Monday, April 9, 2012
Marriage: it’s time to clear away the fog | CatholicHerald.co.uk
A Catholic Christian conception (no pun intended) of why marriage can *only* be between a man and a woman. As a Canadian TV commentator once put it (I may be paraphrasing here), "We can include the catepillar under the definition of cat. That doesn't make the catepillar any more feline, but it destroys the definition of cat."
Thursday, April 5, 2012
What are these people thinking?
I couldn't help but guffaw (or is it ROFL?) when I read this little chestnut from today's Rodong Sinmun, the People's Daily in the DPRK (aka, North Korea).
It comes from an article on the larger "crimes" of "traitor" Lee Myung Bak, president of the Republic of Korea (aka, South Korea).
What shock and utter revulsion the average North Korean reader must feel when they read such apalling news:
All we need now is for Jackie Chiles to shout, "This is lewd, lascivious, salacious, and outrageous! That's deplorable, unfathomable, improbable. I am shocked and chagrined, mortified and stupefied. I most strenuously and vigorously object to this man's actions. He is irrelevant, irrational, and inconsequential. He is completely inappropriate!"
But this is the real howler:
Here is what this book says:
Then it goes on to say, "A world famous person said: 'If anyone asks me what will be my choice from the treasure house of human civilization, the Juche idea will be my choice.'"
Who is this famous person? In what language did he speak? When did he say it?
Who knows? We're just supposed to take their word this wasn't made up by some guy writing copy for them.
Does Korean not have a word for subtlety? If they do, a dose of it for the KCNA/Rodong Sinmun might help.
Actually, scratch that. Reading their agitprop is so much fun, I don't want them to ever change.
It comes from an article on the larger "crimes" of "traitor" Lee Myung Bak, president of the Republic of Korea (aka, South Korea).
What shock and utter revulsion the average North Korean reader must feel when they read such apalling news:
In December 2007 right after becoming "president", he openly disclosed his intention to use the north-south dialogue as a means of escalating confrontation of social systems, saying that "he would not unilaterally curry favor with the north by refraining from criticizing it like the preceding governments".Gasp! I'm in shock! Imagine a capitalist, democratic country's president not wanting his fellow Koreans to the north to live in squalor, famine, and constant threat of being sent to the kwalliso (i.e., gulags/concentration camps), from which most only leave on a board to be buried in a shallow grave. How awful of him. The North Koreans indignence is palpable!
All we need now is for Jackie Chiles to shout, "This is lewd, lascivious, salacious, and outrageous! That's deplorable, unfathomable, improbable. I am shocked and chagrined, mortified and stupefied. I most strenuously and vigorously object to this man's actions. He is irrelevant, irrational, and inconsequential. He is completely inappropriate!"
But this is the real howler:
In February last year when 31 people of the DPRK went adrift to the south side in the West Sea of Korea, the group held them for nearly two months, while committing inhuman act of forcing them to defect to the south. The group categorically rejected the DPRK's proposal for the Red Cross technical contact for the discussion of their repatriation.For those who don't get what this is saying, I'll translate:
In February 2011, 31 DPRK citizens fled their country in a boat via the West Sea of Korea (what we call the Yellow Sea, which separates their western border from China). As with all defectors, they were held in quarantine for two months in order to get them acclamated, fed and fattened up a little, and give them some training/life skills. All of this is necessary because life in the ROK is so radically different than the DPRK. Many defectors find it very difficult to adjust. But no one's forcing anything, because who can be forced to have more food, more freedom, and more access to a life that is not one of constant privation. Then, when the DPRK said, "Give 'em back!," the group (i.e., of "traitors," which is how the DPRK characterizes the rulers of the ROK) basically said, "Buzz off, bub. Take a hike. We're not repatriating them, because if we did, they'd be dead, and you know it."If all of this was not so deadly serious, you would have to laugh at the Three Stooges/Dumb & Dumber ineptness of those who write these pieces (there's at least one per day). Another one today said something like "Juche [the national governing philosophy] has international acceptance." We know this because, says Rodong Sinmun:
A book titled "Dictionary of Criticism on Philosophies" was off press in France in 1985.
Writers of the book were several scholars including a famous professor of the Institute of Philosophy of University of Paris 10. They criticized different philosophical ideologies of the world as well as socio-political theories of Marxist political parties by severely analyzing from their individual views.
All philosophies and theories were criticized. Only the Juche idea had not any criticism in the book.
No criticism means universal acknowledgement of the absolute truth of the Juche idea.Now, I spent a good bit of time Googling for this book. There is no book -- in English or French with this precise title (I translated the English to the French). There is Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie, published in the 1920s, which has been updated and is in its fifth printing. There is, however, Dictionnaire critique du marxisme?
Here is what this book says:
The ideas of juche know a rather large audience in the Third World and in the national liberation movements, as well as some large countries like India and Japan, [are?] rightly educated by the principles of sovereignty, of self-development, of nonalignment and of the primacy of ideology, themselves confirmed by an exemplary [?] historical experience. But they often arouse in the West and even within the Communist parties, reservations and questions. Is it [simply] an offspring of the cult of personality of Kim Il Sung [the nation's founder]? An original means of bypassing the bureaucracy and achieving national consensus? "A revolutionary force"? Ignorance of cultural traditions and the situation in North Korea is not the only in question here, since the decisive [emphasis as in the original] role of the leader, in the revolutionary process, is constantly emphasized. [Is?] the assurance on the "non-exportable" character of such a feature sufficient to free it of any contradiction? It is for the practice of delivering its lessons.This is my translation of the French original here. It's obviously somewhat faulty (if you can improve on it, be my guest):
Les idées du djoutché connaissent une assez vaste audience dans le Tiers Monde et dans les mouvements de libération nationale, ainsi que dans certains grands pays, tels l'Inde et le Japon, à juste titre sensibilisés par les principes de la souveraineté, de l’auto développement, du non-alignement et du primat d'idéologie, euxmêmes confirmés part une exemplaire expérience historique. Mais elles suscitent souvent, en Occident et au sein même des partis communistes, réserves et interrogations. Le culte de Kim IL-Sung est-il un avatar du culte de la personnalité? Un moyen original de court-circuiter la bureaucratie et de réaliser le consensus national? "Une force révolutionnaire"? L'ignorance des traditions culturelles et de la situation nord-coréens n'est pas seule ici en question, puisque le rôle décisif du leader, dans le processus révolutionnaire, est constamment souligné. L'assurance du caractère "non-exportable" d'une telle particularité suffit-elle à la débarrasser de toute contradiction? Il appartiendra à la pratique de délivrer ses leçons.How this squares with the idea that, "Only the Juche idea had not any criticism in the book" is hard for me to fathom. It implicitly says there are problems or at least serious questions (usually the indication of problems) with juche.
Then it goes on to say, "A world famous person said: 'If anyone asks me what will be my choice from the treasure house of human civilization, the Juche idea will be my choice.'"
Who is this famous person? In what language did he speak? When did he say it?
Who knows? We're just supposed to take their word this wasn't made up by some guy writing copy for them.
Does Korean not have a word for subtlety? If they do, a dose of it for the KCNA/Rodong Sinmun might help.
Actually, scratch that. Reading their agitprop is so much fun, I don't want them to ever change.
Welcome, добро пожаловать, tuloy kayo, 歓迎, willkommen, bienvenu, Fáilte, સ્વાગત / इस साइट में आपका स्वागत है / স্বাগত / ಸ್ವಾಗತ / సుస్వాగతము/ நல்வரவு / خوش آمدید
First of all, Holy Thursday to you! Soon, very soon, we will have the blessed opportunity to say, "Christ is risen! He is risen, indeed!"
Second, on a (much, much, much) more mundane topic, I checked the stats for where in the world people are coming from to look at this measly little blog, and here's what came back:
United States 60
United Kingdom 15
Russia 10
Philippines 7
Japan 4 こんにちは、ようこそ！ or, rather, is it 한국어 영혼이, 서양 학문?
Germany 3
France 2
Canada 1
Ireland 1
India 1
This is the first time I remember seeing visitors from Japan. And four in one week. Wow. Well, I hope you'll keep coming back.
And I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge my one reader from India. You seem to be a regular, so welcome back. From which state are you? You can post anonymously to respond.
A fruitful rest of Lent to you all, and may God grace you with a joyous Easter.
Second, on a (much, much, much) more mundane topic, I checked the stats for where in the world people are coming from to look at this measly little blog, and here's what came back:
United States 60
United Kingdom 15
Russia 10
Philippines 7
Japan 4 こんにちは、ようこそ！ or, rather, is it 한국어 영혼이, 서양 학문?
Germany 3
France 2
Canada 1
Ireland 1
India 1
This is the first time I remember seeing visitors from Japan. And four in one week. Wow. Well, I hope you'll keep coming back.
And I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge my one reader from India. You seem to be a regular, so welcome back. From which state are you? You can post anonymously to respond.
A fruitful rest of Lent to you all, and may God grace you with a joyous Easter.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Quick! What country is most likely to know who your friends are and who your relatives friends are and who your friends' friends are and what sort of contact each of you has with the other? That wants to know everything you do, how you do it, when you do it, why you do it, with whom you do it, where you do it, and so on.
Based on this, ahem, stellar reporting, North Korea, right? Nope. Take another guess.
China.
Nope.
Equatorial Guinea. Uh-uh. Cuba? Sorry. Libya or Saudi Arabia or Iran?
Nice try, but the answer is actually the United Kingdom, birthplace of common law, land of human rights and autonomy, etc.
According to this FoxNews Channel report, police want the ability to do these things because technology keeps getting ahead of them, and they just can't keep you safe otherwise. While they'd need a warrant to read your e-mails, they wouldn't need one to know to whom you're sending or receiving them.
In a statement to FNC, the Home Office said, "It is vital that police and security agences are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. We need to take action to maintain continued availability of communications data as technology develops."
They would accomplish this by having every computer-like device be made with the tracking software already in it.
I expect this from the DPRK. From Great Britain, land of my ancestors? Ugh. What is this world coming to? It's really just becoming more and more unbelievable.
Based on this, ahem, stellar reporting, North Korea, right? Nope. Take another guess.
China.
Nope.
Equatorial Guinea. Uh-uh. Cuba? Sorry. Libya or Saudi Arabia or Iran?
Nice try, but the answer is actually the United Kingdom, birthplace of common law, land of human rights and autonomy, etc.
According to this FoxNews Channel report, police want the ability to do these things because technology keeps getting ahead of them, and they just can't keep you safe otherwise. While they'd need a warrant to read your e-mails, they wouldn't need one to know to whom you're sending or receiving them.
In a statement to FNC, the Home Office said, "It is vital that police and security agences are able to obtain communications data in certain circumstances to investigate serious crime and terrorism and to protect the public. We need to take action to maintain continued availability of communications data as technology develops."
They would accomplish this by having every computer-like device be made with the tracking software already in it.
I expect this from the DPRK. From Great Britain, land of my ancestors? Ugh. What is this world coming to? It's really just becoming more and more unbelievable.
Why Romney can't win
There were two questions in the Wisconsin exit polls that says to me Romney can't win:
If Mitt Romney won the nomination, would you be:
Total Romney Santorum Gingrich Paul
Satisfied 66% 63% 26% 4% 6%
Dissatisfied 32% 3% 61% 9% 22%
So if Romney won the nomination, 36% of non-Romney supporters would basically say, "OK, I can live with that." However, 92% of these people would basically say, "I think I'll stay at home that first Tuesday in November."
However, this is what's really alarming: Two thirds of Romney voters say their BIGGEST reason for voting for him was that "he can beat Obama." This does not a winning ticket make, folks. Why? Because these are not conviction voters. These are basically, "We'll take anyone with a warm pulse" voters.
If it rains, if their kid's soccer practice gets in the way, if they're just really hungry and decide to go get dinner after a long, stressful work day, guess what takes a back seat. Right, voting.
This is why unless a district is really liberal or moderate (e.g., Chris Shays's old district in Connecticut), moderates don't win national elections.
George W. Bush only won because people wanted a third Reagan term. Nixon won because of his established anti-communist bona fides and because of middle America's fears over crime and the counter culture. Ike won because, well, he was Ike. The rest of the GOP Presidents are before the birth of the modern conservative era and the implosion of the traditional Democrat Party.
Which ONE of these candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted today? (CHECK ONLY ONE)
Total Romney Santorum Gingrich Paul
Can defeat Barack Obama 37% 67% 23% 6% 4%
Is a true conservative 20% 13% 63% 7% 16%
Has strong moral character 22% 21% 56% 2% 20%
If things continue this way, I hope and pray for a brokered convention.
If Mitt Romney won the nomination, would you be:
Total Romney Santorum Gingrich Paul
Satisfied 66% 63% 26% 4% 6%
Dissatisfied 32% 3% 61% 9% 22%
So if Romney won the nomination, 36% of non-Romney supporters would basically say, "OK, I can live with that." However, 92% of these people would basically say, "I think I'll stay at home that first Tuesday in November."
However, this is what's really alarming: Two thirds of Romney voters say their BIGGEST reason for voting for him was that "he can beat Obama." This does not a winning ticket make, folks. Why? Because these are not conviction voters. These are basically, "We'll take anyone with a warm pulse" voters.
If it rains, if their kid's soccer practice gets in the way, if they're just really hungry and decide to go get dinner after a long, stressful work day, guess what takes a back seat. Right, voting.
This is why unless a district is really liberal or moderate (e.g., Chris Shays's old district in Connecticut), moderates don't win national elections.
George W. Bush only won because people wanted a third Reagan term. Nixon won because of his established anti-communist bona fides and because of middle America's fears over crime and the counter culture. Ike won because, well, he was Ike. The rest of the GOP Presidents are before the birth of the modern conservative era and the implosion of the traditional Democrat Party.
Which ONE of these candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted today? (CHECK ONLY ONE)
Total Romney Santorum Gingrich Paul
Can defeat Barack Obama 37% 67% 23% 6% 4%
Is a true conservative 20% 13% 63% 7% 16%
Has strong moral character 22% 21% 56% 2% 20%
If things continue this way, I hope and pray for a brokered convention.
When will the madness end?
No, I'm not talking about “March Madness,” which ended yesterday (and congrats to the Wildcats of Kentucky).
Today on Facebook, I saw a link posted by someone with whom I'm linked as a friend. It was to a Commonweal blog about a situation in an Austrian parish. The parish had a council election. The parishioners made the biggest vote getter the youngest nominee, who happens to be a man living with his lover, another man.
According to the translator's note accompanying Rorate Coeli's post on this:
Now, I join others and do not, will not hesitate for one second -- not even a fraction thereof -- to laud the fact that the Cardinal took the time to meet with these people and not simply judge them based on their self-identified status. After all, as St. Augustine taught, right? We're to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” In that order. That doesn't mean, however, that loving the sinner means ignoring the sin.
Why is it then, that there was no mention of the sin and that this is a very public sin, and that Cardinal Schönborn grossly failed in his duties as a teacher in this respect?
This gentleman is openly living in contradiction to the Church's teachings. His Eminence--the editor of the Catechism who should know better--met “with both the man and his partner,” and still overturned the pastor's decision.
First, a passing, possibly snide comment: Were it, say, Cardinal Dolan who met with a cohabiting lesbian woman -- let's say she was a former religious, just to make it a really juicy news story -- whose pastor had upheld her overwhelming election to a council or board, and His Eminence had overturned the pastor's decision -- or if Cardinal Schoenborn had upheld the pastor's decision even after meeting with the person in question. We'd have a much different reaction here, wouldn't we? Or am I making too far of a judgment or assumption? If I am, please forgive me.
More importantly, however, there isn't even a question here. This man is living in public sin. That, absent every other consideration, disqualified him, and the cardinal should have upheld that.
This is not about homosexuality and what the Catechism teaches (and what the Church has always taught) about the objectively sinful nature of homogenital acts per se.
After all, sin is sin is sin is sin is sin. We are all sinners. If someone misbehaves in public, that is a manifest public sin. The difference is that people who do jerky things like this aren't expected to shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh, well. God made me this way. I'm under no obligation to change my behavior(s).” They're expected to get it together, go to confession, seek professional help if needed, do what they can to stay in a state of grace and grow in perfection, and become saints.
That hasn't happened here. This man and his partner aren't separating. There was no indication in the piece that they were living chastely with one another.
Indeed, I followed the links back, and here is what I found from the gentleman (scroll down to the bottom):
Does Matthew 16:16-20 or 18:18 mean nothing anymore? Is to read the text as it appears on the page only a foolish sop sold to gullible, unenlightened, non-theologians who don't understand the finer points of the historical critical method and the much bandied about “recent scholarship”?
No, not at all. As Bl. John XXIII teaches, the Church is Mater et Magistra. The popes are to be obeyed in their teaching(s). Therefore, with the Church, the 4th Commandment applies. When our views are discordant with hers, it is our views that more likely come up short, not the other way around.
Church teaching and canon law (neither of which did the Cardinal cite, I notice) are clear here, and yet, phhhfffffffft. Who cares? After all, “Let's feel committed to the teachings of the Church, but not actually do anything about them, because I judge them to be kind of unrealistic to me. After all, how many people really live them, especially when they're just so gol darned hard?”
Yeah, who cares about that whole road is wide, gate is narrow thing, right?
The issue here is Matthew 23:1-3. His Eminence has negated 2,000 years of magisterial teaching on the obligations of a pastor toward public sinners. Thus, he sits on the seat of Moses, following the traditions of men. Those under his pastoral care must obey him, but this is really shocking.
Again, I was delighted to know the Cardinal, may God bless him, took the time to talk with these people. However, I am deeply saddened and scandalized and a little depressed by the Catechism editor's treatment of Church teaching, never mind his ignoring what canon law says about those who are manifest public sinners.
I guess those teachings have become like those wax encased bones we see in churches in Rome and elsewhere: relics of the past. Well, if it's just a symbol (pace Flannery O'Connor), the hell with it.
Thankfully, the Pope doesn't take this approach, nor do all but a few and shrinking bishops in the world. Thus, things are getting better in this way. However, how long, O Lord? How long? And how many souls lost along the way?
Please pray for Fr. Swierzek.
Today on Facebook, I saw a link posted by someone with whom I'm linked as a friend. It was to a Commonweal blog about a situation in an Austrian parish. The parish had a council election. The parishioners made the biggest vote getter the youngest nominee, who happens to be a man living with his lover, another man.
According to the translator's note accompanying Rorate Coeli's post on this:
[C]andidates for parish councils in the Archdiocese of Vienna can be nominated by any Catholic before the election. The nominations are supposed to enclose a signed statement by the candidates in which they affirm that they fulfill the conditions for the office (including crucially the condition that they adhere to the faith and discipline of the Church - “sich zur Glaubenslehre und Ordnung der Kirche bekennen”). At the election voters mark as many names on the candidate list as there are places to be taken in the council; the candidates with the most votes are elected. In Stützenhofen [the parish in question] the candidates neglected to sign statements affirming that they fulfilled the conditions for election. [Note: This is what was later referred to by the relevant authorities as mere “electoral irregularities.”]The pastor, Fr. Gerhard Swierzek, informed this gentleman that given his being a manifest public sinner, he could not take office. The decision was appealed to the cardinal archbishop of Vienna, His Eminence Christoph Schönborn. After meeting with the man in question and his partner, he and the bishops' council for the archdiocese met and overturned Fr. Swierzek's decision.
Now, I join others and do not, will not hesitate for one second -- not even a fraction thereof -- to laud the fact that the Cardinal took the time to meet with these people and not simply judge them based on their self-identified status. After all, as St. Augustine taught, right? We're to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” In that order. That doesn't mean, however, that loving the sinner means ignoring the sin.
Why is it then, that there was no mention of the sin and that this is a very public sin, and that Cardinal Schönborn grossly failed in his duties as a teacher in this respect?
This gentleman is openly living in contradiction to the Church's teachings. His Eminence--the editor of the Catechism who should know better--met “with both the man and his partner,” and still overturned the pastor's decision.
First, a passing, possibly snide comment: Were it, say, Cardinal Dolan who met with a cohabiting lesbian woman -- let's say she was a former religious, just to make it a really juicy news story -- whose pastor had upheld her overwhelming election to a council or board, and His Eminence had overturned the pastor's decision -- or if Cardinal Schoenborn had upheld the pastor's decision even after meeting with the person in question. We'd have a much different reaction here, wouldn't we? Or am I making too far of a judgment or assumption? If I am, please forgive me.
More importantly, however, there isn't even a question here. This man is living in public sin. That, absent every other consideration, disqualified him, and the cardinal should have upheld that.
This is not about homosexuality and what the Catechism teaches (and what the Church has always taught) about the objectively sinful nature of homogenital acts per se.
After all, sin is sin is sin is sin is sin. We are all sinners. If someone misbehaves in public, that is a manifest public sin. The difference is that people who do jerky things like this aren't expected to shrug their shoulders and say, “Oh, well. God made me this way. I'm under no obligation to change my behavior(s).” They're expected to get it together, go to confession, seek professional help if needed, do what they can to stay in a state of grace and grow in perfection, and become saints.
That hasn't happened here. This man and his partner aren't separating. There was no indication in the piece that they were living chastely with one another.
Indeed, I followed the links back, and here is what I found from the gentleman (scroll down to the bottom):
In an interview Herr Stangl said “I feel committed to the teachings of the Church. But the demand to live chastely seems kind of unrealistic to me (Forderungen nach Keuschheit zu stellen, ist aber relativ fern von der Lebensrealität). How many people really live chastely?”It, therefore, begs the question:
- Would we let a heterosexual cohabitting couple or a partner thereto serve in this way?
- Would we let a divorced person who remarried without benefit of an annulment do so?
- Should we let a woman who has left her husband and the children she bore with him for another man or woman serve in a position of public trust in the Church, even though that person would give grave scandal?
- What about someone who disagreed that the Eucharist becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity after the consecration? Or on infant baptism, Mary's Assumption, the efficacy of the sacraments, etc.?
- What about any number of other public peccadilloes that aren't necessarily crimes but manifestly, completely, utterly opposed to Church teaching, which comes to us, as all the Church Fathers attest, “from the apostles”?
Does Matthew 16:16-20 or 18:18 mean nothing anymore? Is to read the text as it appears on the page only a foolish sop sold to gullible, unenlightened, non-theologians who don't understand the finer points of the historical critical method and the much bandied about “recent scholarship”?
No, not at all. As Bl. John XXIII teaches, the Church is Mater et Magistra. The popes are to be obeyed in their teaching(s). Therefore, with the Church, the 4th Commandment applies. When our views are discordant with hers, it is our views that more likely come up short, not the other way around.
Church teaching and canon law (neither of which did the Cardinal cite, I notice) are clear here, and yet, phhhfffffffft. Who cares? After all, “Let's feel committed to the teachings of the Church, but not actually do anything about them, because I judge them to be kind of unrealistic to me. After all, how many people really live them, especially when they're just so gol darned hard?”
Yeah, who cares about that whole road is wide, gate is narrow thing, right?
The issue here is Matthew 23:1-3. His Eminence has negated 2,000 years of magisterial teaching on the obligations of a pastor toward public sinners. Thus, he sits on the seat of Moses, following the traditions of men. Those under his pastoral care must obey him, but this is really shocking.
Again, I was delighted to know the Cardinal, may God bless him, took the time to talk with these people. However, I am deeply saddened and scandalized and a little depressed by the Catechism editor's treatment of Church teaching, never mind his ignoring what canon law says about those who are manifest public sinners.
I guess those teachings have become like those wax encased bones we see in churches in Rome and elsewhere: relics of the past. Well, if it's just a symbol (pace Flannery O'Connor), the hell with it.
Thankfully, the Pope doesn't take this approach, nor do all but a few and shrinking bishops in the world. Thus, things are getting better in this way. However, how long, O Lord? How long? And how many souls lost along the way?
Please pray for Fr. Swierzek.
Monday, April 2, 2012
Why serious conservative Catholics should reconsider voting for Ron Paul
First, I need to apologize for how weird the font is. I don't know what's caused this, and I don't know how to undo it. I hope you'll bear with me. Thanks, and God bless.
Some have asked me to list differences between Dr. Paul and Mr. Santorum and why I would argue Mr. Santorum is a better choice for Catholics who take their Catholicism in the public square with the utmost seriousness.
Abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood
First, let's tackle what some consider a really sticky point about Mr. Santorum, namely charges he voted for funding Planned Parenthood. He did not. Political consultants and their push button hit mailers and attack ads want you to think that, but don't believe the hype.
I worked in Congress for one year and in politics for 15. In Congress, unlike many states, you have what are called omnibus spending bills. Let's say there is something in this year's omnibus spending bill you want -- upgrading our fighter jets, defunding to some degree our international contraceptive efforts, funding you were able to secure for crisis preganancy centers, defunding of agricultural subsidies, whatever. In that same bill, there might be one or a dozen things you don't like: Funding for ACORN, funding for promoting global warming propaganda.
Or funding for Planned Parenthood.
You do not get to decide which aspects of the bill you liked or don't like. You have to vote on it, up or down, take it all or leave it all.
It's the same things with many procedural votes, votes that move a bill forward to its final defeat or final passage. Political consultants will use this to say, "Someone voted for funding Planned Parenthood 52,000 times!!!" Now instead of thinking this is a great guy, you're thinking, "What a fraud! What a phony!!!"
Between 1995 and 2006, the year he lost his Senate seat, he had a 0% rating from PP, and the same rating from NARAL between 1996 and '05. Between 1996 and 2004, he received100% ratings from National Right to Life. I couldn't find anything from NRL for his first years as a Congressman.
What about Dr. Paul?
He believes the Constitution makes abortion a state issue, yet he believes “being pro-life is necessary to defend liberty.” How does that make sense? So, let me get this straight: It's a state issue (i.e., it can be legal in Mississippi, but not Alabama), but “being pro-life is necessary to defend liberty.” So in the MS/AL example above, there would be no liberty in MS? Maybe my brain is too pea-brained but I don't see how this squares.
Furthermore, if he believes life begins at conception -- as Dr. Paul claimed on the Friday, March 30, 2012, on the Relevant Radio program, "A Closer Look" with Sheila Liaugminas -- how does it begin at conception in this, that, and the other state, but not states A, B, and C?
Nonetheless, according toProject Vote Smart, Dr. Paul consistently scores comparably well with Mr. Santorum by NRL's assessment. Except, well, he does and he doesn't. According to VoteSmart.org, Santorum never scored below 100% for NRL.
Dr. Paul, however, got a 95% in 1997-98, a 69% in 1999, a 78% in 1999-2000, an 81% in 2001-02, a 73% in 2003-04, a 56% in 2005-06, an 80% in 2007-08, and 100% only in 2009 and 2010.
However, he doesn't do too badly by PP and NARAL and their ilk. In 2010, for instance, Planned Parenthood gave him a 20% rating.
Here are some other ratings over the years:
The highest he ever scored with the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health association was his 63% rating in 2005-06. His highest NARAL score was 75% in 2005 (that was the same time NRL gave him a 56%). Besides the 1995-98 score, Planned Parenthood has never rated him above or below 20%.
Judging by the above, who is more pro-life?
Foreign policy
If you've listened to the debates, you've heard him say in effect that Muslims hate us and want to attack us because we keep going into their part of the world and won't stay out of their business. It's a paraphrase, but I don't think it's a bad or unjust/unfair one.
If you know anything about radical Islam, however, you know nothing could be further from an accurate assessment of the situation.
Osama bin Laden hated us because of our system, and because in the world view of his ilk, you're either in the world of Islam or the world of war. (See Robert Spencer's blog www.jihadwatch.orgfor more on all things that are problematically and radically Muslim.)
They don't hate us simply because of our beastly pop culture. They don't hate us just because we allow men and women to socialize and mix with one another even if they aren't a near relative or at least chaperoned by one.
Yes, they do hate us for these things, but they mostly hate us because they belong to the most virulent strain of Islam, that of Wahabbiism. Thus to them, we are infidels. It would be an insult to Allah were they to let the status quo remain. They blame us for their being so backward. They blame us for not having been a major force in the world since the 1600s.
They want to make us dhimmisand that we should live in dhimmitude, which effectively translates to just above 3rd class citizenship. They would also make us pay the jizya, a protection racket tax. They call Spain "Andalusia" because that is what it was called when they ruled it prior to 1492, and their intent is to take it back. Indeed, their greatest hope is to restore the caliphate and make it a global caliphate.
Either Ron Paul is ignorant of these things or he knows them and chooses to ignore them. I'll pray that it's the first. It's still problematic because it bespeaks a lack of intellectual curiousity about what really makes our enemies tick. Isn't that essential for a potential Commander in Chief, so he'll know from where the threats will come and understand the options at hand?
He also would close down our military bases in the world. Amongst those would be the ones on the Korean peninsula. That's scary. The North has been telling its people for over 60 years that it's only the US and Japanese imperialists that keep them from overrunning "south Chosun" (what they call South Korea) and extending their "socialist paradise" to all the Han (i.e., Korean people). Their military is technologically inferior (grossly so), but they have far greater manpower reserves, and they have a motivated fighting force that has been brought up since they spoke their first words to want to give their lives fighting for the "Dear" and "Great" and now "Supreme" leaders, the Kim dynasty.
Furthermore, they have developed nuclear warheads. In April, they will launch a "satellite" rocket. It is not a satellite rocket. It's real purpose is to see if they launch a missile that will reach the US. For if a missile can get into the atmosphere, it can reach various points in the continental US. Maybe even your point.
The North Koreans also have vast stores of biological and chemical agents. These are believed to be particularly effective, since they are tested on humans, particularly families with small children, the physically and mentally handicapped, and Christians. This is not propaganda: It's all been documented, including by me. See here and here.
Why is the North problematic and why do we need a presence there? South Korea is a huge trading partner with us. It has all of the Korean peninsula's best real estate in terms of agriculture and various mineral resources, by and large. It has technological and economic giants headquartered in Seoul, the capital.
North Korea has already shown a very ready willingness to export its nuclear, terrorist, and WMD know-how to Iran, Syria, possibly Pakistan, etc. And it has done this while being the poorest, most technologically backward industrialized, literate country in the world.
What do you think will happen if they get their hands on those resources down south?
Finally, there are the humanitarian considerations. I could easily make you throw up right now. All I would have to do is describe the atrocities reported by defectors about life not only for the average free citizen, but for those laboring as slaves in the death camps.
Again, the North Koreans have made it very clear that the only thing that has kept them from pouring over the border and taking over like they almost succeeded in doing back in 1950 is our very strong presence there.
I said "Finally." Actually, one more point on the North Koreans. They are friends with the Iranians. The Iranians are Shiites who hate the Sunni Wahabis, and vice versa. But both consider Western culture something to be defeated and dominated (and in the Middle East there is a saying: "My enemy's enemy is my friend."). Why do we think Iran wants the bomb?
Can you imagine the North Koreans having even greater resources with which to help make the dreams of the Wahabis and Iranian Shiites possible?
Rep. Paul is also fond of saying we have 900 military bases around the world. For him, a base is anything owned or used by the US armed forces.
Here are the actual numbers:
Afghanistan- 6 (hundreds of smaller outposts)
Bahrain- 2
Belgium- 2
Bulgaria- 4
Cuba- 1
Diego Garcia- 1
Djibouti- 1
El Salvador- 1
Germany- 21
Greece- 1
Greenland- 1
Guam- 3
Iraq- *formerly* 14 (hundreds of smaller outposts)
Italy- 7
Japan- 23
Kosovo- 1
Kuwait- 8
Kyrgyzstan- 1
Netherlands- 2
Oman- 1
Portugal- 1
Puerto Rico- 1
Qatar- 1
Saudi Arabia- 5
Seychelles- 1
Singapore- 1
South Korea- 15
Spain- 2
Turkey- 2
United Kingdom- 6
Yemen- 1
Final count: 137 overseas U.S. military installations
Maybe many or even most should be closed. That's a different argument for a different time. But let's not inflate numbers to make our case seem more palpable.
Economics
Is Rick "conservative enough" when it comes to economics? Look at the following, and I would say he is.
For starters, an analysis came out recently that was crafted by the Heritage Alliance (not to be confused with the Heritage Foundation), a group that has worked on behalf of conservative causes since 1984. It shows Rick is the most conservative candidate running in our primary (WHICH IS THIS TOMORROW TUESDAY, APRIL 3, SO DON'T FORGET!!!)
Wisconsin Republican Primary for President of the United States:
Gingrich, Newt (R) Grade: B
Paul, Ron (R) Grade: C
Romney, Mitt (R) Grade: D
Santorum, Rick (R) Grade: B+
Here are Santorum's lifetime averages as in Congress:
The Church has repeatedly -- since Leo XIII -- condemned libertarianism, which is what it calls "liberalism." Go to papalencyclicals.net and see Rerum Novarum, Quadrigesimo Anno, Octogesima Adveniens, and Centisimus Annus (by Bl. John Paul), not to mention B16's Caritatis in Veritate.
Although it's longer than the others, I think the one that would find the greatest acceptance by most economic conservatives in the US would be Centisimus Annus. At first glance, we may not like the Church's fundamental principles when it comes to the economy or whatever. However, given the never-deviating, consistent message of popes over the last 100+ years, if we're to be faithful Catholics, we ignore those principles at our spiritual peril, no? For otherwise, what makes us any different than the Call to Action types, or the SSPX/Lefebvrists?
In any event, Dr. Paul is an acolyte of Ayn Rand, and you can't find a more unChristian or even anti-Christian take on the duties of both society vis-a-vis the poor, at least not as the Catholic Church has defined them. You can't find anyone outside of Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian philosopher/economist, who is more against the Church's social teaching on economic matters. And yet Rep. Paul thinks she's the bee's knees. He's also on record as being quite fond of von Mises, as well.
Same Sex Unions vs. Traditional Marriage
No one can question Sen. Santorum on this issue. It's one of the reasons he got into the race.
No one can question Rep. Paul on this issue, either. Or can they? Actually, the doctor's stance here is amongst his most problematic for concerned Catholics.
Granted, he voted for DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act challenges the same year (the MPA would have removed judicial to DOMA from federal courts’ jurisdiction ... begging the question, even if that's what states want?).
However, this seems very inconsistent. On the one hand, he opposes the federal government redefining marriage. However, he's fine with the federal government definingmarriage. But doesn't he say that is supposed to be a state issue (he does, by the way)? This causes some confusion.
Paul has also taken his libertarian views even further, repeatedly stating that he hopes the state will stop sanctioning marriages altogether.
“I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument,” he said recently. “Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards, and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.” [Isn't the Mario Cuomo argument given in a conservative guise? I can't see how it's not. Cuomo in his 1984 Notre Dame speech, after all, argued the same thing. Look how good that has been for Catholic politicians wanting to wiggle out of defending life in the womb.]
“But,” he continued, “if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government.”
Dr. Paul's most recent book Liberty Defined has a chapter on marriage. In he write, “In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.” ...“There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.” [Polygamy or polyandry, anyone?]
“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired … Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!”
I think the response to this was best put by Ann Coulter, who wrote:
The homosexual magazine The Advocate wrote the following after the May 5, 2011, debate:
Chris Wallace: Congressman Paul, you say that the Federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, you say marijuana, cocaine, even heroin should be legal if states want to permit it, you feel the same about prostitution and gay marriage. Question sir, why should social conservatives in South Carolina vote for you for president?
Ron Paul: They will if they understand my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion, and say their prayers where they want and practice their life. But if you do not protect liberty across the board, it’s the First Amendment type issue, we don’t have a First Amendment so that we can talk about the weather, we have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So for people to say that, “yes we have our religious beliefs protected” but people who want to follow something else or a controversial religion, you can’t do this, if you have the inconsistency then you’re really not defending liberty, but there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort, because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people. But yes, you have a right to do things that are very controversial, if not you’re going to end up with government is going to tell us what we can eat and drink and what ever (sic).
It’s amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way but not when it comes to our personal habits.
Chris Wallace: But Senator (sic), are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty.
Ron Paul: Well, I probably never used those words, you put those words some place but yes in essence if I leave it to the states it’s going to be up to the states, up until this past century for over a hundred years they were legal, what you’re referring is “You know what? If we legalize Heroin tomorrow, everybody is going to use Heroin,” how many people here would use Heroin if it was legal, I bet nobody would put the hand “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me,” I don’t want to use Heroin so I need these laws.”
Vis-a-vis heroin, I'm sorry, but in my judgment, this is just naive. The Catholic Church has long recognized that when something has the appearance of legality, people translate that in varying ways as "acceptable." Look at how many people support legalized abortion because it is "settled law ever since Roe v. Wade." When something is illegal, it's less likely to be accepted. Look at school Bible study groups or saying the "Our Father" at football games.
Similarly, were heroin legal and people tempted to try it knowing that they couldn't be busted ... well, if you've heard of things heroin addicts do to get their next fix (including murder, burgle, and steal), it's not something with which we should want to experiment, I would think.
As for marriage, however, we can’t have 50 marriage laws.
The homosexual agenda
While he opposed federal so-called “hate crimes” legislation and criticized the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case for overriding state anti-sodomy laws, he voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after previously supporting the policy.
"Well, like I said, everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn't a problem. It's only if they're doing things they shouldn't be, if they're disruptive. But there's ... men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there's a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they're causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same."
These are the basic reasons I would encourage my serious Catholic friends to not support Ron Paul in tomorrow's primary election here and in Maryland or anywhere his name happens to appear on the ballot in this presidential primary season. I'm sorry I didn't have time to look up or insert the relevant sections from Scripture or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for your attention if you've gotten this far.
Have a great Holy Week.
Some have asked me to list differences between Dr. Paul and Mr. Santorum and why I would argue Mr. Santorum is a better choice for Catholics who take their Catholicism in the public square with the utmost seriousness.
Abortion and funding for Planned Parenthood
First, let's tackle what some consider a really sticky point about Mr. Santorum, namely charges he voted for funding Planned Parenthood. He did not. Political consultants and their push button hit mailers and attack ads want you to think that, but don't believe the hype.
I worked in Congress for one year and in politics for 15. In Congress, unlike many states, you have what are called omnibus spending bills. Let's say there is something in this year's omnibus spending bill you want -- upgrading our fighter jets, defunding to some degree our international contraceptive efforts, funding you were able to secure for crisis preganancy centers, defunding of agricultural subsidies, whatever. In that same bill, there might be one or a dozen things you don't like: Funding for ACORN, funding for promoting global warming propaganda.
Or funding for Planned Parenthood.
You do not get to decide which aspects of the bill you liked or don't like. You have to vote on it, up or down, take it all or leave it all.
It's the same things with many procedural votes, votes that move a bill forward to its final defeat or final passage. Political consultants will use this to say, "Someone voted for funding Planned Parenthood 52,000 times!!!" Now instead of thinking this is a great guy, you're thinking, "What a fraud! What a phony!!!"
Between 1995 and 2006, the year he lost his Senate seat, he had a 0% rating from PP, and the same rating from NARAL between 1996 and '05. Between 1996 and 2004, he received100% ratings from National Right to Life. I couldn't find anything from NRL for his first years as a Congressman.
What about Dr. Paul?
He believes the Constitution makes abortion a state issue, yet he believes “being pro-life is necessary to defend liberty.” How does that make sense? So, let me get this straight: It's a state issue (i.e., it can be legal in Mississippi, but not Alabama), but “being pro-life is necessary to defend liberty.” So in the MS/AL example above, there would be no liberty in MS? Maybe my brain is too pea-brained but I don't see how this squares.
Furthermore, if he believes life begins at conception -- as Dr. Paul claimed on the Friday, March 30, 2012, on the Relevant Radio program, "A Closer Look" with Sheila Liaugminas -- how does it begin at conception in this, that, and the other state, but not states A, B, and C?
Nonetheless, according toProject Vote Smart, Dr. Paul consistently scores comparably well with Mr. Santorum by NRL's assessment. Except, well, he does and he doesn't. According to VoteSmart.org, Santorum never scored below 100% for NRL.
Dr. Paul, however, got a 95% in 1997-98, a 69% in 1999, a 78% in 1999-2000, an 81% in 2001-02, a 73% in 2003-04, a 56% in 2005-06, an 80% in 2007-08, and 100% only in 2009 and 2010.
However, he doesn't do too badly by PP and NARAL and their ilk. In 2010, for instance, Planned Parenthood gave him a 20% rating.
Here are some other ratings over the years:
1995-1998, PP - 11%, 1995-2003, PP - 20%, 1995-2004, National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association - 17%, 1997, NARAL, 3% (but by 1999, NARAL was giving him a 26%, and in 2001, it gave him a 35%).
Judging by the above, who is more pro-life?
Foreign policy
If you've listened to the debates, you've heard him say in effect that Muslims hate us and want to attack us because we keep going into their part of the world and won't stay out of their business. It's a paraphrase, but I don't think it's a bad or unjust/unfair one.
If you know anything about radical Islam, however, you know nothing could be further from an accurate assessment of the situation.
Osama bin Laden hated us because of our system, and because in the world view of his ilk, you're either in the world of Islam or the world of war. (See Robert Spencer's blog www.jihadwatch.orgfor more on all things that are problematically and radically Muslim.)
They don't hate us simply because of our beastly pop culture. They don't hate us just because we allow men and women to socialize and mix with one another even if they aren't a near relative or at least chaperoned by one.
Yes, they do hate us for these things, but they mostly hate us because they belong to the most virulent strain of Islam, that of Wahabbiism. Thus to them, we are infidels. It would be an insult to Allah were they to let the status quo remain. They blame us for their being so backward. They blame us for not having been a major force in the world since the 1600s.
They want to make us dhimmisand that we should live in dhimmitude, which effectively translates to just above 3rd class citizenship. They would also make us pay the jizya, a protection racket tax. They call Spain "Andalusia" because that is what it was called when they ruled it prior to 1492, and their intent is to take it back. Indeed, their greatest hope is to restore the caliphate and make it a global caliphate.
Either Ron Paul is ignorant of these things or he knows them and chooses to ignore them. I'll pray that it's the first. It's still problematic because it bespeaks a lack of intellectual curiousity about what really makes our enemies tick. Isn't that essential for a potential Commander in Chief, so he'll know from where the threats will come and understand the options at hand?
He also would close down our military bases in the world. Amongst those would be the ones on the Korean peninsula. That's scary. The North has been telling its people for over 60 years that it's only the US and Japanese imperialists that keep them from overrunning "south Chosun" (what they call South Korea) and extending their "socialist paradise" to all the Han (i.e., Korean people). Their military is technologically inferior (grossly so), but they have far greater manpower reserves, and they have a motivated fighting force that has been brought up since they spoke their first words to want to give their lives fighting for the "Dear" and "Great" and now "Supreme" leaders, the Kim dynasty.
Furthermore, they have developed nuclear warheads. In April, they will launch a "satellite" rocket. It is not a satellite rocket. It's real purpose is to see if they launch a missile that will reach the US. For if a missile can get into the atmosphere, it can reach various points in the continental US. Maybe even your point.
The North Koreans also have vast stores of biological and chemical agents. These are believed to be particularly effective, since they are tested on humans, particularly families with small children, the physically and mentally handicapped, and Christians. This is not propaganda: It's all been documented, including by me. See here and here.
Why is the North problematic and why do we need a presence there? South Korea is a huge trading partner with us. It has all of the Korean peninsula's best real estate in terms of agriculture and various mineral resources, by and large. It has technological and economic giants headquartered in Seoul, the capital.
North Korea has already shown a very ready willingness to export its nuclear, terrorist, and WMD know-how to Iran, Syria, possibly Pakistan, etc. And it has done this while being the poorest, most technologically backward industrialized, literate country in the world.
What do you think will happen if they get their hands on those resources down south?
Finally, there are the humanitarian considerations. I could easily make you throw up right now. All I would have to do is describe the atrocities reported by defectors about life not only for the average free citizen, but for those laboring as slaves in the death camps.
Again, the North Koreans have made it very clear that the only thing that has kept them from pouring over the border and taking over like they almost succeeded in doing back in 1950 is our very strong presence there.
I said "Finally." Actually, one more point on the North Koreans. They are friends with the Iranians. The Iranians are Shiites who hate the Sunni Wahabis, and vice versa. But both consider Western culture something to be defeated and dominated (and in the Middle East there is a saying: "My enemy's enemy is my friend."). Why do we think Iran wants the bomb?
Can you imagine the North Koreans having even greater resources with which to help make the dreams of the Wahabis and Iranian Shiites possible?
Rep. Paul is also fond of saying we have 900 military bases around the world. For him, a base is anything owned or used by the US armed forces.
Here are the actual numbers:
Afghanistan- 6 (hundreds of smaller outposts)
Bahrain- 2
Belgium- 2
Bulgaria- 4
Cuba- 1
Diego Garcia- 1
Djibouti- 1
El Salvador- 1
Germany- 21
Greece- 1
Greenland- 1
Guam- 3
Iraq- *formerly* 14 (hundreds of smaller outposts)
Italy- 7
Japan- 23
Kosovo- 1
Kuwait- 8
Kyrgyzstan- 1
Netherlands- 2
Oman- 1
Portugal- 1
Puerto Rico- 1
Qatar- 1
Saudi Arabia- 5
Seychelles- 1
Singapore- 1
South Korea- 15
Spain- 2
Turkey- 2
United Kingdom- 6
Yemen- 1
Final count: 137 overseas U.S. military installations
Maybe many or even most should be closed. That's a different argument for a different time. But let's not inflate numbers to make our case seem more palpable.
Economics
Is Rick "conservative enough" when it comes to economics? Look at the following, and I would say he is.
For starters, an analysis came out recently that was crafted by the Heritage Alliance (not to be confused with the Heritage Foundation), a group that has worked on behalf of conservative causes since 1984. It shows Rick is the most conservative candidate running in our primary (WHICH IS THIS TOMORROW TUESDAY, APRIL 3, SO DON'T FORGET!!!)
Wisconsin Republican Primary for President of the United States:
Gingrich, Newt (R) Grade: B
Paul, Ron (R) Grade: C
Romney, Mitt (R) Grade: D
Santorum, Rick (R) Grade: B+
Here are Santorum's lifetime averages as in Congress:
American Conservative Union — 88% (for his last year in Congress, it was 96%)I don't doubt Rep. Paul would score similarly. However, there's one problem: He's a libertarian. Some may remember how his first run for President was as the Libertarian party's nominee in 1988. The Liber in Libertarian has the same root as liberal. So what?
Americans for Tax Reform — 95%
National Tax Limitation Committee — 92%
U.S. Chamber of Commerce — 88%
League of Private Property Voters — 94%
The Church has repeatedly -- since Leo XIII -- condemned libertarianism, which is what it calls "liberalism." Go to papalencyclicals.net and see Rerum Novarum, Quadrigesimo Anno, Octogesima Adveniens, and Centisimus Annus (by Bl. John Paul), not to mention B16's Caritatis in Veritate.
Although it's longer than the others, I think the one that would find the greatest acceptance by most economic conservatives in the US would be Centisimus Annus. At first glance, we may not like the Church's fundamental principles when it comes to the economy or whatever. However, given the never-deviating, consistent message of popes over the last 100+ years, if we're to be faithful Catholics, we ignore those principles at our spiritual peril, no? For otherwise, what makes us any different than the Call to Action types, or the SSPX/Lefebvrists?
In any event, Dr. Paul is an acolyte of Ayn Rand, and you can't find a more unChristian or even anti-Christian take on the duties of both society vis-a-vis the poor, at least not as the Catholic Church has defined them. You can't find anyone outside of Ludwig von Mises, the Austrian philosopher/economist, who is more against the Church's social teaching on economic matters. And yet Rep. Paul thinks she's the bee's knees. He's also on record as being quite fond of von Mises, as well.
Same Sex Unions vs. Traditional Marriage
No one can question Sen. Santorum on this issue. It's one of the reasons he got into the race.
No one can question Rep. Paul on this issue, either. Or can they? Actually, the doctor's stance here is amongst his most problematic for concerned Catholics.
Granted, he voted for DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act), and co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act challenges the same year (the MPA would have removed judicial to DOMA from federal courts’ jurisdiction ... begging the question, even if that's what states want?).
However, this seems very inconsistent. On the one hand, he opposes the federal government redefining marriage. However, he's fine with the federal government definingmarriage. But doesn't he say that is supposed to be a state issue (he does, by the way)? This causes some confusion.
Paul has also taken his libertarian views even further, repeatedly stating that he hopes the state will stop sanctioning marriages altogether.
“I think the government should just be out of it. I think it should be done by the church or private contract, and we shouldn’t have this argument,” he said recently. “Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards, and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.” [Isn't the Mario Cuomo argument given in a conservative guise? I can't see how it's not. Cuomo in his 1984 Notre Dame speech, after all, argued the same thing. Look how good that has been for Catholic politicians wanting to wiggle out of defending life in the womb.]
“But,” he continued, “if we want to have something to say about marriage it should be at the state level, and not at the federal government.”
Dr. Paul's most recent book Liberty Defined has a chapter on marriage. In he write, “In a free society…all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized.” ...“There should essentially be no limits to the voluntary definition of marriage.” [Polygamy or polyandry, anyone?]
“Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it would qualify as a civil contract if desired … Why not tolerate everyone’s definition as long as neither side uses force to impose its views on the other? Problem solved!”
I think the response to this was best put by Ann Coulter, who wrote:
“How are child support and child custody issues determined if the government doesn’t recognize marriage? How about a private company’s health care plans - whom will those cover? Who has legal authority to issue “do not resuscitate” orders to doctors?...Who inherits in the absence of a will? Who is entitled to a person’s Social Security and Medicare benefits? How do you know if you’re divorced and able to remarry?”The homosexual Republican group GOProud released a statement in May 2011 thanking Paul “for rightly making the case that marriage and family laws should be decided at the state level.”
The homosexual magazine The Advocate wrote the following after the May 5, 2011, debate:
Paul was asked whether his libertarian views on such controversial issues — mainly his belief that personal liberties should not be encroached upon by the federal government —could help him attract socially conservative voters. Paul said he believes that states should have the right to legalize gay marriage, marijuana, and prostitution if they choose to do so. (emphasis added)If you think this is a mischaracterization of Paul's position, here is the transcript off of Ron Paul's own website:
Chris Wallace: Congressman Paul, you say that the Federal government should stay out of people’s personal habits, you say marijuana, cocaine, even heroin should be legal if states want to permit it, you feel the same about prostitution and gay marriage. Question sir, why should social conservatives in South Carolina vote for you for president?
Ron Paul: They will if they understand my defense of liberty is the defense of their right to practice their religion, and say their prayers where they want and practice their life. But if you do not protect liberty across the board, it’s the First Amendment type issue, we don’t have a First Amendment so that we can talk about the weather, we have the First Amendment so we can say very controversial things. So for people to say that, “yes we have our religious beliefs protected” but people who want to follow something else or a controversial religion, you can’t do this, if you have the inconsistency then you’re really not defending liberty, but there are strict rules on freedom of choice of this sort, because you can’t hurt other people, you can’t defame other people. But yes, you have a right to do things that are very controversial, if not you’re going to end up with government is going to tell us what we can eat and drink and what ever (sic).
It’s amazing that we want freedom to pick our future in a spiritual way but not when it comes to our personal habits.
Chris Wallace: But Senator (sic), are you suggesting that heroin and prostitution are an exercise of liberty.
Ron Paul: Well, I probably never used those words, you put those words some place but yes in essence if I leave it to the states it’s going to be up to the states, up until this past century for over a hundred years they were legal, what you’re referring is “You know what? If we legalize Heroin tomorrow, everybody is going to use Heroin,” how many people here would use Heroin if it was legal, I bet nobody would put the hand “Oh yeah, I need the government to take care of me,” I don’t want to use Heroin so I need these laws.”
Vis-a-vis heroin, I'm sorry, but in my judgment, this is just naive. The Catholic Church has long recognized that when something has the appearance of legality, people translate that in varying ways as "acceptable." Look at how many people support legalized abortion because it is "settled law ever since Roe v. Wade." When something is illegal, it's less likely to be accepted. Look at school Bible study groups or saying the "Our Father" at football games.
Similarly, were heroin legal and people tempted to try it knowing that they couldn't be busted ... well, if you've heard of things heroin addicts do to get their next fix (including murder, burgle, and steal), it's not something with which we should want to experiment, I would think.
As for marriage, however, we can’t have 50 marriage laws.
The homosexual agenda
While he opposed federal so-called “hate crimes” legislation and criticized the Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case for overriding state anti-sodomy laws, he voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after previously supporting the policy.
"Well, like I said, everybody has the same rights as everybody else, so homosexuals in the military isn't a problem. It's only if they're doing things they shouldn't be, if they're disruptive. But there's ... men and women getting into trouble with each other too. And there's a lot more heterosexuals in the military, so logically they're causing more trouble than gays. So yes, you just have the same rules for everybody and treat them all the same."
These are the basic reasons I would encourage my serious Catholic friends to not support Ron Paul in tomorrow's primary election here and in Maryland or anywhere his name happens to appear on the ballot in this presidential primary season. I'm sorry I didn't have time to look up or insert the relevant sections from Scripture or the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Thanks for your attention if you've gotten this far.
Have a great Holy Week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)