Monday, August 31, 2009

If we explain it s l o w l y e n o u g h

maybe they will understand.

(What? It could happen)

L'Osservatore Romano just couldn't help itself, I guess:
Crediting Kennedy with being "constantly on the front line in battles over such matters as the protection of immigrants, arms control, the minimum wage," it adds that "but he also unfortunately took positions favorable to abortion."

The article does not mention that, in addition, the senator supported deadly embryonic stem cell research, "homosexual marriage," and the the funding of contraceptive distribution programs, all positions anathema to the Catholic Church.

Are you paying very close attention? Concentrating? Got that voice recorder running so you can review later?

OK, here we go:

Theologically speaking, the one characteristic that unites all the issues you mention, like arms control, minimum wage, immigration and "civil rights" (the black movement for those not accustomed to US journalese) is that these are all issues on which Catholics can disagree in good conscience. The Catholic Church does not rule on how Catholics must respond to them.

In addition, the solutions to poverty, immigration, taxation, wages, crime and "civil rights" offered by the left are not the same as the teaching of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

We get, for example, to say that the US winning the arms race against the Soviets was a categorically Good Thing.

We get to say that a Big Brother government imposing minimum wages, price controls and tax burdens on businesses is actually really bad for the economy and therefore bad for "The Poor" (TM).

We get to say that the death penalty is a good thing and that too many immigrants coming in from cultures that are radically different from that of the receiving country does great harm.

We get to say that the best way to get people out of poverty is to refuse to give them welfare.

We get to say that the Americans made a huge mistake in pulling out of Saigon and not pushing forward into North Korea in order to contain the red threat from the East.

We get to say that black people (and Indians) would be better off if we stopped telling them how hard done by they are and giving them welfare.

These are all perfectly legitimate opinions to be held by Catholics, supported by Catholic teahing.

Now, here's a quiz for you: what is the one defining characteristic of the other issues mentioned (and not mentioned) by L'Osservatore Romano (the Pope's Paper), which Ted "unfortunately" supported?

I'll give you a minute to think about it.

Oh, and one more point for L'Osservatore Romano, strictly about journalistic integrity: when you want to maintain a facade of objectivity, might be a good idea not to refer to Senator Edward Kennedy as "Ted". Mkay?


Gregory, the friendly fact-geek said...

Saigon is in Vietnam.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Yes dear. Thank you.

I was referring first to the Vietnam war and then to the Korean war in the same sentence.

I'm funny that way.

Gregory said...

Ah. I HAD hoped that the explanation was that in the 1950's of HilaryWorld, the USA invaded North Korea, starting from Saigon. Thru China. A vastly more interesting scenario. Instead, a prosaicly absent comma. My bad.

Actually, we did invade N. Korea and, by the end of November, 1950, we were so close to the Chinese border that it was effectively split into two pieces. Unfortunately, the Chinese stepped in. Too many of them. In a military sense, not in an ontological sense.

Hilary Jane Margaret White said...

Oh, wouldn't Hilaryworld be great?!

I think about Hilaryworld all the time...


thinking about it now...


BillyHW said...

Vice President!

anothertwocents said...

They can't very well say that the first Catholic president's brother ran off the reservation at will, can they?