Mr. Zrimak neglected to attack the elephant in the room, that being the USCCB and its programs such as CCHD.  They confuse the importance of the life issues, marriage and religious freedom with the programs of CCHD and its pursuit of social programs that destroy the healthy situation of subsidiarity in the preferential treatment towards the poor.  They divide and conquer the Catholic vote for Obama because the community organizing aims directly at communities such as the hispanic and latino voters. We are divided because the USCCB is.

Love this. Promoting now.

“Now it’s clear we won’t have votes to overturn Roe. So we must focus on the sole means left for protecting unborn Americans: a constitutional amendment defining them as persons.” Jason Jones

A state personhood constitutional amendment couldn’t get passed in Mississippi last year. Mississippi has very strong legal restrictions on abortion. If personhood couldn’t make it in Mississippi, it’s not going to pass at a national level.

You know, I couldn’t agree more.  Prolifers must stop being pawns.  That’s why some of us refused to vote for a cynical duplicitous liar who said that abortion was just ducky for the “health of the mother”, who repeatedly sent out surrogated making extremely clear that he would do nothing about Roe, and whose policies were pretty much the tissue of falsehood and delusion you describe above.  But when we did, some said that we were narcissistic onanists and needed to get in line and wink at these various fibs for the Team.  I’m glad to see we finally agree.

Some of us made the very argument in November 2008 that Jason Jones did in November 2012. And one of us even made that argument in September 2007, in a piece commissioned by the author of this post, who, in October 2012, disavowed the piece he had commissioned, but now, three weeks later, has once again embraced its substance.

Being consistent is, paradoxically, both somewhat easier and somewhat harder than being inconsistent. Still, I recommend giving it a try.

RE: “Q: What does Romney’s loss mean for the life issue?”

The >>current<< composition of the U.S. Supreme Court =
Nine Supreme Court Justices: Six are Catholic/three are Jewish.

I agree with Mark Shea’s comments regarding pro-lifers being used as pawns. The setup of the current court should have produced some movement in the pro-life effort. I do not believe the GOP has any real desire to affect this change. They will lose supporters and votes.

Taking care of the poor and those without basic needs isn’t charity, it’s justice.  At least, that’s what the Church teaches.  We can argue over how to redistribute the goods of the earth as a matter of prudence but not that they must be redistributed in order that those who lack may now have.

@ cowalker
The Personhood Amendment did not pass in Mississippi because pro-life “leaders” yes the same ones that wanted to push Romney on us came out publicly against the measure.
Haley Barbour, the fat cat Republican who coined the Big Tent Republican label, went on Fox and MSNBC to slam the personhood amendment days before the vote.  The Catholic Bishops in Mississippi issued a statement practically urging folks to vote against it, so please don’t blame personhood.
Jason Jones is 100% correct in saying that we need a federal constitutional amendment, and he is also correct that it is going to be a long effort, but we are supposed to be people of faith, are we not?  We are supposed to believe in truth, are we not?  Let’s stop being pawns of those who don’t even share our beliefs and let’s start working towards what we all believe, that the preborn child is a person made in the image of God.
I’m in, who’s with me?

Jay Z here is right. Prolifers have to stop getting taken like rubes at a carnival. We can start by ignoring unserious clowns like Dr. Zmirak.

The usual method of proposing Constitutional amendments is through approval by two-thirds of each house of Congress.  With the current make-up of the House and Senate, this is not going to happen.  But perhaps it is time to try the other, never-used method of proposing amendments—a constitutional convention.  Article V of the Constitution states that Congress shall call a convention on the application of two-thirds of the states’ legislatures—this means 34 states.  I’d guess about 24 states (the solid “red” ones) would be willing to propose such an amendment—getting the other 10 would be tough.  That’s why I think it might be easier to propose an amendment that simply overturns Roe v. Wade—one that gives the states the sole power to allow, abolish, or regulate abortion as they please.  Not the best solution, but it would at least allow “red” states to ban abortion.  Of course, no matter what amendment is proposed or what method is used to propose it, it would then need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38—another uphill battle.

More sacrificing pro-life at the altar of the free market I see.  That is exactly what caused 98% of American Catholics to vote for Intrinsic Evil in this election.  It is time to abandon Lust and Greed, Murder and Gluttony, and replace them with Caritas In Vertitate.

If it isn’t too late already, that is.  98% of your fellow Catholics fell for the lies of Hudge and Grudge.  98%.  50% of those for Obama, 48% for Romney.

IF we get another chance.  I fear that we’re far too late given how certain measures went elsewhere.

Oh, and subsidiarity?  That’s been illegal in the United States since 1796.  Article I section 8 makes sure you can’t protect your neighbors from economic invaders, and you can’t protect the unborn from those who would impoverish their mothers and send them to the Planned Parenthood Death Factories.

Florida Amendment 6, which would have restricted abortion in Florida, FAILED at the ballot box 55-45

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida_Abortion,_Amendment_6_(2012)

The people of Florida had a direct vote on abortion. They chose to support it. Until this changes, talking about whether a candidate is or is not taking advantage of pro-lifers is irrelevant.

Until these numbers are reversed, debating political strategy is irrelevant.

Dr. Zmirak isn’t reversing himself or being inconsistent. Admitting that Romney was a flawed candidate, he counseled supporting him as a lesser evil, and exposed the illogic of those who falsely asserted that it might be sinful to support Romney for that reason. He calculated, rightly, that the defeat of Romney would make the Supreme Court impossible to reform—while a Romney victory might make it possible (if uncertain). He urged prolifers to rally behind the least bad option, and resist a far greater evil, in the hope of leaving open this avenue of attack on abortion. Now that it has closed, he is honestly stating why Romney lost, and calculating the (now much steeper) odds of changing our abortion laws by a much more arduous method. Dr. Zmirak is not trying to blame Romney’s loss on “purists” like Richert and Shea—whose influence as writers is, thankfully, negligible. Instead, Zmirak is forthrightly repeating criticisms of Romney like those he published at Crisis magazine when he was the editor, and criticisms of Republican foreign policy such as he has been writing, consistently, for years. The fact remains that Obama’s victory is a disaster for the Church, while a Romney victory would have been a mild reprieve. Catholic institutions will now be closed by this intolerant administration, and Obama appointees will legislate from the bench in a manner much more hostile to the Church. Those who counseled futile, symbolic votes instead of effective votes against Obama have nothing to be proud of

“Dr. Zmirak isn’t reversing himself or being inconsistent.”

Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

It would not have been ineffective if people like John Z hadn’t been giving economic conservatives a pass on intrinsic evil for 40 years now.  And if we actually had a generation of Catholics who knew the difference between the 5 sins that cry out to Heaven for vengeance and a bribe.

No, those who have compromised the Faith for worship of the rich and for the holy orgasm of free to fail sex are the ones who gave us such utterly evil candidates. A vote for evil, just brings more evil- lesser or greater, greed or lust, it is still a vote for evil.

I give up.  Evil has won.  Hope you enjoy your $3 in dimes.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/a-more-diverse-gop/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=a-more-diverse-gop

The GOP is already planning to ditch the “values voters” so it can regain “the precious” (power that is.)

Ted:

“Evil has won” is the sin of despair.  Stop it.  Get off line, stop feeding on despair, and get reacquainted with your faith.  Jesus remains God.  The Church has been through war, persecution and genocide.  Romney losing an election is small beer.

Given the two articles, it would appear that John Z Has contracted a bad case of Romnesia. There ought to be a telethon for that disease.

Good idea Mark- but you are missing the totality of my sin.

I would have said the same even if Roney had won.  This is not about Romney or Obama, it is about the utter lack of teaching from the Church.  And that is MY fault as much as anybody’s.  To whom much is given, much is required.

If there is an utter lack of teaching, how come you and I know what the Church teaches?  What is required now is a level head and the eyes to see what a golden opportunity we have to regroup, learn, and teach, the faith.  All that is really happening here is that an idol that needed smashing was smash.  I am more hopeful now than I’ve been in ages.

A constitutional amendment is implausible simply because if 2/3 of this nation believed that infants had rights then it is easy enough for the constitution to be read with this presumption. The fact is we have lost, we, Christians, have lost the reigns of culture and it is going to be a long slow road to get it back. God forbid we call a constitutional convention, can you imagine what the constitution would look like after this society was done with it. You want to stop being made pawns, beat the devil at his own game.  People love “FREEDOM,” why not use that against the devil.  As a Catholic Priest I have been told its “un-christian” to support libertarians, and the fact is that the Libertarian ideology does have problems and comes into conflict with the Faith, but as we have so often before in history why can’t we used what is true of Libertarianism and appropriate it for ourselves?  I’m not talking ideology though, but prudential ordering of society, I am talking subsidiarity to use a Catholic word.  Why make it an issue of “imposing our views” (that’s how they see it) on others, most democrats will never see eye to eye with SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES, the big bad Christian right, but they might see eye to eye with libertarianism, which is at the root of the voting paterns of many democrats.  I can’t believe, with what history has shown us, that many people actually dig authoritarian collectivism.  Its so anti-American, anti-Pop culture.  Returning so many issues to state and local levels under the pretext of FREEDOM allows Christian areas to ban abortion, not just politically conservative but also those who see the problems with the pro-death position but are unwilling to compromise the social welfare system. More importantly, these issues being decided on the local level, will foster debate, thought, and give Christians the chance to re-evangelize. Think about it, pushing the freedom agenda, the states rights agenda, we could be in the trenches working with all those people who the Democratic Party think they have a lock on, druggies, anti-war activists, moral relativists, atheists—while you might find this distasteful imagine the possibilities for dialog, for the new evangelization.  Libertarians are anti-government, in an age where government imposes itself more and more on Christians how can we fail to be anti-government? We are fighting on the wrong battle field, and as long as we try to win this fight by backing yesterday’s winner we are doomed to fail.

Please forgive a small-small minded lay person for entering the fray with such well written theological giants. 

There are places in the world in far greater economic despair than the US.  It would seem that much of the problem faced is our inability to win the hearts and minds of anyone.  Life, Liberty and Pursuit of happiness… really that’s dignity, freedom, and pursuit of what’s good.  Happiness can not be had with out liberty, liberty can not be had with out life.

Granted Romney might not have made strong moves against Roe, and largely it might not have been possible for him to do so.  But he at least was in support of defending marriage and our religious freedom.  Our culture views marriage as a legal contract even if done in a sacramental way.  Not knowing what Catholic life is like in other countries, I can barely comprehend how US Catholics account for 60% of the annulments granted worldwide, but only 6% of the worldwide Catholic population.  I can totally grasp how I fall into that statistical category, as through that process I made effort to education myself on what the Church teaches that marriage really is.  I had never learned any of these things growing up.  Marriage is the societal unit, and yet we cannot win the hearts of the people in even this.  It must get worse before it gets better I suppose.

I simply couldn’t bring myself to vote for Obama after hearing his 2008 campaign speech about not wanting his daughters to be punished with a baby.  If one of my own daughters became pregnant out of wedlock or too young, I pray for the grace to be joyful, but I can’t fathom the idea of considering my grandchild to be a punishment.

I think that many Catholics like Zmirak fail to grasp the lesson they should have learned from this election. Although you may strongly believe in banning abortion even for rape victims, denying homosexuals rights while asserting that zygotes deserve them, and that contraception is evil, you are in the vast minority, so there’s no votes to be gained by demonizing any who disagree and shrieking that they are evil. Romney valiantly tried to create some space between himself and the Christianist base of the Republican Party, but even this diluted version was too extreme for most Americans. To believe that a “personhood amendment” as a back door to overturning Roe v. Wade would have any chance of success demonstrates an unwillingness to face facts and remain in a cocoon isolated from reality.
-
It wasn’t “their irresponsible policies” on occupying Iraq, or deregulating financial institutions that cost them this election; these things cost them the 2008 election. It was the one-note religious zealots, the Christian politicians trotting out absurd theories to explain why even abortion in cases of rape should be banned, the shrieking cries of socialism despite the lowest taxes in over 50 years, the preposterous climate-change deniers, and the birthers and other assorted racists and loons that make up the new Republican Party. But the NCRegister and every blogger on staff was firmly on their side. Good thing for the country that most Catholics aren’t.

I don’t understand the charges of inconsistency. Sure, Dr. Zmirak has changed his tune: the political situation that inspired the first article no longer holds. So too may a bugler change his call from “Charge” to “Rally” when the corps needs to regroup. The argument of the first article can be summarized as “Swing state voters must vote Romney, because if Obama wins, prolife votes for president will no longer matter;” the second, “Obama has won, so prolife votes for president no longer matter. We need to change tactics.” You can disagree with the arguments if you like, but you can’t reasonably charge him with inconsistency.

Hayek or Keynes is one thing. Abortion is another.
Its time to dissociate these. Promoting free market, more or less government is no going to make people more moral.
There are also plenty free market forces behind abortion.
Sheldon Adelson, as major backer of Romney, is adamantly pro abortion.
As Catholics, we need not despair, but double up and convert people’s hearts, instead of linking abortion to partisan causes, with wako politicians making ridiculous statements a la Akin or Mourdock.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA

Dear Mr. Zmirak—

I probably don’t have to encourage this, but I’d suggest not paying much attention to Mark Shea’s unstudied assessment of your posts and his claim of your inconsistency.

Shea’s lack of clarity on issues such as these is manifest. I particularly noted his erroneous recent statement, for example, that Paul Ryan is “not pro-life” (when of course he is). The ironic part of that accusation, as I see it, is that it stems from Ryan having to articulate the abortion stance of the Romney campaign, which, of course, no longer exists. Shea’s logic would seem to have this mean that Ryan was ardently pro-life before the campaign, “not pro-life” during the campaign, and I guess presumably pro-life again now that the campaign is over….

Further, what of Shea’s publicly admitting that he voted for Ron Paul, who, of course, supports grave intrinsic evil? I thought any support of grave intrinsic evil was a deal-breaker when it came to Shea’s vote.

I will say that you and Mark both have my prayers, particularly in hopes that we all can engage each other respectfully in matters that touch on Catholic teaching and truth.

Deacon JR

Ben,

Based on reading this article and the one Shea linked, the charge of inconsistency seems to be based in the fact that Zmirak is now saying that pro-lifers should refuse to be pawns of GOP lies, when he previously was calling pro-lifers who DID refuse to be pawns for GOP liars masturbators.

From a certian point of view, I guess it might not be inconsistent to say that “Pro-Lifers Must Stop Being Pawns until it’s time to be Pawns again (when the next “MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER!” comes back up….)

So he voted for inconsistency before he voted against it? Stop it. Y’all are giving me a headache.

Deacon JR:

No.  Paul advocated no grave intrinsic evil *as policy*.  That’s what matters here.  His confused views on what he would do in a rape situation are not germane.  If he were advocating gravely and intrinsically evil *policy* I would never have voted for him.

Ryan, in contrast *did* advocate gravely and intrinsically evil *policy*.  There’s your difference.

The point is that over 99% of abortions are done as back up “birth control”. Let’s convince people to “chose” adoption instead. Let’s learn from the abolition movement 150 years ago, that purchased slaves to free them. For example, why not pay abortion providers to refer expecting mothers to adoptions agencies instead? Let’s use market forces for good. That is the place to start, not some off the wall constitutional assembly that is never going to happen. Heck, at 12 weeks gestation, humans in utero and kittens are the same size, and sort of look the same. That is when kittens are born. Humans, as larger mammals, need to stay in the womb longer. Yet it is illegal to kill kittens in all 50 states, but not humans at same gestational age. Kittens have more rights than humans! A 12 year understands the absurdity of this, until he/she is brainwashed by the “no strings attached adult reproductive rights” industry.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L…
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGk…

A 12 year old understands the absurdity of this, until he/she is brainwashed by the “no strings attached adult reproductive rights” industry. Sorry.

A constitutional amendment does not need to be carried out through a convention.  It can be initiated by Congress, and most importantly it requires a lot of groundwork in the states.  Everyone agrees that a Federal Personhood Amendment or a Human Life Amendment is what is needed.  Jason Jones is not saying that this will be a cakewalk, he states that “we needed to do the long, slow, thankless work needed to push such an amendment through the Congress and the states. It is time we finally get started on that work.”
No one can seriously say that the low hanging fruit strategy pursued for the last 40 years of fetal pain, ultrasounds, parental consent, partial birth abortion, have made America more pro-life.  The only “advance” in our battle has come at the expense of what it even means to be pro-life.  Remember a majority of Americans polled say they are pro-life, and a majority of Americans picked, Barack “Infanticide” Obama.
The slow thankless work means that we start grass roots efforts in all 50 states that can trickle up to our elected representative.  It means pro-life state houses pass resolutions calling for a Human Life Amendment.  It means fighting to win the war and abolish abortion, not fighting to win an insignificant battle, like parental consent (which must have a judicial bypass) or partial birth abortion bans, that can’t actually ban the killing of the child, just that particular narrowly defined procedure. 
I for one am ready to start working towards the constitutional amendment, even if it takes my entire lifetime.  I know my children will keep the fight going if they need to.

A pro-life amendment could not even carry Mississippi and would not ever pass. And with only 20% of the people supporting a complete ban on abortion (Gallup), even the Supreme Court—no matter who appoints the judges—won’t touch it. The Church has put the political cart before the evangelical horse; we have to convert the nation before we can carry an election, not after. And in getting the proper order wrong, they cut abortion completely out of its doctrinal contexts, away from contraception on one side and the whole area of social justice on the other. In return, the Church got neither good politics nor effective evangelism. What really happened Tuesday? The re-election of the President was the least of it; the more important event was the complete collapse of the Church’s political agenda. Four states did what no state has ever done before: vote for homosexual “marriage.”

Yes, a majority considers itself “pro-life,” but that is only because the term has been dumbed-down to include all sorts of exceptions. In truth, 20% support abortion under all circumstances and 20% oppose it under any circumstances, and everybody else is in the middle. And those are the same numbers as in 1975. Nothing’s changed. This is because the Bishops understand neither politics nor evangelization. They sold their flocks to the Republican Party and got nothing in return. And now, there is no “Catholic Vote” for them to deliver to the lowest bidder; they have lost all credibility. We’ll have to do the job ourselves.

An amendment is indeed the only way forward now on the pro-life front, and that was always really the endgame.  What’s changed there is that with Roe now irrevocably in place, there’s no chance of incremental bans along the way—it will all have to come down at once, which will as a practical matter make the amendment that much harder to pass when the time comes.

But understand that that is not something that will happen anytime soon.  From the founding of Birth Control Review to Roe, it took Margaret Sanger little under 60 years—three generations—to achieve her vision, and that was in a culture already looking to buy what she was selling.  It’s going to take at least twice that long to reverse the damage wrought (assuming this culture lasts that long) and we’re not likely to live to see the end result.

But that’s the way these things normally work.  One plows, another sows, a third reaps, and God is the only one there the whole way through.  (Us?  I think we’re still clearing the rocks off of the field.)

Okay, Mark, I’m trying to get the logic of what you say above.

I will quibble over whether Ryan “advocated” (he didn’t—he “articulated”) the Romney campaign abortion “policy,” but in any case your view is that the originally fully pro-life Ryan was “not pro-life” during the campaign because he “advocated” a gravely intrinsically evil abortion “policy”.

But Ron Paul, who was *not* fully pro-life prior to the campaign (he personally advocates the grave intrinsic evil of abortion in some rape cases), actually *was* fully pro-life during the campaign because his abortion “policy” did not advocate grave intrinsic evil. But wait, isn’t Ron Paul’s “policy” simply to give the abortion issue back to the states? Not exactly a “pro-life” view, I’d say.

In the end, both men were “inconsistent” according to you view, weren’t they?

And, now that the campaign is over, the guy you voted for remains “not pro-life” while Ryan, whom you said also was *not* pro-life actually is *back* to being pro-life?

This whole “policy above personal view” gets verrry confusing once the campaign is over and the “policies” disappear…I mean, now, after the campaign, people who endorsed Ryan as a good VP candidate get to say they endorsed a guy who is in full accord with Church teaching on abortion, while you’re stuck with saying the guy you voted for is pro-abortion in certain cases….

I find that odd.

Deacon JR

Yeah, “a constitutional amendment”, sure, an other pie in the sky excuse to do nothing. There is plenty that can be done at the local level, starting with adoption. Adoptions are down. Why should Catholic adoption be closed because government funding is running out, for whatever reason? That makes no sense. I though the whole idea was to get government out of these things, anyways. Saving one life at the time, not by government fiat/machinations, I thought that was the whole idea. Remember? “Subsidiarity”? Once this takes momentum, amendments, etc.. will follow. But this means real work, not sitting on ones a$$ behind a computer, bloging rants.

Mark—I also want to point out that I’m not arguing this from a merely political perspective, which would require more of a direct comparison between Ron Paul and Romney, rather than looking at the moral landscape associated with a Ron Paul and a Paul Ryan. Instead, I’m questioning your application of reason and Church teaching relative to the moral question of endorsing or not endorsing a particular candidate on the basis of that person’s acceptance of grave intrinsic evil.

As I see it, you seem to be using an “inversion” of the now-classic “personally opposed but don’t want to impose my views” political calculus to justify a vote for Ron Paul despite his personally held pro-abortion view. That’s what makes it interesting to me—that a personal belief in just a little grave intrinsic evil doesn’t seem to bother you as long as the candidate doesn’t directly enshrine that personal belief in “policy.”

And yet, other examples of applying this reasoning seem less savory. For example, let’s assume Candidate A is personally a racist but knows the public won’t accept any direct “policy” to promote his racist views. So his “policy” is squeaky clean but his personal belief is in a grave intrinsic evil—is it morally good to vote for this person, or does the fact of his personally racist belief disqualify him from consideration?

Deacon JR

Sorry for another comment, but I need to register my astonishment at finding out that Shea is accusing Zmirak of “calumny” over in Mark’s blog comboxes.

Totally unsavory, particularly given Shea’s own treatment of fellow Catholic Paul Ryan’s reputation….seriously, is this the level of holiness and civility that draws us closer to Christ???

Let’s do better than this,

Deacon JR

Dear Deacon JR, who gives a rodent’s posterior about Mark’s or John’s comboxes?

I completely and whole-heartedly disagree with the notion that we “knew” it was a mistake to invade and “occupy” Iraq.

It was not then, and it is not now.

Deacon,

First of all it is UNTRUE that being for Federalism, i.e. following the law (which we Catholics have a duty to do), and leaving issues like murder to the states is pro-death.  There is no Federal murder law for a crime committed in the states, and no Bishop is claiming that we need to have one in order to be pro-life.

Secondly, in 2000 Ron Paul voted for the Partial birth abortion ban, and in 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011, he introduced the Sanctity of Life Act.

If there is one thing you can say about Paul is that he is consistent and I think you would be hard pressed to find him flip flopping on this issue.  The question for Paul is HOW we ban abortion, not IF, and to say otherwise is dishonest. If you didn’t know this, now you do, if you did, shame on you for chastising someone for voting for the only REAL prolife candidate: Ron Paul.  The man who understands that its illogical to say I am against killing babies, except in x, y, and z cases, and who understands that the ONLY way we are going to make a dent in abortion is to abandon the easy (and now unattainable way), that may very well be unconstitutional to boot, and to work community by community and state by state, which is actually the way it was before Roe.

In Christ,
Padre

I agree that the Neo-cons didn’t know it was a mistake. But they should have. It was a willful ignorance.

@Adolfo—If you want to be taken seriously in talking about “what the Church teaches” you will have to provide references to the specific place and location of these teachings.  Otherwise, it is just “what some guy calling himself Adolfo teaches in the comboxes”.  It would be much easier for you to establish that the Church teaches that certain things are not optional—including the virtue of charity, a fair wage for workers (which indeed does fall under justice), and alms for the poor.

@Mark Shea- “If there is an utter lack of teaching, how come you and I know what the Church teaches?”

I don’t know about you, Mark, but for me it took spending a lot of time in the library of a certain Benedictine Monastery.

I certainly have NEVER heard about the 5 Sins That Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance from the pulpit.

I have only heard the word “contraception” from the pulpit ONCE in 40 years, and never the word “racism” or “abortion”

And while I am going to confession on Saturday, I am praying that Father doesn’t try to tell me despair isn’t a sin.  Far too many priests have disregarded my sins, instead of offering absolution for them.

And if we’re wondering why 98% of Catholics voted Democrat or Republican in this past election- THAT is exactly why.

I thought there were only 4 sins that cried to heaven.  One of which involves wages, which makes Labor (Subjects, not Objects in the Theology of the Body) different in kind from a commodity or rent or interest.

Dea-neo-cons?

Ron Paul fears government power.  Power corrupts, and he is the only one I know who actively fights it.  He doesn’t take lobbyists’ money.  He doesn’t take perks.  BECAUSE he fears power/corruption, he refuses to attempt to use it to try to create heaven-on-earth as it would instead be co-opted by Hell.

80% of the Federal government is corrupt, intrusive, destructive, etc.  It is better to destroy 90% and backfill the 10% privately or through the church than to keep the 80% evil for the sake of the 20% good.

Personally I’m tired of being rooked by the bishops on a knightly basis.  Getting to the 8th rank might let the Queen of the holy rosary empower us - she is the mediatrix of all graces.

@tz- like myself for a while, you forgot chattel slavery.

Maybe because it’s the only one of the five that the two major parties together don’t support.

Though yeah, I’ve heard the argument before that it should fall under cheating laborer of his wages.

But it sure would help if we’d hear about those other four from the pulpit once in a while.

Of course, mentioning it from the pulpit is rather dangerous under the censorship of the secularists:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/liberal-group-asks-irs-investigate-catholic-church-alleged-political-activity

I love how the Ron Paul people are so quick to gloss over his gay marriage views.

Comboxes matter because they are words that mean things and they come from the hearts of real human beings.  Which is why I’m seriiously disgusted by “The Jerk” (how self-deprecating of him!) to come here and call Dr. Zmirak a clown.  Something’s up with that and I can’t figure out if it’s jealousy or what, but whatever else it may be, it’s unwelcome and terribly childish.

Mrs s - Ron Paul doesn’t think the state should be the one to define marriage at all.  Personally he follows the Christian definition - no one has asked him about divorce to my knowledge.  Henry VIII redefined marriage, but married a woman each of 6 times.  Why did St. Thomas More lose his head?  Paul’s view is neither Catholics nor Gays, nor the remarried, nor the contracepting should use the State to shove their definition down the throats of others.  Not all grave evils are to be met with bombs and bullets.  Paul voted FOR the Defense of Marriage act because the feds and some states were imposing foreign definitions on others.  Meanwhile, while No Fault divorce laws stand, Catholic Marriage (a private contract making divorce nearly impossible and banning contraception) is illegal, i.e. “till death do us part” is specifically NOT legally recognized.  Perhaps we should move to make Catholic marriage legal first.

Dear Padre—
    First, sorry for the delay in replying; some technical issues apparently kept me from doing so most of yesterday. But I wanted to respond to what you wrote and clarify my point a bit.

    I am not so much engaging Ron Paul the candidate as I am engaging Mark Shea as a voter for the candidate, a voter claiming to have voted for particular reasons. So, when I say the Ron Paul candidacy “policy” of sending the abortion issue back to the states is “not exactly a pro-life view,” I do not therefore mean that it’s exactly a “pro-abortion view”. It’s really neither. Sending it back to the states doesn’t equate to a “policy” that reflects on the morality of abortion one way or the other. As such, this means that Shea’s claim that it’s the Ron Paul “policy” he looks to as “germane” to the question of abortion rather than Paul’s “confused” (Shea’s word) view on what Paul would do in certain rape cases is a bit of a red herring. Unless Ron Paul elsewhere has a specific campaign “policy” that is in contradiction to the “personal” pro-abortion-in-some-rape-cases view Shea admits is held by the candidate. Minus evidence of an actual positively pro-life “policy” of the Ron Paul campaign, Shea’s expressed logic obviously fails.
  You also mention Ron Paul’s solidly pro-life voting record. Which is true. But from Shea’s perspective, this is not sufficient to the task of affirming that a candidate is “pro-life.” Exhibit A—Shea’s treatment of candidate Paul Ryan, who *also* has a consistent pro-life voting record. But for Shea, Ryan is not pro-life (despite the clear voting record) because he entered a campaign whose “policy” is not one-hundred percent pro-life. For consistency’s sake, one must apply the same principle to Ron Paul and not look to the past voting record but only look at the campaign *policy*, if one follows Shea’s logic.
  And therefore, regarding your admonition “shame on you for chastising someone for voting for the only REAL prolife candidate: Ron Paul,” I ask you to tell me: if the Ron Paul “campaign policy” is the *only* meaningful measure of the candidate’s “real” pro-life status (which is precisely Shea’s argument), then where in the campaign policy is this real pro-life status expressed?
  So the summary here is that 1) Shea’s reaction to Zmirak is considerably over-the-top. 2) Shea is detracting from fellow Catholic Paul Ryan’s reputation as an ardently pro-life politician adhering fully to Church teaching. 3) Shea’s own rationale for voting for Ron Paul appears un-reasonable after all, and not internally consistent with the standard by which he measured VP candidate Ryan. 

Which brings me full circle to my first suggestion to Zmirak above—Shea’s critique of this post and the previous one by Zmirak is probably not worth taking seriously.

God bless you,

Deacon JR

A seamless garment exists that fits both Cthulhu and Mark Shea.

No more “seamless garment” talk from bishops, please.

Full disclosure: upon reviewing what Shea says above, I need to acknowledge that the standard he proposes is that Ron Paul’s “policy” is not gravely intrinsically evil, and sending the abortion issue back to the states is not an intrinsically evil proposition. I grant that. But I think my point still stands—if one’s “personal” stance is subordinate to one’s “policy” stance and not “germane” to the final determination of who to vote for, then the Paul “policy” on abortion remains unclear. And in the case of an unclear “policy,” one might think to look toward the views (and votes) previously expressed by a candidate to determine where he stands; otherwise you still end up with the potential example I mention above (e.g. a personally “racist” candidate whose policy is not racist).

Deacon JR

Ted Seeber:

This is totally off-topic, and you’re free to disregard it, but I come from Oregon and graduated in 1991 with a Bill Seeber (S.U.H.S.). I also worked at Mt. Angel Abbey (Benedictine) Seminary in the kitchen and, for a time, in their library between June of 1993 and December of 1995. I became Catholic in 1995. I guess I’m just wondering if you and Bill were related. He and the girl who became his wife were always pleasant company (thoughtful, kind and intelligent).
Just wondered.
Sarah L

Deacon JR,

Paul Ryan’s position that every baby has dignity, except in x, y, and z cases, is logical non-sense, and while Shea might be wrong to suggest that a pro-life voter can’t prudently vote for Paul Ryan (or his flip flopper boss), he is absolutely correct that Ron Paul’s professed position is the only rationally (rational=truth=of God) coherent position.  Ron Paul is pro-life, even though he proposes no policies on the federal level (except the 10th amendment), because that divestment of power would over night empower the states to ban abortion, and more than half of them would.  Ron Paul also is in favor of state bans just as he is in favor or state murder bans.  Thus, his position is all human creatures have a right to life, with no exceptions, ergo 100% pro-life.  How you accomplish the good, morally speaking, is not important (so long as you use moral means), it is the DESIRE to accomplish the good that makes an act moral.  A portion of the time Paul Ryan suspends his desire to do good in accommodation of an emotional political position. “Thy will be done…”

Hi, Padre—you said “Thus, his position is all human creatures have a right to life, with no exceptions, ergo 100% pro-life.”

Except the problem with this statement—which Shea also recognizes as shown by his above comment—is that Ron Paul seems okay with the use of abortifacient drugs post-rape. Which is why I don’t think one can claim that, on a personal level, Paul is a “no exceptions” pro-life proponent. I grant that he’s close to 100 percent, it seems, but not quite.

And this gets to the heart of what Zmirak has to say, I think. With the abortion issue, the calculus of presidential politics, particularly for faithful Catholics, has been such that front-running candidates tend not to be very genuine in zeal for the issue and so the benefit is largely one-way—in favor of the candidate rather than the pro-life voter (and ultimately rather than for the unborn). But even with other candidates—like Ron Paul—whose zeal for the life issues is evident, we have to be realistic and clear about both “personal” and “policy” characteristics and properly assess how they measure up to Catholic teaching. Ron Paul comes close, but at the end of the day, it’s actually *Paul Ryan* who is “personally” more “pro-life” based on the public record as I’m aware of it. What if Paul Ryan had run for president and not VP? And what if it so happened that he ran against Ron Paul? I think the evidence shows that Ryan edges ahead of Paul in the “pro-life” question…

God bless,

Deacon JR

“Ryan, in contrast *did* advocate gravely and intrinsically evil *policy*.”

Actually what Ryan did was to promote a position that would limit, though not completely outlaw, abortion.  This is a position that is completely consistent with Catholic teaching. 

Stating otherwise is in fact calumny.

Howard, may I suggest looking up the Universal Destination of Goods in the Catechism?

Great article Mr. Zmirak, especially your point about charity that is coerced isn’t charity. I’ll share the link you mentioned about Pope Leo XIII’s warnings about the evils of socialism.

http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/.HTM

Charity is a duty, not an option, for the truly faithful Catholic.  I find the “forced charity isn’t charity” to be a cop-out for those who want to take instead of make.

Which is my whole problem with Ayn Rand- she didn’t know that the real takers in any free market aren’t labor, they’re the owners who seek rent, interest, and steal wages from labor.

As Justice Scalia has noted, “It is very difficult to adopt a constitutional amendment” (“Scalia: Abortion, death penalty ‘easy’ cases,” CBS News Online, Oct. 5, 2012). The aforementioned article also says that by Scalia’s calculation, “[L]ess than 2 percent of the U.S. population, residing in the 13 least populous states, could stop an amendment….” If his calculations are correct, a personhood amendment wouldn’t stand a chance. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try, however. Just putting things into perspective.

if this map is correct- Personhood actually stands a much better chance is the LEAST populous areas.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/publiccatholic/2012/11/so-what-does-it-look-like-from-your-side/

Overwhelmingly, the least populous areas of the United States are agricultural and deeply committed to biology and the cycle of life.  You can’t make a living off of raising livestock and NOT know that an egg and a chicken are the same animal- regardless of appearances.

It is the MOST populous areas, the urban centers, that are a problem.  Not the least populous.  City folks don’t know where those eggs come from and since the ones they buy in the store aren’t fertilized, they’ve never seen one turn into a chicken.

I’ve long said that the best way to teach pro-life, is to buy every 5th grade science teacher a $100 incubator.

“I’ve long said that the best way to teach pro-life, is to buy every 5th grade science teacher a $100 incubator.”
That is so true: 100 years ago young people knew a lot more about biology, just from growing up near nature. Now they have no clue. This is why they are so easily brainwashed to view sex as a commodity, totally separated from procreation. That is where the answer lies, not is some pie in the sky constitutional amendment. Teach young people the truth. That is where Catholics should be.

Wow - it’s a good thing I’m secure in my Catholic Faith and didn’t read these comments in the middle of a conversion to Catholicism.  I can just feel the Charity dripping from each post.  I see a number of familiar names here and can’t believe we’d expect others to see peace in our heart.  Perhaps all of us should spend some more time in prayer about these issues and how to communicate with each other.  Then we can read Aquinas to understand how he argued charitably and respectfully represented his opponents’ positions, usually better than they did themselves.  Let’s start looking like we been to the endzone before and perhaps others will start to listen and follow.  God Bless.

I saw this news item on BBC online under “Health”. Pretty interesting:

“A Canadian man who was believed to have been in a vegetative state for more than a decade, has been able to tell scientists that he is not in any pain”

@Kathleen: All the more reason to condemn what they did to Terri Schiavo. Until a few years ago, people in a persistent vegetative state were thought to be totally gone. Now, neuroscience has discovered that many of these people are still there cognitively, at least in part. But I don’t think you’ll hear any apologizing. That would mean acknowledging the pro-lifers were right about something, as they were arguing this all along.

The problem as I see it is that the pro-life crowd does NOT challenge the pro-abortion crowd nearly enough.  With the simple use of the term “pro-choice,” they are blurring the line between banning abortion and, for example, overturning the 19th amendment.  After-all, the 19th amendment gave women “the right to chose,” didn’t it?  As in, the right to mark a ballot for which candidate they wanted in office.

Now, of course, they love to say, “chose what to do with their bodies,” as if banning abortion is tantamount to, say, saying women can’t get appendectomies.  However, while banning women from getting appendectomies would be unspeakable, it would be just as bad to outlaw the procedure regardless of gender, right?  It would prove just as fatal if the ban was on men as well as women, right?  And so what about issues where men are banned from “controlling their bodies” just like women?  Heroin is illegal for both men and women.  I’m a little fuzzy on gun laws, but concealing a weapon on your person is no more or less legal for men than for women as far as I know.  Show me I’m wrong, and I’ll oppose that double-standard.

Now, another battle cry is that men don’t have the right to weigh in on this because they have no stake in it.  That, of course, is like saying blind people shouldn’t oppose a war because they can’t join the army.  Of course the blind have the right to oppose a war.  Doesn’t matter if they’re subject to fighting in it.  And the same is true of men with opinions on abortion.

Finally, while I did vote for Romney partly because of this issue, along with Obama’s insistence that schools like Georgetown MUST provide contraception (for women, mind you, I don’t think the FDA has approved of the male spermicidal pill) in their prescription plan, and the subsequent people who don’t know the difference between the government denying a right and a business denying a privilege (usually from femiNAZIs and the politically whipped); the fact is that if Romney were elected, he couldn’t do anything about abortion, and the pro-abortion crowd would have more ammunition.  Heck, even if the Big O had a change of heart, technically, a constitutional amendment (as opposed to just a new law) doesn’t need to be signed by the president.

No, I don’t feel good when I’m even forced to entertain the thought that, say, pro-abortionists have a point about raped women (although if certain statistics can be trusted, keeping that exception in an abortion ban would still be HUGE progress) but before we can even begin to campaign for a de-jure ban, we need to work toward a de-facto way of preventing abortions.  The good news is that the percentage of women who have had abortions by age 40 has decreased through the decades.  Let’s keep it that way.

I can’t even agree on incest and rape.  I’ve known too many people born from such “wrong conceptions” to claim that they deserve the death penalty for the actions of either parent.

The one troubling case to me is triage- but writing into OUR abortion laws what the anti-life people always forget is the answer:  conscience protections for every doctor and nurse (the government has no place in the emergency room).