Catholics for Democracy - Revive your faith. Renew our democracy.

Welcome!

All Christians and all people of good will welcome here! Visit our Welcome Page.

User login

· Create new account
· Request new password

Catholics' Guide to Politics

Resources
Key Church Documents
- your entry here
Issues
- your entry here
Politicians
- your entry here
Related Topics
- your entry here

What is this?

Blogs

· [Draft] Resources
· Holy See Pleased that Kidnapped Archbishop is Released
· For All The Wrong Reasons
· Celebrate Martin Luther King
· MoveOn's social Security Petition
· Who Has Abortions and What it Means for us
· The Awakening of Democrats?
· Tim Roemer for DNC Chair
· "Under God?" Asking the big questions
· Catholic Republicans becoming a more familiar sight on the Hill

Upcoming events

Inauguration (and Protests) (1 day)
March for Life (inc. Dems for Life) (5 days)
Republican Meetup (8 days)
Democracy for America Meetup (14 days)
Democratic Party Meetup (20 days)

Essential Links

Latest from the Vatican
US Catholic Bishops
Pax Christi USA
NETWORK Catholic Lobby
Democrats for Life
Catholic Relief Services
Sojourners

other links

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 4 guests online.

Who's new

· c1gf
· frankrizzo
· lowellmj5
· Micksman
· Brian Burke

Comment Posting Rules

Statement about posting blog statements or responses at CfD.

Syndicate

Response

Comment added by hugetim on Wed 22 Sep 2004 - 16:11 h

I apologize for the delay, but I no longer have time to write daily wordy posts like the above (and some of my previous blogwork).

Let's first look at the pivotal Ratzinger quote: "When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons." My point was that Cardinal Ratzinger did not say that such proportionate reasons need to be abortion related, as you repeatedly claim on your site. For an entire week, you repeatedly propagated the notion that a proportional reason such as:
The more anti-abortion opponent has also deceived the country into supporting an unjust war (which he had been planning since the beginning of his presidency, though he apparently waited until after the end of "major combat operations" to devise a plan for the securing anything in the country other than its oilfields), spitting in the face of the very idea of international law and international authority (indeed defining international cooperation as succumbing to coercion by him, without cracking a smile), setting international cooperation years back in the process (cooperation that is the hope of refugees, people dying of hunger and treatable diseases everywhere), and setting the precedent (as well as defining as official US policy) that any nation that feels (no solid evidence necessary) there is even a possibility that an enemy may attack it at any time in the even distant future has a legitimate "right" to attack and invade "pre-emptively" (actually, preventatively, because pre-emptively is defined as a response to an imminent threat, evidenced by troop movements or other manifest evidence), subject to no one; all of which sets a course for frequent, consuming wars throughout the world in the years to come, rather than working (e.g. Using some of the $200 billion for Iraq) to end the wars that are currently raging throughout the world (e.g. Sudan, Liberia, Congo, Cote d'Ivore, Haiti, Columbia... irreparably disrupting the lives of innumerable already impoverished peoples).

Just an example, which I admittedly do not have time to comprehensively document here. Perhaps, just for the sake of argument, grant the truth of the above (which is in some places an understatement)--could that be a proportionate reason?

Regarding peripheral abortion issues, I do not think of them as unimportant, but you continue to distort their significance when you speak as if "4000+ daily abortions" hang in the balance. As you well know, Bush has repeatedly stated that he does not "think the country is ready" for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. He does not support overturning it, and he has given indications of appointing pro-choice justices to the Supreme Court (while appointing pro-lifers to impotent lower courts). So, the peripheral abortion issues are important, but not important enough to outweigh many other issues of life and death. Finally, it is indefensible to speak of Bush supporting a Culture of Life, given his abortion position (life for you, child, unless you were conceived during incest or rape, or before the country is "ready for" the law to change), not to mention his positions and record on war, "usable" nuclear weapons, the death penalty, and a wide range of environmental and economic justice issues that critically affect the life and life-span of many throughout the world. The Culture of Life is not only about the unborn, and I simply would like you to recognize that. Thus this oft-overlooked quote from the Doctrinal Note on...Catholics in Political Life, the context of which you may wish to emphasize at its expense: "The Christian faith is an integral unity, and thus it is incoherent to isolate some particular element to the detriment of the whole of Catholic doctrine. A political commitment to a single isolated aspect of the Church’s social doctrine does not exhaust one’s responsibility towards the common good."

Since your memory seems a bit hazy on the pre-war weapons inspections, I offer you this pre-war view from the AP:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0317-01.htm
Note: "ElBaradei, who has been monitoring the situation day to day, confirmed that he and Blix had received an invitation from the Iraqis "to visit Iraq with a view toward accelerating the implementation of our respective mandates." He did not say whether he or Blix had accepted.

"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," he said."

At this point, when the threat of force had demonstrably produced very good cooperation, why did Bush not halt the invasion? And your complaint that "It took MONTHS to show that the intelligence was either wrong or that these weapons were moved (to Syria, Iran) or still remain hidden. And we continue to look even now. How one thinks four more weeks would have solved this is a mystery." That actually made me laugh out loud. If you don't think it's time to draw some conclusions after a year and a half of occupying the country, then your judgment is in question, needless to say. Remember, when you are justifying a war, the burden of proof is on you. You don't blow up a place and say, "We didn't know for sure that they didn't have WMDs" (unless you are a comedian). Take a look at this article, too, for help: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/

Re your dissent with Just War Theory, I was refering to your Sept. 10 comment in which you said, "Remember, there were many reasons given by the president for invading Iraq, not just the belief they had WMD. There was also the repression of the Iraqi people by Saddam, the defiance of UN resolutions, and ties to international terrorists. Again, war is always a defeat for humanity, but sometimes morally obligatory. The loss of life is regreatable, esp. civilians, but we live in a different world today..." Let me remind you that in Catholic thought, war is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," neither of which existed in Iraq, as clearheaded people understood at the time and most everyone admits now. Sept. 11 does not change whether a war is just, as you were tempted to imply. Defiance of UN resolutions does not justify war. Interestingly, we defy UN resolutions (http://www.space.com/news/un_resolution_991103.html for just one example). Ties to terrorists in themselves do not justify war. Interestingly, we have ties to terrorists (Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, para-militaries in Columbia, etc., and the historical examples are much easier because the files are now open to the public). I felt you were suggesting the opposite, but correct me if I was wrong.

Finally, the business about "binding consciences" is a distraction. In principle, we leave the authority to civil authorities to decide when to go to war. In a concrete situation, we citizens must make a suitably informed judgment about whether a war is just and act accordingly. In this case, Pres. Bush has made it very easy for us because his official doctrine explicitly contradicts just war theory (just as we know Kerry's atrocious explicit position on abortion, apart from his atrocious record). We know Bush rejects just war theory that urges restraint, and we know we will likely start another war unjustly (with all the implications this has for the future of peace throughout the world, which I alluded to above). In this case, we are indeed bound to oppose his war policy. In addition, Bush continues to fully support his race to war, even given what he knows now--that Iraq did not pose a real and certain threat--so we are again bound to acknowledge that he is explicitly defying just war theory. Even if you still want to vote for him, I plead with you to at least acknowledge the ways he defies Catholic teaching.

One final word on the Culture of Life. As Catholics, we are called to view the value of every human life equally, whether American or Iraqi, or Eritrean, or Sudanese, etc. That's why it is morally incongruous to spend $200 billion in Iraq for a questionable war (refering to Iraqi casualties as "collateral" as you know) with no evident immediate threat, while doing so little to change situations of hunger and easily preventable diseases (i.e. TB, cholera) from which something like a hundred thousand die every single day. Bush pledged $15 billion for AIDS in Africa, and then provided only a fraction of that amount in the budget immediately afterwards and every year since. Bush has also proposed the Millenium Challenge Account to aid poor countries, standing idly by as funding for it (still extremely inadequate, given other promises we have made through international agreements) is slashed in half. Frankly, I appreciate your zeal about fighting for the 4,000 unborn that die every day, but it is truly scandalous that you speak so infrequently about "the tragic fact that more than 30,000 children die every day as a result of hunger, international debt, and lack of development around the world" (excerpt from the USCCB's Faithful Citizenship; I could just as easily quote the Vatican). But I could care less about these accusations--just acknowledge these issues and I will feel like we can work towards a Culture of Life together, despite our presidential differences.

Cry of the Poor

"How can it be that even today there are still people dying of hunger? Condemned to illiteracy? Lacking the most basic medical care? Without a roof over their heads? . . .

"Christians must learn to make their act of faith in Christ by discerning His voice in the cry for help that rises from this world of poverty."
-- Pope John Paul II
Novo Millennio Ineunte, no. 50

Support CfD

Give to the only effort I know of to find and support fully Catholic candidates. Your contribution will pay for this website to continue, and for expanded outreach efforts as we build toward next election.

Or, pledge your support (time, prayer, spreading the word, etc.) by signing our petition.

Government Websites

The White House
U.S. Congress
U.S. Supreme Court
Republican Party
Democratic Party
Other Parties...

Relevant Catholic Weblogs

In Today's News: Progressive Catholic reflections
Disputations: Disciplined Catholic thought

Grassroots Politics: DFA

· Fortune Favors the Bold
· Daily News Roundup
· Oklahoma, Mississippi and Utah Democratic Party Leadership Join Florida in Endorsing Gov. Howard Dean for DNC Chair
· One Step Closer in KY
· Florida DNC Members Unanimously Choose Dean
· There's a Party Goin' On Right Here ...
· Touring Birmingham
· Rapid Response: Dr. King's Impact
· The Legacy of Dr. King
· Concord Monitor Endorses Dean

BBC News | Americas

· Rice quizzed over US Iraq policy
· Baseball: Clemens asks for $22m
· Saudis cleared from 9/11 lawsuits
· Rice grilled over US Iraq policy
· Peru PM survives censure vote
· Global poll slams Bush leadership
· Advertising boom boosts Yahoo
· New models up Motorola earnings
· US man admits Iraq oil charge
· New models boost Motorola profits

FactCheck.org

· Social Security Ads: Risk or Protection?
· FactCheck Subscribers Find Us Clear, Unbiased, Reliable and Useful
· Update: FactCheck.org Subscriber Survey
· FactCheck.org Subscriber Survey
· The Whoppers of 2004
· NRA Ad Falsely Accuses Kerry
· Kerry and Bush Mislead Voters With Promises of Energy Independence
· Would Kerry Throw Us To The Wolves?
· $8 Million Worth Of Distortions
· An Avalanche of Misinformation

Do Not Be Afraid

Have Mercy On Us
and on the
Whole World