This blog is no longer updated and is closed for comments. We welcome your comments about Catholicism in our Catholic forums.
Amy Welborn is the author of 17 books on prayer, saints, apologetics and church history. Her articles and columns have appeared in Our Sunday Visitor, Commonweal, First Things, Catholic Digest, Liguori, and been syndicated by Catholic News Service.
Amy has an MA in Church History from Vanderbilt University and spent several years working in Catholic schools and parishes before taking up writing full time. She was married to Catholic author Michael Dubruiel until his unexpected death in February of 2009. She has five children ranging in ages from 4 to 26.
Read Amy's Full Biography...
Tim, I did qualify my statement by writing "few" and "seem." Those three links were good, and I know there are more. I don't disagree with the many bishops in principle, but I do think they lack imagination in engaging the issues. Or maybe I've been reading too many conservative sites these past several years.
As for Professor Glendon, by her own standards of wishing not to cooperate with what she concedes is an "uncompromising opponent" (a stretch, I would say and so, it seems, would L'Osservatore Romano) she opens herself to the same line of criticism. I don't recall criticizing her for accepting appointment by the Bush administration, nor do I recall liberals being upset about that at the time. If you want to get tit-for-tat, we didn't bother her then, so why is President Obama speaking at ND such a bother for her now? The argument may seem clumsy to you, but it is an attempt to engage the issue by the professor's own standards.
In sum, Erin's points are well-taken, but they aren't engaging what we're saying.
And Jay, reading comprehension is needed. Just because I assess the namecallers are losing the argument doesn't mean I think I'm winning. Debate is not a zero-sum game. It is possible for President Obama, Professor Glendon, Father Jenkins, and the Catholic blogosphere to all be losers about some things. I've convinced few to none of you here and that's not, in my book, a winner.
Last words are all yours. I'm out.
Uh, Todd, if you actually analyze what I wrote, you will note that I did not call people names but identified two categories into which they probably fall. Beyond that I identified a characteristic common to the Notre Shame threads on a number of blogs--an orchestrated campaign by "Catholic Democrats" to defend Obama by "diversion" and "change of subject" to the Eeeeevvvvvvviiiiiilllll Bush" (tu quoque).
And I did this not because my side is getting "whacked." Your side cannot be whacking anyone because your entire argument is a false moral equivalency.
That you keep trying to win with it--as you have been doing now for years only shows that you don't even understand the issues at stake. Instead, your real loyalty is to leftist political causes.
Personally, I would welcome pro-life support from any big-government, left-leaning politicos who might wish to supply it. The trouble is that such folks are nearly non-existent on the political spectrum. But wherever they may be found, I salute them.
Your tribe, however, doesn't reciprocate. Anyone who favors conservative political causes, no matter what their views on various Catholic issues, gets slammed by you folks (usually by twisted logic) because for you no one can take a "good" position on Catholic issues unless he also inhabits the left side of the political spectrum.
But why do I suspect that you won't even grasp what I'm saying?
Anyone who favors conservative political causes, no matter what their views on various Catholic issues, gets slammed by you folks (usually by twisted logic) because for you no one can take a "good" position on Catholic issues unless he also inhabits the left side of the political spectrum.
But why do I suspect that you won't even grasp what I'm saying?
I don't know about Todd, but I surely grasp it. In fact, let me show how what you're saying is heard:
Anyone who favors progressive political causes, no matter what their views on various Catholic issues, gets slammed by you folks because, for you, no one can take a "good" position on Catholic issues unless he or she, first and foremost, agrees with us in every respect on not only the morality of but on the only appropriate public policy toward The Only Issue That Matters.
Obiter dictum: Lots of words here, little progress. But remember what Amy quoted me about: The irony of the high moral ground Glennon claims after her term as ambassador of an administration of torturers to a nation that opposes torture as intrinsically evil.
It was gruesomely wrong for Fr Jenkins to invite B.O. Prof. Glendon is all class.
I'm repulsed at Catholics who are trying to make a political point out of this. President B.O. stands for FOCA and abysmal extension of the abortion regime. One that legalises private application of lethal violence on innocent humans for convenience, that produces an increasingly callous society one that is less able to see the evil of torture per se, less able to produce citizens of nobility. Abortion has become, by destroying hope, a potent driver of social decay. George Cardinal Pell wrote recently "abortion corrupts everything it touches". Again 50 000 000 dead babies. Our society is groaning in pain, and blood guilt.
Abortion and contraception are the central pillars in the viciously anti-Christian sexual revolution; one that has destroyed families, children and the nation's integrity. The logical outcome of sexual laissez faire is the normalisation of SSA and State legalisation of SSM which has created the 'mega-cultural conflict of the decade'. The Iowa Supreme Court ruling decided opposition to SSM could only be motivated by anti-homosexual prejudice! Therefore in the eyes of the State the Church is equivalent to a racist organisation - logical outcome is public marginalisation. Constitutional lawyers admit religious freedom is in great peril, and have no illusions persecutions will have to be borne now, we have a duty to those that come after to bear them now or leave a terrible legacy.
President B.O. is an abortion extremist and living death to the Catholic Church. A complete list of all he done and proposes to do is a matter of public record.
Without stable institutions at home, and marriage and the family are the primary and most important of these, stable peace creating international economic and political institutions can't be built and sustained. A nation is less able to defend itself in this situation and less able to do positive good internationally.
The social science is in; the damage from abortion has been monumental, Humanae Vitae was prophetic. This license to kill, besides its intrinsic evil, has helped to prop up a view of human nature that taken to its logical conclusion has the potential to completely divide the country into culture of death and culture of life civil war. The defenders of the American experiment as articulated in the Declaration 'we hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal' and those who support a new experiment in liberty - legalised murder and constellated acts, and their legal and cultural extension. This is a crisis of civilisation before it is an explicitly religious one. It is a fight over the natural law.
Those who argue their oppostion to energetic and organised protest at ND's betrayal of the US and Catholics world wide are grand hypocrites. Their arguments lack all proportion and undermine the principled opposition to other intrinsic evils like torture. Why complain about a unified group of citizens prepared to defend the American experiment from violent attack when it has common cause against torture on the same grounds?
It has the stink of B.O. politicking.
Guess what, folks - there are literally millions of people who have no problem with a woman making the choice of whether or not to carry a foetus to term.
You can weep, wail, gnash your teeth, and take whatever other chest-beating, brow-mopping, foot-stamping action you need to in order to reconcile that fact to yourselves, but here's the reality you're going to have to live with: You have no control over anyone that isn't you. You cannot force anyone except yourselves to live the way you think people should live. You cannot force the entire populace to view a blastocyst as the same thing as a child. You simply do not have that power.
So, feel free to take the "moral high ground," whatever that is. Meanwhile, you sit impotently by while millions of women make choices you don't like.
What do you intend to do about it?
Torture them?
Lock them up until they give birth?
Arrest their doctors?
Nope. You won't do any of that. If you had the power to do so, you'd have done it by now.
What's left for you?
Whine on, you crazy diamonds.
*yawn*