The vote, rocked.
November 7, 2006, 5:40 pm
Posted by Grant Gallicho
Too many polling-place reports to keep track of, but here are a few worth reading.
- To be a Latino voter in Arizona…
- Or any kind of voter in Maryland…
- Or in Virgina… (audio bonus)
- Or an Ohio Congressman…
Worth reading in light of the ever-increasing election-day debacles that seem to become the rule rather than the exception:
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006d/111006/111006o.php
The American people finally caught up to this contemptuos gang. Make no mistake it is largely anti-bush.
You can’t fool all the people all the time. Thankfully.
If NBC projection holds true and Bush loses the house, wow. A fitting humiliation.
http://www.niehs.nih.gov/kids/lyrics/happydays.htm\
(I particularly like verse # 2)
So long sad times
Go long bad times
We are rid of you at last
Howdy gay times
Cloudy gray times
You are now a thing of the past
Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So let’s sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again
Altogether shout it now
There’s no one
Who can doubt it now
So let’s tell the world about it now
Happy days are here again
Your cares and troubles are gone
There’ll be no more from now on
From now on …
Happy days are here again
The skies above are clear again
So, Let’s sing a song of cheer again
Happy times
Happy nights
Happy days
Are here again!
A ringing defeat for Catholic issues across the board.
South Dakotans rejected a law that would have banned many abortions, Arizona became the first state to defeat an amendment to ban gay marriage and Missouri approved a measure backing embryonic stem cell research. And we also lost our most effective and outspoken defender of the world’s poor and the unborn in Santorum.
Such is the Leviathan, which God “didst form to sport in it.” (Ps 104).
Catholic issues like Medieval hangings
Like phony ministers condemning same sex marriages while having same sex.
Like the phony abortion issue where more or at least the same occurred under Bush.
Like prefer the wealthy and let the others eat cake.
Like bishops still refusing accountability.
Like supporting war and saying it is ok to go against the pope on this life and death issue.
Etcetera, etcetera , etcetera.
We do need to stress the humanity of Christ over this sick triumphalism.
Bill, Bill, why are you so bitter? You ought instead to be in a state of high hilarity. Consider: With the House in Democratic hands, the impeachment proceedings can commence; the defunding of the Iraq war can begin; imprisonment of your favorite villains is likely. What’s there not to be happy about?
I’m the one who should be bitter. But I’m not, just a little sad, since I was pretty much expecting this. And the Dems may yet (if they haven’t already) gain the Senate.
So rejoice, Bill! Be happy! As for myself, I’ll lick my wounds and begin looking at ’08. THAT’S going to be a dilly!
Mr. Mazzella,
You still refuse to see that Catholic politicians are accountable to their faith. If they wish to call themselves Catholic, they cannot support contraception, abortion, stem cell research using embryonic stem cells, same sex marriage, etc.
Your notion of “celebrating” the humanity of Christ as though that were a theological tour-de-force, is simply the last hurrah of the dessicated childish theology that refuses to obey the Magisterium and the Pope on doctrine. By the way, Mr. Mazzella, the issue of war is one of prudential judgment. Pope Benedict has never said that faithful Catholics must agree with him and there is no penalty for disagreement with him. Read the Catechism (I guess there’s always a first time).
I’ll buy mlj’s assessment that the election was “a ringing defeat for Catholic issues across the board” if we all agree that the only Catholic issues are abortion stem-cell research and gay marriage.
Frankly, what seemed to be in the minds of more voters was the war, health care, the war, Michigan’s lousy economy, the war. And, of course, the WAR.
Are there no Catholic components to these issues? Or have we simply reduced our faith to protecting the rights of the unborn and denying the rights of gay people?
I think Jean is right and speaks the common sense view, as usual.
I would add that, if NPR analysis this morning is right, another major value question played a big role here , viz. corruption Or, if you prefer, venality or avarice.
I think it’s clear that, except for the evenagelical South, the country has swung left as the left has moved toward the center (despite some here who question the sincerity of such moves.)
What does this mean for our faith?
A more centrist view will make possible a better communication of faith values instead of the terrible partisan divide which only hardens positions. I note that Bishop Wuerl in Washington, at the catechetical convention, noted how our loss of community and questioning of the common good had weakened the presentation of the messages of faith, especially to the young.
So I’m generally grateful for the eleection results as a person of faith because i think that despite certain referendum results, maybe the Gospel can be heard more fairly and firmly.
“A ringing defeat for Catholic issues across the board.”
Are those who rejected these issues selfish sinners who are doomed to perdition?
OR
Have the arguments been persuasive but not compelling?
It’s back to the drawing board for the bishops et al.
“You still refuse to see that Catholic politicians are accountable to their faith. ”
It all boils down to how does one implement the reflections of an imformed conscience in the public square? Does one simply do whatever the “magisterium” (defined to mean whatever and whomever any individual chooses it to mean) says, or does a Catholic politician take into account his/her conscience, the laws of the land, and the fact that many Catholic positions are minority positions and cannot be dictated?
If the Church can’t persuade the general populace of the truth of it’s positions, the political hammer is not the “next best thing.”
JimmyMac,
The informed conscience of a Catholic is a conscience informed by the truths of the Catholic faith. That does mean taking into account the positions of the Magisterium and the Pope. A Catholic politician cannot simply choose to take the twists and turns of his or her own conscience as the final authority or defer to the law of his or her own land without referring them to the teachings of the Church. The fact that many Catholic positions are in the minority is neither here nor there and should not be a consideration if one is truly Catholic. The fact that our so-called “Catholic” Democrat senators allow their uninformed consciences and the various desires of their constituents to trump Church teaching indicates that they are no longer Catholic.
Janice said: The fact that our so-called “Catholic” Democrat senators allow their uninformed consciences and the various desires of their constituents to trump Church teaching indicates that they are no longer Catholic.
Jean asks: I don’t get this line of thinking. Does this mean that Catholic politicians must work toward a theocracy in which no laws are in opposition to Catholic teaching?
Does that mean we let the Jews go to synagog and the Jehovah’s Witnesses to Kingdom Hall, but we don’t let them take birth control pills, get remarried after a divorce or engage in homosexual behavior?
Why is it so important for some Catholics to feel that they must legislate the morality of everyone else? Why isn’t it enough to live your faith in your own life so that others WANT to be like you?
Jesus Christ led by example and believed in free will. Why can’t you?
>>Why is it so important for some Catholics to feel that they must legislate the morality of everyone else? Why isn’t it enough to live your faith in your own life so that others WANT to be like you?<<
Some of us are actually convinced that 1.5 million missing children per year is, you know, not a good thing.
47 million and counting.
Geez, mlj, I must be reading the wrong Gospels or something, and I’m sure you’ll be happy to set me straight with one of your sweeping generalities that begs the question.
As I recall, when Jesus Christ met a sinner, he didn’t say, “Why, there oughta be a LAW!”
He faced down those who would stone the sinners and wrote things in the sand. Then he said to the sinner, “Go and sin no more,” and then showed them how to act. Which is a whole lot harder than passing a law.
Of course, there are governments where abortion is banned, homosexual behavior criminalized, condom use for AIDS prevention shunned, etc. etc. Nigeria is one of these governments. Perhaps we ought to adopt it as our political and moral role model.
>>As I recall, when Jesus Christ met a sinner, he didn’t say, “Why, there oughta be a LAW!”<<
You simply aren’t serious.
I will keep this phrase in my pocket next time somebody of your mindset argues for safe working conditions, fair wages, and affordable health care.
Oh, do keep it in your pocket! But use the whole gist of my point, will you? Which is that Jesus asked us to follow his example. And that would probably exclude sweatshops, slave wages and letting people die because they can’t afford the operation..
‘Nuff said, I think, before Grant tells us to rent a hall. But feel free to continue to pitch you petty bon mots if it helps assuage your grief over the defeat of Mr. Santorum et al.
I am not happy the democrats won. The voters sent the whitehouse a message which means you and God cannot settle our affairs. This is a democracy.
I am happy that we told W and Co that there is no monarchy.
Whatever you may say about abortion you must admit that there is no proof that an embryo is a human person that God will ‘judge.’
I am not for abortion. But to call it murder is absurd.
Now for those five (5,000,000) million children who do not make it to the age of five every year—-THAT WE KNOW.
And just remember Mrs. Kraus that God will not overlook if you are not as concerned about those 5million children and other downtrodden dying every year. The magisterium will not help you there.
Bush’s father is sending sensible republicans to bring stability and sense to a whitehouse that is not unlike the Taliban. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15627055/site/newsweek/
Yesterday was a day for good sense. If you want theocracy there are places to go.
Jean,
As usual, you can’t reproduce someone’s argument without distorting it. You said: “Does this mean that Catholic politicians must work toward a theocracy in which no laws are in opposition to Catholic teaching?”
No, Jean, it doesn’t. It means that Catholic politicians, IF THEY WISH TO CALL THEMSELVES CATHOLIC, must vote according to a conscience formed by Catholic teaching. Otherwise, THEY CANNOT CALL THEMSELVES CATHOLIC IN ORDER TO USE THAT LABEL AS A CAMPAIGN PLOY TO GET CATHOLIC VOTES. Now do you get it?
No, Janice, I don’t get it, despite your helpful use of caps that make your points so much easier for dimwits to understand.
You said that Catholic politicans should cast votes based on consciences informed by their faith, and I want to know how far you want to carry that.
Why stop at opposing gay marriage and abortion? Why not urge Catholic lawmakers to draft bills calling for constitutional bans on divorce and artificial contraception?
And if that is not a fair question, please explain why. In simple words , of course, or I’ll probably just twist your answer again.
Jean,
Yes, Catholic lawmakers should draft bills calling for bans on divorce and contraception. And of course homosexual marriage and abortion. I think, for a genuine Catholic, that would go without saying. That would be the logical outcome of orthodox Catholic faith. No one has to assent to them. But the truly Catholic lawmaker, with an informed Catholic conscience, has to act on that conscience. We ask lawmakers generally to “vote their conscience.” Why would it be different for Catholics? Why is the Catholic conscience always supposed to be subordinate to secular barbarianism? I like to hear your answer.
Janice, if you’re serious about discussing this, let’s see if we can’t get to the heart of what I think is a philosophical that might be interesting to explore.
If you only want to point out what a bad Catholic I am, I must tell you that my husband already does a very fine job of that, and we can end the conversation directly.
My basic question is how far a Catholic legislator should go to enshrine Catholic teaching in the legal code.
You’ve already endorsed political measures banning abortion and gay marriage. You’ve said Catholic legislators should draft bills outlawing divorce and artificial contraception.
How about masturbation? Fornication? Adultery? How about requiring everyone to go to Mass on Sunday and observe holy days of obligation?
In my view, there’s a line between protecting lives (banning abortion) and interfering with someone’s right to make life choices that don’t agree with mine (divorce, artificial contraception).
Would you agree that there’s a distinction?
Jean,
As the US Constitution has already established, religious observance is outside the parameters of civil legislation so I would not want legislators have anything to do with that.
As to adultery, fornication, et al., yes there are privacy rights. No one can legislate what goes on in the bedroom. Unfortunately, that goes for divorce as well, though as a Catholic legislator I would be conscience-bound not to vote for it.
Abortion, however, is different. There another human being, with the same rights as the mother, is involved. The mother does not have a right to murder her child. Her child has a right to be born. The so-called “right to abortion” is based on the specious notion that women have sole autonomy over their bodies. In general, we are called upon to care for our bodies as stewards. In the case of an unborn child, we go further, we are stewards of that child both in the pre-birth and post-birth state. The child is fully human at conception and every moment thereafter.
As to legislation and homosexual marriage, this ia a very new area for legislation. As a Catholic politician, however, I could not vote either for homosexual marriage or civil unions, not just because it is against Catholic teaching, but also because it is against the natural law and natural law also informs Catholic teaching. The same natural law would also go against contraception.
Janice, I don’t plan to argue with you about any of this, just trying to clarify in my own head, what you’re thinking.
Do I have this right:
1. You would not bind a Catholic legislator to vote for legislation requiring non-Catholics to go to Mass or observe Catholic holy days of obligation.
2. Legislating sexual sins is difficult to police, and such legislation would likely be overturned by the constitutional right to privacy anyway.
3. If you were a Catholic politician you would feel duty-bound to vote for restrictions or bans on divorce, even if those laws would likely be found unconstitutional or thrown out.
I infer from what you say–and again correct my inference–that a Catholic legislator may, in good conscience, support the current constitutional rights to freedom of religion.
I also infer that you believe a Catholic legislator is duty-bound to propose and vote for laws that would support the Catholic notion of marriage (this would include bans against gay marriage and divorce), whether these laws are constitutional or not. If this is correct, is it your view that Catholic legislators introduce constitutional amendments that would allow more narrow definitions of marriage?
Policing private sex acts in or out of marriage has proved difficult and expensive, but it would certainly not be impossible with the availability of modern technology. I’m not clear on whether you feel a Catholic legislator is duty-bound to propose or support constitutional amendments to current privacy rights to allow legislation of sexual mores outside of marriage.
Jean,
Protecting freedom of religion is not only enshrined in the US Constitution, it is enshrined in Dignitatis humanae. As a faithful Catholic, I should endorse it. This also answers your point #1.
Yes, Catholic politicians should propose and vote for very narrow definitions of marriage, i.e., marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman, both according to their faith and according to the natural law. This would certainly include, by definition, a ban on so-called “gay” marriage, which goes against Church teaching and the natural law. It also goes against the best interests of children and society in general, although this does not fall, strictly speaking, under the purview of the legal system.
Privacy rights are legal definitions. But in Catholic theology, particularly in Scripture and the Fathers, not to mention numerous papal encyclicals, etc., the expression “human nature” is decisive. That’s why expressions, such as the “Body of Christ” and “Communion ecclesiology” express much better the constitutive nature of Catholicism rather than the individualistic construct of neo-Scholasticism. This is why even those acts done in “private” are momentous for their effects on the Church polity (or the national polity). So while we have a legal right to privacy, Church tradition and natural law must be brought to bear on any discussion of privacy so that people are aware that what they do is, in fact, not really “private,” but affects their public persona and thus society as a whole. There is no separation between one’s private life and one’s public life (and this was a fundamental premise of ancient philosophy as well as theology). Private acts, such as homosexuality, that undermine the body politic, are in fact detrimental to all of society, no matter that they are conducted behind closed doors, because the attitudes of homosexuals toward men and women do not comport with natural law.
Janice, yes, I see and agree with the notion that there are, in the eyes of God, no “private” acts.
However, our discussion is centered around how a Catholic politician’s faith ought to inform his votes.
So do you believe that a Catholic politican has the duty to try to amend the Constitution to allow the state to monitor and punish now-private acts that are contrary to Church teaching? There have been anti-sodomy laws, anti-fornication laws, anti-co-habitation laws in the past. These laws could be restored and enforceable if the Constitution were so amended.
Jean,
The time is long past when we had these laws on the books. Much as I abhor all of these acts as contrary to the good of the body politic, there is no way they would be restored, given the inroads made by secularist barbarians. I think Catholic politicians can do as much good by their actions and by the way they live their lives. But they do have to follow Church teachings in order to call themselves Catholic. They cannot use the label Catholic just to garner votes. There is a great disconnect between many who call themselves Catholic and the way they live their lives. And the notion that there are no “private” acts is not simply in the eyes of God. It goes to one’s integrity as a human being. Catholic politicians who vote for contraception, abortion laws, euthanasia, same-sex marriage or civil unions, not only give the lie to their own integrity, they also compromise their Church. And bishops who give them communion do the same.
Janice, it seems to me that if bishops excommunicate legislators because they have failed to draft or support laws that promote Catholic teaching, they must be crystal clear about which Catholic teachings they must support and how they are to do that.
As I read your opinion, Catholics may ignore the freedom of religion, even though the Church says inattendance at Mass is a serious sin.
You also believe that Catholic legislators have a duty to address laws regarding contraception, abortion laws, euthanasia, same-sex marriage or civil unions.
I’m less clear about what you feel a Catholic politician ought to do about other grave sins, cohabitation, fornication, masturbation. I would hope that the bishops, if they impose excommunication on legislators to hold them accountable, will make the positions they must take on those sins clear.
This tack bothers me because it reduces the faith to a “laundry list,” which is what, I think, neither of us want. We want people to develop the kind of consciences through faith that will guide them in the right way so that the bishops don’t have to intervene.
Perhaps, instead of excommunicating legislators after the fact, it would be better for the CCC to set up a panel of bishops to examine Catholic candidates to determine whether their consciences are sufficiently formed to make moral legislative decisions.
Perhaps that would discourage many unfit Catholic from running for office.
What say you?