Shameless garment

Swing and a miss on the seamless garment, Jeff.

As usual, you’d do much better to find a person writing or speaking explicitly on the seamless garment rather than dismiss the approach with an attempt at humor.

Within Catholicism of course, the seamless garment approach points an uncomfortable finger at those who stand behind tens of millions of aborted fetuses (the choice and action of individual citizens). Meanwhile, the policies of beloved Republicans get a mindless stamp of approval no matter how much murder and mayhem (the choice and action of the government) they produce.

For the record the pro-choice policies of most Democrats are heinous. But the Republicans are no better.

Home run Jeff. See? I can be the dogmatic umpire too.

There is a simple principle here – there are no exceptions:

If one votes Democrat, one is Democrat 1st and anything else 2nd (including religion)

Todd.

Speaking of swinging and missing with your moral equivalency of Democrats and Republicans. Any positive direction in the pro-life movement has come from the GOP and has been blocked by the Democrats. Are the two parties the same on the partial birth abortion ban, on ESCR, or any other method to kill the innocent. Sure I am well aware of the faults of the GOP in regards to being pro-life, but there is no comparison as to who would really move toward making abortion illegal.

Jeff, I think the conservative problem is the expectation that moral change in the US (or the world) will come from political action. I have very little hope for it.

I think your criticism of the seamless garment approach was shallow, ignorant, and lacking in your usual humor.

While the Democrats in the land (plus their pro-choice allies in the R’s) are pleased enough to stand by and let other people do the killing, it is the Republicans of this adminstration who advocate killing at the hands of the state.

These are not morally equivalent, but each heinous in its own way, each undeserving of any Catholic moral support.

By the way, how many Republican presidents have appeared at the March for Life? How many are willing to hold their hand out to the religious right as they say, “Those judicial activists have tied our hands again. More money, please?”

We’d all do better to leave the pols of both types twisting in the wind and rolling up our sleeves to do the real work in the trenches on the local level.

But if you Republicans who are accidental Catholics want to keep getting played like fiddles, by all means revel in your relevance.

At test to identify pro-life Democrat Senators?

Easy! They’re always accompanied by unicorns.

Speaking of Guiliani, remember “Catholics Against Rudy?” Conservatives lining up to sink his nomination over abortion and same-sex marriage, etc. Hannity of course freaked out in typical end-justify-the-means manner, but something similar happening on the Dem side is unimaginable–most of the protest over there being over who can get the vital 101% rating from NARAL first. Point being, Guilaini was all but the shoe-in for a while, now he’s toast–demonstrating that the alliance between pro-lifers and the Republicans, however shaky and perfuntory, isn’t dead.

Joanne –

There are many means to the end of reducing abortion as much as humanly possible. Legal protections for the unborn are one such means, and they are necessary, but building a culture and society that respects the life of the unborn requires much more than laws and political policies.

Don’t expect many lives to be saved or the pro-choice movement to crumble with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. I suspect groups like Planned Parenthood and others have contingency plans for how they will operate when that court decision is overturned.

Yeah, for the sake of the unborn, you bet I’m open to other means. I’m not saying the Democrats offer such means. They may not. But we should listen.

All these pro-death politicians who say that “they would rather eliminate abortion by other means than passing laws against it” are the same ones who go out and actively push and vote for legislation against crisis pregnancy centers, parental notification laws, and many other things that would help prevent abortions.

Todd,

So I guess by your reasoning we can vote for anybody even if they support intrinsic evil. That they can work to slaughter more innocents and it really doesn’t matter since politics doesn’t much matter in this regard.

I guess you can tell that the the people who were not aborted due do the partial birth abortion ban since this came about by political means. I guess Catholics can just ignore what the Magisterium has said on this subject, but then again you don’t care much for the Magisterium considering your support of women’s ordination.

“In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”. — Gospel of Life

Barack Obama is not working to make “a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.” He is actively working and has voted to prevent any restriction from abortion, cloning, ESCR, euthanasia. I guess people can ignore this when their conscience stops seeing the horror of murdering the innocent and finds excuses to support those who do in this “Grave new world.”

Correct me if I’m wrong here, but didn’t Casey’s Rick Santorum (who gets a lot of love on this side of the blogosphere) endorse and campaign for fellow Republican Arlen Specter in 2004?
Specter’s record on life issues is suspect to say the least. Whilst he indeed voted to torpedo partial-birth abortion, he supported destructive embryonic stem cell research. In fact, when that bill came to the Senate, Bob Casey’s ‘no’ vote neutralised Specter’s ‘yes.’
Furthermore, Specter voted against parental notification on for minors traveling interstate for abortions, against maintaining the ban on abortions in US Defence bases; against, against, against.
When he came up for re-election in 2004, a thoroughly conservative alternative in Pat Toomey showed up, challenging Specter’s record on life issues. Santorum, like almost every other Republican, fell in behind Specter.

Unlike Casey, Santorum had a viable, pro-life alternative in front of him. And he rejected it.

This isn’t a championing of Obama by any means. Just a comparison between the two from a young Australian with (in the interests of full disclosure) a very soft spot for Casey Sr.

Todd,

Funny how you think Obama does not have enough moral bandage with his support for letting a baby die after being born, for abortion in all forms, for ESCR, cloning, euthanasia, homosexual marriage – all intrinsic evils.

But I guess that doesn’t matter compared to an issue that Catholics can actually prudently disagree on. And as you probably know I was not for the war in Iraq but believe that pulling out now will lead to even more deaths. Again as Catholics we can disagree on this, but on the other matters we may not.

I can understand someone chucking both McCain and Obama and voting for someone else, I can’t understand though how a Catholic could possibly support Obama and I thought the same considering Giuliani.

Thanks for responding, Jeff.

In your original post, you were the one who “was sure” Senator Casey would appeal to the seamless garment. Perhaps he has–I haven’t seen it.

Even if he did, I would likely agree that it was a misuse of the principle. A person can use a hammer to bang a screw out of a machine, and it might even work. But I wouldn’t condemn the hammer as a tool just because someone didn’t use it properly.

There are politicians who might favor abortion that I could see voting for in theory: a sheriff, a mayor, some public official who held the pro-choice view, but wouldn’t be able to do any actual damage with it. An extremist? Probably not, on general principle.

Obama is a tough one. I don’t think the office of president will have that much effect, SCOTUS or not, on abortions in this country. The president does serve as a leader on issues he does not have a constitutional role in deciding. Republican presidents have demurred from providing that role publicly and substantially for the pro-life movement.

I’d be more inclined to look for moral leadership from lay people, not bishops, who would be able to sway public opinion over the long haul, and on the local level, where I think American politics still has a pulse.

Indirectly, a better economy is the best chance for helping more women dodge unwanted pregnancy, and I’m inclined to think the Democrats offer some hope in that regard.

The War in Iraq however, has been muddled with sin through and through: lies, deceit, torture, false witness, catastrophic civilian casualties, and more. It may well be that the pullout of the US military, whenever that does happen, will lead to more innocent lives taken. Frankly, I don’t believe the US is in any moral position to remain there. Certainly, the Republicans have been directly involved in the Culture of Death through the chain of command down to personnel who have committed atrocities and war crimes. That’s a far more serious taint than the admittedly wussy stance of “personally opposed, but …”

There is no prudential wiggle room on the Iraq War: the Republicans are unfit for national leadership, except for Ron Paul and any others who have explicitly condemned the war and its prosecution. Theoretically, a war may be deemed just in the Catholic view. Practically, this war meets no such standard. Lacking any repudiation and expression of culpability from Senator McCain, I believe voting for him would be gravely sinful. I acknowledge my assessment of sinfulness begins and ends with me. But I’ve already considered the Magisterium in my views on war: they inform a discernment already made. They do not alter it once it’s been so formed.

I assure you that we “pro-life Democrats” are quite a bit more real than unicorns.

Look… The fact is that the two parties are broad umbrellas of greatly different views that make uncomfortable alliances to remain in positions of power. Perhaps the two-party system is best, but it masks the different positions of the great variety of social, economic, and political views in our Republic.

In other words, Republicans should get off their damn high horses and address the fact that they are just as inclined to pull the lever for a straight ticket, without any idea as to the views of the lower candidates on the ticket as Dems.

As for voting for Obama or Clinton… Please give me an alternative.

Pennsylvania is a closed primary state. For those of us who don’t know what that is, it means that Dems can only vote in the Democratic primary and Republicans can only vote in the GOP primary.

So… Since we Casey Dems live in a world without unicorns or other fictions like the freedom to choose a pro-life candidate, who should we vote for… or should we simply remain silent?

Mr. McClarey,

Pres. Bush has squandered several opportunities to position the GOP as the preeminent party in the US. In Pennsylvania, GOP registration numbers are lower than Dems for the first time in a century.

IF McCain wins, it will be a squeeker.

On our side of the house, this means that conservative and libertarian-minded Dems must take this primary seriously. There is a good chance that the winner of our primary will be President.

You advise that the only legitimate position in this race is for us to opt out. Ostensibly, if we care for the unborn, there can be no “best candidate.”

This is myopic.

I would like to see an end to the death penalty. I would like to see free meals to every child in school and the school-day extended so that the working poor can earn a fair wage. I would like to see fewer prisons and more counseling. I would like to see protection for the privileged position of churches in America. I would like to see protection for the civil institution of marriage. I would like to see liability protection for the Boy Scouts from discrimination suits. I would like to see expanded adoption programs and adequate foster-care. I would like to see a fair tax-code that makes the wealthy pay their fair share of the burden. I would like to see an outlawing of self-satisfied trusts and regulation of the credit industry to reinstate usury laws nationally.

There is so much that I think is important and… dare I say it… of Christian concern.

I am under no illusion that any candidate, GOP or Dem can or is likely to want to take on even a few of these issues. The decision to opt-out though is fundamentally un-American and irresponsible. It sets aside the broader good for the particular satisfaction of not being a party to evil. Frankly, if we applied that logic to all politics, there are precious few politicians that a Catholic could vote for.

You advocate a position on political engagement rejected by the Church. You pretend that this is the only legitimate response to the provocation of Modernity. You are wrong and saddle us with a burden that few are willing to carry.

I don’t know you so I don’t have any idea whether you bear this burden yourself or not. To find out, ask yourself whether you have ever voted for a candidate whose political positions were not known to you or whose positions on some of your concerns were opposing. If not… lucky you. If so, welcome to the world the rest of us live in.

Now stop throwing stones at us.

Additionally you and other pro-life Democrats need to organize and become a power in your party. Granted it is an up-hill climb, but it can be done. When pro-lifers began to organize in the Republican party in the 70’s, they also confronted a fair amount of hostility from within their own party. The thing can be done, but it will never be done while Democrats who oppose abortion continue to vote for candidates who are fanatic advocates of it.

Ok, the real thing we need to look at is both Sen.Obama’s and Sen.Casey’s track records. From what I’ve seen Obama has never even been close to being pro-life and whatever Casey thinks Obama means by, “we shouldn’t be deaf to the voices of the next generation.” doesn’t include the vast majority of young pro-lifers. With Casey it is a bit more difficult because he has been obviously pro-life his entire career, but has suddenly decided to put blind faith in a man who has been obviously pro-choice through out his short career. So instead of trying to fix the country by changing the party system as some have suggested why don’t we just try explaining to the more gullible(I usually like Casey so I am not trying to insult him as a person) politicians what the demo-craps(my own personnel nickname for them) actually mean when they say that “we shouldn’t be deaf to the voices of the next generation.”

FR BP,

I am with you across the board.

Programs that fail to encourage personal responsibility are doomed to failure. I think that the general and broadly-felt success of welfare reform lends great credibility to this view.

I suppose my great frustration with the GOP is that the elected officials didn’t even try.

Again, both houses of the legislature and the Executive in GOP control with a 3-2-4/5-1-3 split in the Supreme Court and the lion’s share of lower court judgeships and the GOP didn’t even try to push an agenda that honored the GOP platform. It is this reality that makes the claim that all Dems are bad and all Republicans good so offensive.

If the GOP had tried and failed, I would be silent.

You are right in your analysis of the shared fault in the failure to protect those who cannot help themselves. The Dems had the reigns of the Legislature for a huge amount of the last century and did no better.

So, where do we go?

I propose that we continue to choose the best candidate that we can from among those presented to us. This must include those lower positions in local elections because it is from here that candidates for the higher offices come.

The last thing we should be doing is voting straight-ticket.

“Too bad the GOP has done everything within its power to impoverish them.”

Partisan cant. The poor are better off materially now than they were in 1980. The idea that the Republicans have slashed assistance to the poor is a myth.

“When at the helm both “political” branches of government and with a majority Conservative Supreme Court, the most important legislation that the GOP could advance was bankruptcy reform and legislation addressing the great “unfairness” in the inheritance tax.”

Actually bankruptcy reform and abolishing the ghoulish death tax both received broad bi-partisan support as typified by the fact that the Democrats haven’t attempted to pass any legislation in these areas since 2006. I actually do quite a bit of consumer bankruptcy work for debtors and think the reforms made a lot of sense and closed up gaping abuses. Gee, you didn’t list the partial birth abortion ban that the Republicans passed over strenuous Democrat opposition. I wonder why?

“As for changing our party… We did… Gov. Casey. It cost us our place at the Dem. Party Convention. Now we elected his son, Sen. Casey.”

Bob Casey was a hero and a Democrat I could respect. If he had been running out in Illinois I probably would have voted for him over some of the RINOs that have caused the Republican party in Illinois to be virtually comatose. Junior thus far hasn’t shown a tenth of his Old Man’s fortitude and adherence to the pro-life cause.

:Again, both houses of the legislature and the Executive in GOP control with a 3-2-4/5-1-3 split in the Supreme Court and the lion’s share of lower court judgeships and the GOP didn’t even try to push an agenda that honored the GOP platform.”

Rubbish. If you want to know what the Republicans have done and have attempted to do just google “Republican anti-choice legislation” and you will receive endless information from pro-abort groups and groups supporting the Democrat party.

I acknowledge that I opened Pandora’s box by broadening the discussion to the failure of both parties to address broader issues of justice and care for the least of our brothers and sisters.

The post was about abortion.

On that score alone it is patently obvious that the Dems have done less than the GOP to preserve the lives on the unborn. Contrary to Mr. McClarey’s suggestion above, I didn’t omit a discussion of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban for any other reason than that it struck me as an half-hearted effort. Without a doubt, both Clinton’s and Obama’s irrational support for unrestricted abortion have given me pause. More particularly, the retention of the NOW/NARAL policies in the Democratic Platform are a serious concern.

I have not argued and do not believe that the Democratic party has made even token efforts to limit abortions. “Safe, Legal, and Rare” is a misrepresentation of policy.

By the same token, I do not agree that the GOP has made more than a token effort to rescind abortion-on-demand. I am not alone in this belief.

Many of our Evangelical brothers and sisters are sitting out this election cycle out of a sense of betrayal. That no true champion of Christian values could make it to Super Tuesday should give GOP pro-life forces much to think about.

In short, party leadership in both parties have made an uncomfortable peace that has betrayed the causes the the rank-and-file of the parties joined to advocate. To suggest that this cooperation is other than bought-and-paid-for by special interest is naive.

Finally, with all due respect to Mr. McClarey, to suggest that our society and governments at any level are caring for our children cannot be squared with reality. Yes, there is more money in the hands of the working poor, but there are also more of them and a greater percentage of them than there has been at any period prior to World War II.

Christianity absolutely requires that we care for the welfare of our brothers and sisters before and after they have left the womb. If the GOP were a lion for Christian or even Humanistic advocacy, I would re-register immediately. I do not believe that the national party leadership of either party cares a hoot for the general welfare of our nation… whatever the rank-and-file may feel.

One last… Bankruptcy reform is an unmitigated success… It pushes people towards Chapter 13 and away from the fresh-start provided in Chapter 7. If it had been accompanied by reform of finance law, including usury laws that bar the 35% interest routinely charged to the working poor and the up to 80% being charged on “pay-day” loans, I would not be arguing.

As it is, creditors got what they wanted from both parties. Yeah us!!! The GOP and the Dem were able to cooperate on legislation that favored the wealthy over the poor!!! We should be so proud of such bipartisanship.

One of the dangers of discussing policy through the internet is that the views of experts may come into play. It is difficult to challenge the assertions of those who claim or demonstrate expert knowledge.

Such is the case here for I assert no such knowledge.

From the tenor of the discussion, I gather that your definitions of “poor” and mine greatly differ. Without a particular discussion on the defining the subject, we are shooting blindly across an expanse.

I remain convinced that the Legislature has, over the last eleven years, done little to aid the working poor. Arguably, Welfare Reform and No Child Left Behind were intended to address some of the ills associated with growing up poor. That they are the highlight of the Legislature’s action should trouble us all.

JP II and Pope Benedict have both challenged the unrestrained free market as a great evil. While acknowledging the global free market as a neutral instrument that can be turned to good, we are cautioned that the welfare of individuals and families must be given equal consideration with the “winners” in a global market.

On a more provincial scale, it is this balance that has not been even striven for, much less reached, by the Legislature.

Bankruptcy reform is one example of this… Where one side of the equation (creditors) gained while the other side (debtors) lost. By allowing absolute usury that now routinely charges 20% or higher on credit and wild speculation in secondary investment, the Legislature has created a financial mess where good people cannot get out from under debt.

Perhaps I should not have limited my comment to “working poor,” the numbers suggest that this situation has a broad impact among those making upwards of $100,000/annum as well.

Again, I think that the broader point, that the Legislature, whether under Dem or GOP control has done little to alleviate the plight of the displaced worker and the working poor, holds true. Neither party has championed reasonable economic policy, much less benevolent policy, for decades now.

This concern MUST have a place at the table when discussing social ills… even grave individual and societal sins such as abortion.

I make no excuses for murder. Unquestionably, the murder of the unborn is a sanctioned crime of great magnitude. It is not, though, an individual crime. It is not the crime solely of the woman or girl that consents to it.

To my mind, the wide use of abortion by middle and working-class girls suggests that the broader society has much to answer for in our choices. Our children have sex at a younger and younger age. No amount of sex education will sufficiently immunize these children to the dangers of their behavior and it is irrational to assume that placing a condom on a cucumber will cause children to use “protection” in the heat of the moment. This was true when I was a child and it is true now.

Pay attention next Halloween to the number of children dressed in “sexy” costumes. I assure you that the tween didn’t pay for it. Pay attention this summer to the relatively few girls wearing appropriate dresses this summer.

So too, we have our kids out on the street at all hours of the day and night. Groups of kids just wandering about… How could this lead to anything BUT trouble.

WE are to blame for this because the broader society, through market forces, have created a flawed cultural fabric in which these kids are raised. Throw in the displacement of workers, large-scale insolvency, and predatory lending (secured and unsecured) and you have a recipe for disaster.

I don’t expect the Legislature to solve all of these problems. Many of them are social ills that are and should be beyond the power to legislate. Further, many of the powers to regulate these activities, if they exist at all, rest with the States, not the Federal government.

Nonetheless, every effort to accelerate the pressures on the family through market forces has been made by the Legislature over the last twelve years or so.

For the GOP to claim the mantel of Defender of Judeo-Christian beliefs, it needs to be other than a shill for the powerful. As it is, the GOP is no better than the DEM in this regard.

Yes… Stop abortion at any cost… But don’t use the abortion debate as a talking point and reason to vote GOP and then do nothing about it when you (GOP Leadership) attain power. As importantly, don’t stand on the sidelines in the “culture wars” when you have the power to positively impact the market forces that create the doorway to abortion.

I also want abortion outlawed, but this cannot be the extent of our Christian responsibility.

Judith,

You mistakenly assume that voting for Clinton or Obama in the Primary means that Casey Dems will vote Democrat in the General. Voting trends suggest that, like Moderate Republicans, Independents, and Libertarians, conservative Dems split on whether or not to vote for a GOP candidate on social grounds or a Dem candidate on economic ones.

Reagan won by carrying the GOP social agenda into the mainstream and by offering an answer to the social and economic malaise of the Carter years. Slick Willy won by representing the GOP social agenda as “extreme.” He was able to move that middle slightly towards the Democratic side because the GOP failed to articulate an economic solution to the recession of the late 1980s.

My point is this: there is more to winning elections than staking out turf and sticking to it. This is important and, when it comes to abortion, critical if the GOP is to remain distinct from the Dems. However, articulating practical solutions to the nation’s woes is essential to a victory for both parties.

To this end, I expect McCain to push a more robust agenda for a pull-back from the international stage and a financial reorganization of credit as the General approaches. He will probably say little about abortion and almost nothing about the Defense of Marriage Act or other social causes.

He will fear alienating the “Center” over social issues.

Whoever wins on the Dem side has their work cut out for them.

Through this brutal Primary, both candidates have had to move further and further Left. McCain doesn’t really have to move to the Center. The Center is McCains to lose.

The Dems, on the other hand, have to take a hard-right turn and the forces that have pushed them Left won’t like that. I suspect that, however much the Dems would like to minimize the social issues talk, they will have to regularly assure the Left that, as President, they will push a social agenda to NOW and NARAL’s liking.

So… While I have every intention of voting for McCain (is this really the best you guys could offer us?), McCain could lose the Center and the race by tackling the social agenda that persons on this post seem to favor. I share your desire but, with at least two Justices set to retire, the next President will have far more lasting influence than Slick Willy did.