salvation, it will all work perfectly.
Allies are not friends. You really are more interested in hating Obama than in defeating him.
“You really are more interested in hating Obama than in defeating him.”
Sure. Whatever you say.
I’m glad we agree.
I know you are but what am I!
That’s the calculation Obama ran making this decision. He counted on the fact that most of the people who would be enraged by it are people who had opposed him from day one and who would not vote for him under pain of repeat waterboardings. Aside from a handful of moderate and liberal Catholics who oppose the mandate on principle, he’s largely right in that calculation.
Obama is using the cold political calculation of the Khmer Rouge( and really of Machiavellian origin), expressed in their saying “To keep you is no benefit. To destroy you no loss.”
To the extent opponents of the mandate make themselves a self-enforced exclusive club of Obama haters, he has absolutely nothing to lose by pushing ahead.
Well, if you believe Mark Shea’s interpretation, then, yeah, you’d be right.
But, he’s wrong and, therefore, you are wrong.
I don’t hate Obama. Of course, if you’d read what I’ve said in the last previous posts, you’d understand what I’m talking about.
I think it’s obvious that Obama has consciously chosen dissident Catholics who agree with him in order to give him “cover.” I don’t think that’s really arguable. But I think it’s a bit of a stretch to suggest that if he backs down on this HHS mandate that he’ll have done so as part of a scheme to make dissident Catholics look good.
He and his administration want this rule to stick. In my opinion, THAT is their primary goal.
I do agree that if Obama does back down, he and his administration won’t hesitate to try to make lemonade from this lemon – including tactics like those you mentioned.
If Obama backs down, the media will portray it like a “victory” and not a failure on his part. He will be portrayed as a true man of the people, a true American, who reasonably listened to the cries of his flock and realized that the mandate was a mistake… and it won’t be his fault, it will be a legal oversight that they missed. Then, he’ll have to nominate heroes for showing him what he overlooked to be trotted out for the media. Those heroes will not be the bishops of the Church or the Catholics who wouldn’t have voted for the guy in the first place that had been warning about this since before the 2008 elections (and were accused of posturing a boogeyman). The heroes will be the ones that did vote for him despite his horrendous pro-life record and still maintained his glory despite his blantant assault on human life and rights and on the Church up until this fateful mandate. Because he knows by doing so, he’ll make them blush then fall back in line… clinching that 50% Catholic vote the second time around. That’s my prediction and I could be wrong.
Mark, Obama’s game here is the destruction of the bond between the bishops and their flocks. This could very well be theatre as others have suggested, to drive that wedge ever deeper. What Obama (and probably the GOP as well) would like to be dealing with is a Catholic Patriotic Church.
American political tyranny is always warm and cuddly, not stark and violent. Obama doesn’t want to terrorize; he wants to seduce. He knows he probably can’t win before the SCOTUS, so he has every incentive to contrive this controversy now and then gracefully step back, accepting peacemaker’s laurels from CINOs across the land. The constitutional threat is merely a gambit.
That’s what I’m sayin’ too, Romulus.
I’ll add that Obama already figured he had us cornered when the bishops failed to utter so much as a whimper till it was Church-owned entities that were threatened: unless I’m missing something, there was not a word from them in defense of ordinary Catholic workers and employers in the for-profit sector, who’re shortly to be compelled to support intrinsic evil through their own health plans. Nor am I aware that more than a handful of non-clerical Catholic voices were raised in opposition to this.
I am all for signing petitions (done), sending letters (done), and even civil disobedience if it comes to that, but his unopposed success in administratively mandating contraception/sterilization for the rest of us causes our complaints that NOW it’s a religious liberty issue to ring rather hollow.
Right. An apparent intrinsic evil is only an intrinsic evil for some. Like you said, what about us Catholics in the private sector who will now be forced to compromise? Are we to quit our jobs and run to the Church looking for employment? Or will it be OK for them to violate their consciences because they aren’t employed by the Church?
how is an employee in the private sector being forced to be complicit in sinful activity? The issue for Catholic employers is being required to insurance plans that provide prohibited “services.” Simply being covered by a plan that would cover such services if one were to use them does not make one complicit. . .
But what about Catholic business owners?
Amazingly comfortable position you find yourself in, Joseph. You get to break out the scales and judge all concerned and simultaneously throw up your hands because “it will all be moot in the end.”
You’re right, actually. Whether I prefer Fr. Z’s followers or Vomitus Nova’s is basically irrelevant. I was trying to make another point regarding the flame job of Fr. Z’s enthusiasts while simultaneously asking for descretion with regard to Kmeic, Vomitus Nova, et al. Thanks for pointing that out.
The circular firing squad thingy never works. We should be rejoicing that Obama found a way to unite Catholics in a way they’ve not been united in decades.
Mark:
Honestly I don’t see how you managed to get that out of Fr. Z’s commentary (I haven’t read his comments thread). This entire post sounds a little bit like the pot and kettle routine. It seems Fr. Z. is not pure enough for you.
Matthew
Having read Douglas Kmiec’s open letter with its appeal to friendship, it leaves me saying “No, Doug, you’re not his friend. You were a useful ally to get the votes in to elect him, but that’s all. He paid you off with an ambassadorship and as far as he’s concerned, that’s done and dusted and he owes you nothing.”
I think Mr. Kmiec is sincere, I think he does genuinely feel betrayed because he thought a politician was going to keep his campaign promises, and we Catholics certainly should not be engaging in throwing one another out of the lifeboat. But I’m a cynic about politics and politicians, and I’m afraid Mr. Kmiec’s letter just makes me think “How many times do you have to be punched in the face before you realise you’re not the pal of them?”
Oh, and regarding my “he paid you off with an ambassadorship” remark above, I do not mean that Mr. Kmiec sold his support for a mess of pottage. I think he did go in believing he could work for change from the inside, as it were, but politics is the business of horse-trading and I’m fairly sure the administration thought “Throw him a bone, give him a nice post overseas to a Catholic nation, that’s our obligations paid off. Next on the list!”
I don’t think that lefty Christians who are doing the right thing in this case should be insulted. I *do* think that we need to drill it into their heads though that this isn’t just bad luck on their part that Obama is doing this, that it’s an intrinsic part of the worldview they’ve gotten in bed with, and that they’ll end up unwitting accessories to evil as many times as they are willing to fall for it. I still doubt Kmiec sees this in context. I imagine that despite his wanton betrayal, Obama could promise Kmiec even more government-run health care, with even more openings to stomp religious liberty, and he’d have Kmiec at “hello”.
Here I was, just thinking of Kmiec as someone with Stopped Clock Syndrome whose hour had finally come. Or maybe, “Hey, if HE’s recognizing the wrongness of the HHS mandate, there’s hope for all of us!”
My first Confession after a decade away, the priest greeted me with the bit from Luke about the woman finding the lost coin. Forgiveness, charity, all that.
With all due respect, Mark, the problem as I see it is that Kmiec isn’t merely a Catholic Obama voter. Kmiec is the Catholic who during Obama’s campaign went out of his way to say, “Oh, that born-alive infants protection act veto? No big deal! In all the ways that really count, Obama’s pro-life enough for the pickiest Catholic!” and other such things. He wasn’t, after all, awarded with an ambassadorship simply for being an Obama voter, but for being an apologist for the administration and a key “player” in the administration’s narrative of “Right sort of Catholic/Wrong sort of Catholic,” which let them pretend to be appealing to the “right sort” in numerous ways while demonizing the “wrong sort” as Latin-mumbling anti-sex/”anti-choice” fanatics.
Could criticism of Kmiec be more graciously worded at this time, perhaps? Sure. Kmiec could be told by those of us he effectively helped label the “wrong sort” of Catholic, “Hey, better late than never; glad you’re waking up to the reality that Obama is not, after all, the best friend Catholics had since Kennedy (irony intended).” Of course, to say that would be to ignore the buzzwords of “deeply troubledness” that fill Kmiec’s letter and lead some to suspect that the letter itself is a prelude to an announcement by the ambassador that he now “gets it” and is sorry he ever questioned The One–which is a terribly cynical suspicion that ought not to be brought up at all, and wouldn’t be, if the history of Kmiec’s interactions with this administration were not what they are.
To sum up: I rejoice over Michael Sean Winters and Vox Nova and even Kmiec–but I would be foolish to think that Kmiec’s letter voices the same conviction and strength as the first two examples; in fact, considering Mr. Winters especially, I would be insulting Mr. Winters to insinuate that his article and Kmiec’s letter were exactly the same sort of thing. In patience and charity I can say that Kmiec quite frankly has a lot farther to go and a lot more to lose by taking a strong stand against the administration which employs him–but recognizing that fact doesn’t mean that I have to think that a somewhat weak criticism of the mandate and the president puts him firmly and uncompromisingly among the Catholic bishops and their supporters at this moment in time–though, of course, I look for further development on Mr. Kmiec’s part with hope.
I don’t care whether Kmiec’s letter voices the same conviction. I care about getting as many lefty Catholics on board with this as possible so as to make it clear that Obama has lost his base on this. The point is to defeat this assault in religious liberty. That means winning the hearts and minds of people who think it’s no skin off their noses.
He’s going to have that, don’t worry. This is a popular opposition and it gives them the appearance that they are deliberate, which is how the fraud intellect always wants to appear. This is by design. It will be repealed (though wrapped in legal language that neuters it) and Michael Sean Winters will not only claim victory with his other friends, but he’ll also laud the benevolence of his god-king.
I remarked at the beginning of this whole saga that it’s a win-win for Obama:
1) If he succeeds in implementing this agenda, the WH gains unprecedented power over all of us. WIN.
2) If he senses the tide is turning against him, he’ll retreat, having deigned to come down from his throne and play the benevolent, understanding leader (or God King, as you say), thereby winning back lib Catholics. WIN.
When all is said and done, those in the dwindling piece of the pie known as “Practicing Catholics”, will have to hold back the flood. I’m all for the support of these leftist groups, but they’ve been attacking the Church from the shadows up until this point. The Bishops need to stay nimble and they need our support.
Thank you, Chris, for summarizing my thousands of words so well. I agree with you totally… only I’m positive that we’ll see your bullet 2) with carefully worded language that will keep 1) on the table after the election.
Standing alone, the letter is fine and shouldn’t be mocked. However, in a subsequent e-mail, Kmiec left the door open to continue supporting the President.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/208819-ex-obama-official-may-not-back-president-this-year-citing-birth-control-decision
I will accept the help of a fool if the fool can help.
What I’m trying to say is that Kmiec’s complaint is of a different, and more diffident, quality than that of Winters, et al. It’s conditional–if I get a chance to talk to the President, I’ll be on board.
I’m with you with respect to welcoming anyone else who wants to oppose this. I’m happy to have them. But Kmiec is saying that he’s interested in further collaboration. While I’m not going to condemn him, I’m not going to celebrate this tentative step, either, until it becomes more definite.
But he hasn’t lost his base, Mark. His base is, essentially, urban liberal secularists, along with certain ethnic minorities. For Obama, Catholics are considered swing voters.
And the problem is that he’s apparently decided to opt for a base turnout campaign, writing off swing voters he doubts were going to vote for him anyway. And the fact remains that liberal Catholics like Kmiec, Dionne, and Winters are 1) few and far between, on all evidence, and 2) will likely just leave their ballots blank rather than vote for Romney.
And you think the way to get lefty Catholics on board is to keep calling the president they voted for and still support “The Tyrant!” (as in “Resist the Tyrant!”)?
Point is, we all have our blind spots when it comes to politics. There are some lefty Catholics who won’t read this blog any more than they’d read Father Z.’s.
I agree that it’s important for Obama to realize he’s lost the “Right sort of Catholics” on this one–he doesn’t really care that he’s lost us “Wrong sort” types because he never had us to begin with. But, again, I think that there are “Right sorts” who will support Obama no matter what, and who think that this HHS mandate is a tempest in a teapot. That’s regrettable, and I hope the leadership of the bishops will make the best and most difference on this.
I don’t write for lefty Catholics.
You write for Catholics.
True enough. But I try as best as I can not to get sucked into tribes. Consequently, I am perpetually being informed that I *secretly* support what tribe my angry readers are not part of.
I’m *pretty* sure Fr. Z doesn’t write for lefty Catholics, either. I could be wrong. It’s probably just a part of your joint secret evil plan to take over the world.
Catholics on board… Catholics not on board… Obama wins… Obama loses… this is a distraction from our real purpose as Catholics. We serve God’s glory, and are only duty in this life is to enter heaven when we leave it, and to help as many souls as possible come with us. Support Kmiec, support Fr. Z, unless it brings us closer to heaven, it is of no consequence. However, if it increases wrath, and jealousy, and pride, and drives out charity, as it seems to be doing here and elsewhere, not only does it not do us good, it does us harm. Walk away from it, and encourage others to do so.
Obama wins no matter what. That’s really not the point. Nobody is trying to make him lose… he’s simply not going to.
I don’t see a lot of support for Shea’s position among his own readers, judging from the comment box. What baffles me though is the quick agreement on the supposed “tribalism” of Father Z’s readers. I see his blog occasionally, and I have idea what they are talking about.
You must not be reading comment boxes for the more controversial blog posts.
Trust me, most of the readers at Father Z’s blog think of this place as a liberal cesspool of touchy-feely Catholicism.
Yet Fr. Z says CAEI is a blog he follows….
Sorry, I meant “no idea”.
What Erin said. I think the problem is this quick assumption of tribalism. I’ve been sitting back and watching this unfold. First, the announcement. Then the reaction. Then the media’s ignoring of the reaction. Then folks jumping on board the reaction against the mandate, or jumping on board and defending the mandate. But I’ve noticed a few people who, for good or ill, are taking at least a moment to get their pound of flesh. They are basically folks who opposed the mandate, and most of the legislation that went with it, back when it was in the works. Their biggest charge now? Where was everyone when they were ringing the warning bells two years ago? According to these folks, the ones now crying ‘save us from the fury of the Administration’ were basically calling the ones ringing the warning bells a bunch of anti-Obama tribalists who were in bed with the GOP and didn’t care about starving children in the street who didn’t have health care.
Of course, many who are outraged at this mandate are only outraged at this mandate. Some give the impression they are fine with the rest of the package, and there’s little to suggest if this mandate went away tomorrow, they wouldn’t return to supporting the rest of the healthcare package, insist the ideals that are against the package are flawed at best, and perhaps even go back to thumbing their noses at those opposed to Obama’s healthcare legislation, under the assumption that anyone who opposes it for reasons other than contraception/abortion are just a bunch of GOP tribalists who, again, don’t care. Hence, their sniping for the moment, again for good or bad.
Just an observation.
Your opinion doesn’t matter, literally – you don’t vote.
Choose between the lesser of two evils. Because you won’t, you’re “cutting the baby in half”.
I do vote. You need to be less ignorant.
You’ve stated you are not voting for Obama for the obvious reasons and won’t vote for whoever GOP because of some moral issue (torture, etc). What else does that mean except you are not going to vote?
It means that you have a limited imagination.
As do you. But at least I’ll vote in this election.
The mother had two choices:
1) maintain that the child was her and watch him die
2) give him away
It is an evil that the child’s true mother (1 Kings 3:16-28) had to make the choice and give up her kid. If that mother was Mark Shea, you would not have chosen that evil – you would have split the baby in two because your silence(ie: not voting for the lesser of two evils).
Actually, I disagree. Not voting to have the baby cut in half is the same thing as giving it away so that it may live. If he votes for Obama or any of the replicants campaigning against him, he is voting to cut the baby in half. By not voting for any of them, he’s throwing his hands up and saying the baby isn’t his so that it may live. What becomes of the country is in God’s hands, not his. It’s almost a leap of faith and trust in God to not compromise your conscience to cast your vote in support of two nearly equal evils (hardly distinguishable, that is).
Look at it this way, with or without Obama, have executive powers been greatly expanded to the point that the notion of “rights granted by God” has been completely dashed to pieces? What makes you think that once Andriod or the Newt move into the White House that they aren’t going to pick up that ring, their first uttered words, “my preciousssssss”?
We are at the point where we need to start focusing our efforts on pleasing God. The Ring of Power has already been discovered by those who would “use it for good, but from it only evil would come”.
Thank you for that exercise of your psychic powers.
He’s voting for Scooby Doo. That’s still voting. Why should he be compelled to vote between two identical twins in thought, word, and deed? If the system allowed for him to vote for someone who actually represents him, then he wouldn’t have to vote for Scooby Doo just to abide by his conscience.
Well, Romney and Obama are not identical. That’s going too far…the question is whether they are different enough to support one flawed candidate over another. I’m pretty sure Romney wouldn’t be stomping on religious liberty. One could argue that rescinding this HHS rule (and whatever worse rules Obama might dream up when he doesn’t have to run for re-election) alone would be worth voting for Romney.
I’m still holding out hope for Ron Paul though. The power of prayer is unlimited.
After talking with a lot of Ron Paul supporters lately, though, I’m thinking even if Romney wins, he’ll have to select Ron or Rand Paul as VP in order to get those people on board, otherwise Romney will lose maybe 5% who are going to write in Ron Paul if he is not the GOP nominee.
I don’t think so… look at Massachussets under Romney… nuff said. They are identical.
After last night, Romney is anything but a shoo-in to win the nomination, so I’m hoping we don’t have to talk about this again. LOL
Luke… that was stupid.
I think Mark is literally cutting babies in half. Because he won’t vote for Romney and he’s Hitler.
Is he Hitler because he won’t vote for Romney, or was he Hitler before he decided not to?
This isn’t politician vs. Church, nor Shea vs. Father. This is powers and principalities, or, to put a finer point on it, fallen angels who used to inhabit those and other choir ranks, vs. Christ and the souls who follow Him, follow Him tenuously or surefootedly. They are His property and the demon hates them. Among the flock, the Sheaites and Fatherists infighting is exactly what the demon wants, to sow disunity and confusion. It has very little to do with the outrage du jour. Short of killing us, which is what the demon really wants, and what this current outrage is coincidentally about, confusion is the victory for the demon.
The less human souls who successfully replenish the vacated choirs, the more time until the entire game is up for the demon and his legion.
Try switching to the Mystic Monk decaf coffee, Mark. Maybe that will take the edge off.
It’s fantastic.
Mark,
Small Corrective Point: Father Z regularly cites articles and gives homage to Michael Sean Winters on his site as somebody he respects, is his acknowledged friend, but disagrees with from time to time.
I hope we win the battle. I hope we change hearts and minds. If we win this battle…….I hope we can than continue to concentrate internally on what we are going to do to fix our own house and win the war.
I was in Arizona over the weekend and attended a mass in Scottsdale where a priest frankly suggested, in the context of this religious liberty issue, to those that remain “Catholic” but sit and complain and try to change the rules all the time and throw rocks at the windows of the church. (Something you blog about regularly) He said basically, “Please have some integrity and just leave”…though let’s say he didn’t put it in such diplomatic terms. Uh Oh! The “Dreaded Tough-Love” statement!
Frankly, I will feel great the day there are more public examples of internal house cleaning to hearten and strengthen the faithful….I know I should feel sad or concerned for those who will get the spanking…but since I know the church is a forgiving church, all they need to do is repent and presto/chango..momma takes them back! Its this continual, insulting, oppressive, degradation and slapping in the face of my momma by her own children…and I can’t stand it anymore!
I’m with you on mostly all of your points though I”m not sure Father Z is overtly calling for purity instead of unity at this time…that being said its incredibly hard not to just look at Kmeic and say, “Shut Up and Sit Down Please, Brother……… you have battered Mom enough”.
Mr. Shea if you have not already done so, i highly encourage you to talk with Father Z. Explain to him what you just shared on this post and have a loving brotherly discussion. I love Fr. Z and im a regular reader of his. To stop creating factions if our Church, men who disagree should talk to each other if they are going to talk about each other. Please talk to him. Thanks and God bless.
Oh for heaven’s sake. It is not “creating factions in our Church” to disagree with a blog post. It’s normal give and take on a matter of prudential judgment.
Factions do start no matter the authors intentions. Some comments on here prove that. I only meant that the great importance of this issue warrants the give and take that you mentioned. Take what he wrote and share it with us and also give him feedback on how he was wrong in his tribalism. How would Peter have corrected his views on circumcision if Paul had not talked to him? I agree with you on this matter, i just ask that you talk to Fr. Z.
He can talk to Father Z, but can he also talk to the nasty, judgemental, tribalistic commenters over there too?
Still, minus the “creating factions” remark, I think he has a good idea. It would make an interesting post: you discussing the outcome of that conversation.
Ok seeing it now, i do take that factions remark back. I didn’t mean to say that that was what you were doing. Just that it happens all too often and if you disagree with someone then you should talk to them first of all.
If you’ve never had any sort of discussion previously with Father Z it sounds like a great idea. He may take it more seriously since it’ll be “Catholic blogger to Catholic blogger” than coming from random people’s comments on his blog. It may not change anything, but it’s worth a try.
Philip Frederick’s comment down below is what I was trying to warn about Mr. Shea. Some of the comments made by Fr. Z followers are equally divisive. A discussion with Fr. Z might help matters.
Still don’t see why you wouldn’t want to talk to Father Z about this. “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother.” Matthew 18:15.
Sorry Mark, I think you’re off base on this one. I agree with Matthew: Pot/kettle…
I must agree with you Mark. Conservatives should be happy that people like Kmiec aren’t like a few Catholics who actually support the HHS mandate:
“Patrick Whelan, president of the Catholic Democrats, appears to have gone a step further than Joseph. His organization has endorsed not only President Obama and Secretary Sebelius, but also the contraception mandate. On its webpage, the group has posted an op-ed from member Victoria Kovari that criticizes the nation’s bishops for “spend[ing] their moral and financial resources on a misplaced fight for so called religious liberty, when so much else is at stake.””
http://www.catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=26281
Just so. To my surprise, most of the responses in my comboxes have indicate a fervor to drive the Kmiecs of the world back into the arms of the Whelans of the world than to welcome them. Insane.
Although it does seem like Kmiec is playing “Grima Wormtongue” to Obama’s “Saruman”.
He’s already in his arms, dude. Nobody is pushing him to be who he already is. Dude sold out his conscience for a diplomatic position, for goodness sake. His emails indicate that, if Obama repeals this decision, that they are friends again, despite all of the other anti-Catholic and anti-human stuff his administration stands for. It’s not like the (broader) Vomitus Nova clan are actually trying to reason out their positions. That’s why they have blogs, to convince everyone else how right they are by debate or by simply using a hammer, not to learn anything. I’ll conclude here and wait for the phoney repeal to come through. Then I’ll just make sure to tell you “I told you so” when everything comes to pass exactly how I foretold.
Don’t misunderstand my comments. I believe better late then never and that they recognise this violation done to the Church. My only concern is that if HHS is reversed, Kmiec et al will drop us like a hot potato and run back to the other side. Stalin was an ally until the Nazis were defeated.
True, but if Stalin wasn’t an ally who nearly beat the Nazis into submission, the Church itself might have been put to flight.
If Kmiec wants to bring a sprinkling can to help put out the fire consuming our house, who are we to excoriate him at a time like this? There’s time for that later.
What happened to Europe after the Soviets fought all the way to Berlin again? I don’t think that’s a good analogy.
We needed Stalin as an ally because his engagement with Hitler gave us a chance to build up forces and invade Western Europe without having to face the first-string machine-gunners and artillery officers. Yes we had to deal with him later, but if Hitler conquered all of Europe, Stalin would be moot, anyway.
The point is, this mandate automatically puts us in triage mode. We smelled the smoke two years ago, now the WH just laid on the accelerant.
If Kmiec and other leftists will join us in this fight, it would be stupid to turn them away. This isn’t a validation of their views. It’s an acknowledgment of the urgency of the situation at hand.
Still, Stalin was as bad as Hilter. I don’t think the sheeple who bend their knee to Obama and his modernist agenda are as bad as Obama… I just think they spend too much time sitting in line at the Apple store waiting for it to open (in other words, they are trying to fit in a certain social niche). If the media reversed it’s carefully contrived image of Obama tomorrow into someone who was “uncool” like Newt, his worshippers would begin to dissipate until the next Disney generated hipster rose to power.
Kmiec was perceived as a pro-life ally until 2008. He had years of tributes.
I have no interest in Kmiec’s rehabilitation, but suggest that the “they” most people aare discuss are liberal Catholics that may be pro-life but vote Democrat and believe in socialized medicine. Like Catholics in Europe and in the Vatican too. The “enemy” of many may be just fine pro-life and Catholic but not attending to the new religion of the Austrian economists.
I suggest one clarifies who one declares is the enemy, and distinguishes them from opponents.
I also suggest that one determines what one’s goals are and seek to have them achieved. This differs dramatically from the goal of tearing down one’s enemies and humiliating one’s opponents.
The problem with the plan of Obama care is that they struck down the public option just before it passed. So, it’s only socialized healthcare if you live on Mars.
The fact is, it’s essentially mandated private healthcare, like car insurance. It’s certainly not the healthcare that the Vatican wants and not even close to what European countries have. It’s a money making machine for the insurance companies that wanted to snatch up that ever evasive 18 – 35 demographic that they couldn’t get without the help of government force. Big insurance was busy lobbying the government for it while putting on a show of opposition on the television for the easily programmable Americans.
I do not disagree.
Like Mark says, who cares? All of life is back to business as usual.
I am pleased to see that somebody else sees the potential harm Fr. Z’s blog does. I take issue with his puritanical and (I regret to say) arrogant commentaries. He and his followers are devoid of mercy for the most part. I have long since stopped reading his blog simply for the blind, chest thumping pride and snide comments it often makes. There is a better way.
Father Z has a good blog in my opinion and he does a lot of good. For instance, I found out from his blog that there is a Richard III movie. Now I have plans for the weekend!
I find that many people see Fr. Z. differently.
I am very lefty, but decided that since I can’t find the way to figure out his posts charitably, the problem is perhaps mine and I should just stop reading him.
And thus, I don’t find him to be a problem for me.
The problem, in my view, is simply with the idea of being a “conservative” Catholic or a “liberal” Catholic. The terms conservative and liberal are a product of the French Revolution and simply cannot be imposed on a Church that predates the Revolution by 17 centuries. We are either Catholics that faithfully defer to and obey the Magisterium of the Church on ALL issues or we are Dissenting Catholics. You can dissent from the Right as easily as from the Left (SSPX comes to mind) and be just as wrong.
Mr Shea:
You are simply delusional about Mr. Obama. There is no chance he will be made to change his mind! This abortion/contraceptive edict is consistent with his vision that religion should be marginalized. He cares little if one wishes to have some obscure service in a tiny little church, but he and his allies do not wish to see religion actually impact behavior in the public square. Obama is extremely intelligent and very disciplined. He knows exactly what he is doing and probably anticipated some complaints by the Bishops. These are trivial since he can count on quislings like Kmeic to ultimately support him in the voting booth, after some appropriate public agonizing. Even now Kmeic is saying he is not sure what he will do! This is amusing. Mr. Obama is the greatest friend abortion ever had in the White House. Given that abortion is according to Vatican II an “unspeakable crime” I can not fathom how any Catholic ever supported him. One would think supporting those who defend a license to commit “unspeakable crime”, would disqualify you. The only way it could not is if in fact you would not characterize Abortion in this fashion. I think Kmeic and his apologists probably would not. Now Obama wants us to pay for unspeakable crime, since some of the HHS regulation covers abortifacient drugs. Kmeic is still puzzling over this and wants to “speak” to Obama about it. This is the kind of absurdity that is supposed to convince Obama to change his mind. Only a fool would believe Obama is likely to change his mind with that kind of opposition. At the end of the day the very intent of the health care law as to take over control of the health care system so as to be able to mandate whatever helps achieve leftist goals. Some goals will be relatively trivial, to the statists in power, like payment for abortifacients and contraceptives. This serves merely to reward his allies on the left like Planned Parenthood and NARAL. A larger goal will be to use aspects of the act to control and in fact limit the care some people deemed less valuable will get. All in the name of “cost effectiveness” and the “greater good” of course. I would invite you to read a little article by one of Obama’s advisors Eziekel Emmanuel, who published a few years ago, something called the “Complete lives system” . It seems the good Dr. Emmanuel has a system, complete with a graph, that ranks people in terms of their value, based in large part on their age. Not so good if you are below say about 12, and over 56. I will be interested to see what other factors get incorporated into ones “value”. Charming…. dont you think? ( see the Lancet Jan 31/ 2009 for the fascinating details)
This is not just scare tactics Mr Shea, I am a Pulmonary Critical care Physician and I see evidence that the shift in the underlying philosophy of medical care is already underway. There are articles in medical journals, efforts developing in hospitals to implement his vision of medical care. In Britain under the NHS the elderly are afraid to be screened for Alzheimer’s disease since this will mean a lable as demented and thus less valuable. This can clearly translate into less care in a variety of ways. Obama’s last Head of Medicare, Donald Berwick praised the NHS, and shares this vision for American Health Care. Obamacare is merely an enabling act for a transformation of health care from one centering on each individual patient to focusing on the “health of society as a whole”. What a healthy society looks like will of course be determined by statists like Obama. As a doctor I prefer to serve the patient I am taking care of, in front of me, rather than use my skills to obey dictates from the likes of this administration how to “fairly distribute health care resources”. Count on the fact that there will not be much room in such a society for the disabled, the weak and the damaged. In fact truth be told Obama is merely a culmination of a trend that has gone on for some time. It has long been a project of the statists to see some people as less valuable than others. Indeed its why we live in a society in which some 80-90% of children found in utero to have Down’s syndrome are killed. Does this trouble you at all Mr Shea? I wonder how a society that views having Downs syndrome as so vile that it means you should destroy the child before its born can possibly have real compassion for the sick or the weak. In fact it obviously can not. I predict this same view of how valuable the frail, disabled, and weak are will be extended to the elderly, those with dementia, the chronically ill, etc. After all we have it from President Obama is his own words.. maybe they chould just take a pain pill….
The only proper response of a Catholic to this administration is opposition. If one is at all serious about their Catholicism they will do everything in your power to have Mr. Obama defeated at the ballot box. IF someone was so foolish as to support him the first time, this is a chance to recognize what a grave mistake you made and reverse course. Unfortunately I think few Catholics will do this, having been lulled into a mindless compacency by folks like.. well like you Mr. Shea. I can already see those who will justify supporting him, “well ok abortion is not good, but really isn’t it important that we have higher… err rather fairer taxes on the rich… yada yada yada…… There are other issues after all.” Those on the right do not hate Obama. I think no one would wish personal evil on him. Were he to be retired from political life and stopped from further damaging this country we would be content, and In fact I think would wish him well as a private citizen . We just recognize that he in fact is bent on doing evil himself, he is a mennace, he can not be “convinced” of anything, and he must be defeated. I think you seem largely blind to this fact. As such you are in some ways an accomplice. But should you choose to print this, I would ask your readers to think carefully about whether anyone at this point should be doing anything other than trying to defeat Obama in Nov.
Slow down… he’ll change his mind… temporarily.
Whoa Doc…..
Mark has been *very clear* on his views against abortion and has given GOP candidates mucho grief over their pandering to Pro-lifers over the years….you need to read his archives.
He’s just expressing dismay about the marginalisation of the “better late than never” crowd from the more liberal side of our Faith. I think most of those who are disagreeing with him are just wary of what happens next. But Mark has always been an ardent Pro-Lifer…no one can say otherwise.
MD,
I raised this issue on another blog as well. Is there any plan for Catholic physician groups to go after the contraceptive recommendations directly, by evaluating the science and the process that got them implemented by the IOM? I suspect there are plenty of fallacious and political reasonings behind them rather than good hard science, especially since we know of the harm from BCPs.
I think physicians need to defeat the recommendations themselves because they are bad medicine. By becoming a quality standard of care all primary and OB/GYN physicians will be forced to offer the full range of contraceptive services to all eligible patients or risk financial and legal harm for not doing so.
St Gianna Guild of doctors has a petition. Google and ye shall find.
Yes. The reason I am calling people to resist Obama as a tyrant over his attempt to crush religious liberty in the matter of contraception and abortifacients is because I am really saying abortion is no big deal. Your awesome powers of perception and logic have pegged me perfectly.
Sheesh!
“Those on the right do not hate Obama. I think no one would wish personal evil on him.”
That is delusion you need to see past. The right does in fact have many members who hate him for dishonorable reasons I cannot even mention.
I think Obama just doesn’t care and is seeking to control religion, not alienate it. Just like Queen Eliabeth.
The problem is that in the years we have been creating our “smaller, purer Church” that was all the rage when Ratizinger was elevated, we created a smaller purer Church. Which means that it will have less clout, the culture will be less influenced as we become “smaller and purer”, and there will be more outright bigotry against Catholics.
Think the Roman Empire two thousand years ago.
Dan:
You’re statement here makes no sense. Pope B and practicing Catholics didn’t create a smaller-purer Church. Baptized Catholics, including Bishops and clergy, in the west, who have an identity with secular-statists like Obama (think Kathleen Kennedy endorsing Obama for Pope in the NYT), have in fact created their own shadow Church.
You are unfamiliar with the cheering sections that resounded at B16 elevation about the tremendous possibilities of the “smaller, purer Church.” Prominent bloggers started such streams of thought in April 2005, with ambiguity, found some opposition to throwing out people, then were equally dismayed that many on the right wing wanted the “impure” out. Then these bloggers stopped the conversation.
A smaller purer Church has less cultural impact, less prominence, less communal wealth (Universities, hospitals, etc), and less political pull.
The blogging conversation is nearly a decade old. It has themes. This is not new nor does it suggest b16 wanted such a Church.
I would need clarity on those you define as “practicing Catholics” since it may have certain meaning beyond parish support, volunteerism, and Chruch attendance before commenting further on this. Is this a synonym for what the Catholic right wing once termed “orthodox?” Until it discovered torture in 2005 and true orthodoxy was thrown out the window by those who led the conversation and “orthodoxy” memes?
Popcorn engaged.
Mr. Shea, if you have run out of things to do other than take shots at a more popular Catholic blog than yours, its time to close up shop my friend. It is impossible to see into someone else’s soul, so I have had to fight hard against my initial inclination to interpret this post as mere envy. But the vitrol that has become more and more obvious in your posts throughout the last few years is easy to see. I do not think being a blogger is good for your soul anymore. When I first converted, reading your blog was a much happier and more helpful event for myself, and I think for you as well. I sincerely hope you think about finding some other work that does not trouble the peace of your soul so noticably.
Long ago after reading one of your rants against another conservative, I stopped reading your blog. I did so because, as you rightly predict in your blog (but for different reasons), I consider you a hypocrite. Now granted, we all suffer that moral infirmity so by no means am I calling you out so to speak, but you raise your hypocrisy as a bludgeon, a tool of your magnificant literary gifts and writing trade.
Tribalism, indeed, is best found in your own words. You care not a whit about “things that used to be conservatism” for you know not what they ever were. Father Z, like so many of us “conservatives”, is sickened by what we witness as Catholic political practice, which in part includes the “seamless garment” of backing a political party whose platform is to advance abortion, and now as we see in the Health Care Reform Act, to elevate it as the preeminent secular goddess. An understanding of the Heatlh Care Reform Act, and its amendment giving rise to this regulation, was available to anyone, not from reading ‘right wing’ tribalistic blogs, but simply by reading portions of the HCRA or summaries of its contents.
The latest Orwellian “conscience rule” governing Catholic Institutions is delayed until August 2013 making a legal challenge to it nearly impossible. The full measure of this rule, that which is imposed on us “tribalists”, is coming to an employer, insurance company, health care provider, etc near you, in its fully intended and agonizing glory in August, 2012. Mr. Kmiec, and you, and many others, are still not fully engaged in the actual and profound issues surrounding this hideous legislation. The issue goes well beyond the “conscience rule.”
In short order, there will be no choice for any Catholic regarding health care benefits within any plan come August of 2012. Because of the “penalties” imposed even to small employers such as myself if we fail to provide a “government option” we will be penalized by up to an 8% “tax” which is the subsidy to be used for abortion, euthanasia, and the tools of the culture of death. Now for you who are not “tribalists” this Act will have the full weight of enforcement by three federal agencies, DOL, HHS and the all powerful IRS. Between these agencies the federal government will have full and complete access to your complete financial and medical profile….afterall that is data needed for future “planning” and rationing and cost measures. Soon, and this is fact Mr. Shea, the regulations will flow giving force and effect to the statutory language empowering a government committee to decide treatment and benefits for the elderly, the handicapped, and those in most need. It will be doing the same in terms of what care you Mr. Shea, and your family, will be able to access in the future. Perhaps in the not too distant future such leftist stalwarts like Mr. Kmiec will have preferred access to healt care because of their party affiliation, as in the by gone days of the Soviet Union…..but why such talk now about the abundant possibilities for coercsion found in the legislation supported by the likes of Mr. Kmiec.
Soon (and this is again fact Mr. Shea), regulations will be enacted by Sebelius which will mandate wholesale rationing of care through government “productivity measures” and “outcome based measures”, and physician mandated “performance standards” meaning that your family physician Mr. Shea will be a tool of the government, not your health advocate. Soon as stated in the legislation, you will be receiving the “gift” of even more regulaitons governing “advance care planning”, ie euthanasia, for seniors and the seriously ill. The legislation mandates payments to community organizing groups such as ACORN which I am sure pleased Mr. Kmiec when this was enacted given his full throttled support of it. By design HCRA was always intended to remove the Catholic Church and others from the health care field leaving it totally occupied by government.
Unless Mr. Shea you have undertaken an effort to understand the nature of the fight, as many Catholics like Father Z have done, then you would have no understanding of what is at stake. A pithy, sentimental tome by Mr. Kmiec does nothing, and most importantly it shows nothing of substance, and you frankly show an entrenched ignorance of the titantic struggle in which we as a culture, a society, a civilization are engaged. Our greatest gift from our Creator is our freedom; our greatest gift to Him is our obedience to his word. Salvation through authentic charity is our heritage as Catholics. A government take over of our personhood in the name of “health care” is a secular heresy, a violation of the demands and obligations we all have to be charitable.
I leave you the last word as I renew my earlier commitment to stop reading your “dissents” to Father Z and, now, as is clear, to others.
tl;dr
tl;dr
tl;dr
tl;dr
Yes. It is because I am secretly engaged in a pro-Obama campaign that I call people to resist Obama as a tyrant and denounce the HHS ruling as an act of tyranny. You see through my soul as if it were glass.
Why do I get the sense that some people simply see the words “Obama” and “dissent from Fr. Z”, assume they must be reading an apologetic for the Administration, and fire off a denunciation. No tribalism happening here.
I smell a conspiracy theory…….
I am not concerned about the mandate. I consider the mandate a blessing because it shows us what is in our hearts and what needs to be purged from our souls. The mandate triggers the rage or the hate in each of us since Obama’s election. So, we have had 3 years of hating him and what has it gotten us–the mandate. You hate big government. You hate higher taxes. You hate the left. Actually, you just hate. Does it feel good to hate? Don’t you get a rush with your hate? Doesn’t your hate influence you to feel that you are right? You know that law in physics which states that for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is your passive-aggressive hate that has played a major role in creating this situation. You probably will not see it and protest against this observation.
Yes, actually, it feels great to hate sin and evil. Do you hate anything?
It is clear that you are rationalizing your hate and attempting to deflect attention away from it.
So, you don’t hate evil or sin… Got it.
Ronald King, apparently anyone who disagrees with your positions is obviously filled with “hate” aren’t they Oh Messiah of All Things Pure and Loving?
Obviously you are so utterly filled with love and spiritual knowledge that you are incapable of hatred aren’t you Ron.
Anyone who sees so much “hate” in everyone else, is obviously projecting the very hate that he is harboring in his own psyche. And the fact that you feel so compelled to respond so diligently with this repeated one-size-fits-all delusional response is a self-evident indication in itself of your very own hatred manifesting itself in a classic passive-aggressive manner. When all you have is a hammer; everything looks like a nail doesn’t it Ron.
Tell me Ron, has your therapist adjusted your meds lately or are you just ignoring the recommended shock treatments?
See how hateful that was Ron?
It’s okay Ron, you can face your worst fear in here; you can openly embrace your lack of intellect. You’re among friends now. You no longer have to hide behind your pseudo-intellectualism. You can openly admit that you really don’t comprehend your own irrational ideologies. It’s okay. Your posts have already made that salient fact blatantly obvious for all to see.
Was that hateful, or just too painfully honest?
How will your ego respond?
In my vocation of 30 years as a psychotherapist I have faced my hate and the hate in others and the harm that has done through generations. I have been attacked verbally when I have confronted others unresolved hate and I have been confronted with my unresolved hate. I have worked with people who have been diagnosed with mental illness. I have worked with victims of abuse in childhood and as adults. I have worked with perpetrators of these abuses. I know how vulnerable it feels to be opened and to see the ugliness inside myself and I know how cleansing it feels to bring it to the light. However, in the process it creates an identity crisis and for a period of time there is a regression and an uncertainty about one’s identity until the healing takes place in which what was once considered ugly and shameful is understood with compassion. That can only occur through God’s healing Love. I am very familiar with the inter and intra-personal dynamics of communication and the associated neurobiology of healthy and unhealthy attachment styles.
So, you tell me if your message was hateful or painfully honest. You already know what I believe.
Yes I do know what you believe Ronald. You’ve been displaying it all over this thread and now you have inadvertently confirmed it: You believe your self-righteous moral authority to cast judgements on other people’s souls is irreproachable in it’s infallibility. And let’s be *real* honest here shall we? That is EXACTLY why you proudly displayed your academic and professional achievements for all to see isn’t it? Well yes. Yes it is.
But I do confess, I already knew a fair amount of your background from a simple google search Ronald. And I intentionally goaded your greatest weakness (The vice of Pride) by challenging your obvious fear: a possible lack of intellect.
Alas dear Ronald: “Pride is the beginning of all sin.” – (Sirach 10:15) Pride is the excessive love of one’s own excellence, St. Thomas Aquinas considered it the queen of all vices and even states there is something satanic in it.
So I challenge you Ronald: “Physician heal thyself”
Admit it Ronald, you harbor a deep hatred for anyone who challenges your intellect, because in truth, you fear being thought of as “stupid” and insignificant. And thus, your pride (or excessive self love) overcompensates for and masks that underlying fear doesn’t it.
Was this hateful Ronald?
Yes, OR, your comment was written with hate. And, you are correct I should go to confession daily. Bless me Father for i have sinned against OR. I have used what you have entrusted with me to help others and have hurt OR with my anger. Thank You Father for all of the Blessings You have given me.
And he told them a parable, “Can a blind person guide a blind person? Will not both fall into a pit?
No disciple is superior to the teacher; but when fully trained, every disciple will be like his teacher.
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.
I am glad that you explored my history that is why I use my full name because I do not fear being challenged.
Thank you for displaying your hubris yet again Ronald.
You just confirmed the compulsive nature of your neurosis.
Are you the Emperor?
Emperor Reality Check?
No, this guy is from the infamous Vomitus Nova… where they hold hands with NCRejects in solidarity against really, really tough Church teachings that just don’t gel with modern society.
What are the tough Church teachings? And, what are the greatest commandments given to us by Our Lord? You cannot really see that your hate is harmful to yourself and others, can you? All I am asking is that you be honest with yourself about your hate and the harm that it does.
Hmm… you actually want me to list them? I have a better idea. How about I just recommend your blog to anyone who is still reading this thread. I don’t want to spend all day typing. One of the reasons I stopped reading Vomitus Nova years ago was because it was too taxing.
Wow, that was a passive-aggressive hate fest. It actually gave me chills.
I could see it coming. So predictable.
That’s because you are so much smarter and you look at so many people with contempt (a common attribute of bloggers on Vomitus Nova). How’s that mirror looking, friend?
That looks like projection on your part. Do you see the hate in your language? An example is you using “Vomitus Nova”.
I think you are unable to detect the passive aggressiveness in your own statements. Your belief that you are so much more intelligent than others combined with utter contempt. I don’t think you’re being honest with your hate that you’ve embraced so much.
When I think of a blog that pretends to be Catholic, but is obviously nothing more than a catalogue of modernist opinions and complaining about how the Church doesn’t look more like the contributors and a shill for an American political party then I think of vomit. It’s more like association. I don’t hate the contributers at Vomitus Nova.
So, you believe that I believe that I am so much more intelligent than others combined and that I have utter contempt for them also. It appears that those are your beliefs and your words, not mine.
Internalize, Ronald. I know a person of such superior intellect can indeed find the kernel of hate that rests deep in your soul, making you cast forth such passive agressive statments. Reach, deep inside. Breathe deep. You can do it.
Thanks for the encouragement
Will no one think of the government and its suffering?
When one analyzes the far-reaching implications of Obamacare and sees the craftiness with which it has been birthed and the slippery bonds with which it ties us in knots there is only one conclusion that the evil one has been it’s author all along.
Yes, vote out all it’s supporters this fall but don’t forget to pray and fast and ask for repentance to defeat the real author as well. I think we are standing at a precipice, not just in the US but globally as well, and only God’s mercy can save us from falling off.
Mark, you write: “Now, doubtless somebody will charge me with hypocrisy here because I refuse to vote for candidates who ask me to support grave moral evil. For them, I have a simple question: How will welcoming Doug Kmiec, Michael Sean Winters, or any other lefty into the struggle to oppose Obama’s assault on religious liberty make me an accessory to grave intrinsic evil? Answer: it won’t.”
I agree with your last point. But neither will a vote for someone who isn’t right on all the most important moral issues of the day make you “an accessory to grave intrinsic evil” – as long as the alternative is worse. Such a vote is intended to limit evil, not to promote it. To my knowledge, there is no candidate out there who isn’t wrong on some issue that will “send you to hell”, as you’ve put it previously. Compromise is inevitable. There is no pure candidate available, let alone a pure candidate who has a chance to win this presidential election.
I agree with some of your other practical points above in the comments, too (such as worrying about other matters *after* victory is achieved). But I think you’re not being too idealistic when it comes to voting.
I hope now at least, after what is happening with the HHS mandate, that you wouldn’t vote for some obscure 3rd party candidate who is more pure rather than any of the current Republican candidates.
“But I think you’re not being too idealistic when it comes to voting.”
should be:
“But I think you’re being too idealistic when it comes to voting.”
Mark
This is what happens when you disagree with Fr. Z or Michael Voris. The fanboys attack.
No need for rational discourse when you don’t agree with any of the minor gods.
Well done, playing the ‘they must be part of *that* tribe’ card.
Sorry, I don’t think I will be able to vote to defeat Obama. Mark Shea has convinced me that I can’t vote for his opponent either because he accepts torture. Oh, such a conundrum I am in!
“Anybody who is less than 100% pure in their tribal (not moral) fealty”
Really? Is that what this is all about?
Because most evil conservative Catholic Pharisees like myself are upset over the dogmatic rejections and the doctrinal corruptions that are running rampant through the Roman Catholic Church these days.
And uhm…. those corruptions are predominately coming from the Left side of the political aisle. Because you know, that darned ole medieval archaic Catholic Church just won’t get hip to all this non-judgmental enlightenment and new found wisdom of the world’s narcissistic pop-psychology.
But of course, the real problem is those dad-blamed NeoCon Catholics and their puritanical tribal rituals….. or something. Right Mr Shea?
As one of the proud contributors at “Vomitus Nova,” I’d like to let your readers know that by my count fewer than half of our currently active contributors voted for Obama in 2008. I certainly didn’t. Moreover, Obama has been routinely criticized on a number of issues, including Libya, the signing of the NDAA, targeted assassinations of Americans overseas, and of course the healthcare waiver for Catholic institutions, among other things. By all means, characterize us all as “lefties” if your cramped, binary thinking requires it, but in fact we are just Catholics trying to apply the full teaching of the Church to the social, political, economic and even personal problems of the day. And quite a few of us are trying to do it outside of the false liberal and neoliberal spectrum marked off by the Democratic and Republican parties.
A special word for our brother “Joseph,” who has apparently cultivated a deep, personal hatred for the contributors at Vox Nova: If you behave and speak contemptibly, as you have in this thread, don’t be surprised to be treated with contempt.
Is “vomitus” a feminine noun? My Latin is rustae.
Neuter, I believe…
Oopsie…masculine.
vŏmĭtus, ūs, m. id., a throwing up, vomiting.
Man, such an inflammatory defense! You guys certainly hate people who disagree with you. I’m tickled by the irony of it all.
Mark Gordon “but in fact we are just Catholics trying to apply the full teaching of the Church to the social, political, economic and even personal problems of the day. And quite a few of us are trying to do it outside of the false liberal and neoliberal spectrum marked off by the Democratic and Republican parties.”
False liberal and neoliberal spectrum?
Let’s see: currently the greatest threats to Roman Catholic Dogma in this country are: Abortion, Gay-Rights, and Death Panels.
Gee, now which political Party consistently fosters and promotes those basic tenets of the Culture of Death?
The ancient Enemy promotes the great evils of War and Material Impoverishment in every age also. Just like abortion and infanticide-in every age (Pope Innocent 3 noted the need for the foundling wheel after noting how many infant bodies needed to be removed from the Tiber each day). The tools of these disuptions of the moral order (and here I paraphrase Paul 6, JP2, and Benedict 16) are the seductive use of wealth and power.
There is nothing new. And the moral disruption of Creation is a bipartisan phenomenon. Your precious conservatives are as blameworthy.
Thank you Dan for the clarity which is badly needed.
Clarity indeed, Ronald. Did you miss something? I think you did.
Name a class of human more innocent than the unborn.
Name a class of human more defenseless than the unborn.
Name the political ideology that has adopted the “right” of abortion as it’s political party sacrament.
Name a class of human that is more powerful than the corrupt ever-expanding soulless leviathan of our current government.
Name the political ideology that wants to give more power to said ever-expanding soulless leviathan of our current government.
Name the class of people who are too selfish to sacrifice what is needed to change hearts and stop the killing of innocents all over the world. What is the statistic, something like 5 million children die each year before reaching the age of 5 due to lack of nourishment. That is soulless.
Ronald King says:
“Name the class of people who are too selfish to sacrifice what is needed to change hearts and stop the killing of innocents all over the world.”
Answer: Liberal Progressives with their radical abortion agenda.
Number of abortions per year worldwide: Approximately 42 Million.
Liberals denying the unborn the most basic unalienable right; the right to life by first denying them their “personhood” much less a soul- DEFINES the very act of SOULLESSNESS.
Thanks for inadvertently making my point and displaying the basis of your moral bankruptcy. Enjoy your political ideology- because it alone IS your real religion.
What are you feeling when you write something so distorted and destructive about me? My stomack immediately reacted with a sick feeling when I read your words. I do not have a political ideology as you think. Thanks for the info about abortion worldwide. I do not exclude the unborn children from the innocents of the world. It is horrific. So stop the character assassination and the lies you write about my morality. That is a part of the culture of death that you despise. Can you see how every sin leads to the outcome of abortion?
What am I feeling? The same thing you’re feeling when you write “Name the class of people who are too selfish to sacrifice what is needed to change hearts and stop the killing of innocents all over the world.”
My stomach immediately reacted with laughter when I read your words. If that’s not a politically ideologically charged statement- then what exactly is it? Thanks for the info about some nameless class of evil-doers. Wasn’t that an ideological character assassination of a specific class of humans on your part? Well yes, I believe it was.
And can I see how every sin leads to the outcome of abortion?
Frankly no. No more than I can see how every sin in the world leads to everyone elses specific sins. That’s a ridiculous abstraction taken to the point of sheer meaninglessness.
But hey, if all those vague and abstract references you specifically used in juxtaposition to counter my claims without actually identifying them in ideological terms allows you to feel extra pious in your self-righteous indignation, well then, you need to let that sick feeling sink in to your bones.
It appears that if you do not understand something then you must attack. Check out JP II and what he wrote about the law of ascent and the law of descent. Do you believe in the Eucharist? That is pretty abstract. From Monsignor Guardini’s book, The Lord, “Sin does not remain in the solitary cell of the individual conscience, but swiftly spreads to become a community of error and fate.” When you state what I see as rediculous it means that you have not explored or been exposed to what I have been taught. But why would you immediately write in such a seemingly hateful tone? The rhetorical question is, what has influenced you to hate so much? But, that is a matter for you and your priest or spiritual adviser. The nameless class of people who are responsible for the violence in the world which leads to the end result of abortion are Christians. We have been given much but we do not live up to expectations set up by Christ Himself. Stop attacking me because you do not see what I see. It is not abstract to me. And stop with the self-righteous accusations.
That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. So Christians alone are responsible for all the sins in the world. Brilliant. Then you should really be preaching to yourself, since you are the arbiter of such complete and pure knowledge. By your reasoning, that Christian knowledge has made you even MORE responsible and more culpable that the rest of us now hasn’t it.
And the Eucharist is abstract? Are you kidding me? Well then that would mean that it really ISN’T the physical Body and Blood of Christ. Brilliant. And a quick scan over your previous posts reveals that you are obviously the resident self appointed judge of all “hatred” in other people’s souls, because you have some special knowledge that others don’t. Of course that is a classic display of your own passive aggressive neurosis, the pure irony of which is apparently lost on you Oh Brilliant Mystic of Lacking Introspect!
But of course abortion itself, and those involved in actively fostering it are hardly an abstraction. And those people are predominately liberal progressives. But of course, if all of us Christians are to blame for this, then you should be in the confessional every chance you get begging for redemption for all the abortions in the world that YOU are responsible for. Brilliant.
Thanks for providing clear evidence that liberalism is truly a mental illness. *geez*
Guess you do not get the connections.
Sorry not to read all through here. S.M. Winters’ editorials about the HHS ruling were favorably and graciously received by Fr Z and readers. We all welcome Winters to the fight. In contrast, Kmiec, according to the tone and language of his letter, is not quite there yet. It is not Kmiec’s past that was jeered at Fr Z’s, for Kmiec’s not let go his commitment to O, quite yet. I think folks were critical, as I was, of the groveling, the uber-deference and simpering tone of the letter. We gladly welcome him to the fight when he’s ready. He’s just not here yet.
Well said.
The difference between Winters’ response and Kmiec’s is instructive. And Fr. Z’s response to each is likewise instructive.
There are far too many weasel words in Kmiec’s letter. I hope he makes the journey the rest of the way, and I’ll be happy to encourage him to do so. But it’s clear that he’s still in apologetics mode for Obama.
Thank you. Measured statements are grossly under-appreciated in the blogosphere.
I sometimes feel that reading Mark Shea is like watching Tony Romo play quarterback. So many transcendent moments and then . . . well you Cowboys fans know. On this point, however, I am willing to give Mr. Shea more leeway than I might normally be inclined to do. There is too much at risk. We need to welcome every single ally to the fight. Otherwise we are headed down the path that our friends in Great Britain (and other countries) have taken. Can you imagine any civilized western nation implanting contraceptives into 13 year old girls while they are at school without the consent or knowledge of their parents? It would seem beyond belief. It is happening right now in England. Let’s not let it happen here. To paraphrase St. Paul, let’s get to plowing and not look back.
Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9065998/Girls-13-given-contraceptive-implants-at-school.html
Ha. I’m a Cowboy fan! Good analogy.
Dear Mark,
Your blog and Fr. Z’s, along with Erin Manning are my favorites and every day reads. Which probably makes me weirder than skaditch! (But hey, I’m Catholic. It’s practically a requirement.)
But I just may have to give up reading comment boxes for Lent. I’m having waayy too much fun.
Fr. Z. just HATES being disagreed with.
He banned me from even being able to read his blog, because I tried pointing out that Traditional Catholicism is bigger than devotion to the Extraordinary Form.
Please….banned from pulling up his blog and reading it? Does he control your web browser? Get real.
Couldn’t follow you, seemed kinda mixed up. I think you should just shoot straight and stop trying to be clever.
We might be well-advised to adhere to the Catholic principle of solidarity on this issue and accept Catholics on the left who want to rescind the HHS mandate as allies on this issue. If I have to choose between Catholic principle and some political strategy bent on undermining Obama and the left, well, I’ll take the Church any day. We will still have our differences between Catholics but those may take generations to heal; it starts with finding common ground here, today, on this issue and making deliberate choices to prevent division and foster solidarity. Only then can we restore unity to the fractured body of the church.
Kmiec worked in the Reagan administration and was a prof at Pepperdine Law, both of which credentials disqualify him as a “lefty”. He is also known as a faithful Catholic.
Those facts are what make his decision to support Obama sad.
Mark, Fr. Z is already in defeat mode. For him and those of his mindset, it’s not about winning anything for in their hearts and minds they have already lost. All that is left is to have their moment of righteousness over the likes of Kmiec and Winters. It’s very sad, and it is very un-Christian.
I’ve read through Kmiec’s letter, and then read it again with Fr. Z’s remarks included. Simply put, is the priest’s the kind of childishness that we want from our clergy? Is this the kind of leadership that American Catholics are looking for right now? It was little more than a talk-radio snark fest, the kind of thing I’d expect to hear from a guy like Beck or Limbaugh. And to top it all off, Fr. Z feels it necessary to use ‘the catholic Kmiec’ repeatedly, as if Kmiec’s decision to support Obama ahead the oh-so-moral and catholish McCain has rendered the former ambassador some kind of second class Catholic. It’s disgusting. It’s pathetic.
But then, I suppose a priest like Fr. Z, lacking a parish or any meaningful leadership role in the Church (I think I recall him saying that he’s not even reported his presence to his local bishop), has to get his punches in where and when he can.
ps – When writing a formal letter to a person of high office, it is common, nay – required – to be as pleasant and erudite as possible.
1. The “meaningful leadership position” comment is silly. It has long been the thought of the Church that the highest vocation is not active but rather contemplative. The reason for this is obvious. That’s why a parish priest who decided he wanted to become a Trappisst (cf., no meaningful leadership position) has always been encouraged to do so.
2. Fr Z is incardinated in a diocese in one of the Roman suburban dioceses, not in the US. In so far as he has no “meaning leadership position” and does not say public mass where he lives, I’m not sure the local ordinary is required to be involved unless Fr Z is hearing confessions. Having said that, my guess is that the local bishop is aware of him, and he is on good terms.
3. If Fr Z thinks we’ve already lost, he might have a point. In fact, Cardinal Ratzinger said more than once that the detente with secular culture has failed. Does anyone think that abortion will in the next few years be illegal in the US? And the cultural OK that is now given to homosexuality and the farce of homosexual “marriage” will only increase.
From the standpoint of Church life, how many dioceses in the Church in Europe or the Americas are ordaining priests at replacement level? Answer: excepting a few dioceses like Lincoln, Ne, almost none.
And how many religious orders are doing anything but shrinking? The answer is the same. There are a few places that are doing well, e.g., the Dominican Province of Toulouse is doing fairly well. Also the Community of St John. And of course, Clear Creek Abbey in Oklahoma (cf. Latin liturgy) is flourishing.
Whoa… I’m not sure that Shea was walking all over Fr. Z but was for the most part commenting on some of the hounds in his combox… and I don’t think that you are accurate in your assessment that Fr. Z is disgusted that Kmeic voted for Obama “instead of” McCain. Sounds to me that you’re ranting about Fr. Z rather than trying to make a point.
Amen! Amen! Amen!
what was obama and the admin doing with this ruling anyway?
1-they really thought this was constitutional? doubtful.
2-they knew it wasn’t constitutional, and wanted a showdown in order to rally their base, knowing they would pull back if Catholics squawked? so far, not so good.
3-they didn’t know if it was constitutional or not, don’t care, and want to pick a fight with the 6-Catholic Supreme Court, in an attempt to weaken the Court and perhaps get the Court to come around on something important to them [like obamacare]? If they win at court, that’s of course good for them. If they lose, perhaps they are thinking about the Roosevelt strategy that resulted in the ‘switch in time that saved the nine?’ They can win with the American people, or with the court, even if they lose an individual decision.
In any event, they are calculating that they will win in one way or another.
Roosevelt losing in his war on the court ended up with the court deciding that economic legislation would be reviewed on a rational basis standard. Not bad for a court that not long before had struck down agency after agency and law after law as being violations of a natural right to contract.
I expect they are thinking along these lines. And if they are, I think they are going to find the Roberts court a lot tougher than the four horsemen of reaction were.
If they hope to move America more permanently to the Left in the way Roosevelt did, their strategy is unripe, because there are not enough radicals in America to support the kind of basic change that Obama wants. Remember when Obama attacked the court at his first state of the Union? It didn’t go over very well. It did not make a lasting impression on the American people.
He should have learned his lesson. But he saw that this strategy worked for Roosevelt, and he wants to do the same. It won’t work, but it won’t hurt him either. The press is completely in favor of these new regs. So his friends will praise him, and there will be a precedent, the narrative of which will run like this: a liberal President made a reasonable attempt to bring all of America into an enlightened understanding of the needs and rights of women, but the forces of reaction prevented him.
Baby steps.
Mark, so who do you vote for if Santorum is the other choice? Any other vote for third party will ensure a re-election. If we don’t have a perfect person to vote for, then what?
Since you are apparently completely unfamiliar with what I’ve already written, here are two places where you can go to catch up.
Here my dilemma:
If we stay home and don’t vote because we do not have the perfect candidate, a person who is responsible for millions of babies, the most innocent of all, will continue to kill, and we will ultimately be forced to pay for this, will get back in. And abortion will become more entrenched because the Supreme Court will probably have some retirements. Oh, but I can say my hands are free of this blood. But can I? I am not so sure here.
Second choice is vote for a third party or write in candidate, because we do not have the perfect candidate. The same as I posted above will happen. Am I really not responsible for this? Not so sure again.
Third option, vote for a candidate who will end the abortion of millions of completely innocent lives here and around the world. And have to be responsible for his support of torture, and possibly an unjust war which will kill thousands of not so innocent people.
I am sorry, but no matter which way we go, we have bad options. We cannot say we are completely innocent. I cannot say that because someone votes for the third option they are for torture. It would be a serious matter if you voted for the abortion candidate because you agree with his stand on abortion. And it would be just as wrong if you voted for the torture/war candidate if you agree with his view on torture/war. However, if you have to make a “forced choice” on the lesser of two evils, you are not committing a sin.
For me it all comes down to who will do less harm. Millions upon millions of babes worldwide, vs. hundreds of thousands or maybe a hundred who are possibly going to be tortured. I do not like it, but I am not the one who set the choice up. God sometimes gives us hard choices to make. As the story goes about the guy who is on the roof of his house due to a flood. He prays for Jesus to save. A helicopter comes, and refuses to go because it’s not Jesus.
Even God used King David despite his adultery and even murder.
And therefore we should commit adultery. Brilliant.
Wow, did I say that or mean that? Charity. I ask in good will and get a smart remark back. Why the anger? I am searching, and lying out my probem and you attack me. What the heck??
My apologies. It’s just that I’ve been over this approximately one million times and have been accused endlessly of asking for a “perfect” candidate when I ask for no such thing. I’ve also been told times without number that we have to do evil so that good will come of it. Your note looked like another specimen of that.
From someone who has done likewise, forgiven. It really is a tough call. I was here the last few elections. Just trying to follow God’s Will.
Well, certainly if God’s power is completely limited by which way we vote, then yes, everyone including Shea should absolutely vote for whoever is the most viable (I actually don’t like that word) opponent, even if he walks and talks like a lizard or a robot and wants to kill other kinds of innocent people around the world.
But, if God’s power is not restrained to the ballot box, then we actually have a choice to follow our informed consciences and decide not to vote for murderers of either stripe. Instead, we will pray and pay heed to the prophet Michael Jackson in his words “Man in the Mirror”. God’s will be done.
If you think voting is going to some how magically turn this country around, I think you’re living in a fantasy world. We are barelling down a hill at 90 miles an hour with no brakes. Crashing is inevitable, so at this point we just need to start figuring out how to position our bodies so that we don’t get killed in the crash rather than spending time trying to figure out how we can turn the vehicle around.
I hate to take the defeatest approach, but I honestly don’t know who or what can repeal all of the new executive powers that have been established in the last decade that undermine (nay, spit on) the Constitution… and that aside from recent legislation and judicial decisions. At this point I honestly don’t think it matter who becomes president, there is something inherently wrong with all of them. Obama proudly declares that he will kill the most innocent human beings (with his pro-abortion blood-lust) but that doesn’t mean is opponents are saints and worthy of our attention. That said, there is no way in hell I’d vote for Obama, but there is very little chance I’d vote for his “viable” opponent either, whoever it will be.
Mark,
Your attitude and approach to blogging is something that I find terribly unsettling, in much the same manner as watching Tony Bourdain’s television work. I start to like watching him (and reading you, in spite of yourself), until, once again, you’ve gone too far. Now at this point, I feel like I need to go take a shower after finishing this comment. Your snarkiness ceases to be funny, and devolves into masterful put-downs that even the folks listening and nodding their heads begin to get very uncomfortable listening to. Father Z believes in something. With you, it all seems like a well honed exercise in nastiness!
There are no “tribes”. There are no “liberal” or “conservative” Catholics. You are either in or out. You either follow the teachings of the Holy Mother Church or you don’t. If you don’t, then do not call yourself Catholic. That’s it. Plain and simple.
P.S. As Bishop Finn stated recently, a vote for Obama places your soul in danger of hell as you are cooperating with the horrific act of abortion.
“P.S. As Bishop Finn stated recently …”
Ah, thank you. You reminded me of what sounds so “off” about all this.
I went to Fr. Z’s blog (for probably the last time) and saw the kerfuffle. (Don’t get me wrong; I agree with what he says about the Latin Mass.) The whole thread sounded insane.
What most got their attention, it seems, was the tone of the letter being roasted.
First of all, isn’t a respectful tone appropriate for addressing the President of the United States? What’s up with this sudden 180-degree reversal against customary courtesy?
Second … that letter nowhere near matched, in fawning obsequiousness, the tone in which their tribesmen repeatedly addressed bishops known to have protected and enabled pedophiles. (Which is where, of course, Bishop Finn comes in. Read Rod Dreher’s blog if you wish the facts on him. And Kevin O’Brien’s, for how the tribe rallied ’round him.)
You, as a group, speak of Natural Law. A group that screens out the gnats of drugs that might prevent implantation of embryos but swallows the camels of priests shooting upskirt photos of little girls, does not play in Peoria. Men who sanction this are not what the average Joe would consider men.
I can understand these people letting out their pent-up rage at a safe target, but it really won’t restore their bartered dignity. They have to eventually deal with the way they gave away children’s innocence and safety without a murmur, all the while kneeling and kissing the rings of the “Excellencies.”
“As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one.”
~ Anderson’s Law
Thank God for Fr. Z! His devout love for truth keeps him faithful to Our Lord. Amen!
Since my blog is fairly obscure and has an extremely small readership, I won’t flatter myself by thinking that your mention of Vox Nova was in reference to my fairly scathing criticism of the tepid response to the HHS mandate from a couple of that blog’s contributors. Nevertheless, since you mention Vox Nova and I wrote about them, I’ll respond.
Pardon me for believing that “This HHS thing is bad, but the other side is worse” or “This HHS thing is bad, but the other side is doing bad things, too” are NOT appropriate responses from people who not only gave full-throated support to Obama in 2008, and who not only gave full-throated support to Obamacare in 2010, but who accused those of us who demanded the Stupak Amendment be included in the final bill and warned that JUST THIS THING would happen were it not included, of being “ignorant” or “dupes of the pro-life lobby” or “lying” or “GOP shills” or worse. Sorry, but “this HHS mandate is bad, but …” is about as appropriate as being “personally pro-life, but …”, and you’re damned right that I’m going to call them on it. When Morning’s Minion writes “Obama has lost the vote of Michael Sean Winters over this. Given the depraved condition of the modern Republican party, I’m not sure I would go that far …”, and then goes on to spend most of the post ripping Robert George for being just as bad, if not worse, than Obama, what I read is a perfunctory acknowledgement that his God King screwed up, but not enough to cost the God King his vote, especially when the evil Robert George is out their pushing a misrepresented notion of subsidiarity. I damned straight I’m going to call our friend MM on the carpet for that. And will continue to do so. Since I could give a rat’s ass about the other side, and won’t be voting should the other side’s frontrunner become the nominee, my criticism wasn’t about politics, but WAS about not mincing words when calling out your own side. I sure as hell haven’t minced words when I have called out so-called conservatives for being war mongers, or for being advocates for “enhanced interrogation techniques”, or for criticizing the Bishops on immigration, etc. I expect the same from the ObamaCaths when he does something worthy of condemnation. No ifs, ands, or buts.
And I did the same thing on my blog with regard to Doug Kmiec, and will continue to rip him until his yes is yes and his no is no. And I submit to you that if my criticism translates into his yes never becoming a yes and his no never becoming a no, then it never was going to happen in the first place.
But here’s what REALLY gets me: your assertion that “tribalism” is the source of the criticism of these folks. I can assure you that “tribalism” has nothing to do with my point of view and willingness to call on the carpet those with whom I disagree. In all the years I’ve been blogging, I have called out people of all stripes – conservative, liberal, moderate, Republican, Democrat, independent, traditionalist, progressive, whatever – if I have disagreed with them. No one does my thinking for me, although in everything I do try to conform my thinking to that of the Church. But my opinions are my own, and I am not afraid to voice them. And it’s got NOTHING to do with some alleged “tribe” to which I allegedly belong. Again, my blog is not particularly well-read, nor am I a regular reader of Fr. Z. But since you mentioned two responses to the HHS mandate from Obama supporters of which I was critical, I felt the need to respond to the charge.
If you disagree with me, disagree with me. Maybe it makes you feel superior and ritually pure and above it all, however, to dismiss opinions or attitudes with which you disagree as products of some sort of groupthink cacaphony. If you disagree with me, disagree with me. But give me the credit I believe I’ve earned in my blogging over the last 7 years not to dismiss my views as some sort of Pavlovian response to those “not in my tribe”.
Jay:
My remarks were addressed, not to you, but to that particular thread, in which (if you read the comboxes), what is on display is precisely the suicidal tribalist gloating I protest, which cares more about gloating over Kmiec and hoping to see him crawl, than welcoming him to the fight. I take you at your word. Please take me at mine.
Again, I didn’t believe you were addressing me. But I have, on my own blog, done exactly what you were taking issue with. I just wanted to point out that my fairly harsh and pointed criticism of Vox Nova and Kmiec has nothing to do with tribalist groupthink.
I have no doubts that’s what may be at play in some people’s commentary, but by no means do I believe it applies to the criticism others have directed toward Vox Nova and Kmiec for their tepid responses to the HHS mandate.
For what it’s worth, it should be noted that I have YET to see any criticism of Michael Sean Winters from those who generally disagree with his politics. And the reason is that he has left no doubt as to where his loyalties are – he is a Catholic first, something I might have doubted during the debate over the Stupak Amendment. But there are no ifs, ands, or buts in his condemnation of the HHS mandate, and thus he has been relatively free from criticism on the right.
Jay: Here is a comment (and not, by far, the only one of its kind in the blogosphere) in response to Winters (over at Dreher’s blog). Winters wrote, “Is that something progressive Catholics, who fought so hard to pass the ACA, want to defend?”:
Dreher’s reader writes:
This is the kind of mindless tribal atavism I’m talking about. This guy would rather see Obama win and crush his hated progressive Catholic enemy (along with the rest of the Church) than defeat this assault and risk progressives not looking bad. It’s madness. Nobody, and certainly not me, is saying every single conservative does this, any more than every single lefty practiced identity politics 30 years ago. But this phenomenon of identity politics is now prominent enough on the right that it threatens sanity there. I know, because I have been informed countless times that some criticism I have made of some conservative shibboleth or folk hero *must* prove that I am secretly an Obama supporter, or in league with dark conspiratorial forces or otherwise Unclean.
Dreher is a bad Catholic himself. Didn’t he leave for the holier Orthodox Church because he was even more real Catholic than the Catholic Church and the really real Catholics like Voris? And now he sits on his mighty throne and spitefully casts thunderbolts down on his ex-wife the Body of Christ.
I don’t really pay attention to that guy. Even on the occassion that I’m tempted to agree with him, I won’t let myself be entertained because he reminds me of a some divorced men that I know who viciously verbally assualt their ex-wifes in public even in the presence of the children she bore.
I am happy Mark that you see this issue for what it is: a threat to freedom loving Americans of every stripe of religion including no religion! I could care less about the Kmiec issue as it is not pertinent really to what the heck is going on
right now. Clearly this HHS mandate ( I prefer to call it an edict!) is designed
as an election trick to divide and conquer “the foe” as Obama sees it. The “foe”
being the Catholic Church that has stymied his leftist liberal agenda of gay marriage, acceptance of gay lifestyle as mainstream and well as a whole host
of social issues. Knowing that most women in America as well as in the Church have used artificial contraception he has made this a contraceptive issue as opposed to a respect the right of conscience issue. The Bishops and laity must
NOT be led into that being the PRIMARY issue. Because by slicing the battle lines this way Obama surely wins! Thanks for your insight Mark! but do not muddy the waters by involving Kmiec …he too is secondary to the cause.
By the way, should the Catholic Church lose this battle the fines that can and will be levied are horrific! For example, Notre Dame which employs over 6 thousand would be fined 10 million dollars; Catholic Charities which employs thousands? The ensuing fine ratchetts up to over 150 million. How is that going to help the poor, Mr Obama?
this way
I don’t think that one must take Fr. Z’s post in the way that you have, Mark. I think he’s reasonably criticizing the sycophantic tone of Kmiec’s letter, rather than just going after Kmiec for past transgressions. I think it should be noted that Fr. Z also posted in support of Michael Sean Winters (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/01/fr-z-endorses-idea-from-ncfishwrap-sky-to-fall-lord-to-return-film-at-11/) and Cardinal Mahony (http://wdtprs.com/blog/2012/01/fr-z-applauds-card-mahony-yes-you-read-that-right/). These actions aren’t consistent with your hypothesis.
Your general sentiment insofar as I can figure out what it is – that blind tribal adherence to a certain group of ideas, some of which are demonstrably wrong, in such a way and to such an extent that we refuse to cooperate with those who disagree on some issues even on the issues on which we agree is stupid – makes sense.
I am somewhat confused that this is what you read into Fr. Z’s comments though. Granted, Fr. Z wasn’t exactly laying out the red carpet for Mr. Kmiec, but I didn’t get the sense of attacking either, just a sort of regret that Kmiec, while recognizing the badness of Obama’s current move, still doesn’t exactly get what’s going on. He alludes to some sort of glory days in which Obama’s actions were generally acceptable and asks for a return to them – despite the fact that those days did not exist.
Fr. Z’s piece seems to simply be pointing out that even now, this far into Obama’s presidency, many people think that this sort of blatant assault on religious freedom and life issues is some sort of fluke and that Obama doesn’t really mean it, whereas it is obviously the case that if Obama truly doesn’t mean it then he is really bad at doing what he means. Kind of a “you’ve got one foot on the boat, but the other is still on the dock, and the only way to remain that way requires huge amounts of groinal strain” – that is now that you see this move for what it is, it’s going to take lots of mental gymnastics to convince yourself that your position, viz Obama is really a decent president really, is tenable.
I get that you think we shouldn’t alienate people like Kmiec (and agree), however I do think it is necessary to point out that this particular thing they are opposing is just one of many similar (if less overt) things. This thing should be treated as a wake up call, not just an alarm clock that needs the snooze button swatted a few times. That is, while it would be nice for enough to join forces against this particular thing, this is just one battle that the president is on the wrong side of, and it would be nice if Kmiec et al would take this opportunity to examine Obama’s actions, realize that this sort of thing is a running theme of his presidency, and hence realize how much more they would need to convince Obama of to make his presidency reasonable (not to run for another term would be a favorite).
That is, if a person is wrong, you do not pretend they are right just so they’ll be happy and stick with you for one fight. I know you know this, because you have a habit of making jabs at conservatives who are right and support the teaching of the Church on many issues (pro life, gay “marriage”, etc) but support despicable things like torture as well. Of course, it may be that you do this simply because you know these conservatives will never jump ship on the pro-life etc issues, but I’ve never had much truck with that sort of choose who you speak the truth to stuff myself.
A commonsense strategy is to accept any allies, however unsavory they may be, to defeat the common enemy. Of course, after the victory you attack and destroy them before they can destroy you. Sun Tsu would approve. And Jesus perhaps would, too – see His parable of the unjust steward.
“Ritually impure?” He’s pro-abortion.
No. He’s not. He opposes abortion. He has said so many times.
Well, to be honest, in his later sycophancy of behalf of Obama back in 2008, as he dug in his heels in the face of the criticism he was receiving, Kmiec appeared to come VERY close to adopting the “personally opposed, but …” formula of those politicians we often deem to be “pro-aborts”:
http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/05/did-doug-kmiec-just-now-catch-on-that.html
I’ll take him at his word that he’s pro-life, but I’ll give it about as much weight as I’d give to any other pro-lifer who supports the most anti-life, pro-abortion President in history, or who was part of the “Catholics for Sebelius” campaign to ensure her confirmation as HHS Secretary.
And lest the latter part of my comment be taken as evidence of tribalism or condemning the ritually impure, I assure you it is not. I’d say the same thing about conservatives who support torture or who will vote for Romney because “he may be a pro-abort, but he’s OUR pro-abort”.
My distrust of “pro-life” supporters of the party of death is more a reflection of “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me” (see, e.g., Bart Stupak) than it is of any tribal impulses.
I think Kmiec basically was trying to make the calculation that Benedict talked about and decided he had to vote for Obama, not because he suddenly developed a taste for abortion, but because he thought there was a proportional reason to vote for Obama. I disagree with the calculation, of course, but I think it vindictive nonsense to say that he voted for Obama *because* he supports abortion.
I don’t believe that he voted for him BECAUSE of it. But I DO believe that he came awfully close in several of his defenses of Obama (including the one in my link) to defining “personally opposed but …” as a perfectly acceptable formulation for Catholics.
And, by the way, I have NEVER taken the stance that Catholics of good will may not engage in the calculus the Bishops laid out in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship and come to the conclusion that it was preferable to vote for Obama. In fact, back in 2008, I argued vehemently against the notion put forward by RepubliCaths that it was morally impermissible to vote for Obama.
That’s why I want to point out that more is going on here than just that calculus contemplated by Faithful Citizenship. I didn’t take issue with Kmiec for supporting Obama; I took issue with Kmiec because he tried to make supporting Obama THE pro-life choice, while ignoring Obama’s clear anti-life record and rhetoric, and came very close to adopting the “personally opposed, but …” formulation in his efforts to justify his choice.
Okay. But my original remark was directed at somebody who said that Kmeic was pro-abortion. He’s not and it’s a malicious lie to say he is.
You know that photo montage that spans the top of Father Z’s blog? Have you ever noticed that Father Z made his image larger and more prominent than the image of the Holy Father, or even Jesus on the Cross?
Generally, importance in a graphic image is indicated by the relative size of an object in comparison to the other objects in the image. So, interesting design choice, to say the least.