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?

Lies, damn lies and abortionists' statistics

“An investment in contraceptive services can be recouped at least four times over by reducing the need for public spending on health, education and other social services”.

UN’s Population Fund (UNFPA) marking "World Population Day"

At least four times eh?

And just think how much money governments would save in social services by getting rid of their entire populations.

Ah, I see someone's already thought of that.

I often have to admonish pro-life people to not accept these kinds of stats on face value. People, even experienced people, are all too eager to start on the defensive, justifying where we should be attacking. Something important to remember is that abortion-lovers lie. It kind of goes along with the necessary justifications for killing babies. They seem sometimes to believe the lies, but I imagine it's only because they're going mad. They are notorious for making up statistics. On the spot.

cf. Bernard Nathanson, talking about starting the abortion movement in the '60s.

"Knowing that if a true poll were taken, we would be soundly defeated, we simply fabricated the results of fictional polls.
We announced to the media that we had taken polls and that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of permissive abortion. This is the tactic of the self-fulfilling lie. Few people care to be in the minority. We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of illegal abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000, but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.

"Repeating the big lie often enough convinces the public. The number of women dying from illegal abortions was around 200-250 annually. The figure we constantly fed to the media was 10,000. These false figures took root in the consciousness of Americans, convincing many that we needed to crack the abortion law.

I remember once getting a phone call from someone in Norway who was going to make a presentation to the government on dropping abortion/contraception from his country's overseas aid programmes (yes, Norway has those, who knew?). He wanted to know how to counter the claims of some parliamentarian who had made some incredible claim that "tens of thousands" or "hundreds of millions" (or something) of women in Africa (or somewhere) died every year from "unsafe abortions". He wanted to know if there were reliable figures so he could present them.

I was surprised that I had to explain to him that the numbers quoted by these people are made up. The thing to do is not to look around for the "real" number. That is playing their game. It is accepting their whole lie and trying to disprove it in little bits. It's a lie, people. What do we do when we think someone is lying? We call them on it.

We smile sweetly and say, (with as much contemptuous sarcasm as we can muster) "Oh, really? 'tens of millions' eh? Wow! that's a lot. Can I see some documentation for that? Cause that's quite a lot for a set of countries whose entire human population doesn't add up to that. Quite a feat to accomplish, especially in those countries with a high rate of AIDS. Funny how in, say, Burundi, by your claim, the entire female population has been wiped out by 'unsafe abortions' when there is still a recorded AIDS rate of x% among women. If they've all died of 'unsafe abortions', how can there still be any left to be dying of AIDS?"






Google: Cartesian mind/body split, Humanae vitae, Dualism, Optimum Population Trust, Eugenics, Malthusian economics.

This planet is toast; stupid other people!

"I don't feel starved to death," comments man on the street.

But you will, when the eugenicists bioethics committees decide that your autonomy and value to society isn't up to scratch.

H/T to Fr. Tim

John Allen indulges in a little Left-Liberal wishful thinking

While everyone agrees that John Allen is the best of the liberal journalists covering Vatican issues, he is still on the other side, and one of the things about the other side is that they are not, shall we say, deeply committed to reality.

In his post for today at NCR, Allen opines,

In what could be seen as another piece of fallout from Benedict XVI’s January decision to lift the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, including one who is a Holocaust denier, the pope today restructured the Vatican office that handles relations with the traditionalist world -- and, in effect, gently fired the officials who presided over the earlier fiasco.

...

As a result of a document issued by the Vatican today, titled Ecclesiae unitatem, Colombian Cardinal Dario Castrillon-Hoyos, who had served as President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission since 2000, and Italian Monsignor Camille Perl, the number two official at Ecclesia Dei, are both out of work.

...

In broad strokes, the restructuring announced today is seen by most observers as a sign that the Vatican intends to take a more careful, and perhaps a bit firmer, hand in its dealings with traditionalist Catholics.

Ok, here's the bits he left out.

Cardinal Hoyos is 80 years old and has, in the words of one of my inside informants, been "gagging" to retire for some years now. Retirement age for active bishops is normally 75. He has a nice family home in Colombia and wants to go there. And who wouldn't. Rome, as we have seen, is still a snake pit (always has been I suppose).

The plans for restructuring Ecclesia Dei, and folding it into the structures of the CDF have been underway since there was even serious speculation that the HF would lift the excommunications. Papa, as the former head of the CDF and as the quintessential inside man in the Vatican's dealings with the SSPX, has long known that the big issues do not revolve around the Mass or the liturgy, but around the doctrinal, ah...shall we say...trends in the Church to which the SSPX (and quite a few others) have objected.

The plan all along, as far as I know, has been to dismantle the Ecclesia Dei structure as an "overseer" of traditionalists, a move intended to acknowledge that there is not the chasm between us and the rest of the post-conciliar Church as is so fondly imagined by the extreme wings of both sides of the fight. (Whether this is true is arguable, but that's the official line, a chasm does not exist. There is no "rupture", just make sure you don't look down when you take that next step...everything's going to be fiiiiinne...whatever.)

As all Traddies know (those who are not "neo-trads" that is) Msgr. Perl has never been our friend. And that's putting it politely. The fact that he has not been made the replacement for Hoyos is an extremely encouraging sign. It means that the Boss knows who is and who is not going to help him re-integrate the Trads, and traditionalism, into the Church.

The fact that he's being replaced with Pozzo, who is generally acknowledged to be a friend, is another such sign.

Sorry John. But it might be a good idea to actually talk to the people on whom you are reporting once in a while, because it looks like your "most observers" are looking the other way.

Fr. Z has more

And the ever-reliable NLM still more.

While the British National Party is seen as a far Right group some of its policies are more akin to the Left.

Its stance on immigration, Europe and law and order is firmly rooted in the Right but pledges on nationalisation, the NHS and income equality sit just as comfortably at the opposite end of the political spectrum.

It shows two things, I think. First, most of the British press (and political establishment) don't know very much about political theory. They've got the new paradigm firmly in place: "Gay pride, abortion, European Union, Nationalized medicine, unlimited immigration = left = good; immigration restrictions, pro-life, family values = right = bad."

And anything, (like the old fashioned proto-feminists who vigorously opposed abortion, or the pre-Thatcher Labour MPs who voted to retain the death penalty and restrict easy divorce) that doesn't fit the paradigm, simply doesn't exist.

Easy enough to fit the BNP into the category if you read nothing about them but the Guardian's hysterical rants. Read their actual policy sheets and you get a slightly more, dare I say it, nuanced view.

And second, that the entire political spectrum, everywhere in the world but particularly in European politics, has moved so far to the left that the term "right-wing" has simply become meaningless. All it means now is, as Mark Steyn put it, slightly to the right of the extreme radical left. For which another name is: the Left.

As I said, if the BNP were really right wing, I might support them, but they're just a little to far on the squishy socialist side for my taste. And I've not got much time for British republicans.

Long Live the Queen!

Obama and Cherie

This is what struck me, what shocked me actually, about the ever-so open-minded professors (and students) at the Angelicum who were so eager to praise the speech of Cherie Blair last year. The incredible gullibility of these people, who lapped up her oh so articulate tosh and cried foul when we pointed out that they had been played. It was the obviously powerful desire to be seen to like her and accept her and take what she said on its face. To be seen, perhaps, to be as enlightened and sophisticated and non-judgmental as she. To be one of the cool kids at last.

And these people were not stupid, nor were they pro-aborts or even "liberals". Many of them, the ones I spoke to, claimed plausibly enough to be serious-minded Catholics who are enthusiastically supportive of the Church's defence of human life. But there they were, mad as hornets that anyone had dared to say anything against Cherie.

This is the power of the leftist political machinery in having created for themselves this aura, this haze, of reasonableness, of warmth, of being the only really, truly, caring people around. It is the power of the Voice of Saruman, to soothe and to cloud the mind with warm, pink, fuzzy comfort so that anyone who dares to gainsay it is instantly rejected.

"When others spoke they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell."

But Novak says that is the whole point of the (frankly completely transparent) rhetoric about "reducing the number of abortions" that has so often come lately from US pro-abort politicians.

The only people the president disarms with these words are those who are convinced that abortion is the deliberate taking of the life of a unique human individual (with its own unique DNA, distinct from that of its mother and its father). It is they and only they whom the president now summons to listen to the other side, to compromise, to pull clouds of uncertainty over their previous convictions, and to begin to waver. Obama is disarming the pro-life side, and only the pro-life side. The poor young students of Notre Dame, and their inexcusably uncritical and politically unsophisticated professors, are undone by a surface appeal to reason and civility, which is actually a call for their unconditional surrender.

Yeah, so? What's your point?

Just doing a quick little thing about Michael Novak's piece on the incredible bluders of L'Osservatore Romano (and I use the word "blunder" here in an attempt to be charitable).

He writes,

For the pro-abortion forces here [in the US], “reason” and “right” and “sensible” mean supporting abortion. Anything else is unreasonable, against women’s rights, and lacking in all sense. One highly placed appointee of President Obama even compares the condition of a woman who wants an abortion to that of the slave woman in America prior to 1863 — caught in a kind of mandatory, unwilling servitude.

But I hasten to point out that this position is widely accepted in the Catholic left as well. It is, in fact, the foundation of feminism as this pernicious social disease was first described by Friedrich Engels.

He describes the "Monogamous Family" that we first find

"in all its severity among the Greeks. While the position of the goddesses in their mythology, as Marx points out, brings before us an earlier period when the position of women was freer and more respected, in the heroic age we find the woman already being humiliated by the domination of the man...

...

Monogamous marriage comes on the scene as the subjugation of the one sex by the other; it announces a struggle between the sexes unknown throughout the whole previous prehistoric period.

Marriage and motherhood is regarded by the feminists (Marxists) as a form of slavery. This obviously led to the idea that the only way to be free was to be free of children. To have the right, as did the Greek and Roman fathers of old, to kill them as they would rid themselves of unwanted property. Women have to have the right to kill or they are back to being slaves to men and to the degrading and dehumanizing drudgery of motherhood.

This was drilled into me from my earliest age, as the child of a feminist of the 1970s. As with most of my contemporaries on the West Coast, my mother, perhaps little guessing what sort of logical feedback loop it might create, instilled in me the notion that the worst form of slavery, one that inevitably trapped a woman into a lifetime of misery and poverty, is to be a mother.

It is simply taken as read on the left. And the suggestion that motherhood is a good thing for women is looked upon as a piece of lunacy. Or as the work of propagandists for the oppressors.

Legal abortion, therefore, is simply part and parcel of the success of the feminist movement. Emancipation means legally sanctioned murder as a "human right".

Why is anyone surprised by this?

Ooo I love these

Goody: another "If you're _____, then you're a racist" list.

If you note that women and men are different, you’re misogynistic.
If you denounce the destruction of marriage in black communities, you’re racist or moralistic.
If you call for the defense of America against the world-wide Islamist menace, you’re a bigoted warmonger.

here's another one.

* ~ * ~ *

I thought the comment thread at "Kathy Shaidle is a Racist" blog was very interesting and instructive. Early on some of the commenters started a theme: "Kathy set this up so she could get Section 13 complaints made so she could sell more books and get more Paypal donations, so don't send in a complaint because it's just what she wants...the evil devious racist!"

Yeah...Kathy's in it all for the money. That must be it.

The seriousness with which this thesis was presented and received gave me a small insight into the liberal "mind". I have noted before how rare among liberals is a grasp of the concept of irony. Sarcasm they can do, in spades, but actual irony ...not so much.

Irony:

is a literary or rhetorical device, in which there is an incongruity or discordance between what one says or does and what one means or what is generally understood. Irony is a mode of expression that calls attention to the character's knowledge and that of the audience.

So, when Kathy yells "Come and get me you fairies!" they think it is to get more famous and make money. And then they fail to see why all the conservatives in the room fall off their chairs laughing at them. They don't get the joke because it is at their own expense.

Not having any themselves, they can't grasp the idea that someone might be fighting for a principle. Might be willing to allow herself to look bad, to risk having a bad reputation (albeit amongst those whose opinion matters not at all), to put herself in the way of danger, calumny, threats, insults and opprobrium ...oh yeah, and lawsuits... for a principle - for something that is more important than one's own immediate, or even long-term discomfort - to be willing to suffer for a cause.

This little suggestion in the comment thread, along with the profanity and ad hominem insults, certainly gives us a clear window into their withered minds and impoverished imaginations.

What is the only thing they are able to imagine anyone willingly suffering for?

Certainly not to bring out into the open and into the searing light of day a wriggling mass of putrefying injustice that has been going on for decades at taxpayer expense.

Nope.

Just money.

A little collection

I know, I harp on about this a lot, but it really gets under my skin. The Death People at least are up front about what they want. But the media pretense of objectivity really gets me. So here I am just going to make a little sampling, for fun. (No quiz for this one and no marks will be awarded but feel free to translate into plain English for practice.)

"Her family wish her to be allowed to die..."

"An emergency decree to stop the family of Eluana from assisting her death was approved..."

"...a landmark ruling last November by Italy's top appeals court allowing Eluana the right to die..."

"Silvio Berlusconi, has further stoked the flames over a right-to-die case...

Ansa was particularly helpful:

"...scrambled to prepare a draft emergency decree to stop doctors carrying out a landmark right-to-die court ruling..."

"Eluana, who has been in a permanent vegetative state for 17 years, was transferred on Wednesday to a clinic in Udine that has offered to help her die."

"Beppino Englaro has been fighting for more than a decade for a dignified end to his daughter's life in accordance with what he says would have been her wishes."

"If the decree is passed, it will be the second time since November's court ruling that the government has blocked a clinic from helping Eluana end her life."

* ~ * ~ *

Tony Bland
Tracy Latimer
Terri Schiavo
Eluana Englaro

None of these people were "dying".

Broadminded loathing

Joan Smith: There's no end to the people the right loves to hate

"...whereas, we find it so much less complicated just to hate everyone on the right."

Balance

I always laugh when leftists talk about how we have to be "balanced".

Well, the Spanish government is run by a particularly foul and juvenile pack of southpaw cretins and the latest news sounds a lot like the kind of "balance" they mean.

The Zapatero régime in Spain continues to pour salt remorselessly into the wounds of the Civil War. It has removed all statues of Franco and renamed streets commemorating Nationalists, in honour of Red murderers. Yesterday the last statue of Franco on mainland Spain was removed from the town square of Santander, though one survives in Tenerife, fiercely defended by locals.

I have to say, I really am just getting a little fed up with people telling me who I can and cannot like.

So, in the interests of "balance" I think I have a whim to begin all my posts this week, until, say, Christmas eve, with a photo of an important historical figure that has been vilified...dare we say "demonized" by the left.

I'm accepting nominations in the chatterbox.

Why socialism is bad

*

Once the State pays your wage, and grants you the roof over your head, you are caught.There is no such thing as affordable housing but there is such a thing as the State seeking to get bigger and more powerful and if you share my sense of horror at this, you too will cringe as this socialist agenda is advanced, all in the name of the common good.

*it's a leg-hold trap.