Congratulations, you won! How can we help?

November 6, 2008 § 35 Comments

I acknowledge that this is going to be a difficult transition for Catholic supporters of Obama. Now that he has become the President-elect y’all have the difficult job ahead of turning on a dime. As long as it was a matter of Obama vs. McCain you had the wind of proportionate reason in your sails; but now the seas are dead calm, and soon the winds of justified action will be a-blowing the other way.

Now that we have a President elect, you see, there is no longer any justification for remote material cooperation in his wicked policies. Justified remote material cooperation with evil may have (I think it objectively did not, but lets set that aside) made it possible to choose him over McCain; but now we have the absolute condition of a chosen President. If proportionate reason ever existed for remote material cooperation with his evil policies before the election, they no longer do now. Now your obligation is reversed, as I alluded to earlier. Now your obligation is to oppose his evil policies with all your heart, mind, and strength; all the more so because of your choice to vote for him.

But not to worry. This is a burden we can all bear together. When it comes to opposing Obama’s policies on abortion, ESCR, gay “marriage”, and other strains of wickedness, you can count on us, that is, those of us on the unreconstructed socially conservative side of the house. Yesterday we may have been political enemies, but today there is no longer any justification for that; which is to say, your justification for opposing us no longer obtains. We must all come together in unequivocal support of the criminalization of abortion, criminalization of the medical cannibalization of embryos, and the banishment of fictions like “gay marriage” from any form of public legitimization: we must come together because opposition to the legality of those things is not politics but doctrine, doctrine to which we all owe religious and intellectual assent. Byegones being byegones, disagreement over proportionate reasons in the Presidential election now a figment of the past, we must all come together.

Indeed, we no longer have any excuse for not coming together. And those of us who were not on your side in the electoral contest are here to help you discharge your grave obligation to publicly oppose Obama on all those things, without hesitation or equivocation or tergiversation.

(Cross-posted)

Tagged:

§ 35 Responses to Congratulations, you won! How can we help?

  • Yes. Let us break bread together on our knees. (Sorry, the <>Clockwork Orange<>-with-GIA-hymnal brainwashing kicked in.)I’m posting in full on my blog.

  • No doubt. But why the selective list? I for one will be opposing Obama too for his stance on the death penalty, for his temptation to rely on military solutions tp problems(dramatically less than Bush or McCain, but still worrying), and his lop-sided pro-Israel stance. Will you join me?

  • zippy says:

    <>But why the selective list?<>Evangelium Vitae. Legalized abortion is a higher priority as a political matter than any of those other things, under Catholic doctrine. I look forward to your coming blogging activities reflecting that objective prioritization.

  • Scott W. says:

    <>Evangelium Vitae<>Zippy, would you mind pointing to the passages that explicitly speak to the legal priorities and duties? EV is one of those JPII novels and I don’t have the time comb through it. Thanks.

  • EV? I’m a fan of EV, but I don’t recall a mention of gay marriage there. It does talk about the death penalty, however. Still, I’ll agree that life issues are paramount, but that does not excuse ignoring the rest of it.

  • zippy says:

    MM:<>I’ll agree that life issues are paramount, …<>Good. I look forward to seeing the top priority of criminalizing abortion reflected in your public activities.Scott:Search for the term “propaganda campaign” and I think you’ll find at least one of the pertinent sections. “Murder” is also a good search term.

  • Scott W. says:

    I can help on the same-sex unions thing: The CDF document < HREF="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html" REL="nofollow">here<>Vatican site is down now, but I have the quote:<>In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.<>It doesn’t talk about priority, but going by the we-can-walk-and-chew-gum-at-the-same-time rule, if the gov proposes it, we have a duty to oppose it somehow. I’ll let others fight over how big a slice of the pie goes to it assuming that such a thing is finite. Frankly, with Catholic unity, I think all the bases can be adequetly covered. I call shortstop! 🙂

  • e. says:

    “Evangelium Vitae. Legalized abortion is a higher priority as a political matter than any of those other things, under Catholic doctrine.”Now it becomes a priority — too bad it wasn’t during the elections!

  • c matt says:

    I too welcome your advocacy on the part of the unborn MM. I can’t wait to see the blistering pieces that Michael Iafrate and you will be penning (cyberly, of course) on Vox Nova against Pres. Obama’s most glaring contradiction to Catholic principles. I mean, he’s so good on all the other Catholic principles, you should be able to devote your full time to criticizing him for his position on legal abortion, right?

  • e. says:

    c matt said “I mean, he’s so good on all the other Catholic principles, you should be able to devote your full time to criticizing him for his position on legal abortion, right?”Love that!But, really, folks — do you actually believe Obama would be influenced by this?I mean, the guy who even the Democrats accused of Infanticide?

  • I notice the total radio silence on the other issues.

  • zippy says:

    Oh, no doubt many issues are important, but criminalizing abortion is number one, and I’m looking forward to seeing your work on that front, in its proper place as priority one. Plus you have to work with people on the issues where you can find common ground, right? Especially when that common ground is objectively (and doctrinally) the most important political issue w.r.t. the common good, right?

  • Scott W. says:

    <>I notice the total radio silence on the other issues.<>Well, you are welcome to start the ball rolling with a suggestion. My problem is that in my experience the people I talked to about it didn’t seem to really know the difference between a charitable program, a social justice program, and a plain ol’ government entitlement program which is none of the above, let alone make a case that Catholic was morally obligated to support a particular program. In fact, I had a Catholic social worker come on a forum and put the question to everyone, “Name me a social justice program.” People suggested various things like minimum wage, food stamps, etc. and the social worker kept going, “nope, that’s charity, not social justice.” The kicker was that because it was government-enforced charity, it wasn’t charity, it was entitlement. It was a fascinating discussion that I can’t remember all the details of, save to say we might want to be clear on what these things are suppose to look like before we start tinkering with the economy to do them.

  • e. says:

    Scott W.,Bravo!!!!At least, somebody knows their stuff!I wonder what Scott would say if he were to browse around Vox Nova and see categorically those types of errors mentioned in his comments!

  • Obpoet says:

    Oh my, you actually presupose that these people think abortion is amoral.

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Oh, yah, _for sure_ we need to be _real careful_ to put ripping children’s arms and legs off, legally protected from any interference by the full force of the law, on a par with taking a Jimmy Carter stance on the state of Israel. That’s the only way to be true Christians.Sheesh. It’s a good thing I don’t hang around too much in the vicinity, even cyber-ly, of MM, or I’d periodically spontaneously combust.

  • SB says:

    What is the Catechism section making it a duty to refuse to support Israel? I must have missed that, but MM can undoubtedly find it.

  • Zippy,I’m curious about what you mean by cooperation with Obama’s wicked policies. In what ways might ordinary citizens be sucked into such cooperation?sb,Israel is an < HREF="http://mondediplo.com/2003/11/04apartheid" REL="nofollow">apartheid state<> with a penchant for < HREF="http://www.cc-vw.org/articles/antimissionbill.htm" REL="nofollow">unjust laws<> and < HREF="http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3274607,00.html" REL="nofollow">aggression<> against her neighbors. That in itself may not be reason not to support them. (Heaven knows no nation is perfect, and we support many that are decidedly imperfect.) But let’s not get carried away with our support to the point where we < HREF="http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/281249,CST-NWS-OBAMA03.article" REL="nofollow">start wars<> with other nations or ignore the human rights concerns of the Palestinian people.

  • dadto8sofar says:

    Has Kmiec received this memo yet? I’m sure he’ll be elated that we’re all behind him (now) 100%.

  • Steve says:

    Hey morning’s minion,The silence is because those are prudential issues that depend on circumstances. You’ll get our take on each issue as it arises. I can’t universally condemn war when there might be a just war. Thanks.

  • JohnMcG says:

    <>Has Kmiec received this memo yet? I’m sure he’ll be elated that we’re all behind him (now) 100%.<>No, but he’s received a < HREF="http://www.slate.com/id/2203800/entry/2204031/" REL="nofollow">righteous and well-deserved dressing down from Ross Douthat<>.

  • SB says:

    <>for his temptation to rely on military solutions tp problems(dramatically less than Bush or McCain, but still worrying),<>By the way, MM is engaging in wishful thinking here. One of Obama’s criticisms of McCain was precisely that Obama would be MORE willing to use military force in Pakistan in pursuit of bin Laden.But in any event, what Obama actually does with the military remains to be seen, and we can talk about the prudential judgment involved in any specific situation when and if that arises. MM is desperately blowing hot air by pretending that our duty to engage in such future prudential judgments are equivalent to his own strenuous apologies for Obama’s policies on abortion.

  • JohnMcG says:

    MM,So I suppose a sufficient and proper response from a Catholic Bush voter to complaints about torture, the invasion of Iraq, Katrinam etc. was to observe the silence of liberals about abortion?

  • e. says:

    Has anybody here even considered the likely possibility that Obama will turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to such things opposing his Pro-Abort agenda?After all:“…Obama’s record on abortion is extreme. He opposed the ban on partial-birth abortion — a practice a fellow Democrat, the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan, once called “too close to infanticide.” Obama strongly criticized the Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth ban. In the Illinois state Senate, he opposed a bill similar to the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, which prevents the killing of infants mistakenly left alive by abortion. And now Obama has oddly claimed that he would not want his daughters to be “punished with a baby” because of a crisis pregnancy — hardly a welcoming attitude toward new life.”

  • e. says:

    Sleeping Beastly,For the first time ever, I actually agree with something you’ve said!Here’s an EWTN video that depicts things you’ve mentioned:< HREF="http://ffhl.org/2006/crisisintheholyland.asp" REL="nofollow">Crisis in the Holy Land<>Christians are being forced out of their homelands; the very lands where they’ve lived for centuries (many of the present Christian families go back to 1500 years ago) due to government policies and the tremendous hostilities they suffer in the Holy Land.They tell of many Paltestinian Christians who are now below income. Many who no longer have jobs and can no longer feed their families due to this tragic persecution they face in the form of discrimination and hostility. This forces a growing number of Christians in that region to leave.Though the Holy Land is the so-called Center of Christianity — it may only be that in name only.A Lutheran Bishop, Right Reverend Dr. Munib Younam said that last year, 1300 Palestinian Christians from Bethelehem district left the area. He says that if the trend continues, there will be no Christians left in the Bethlehem area.According to what Fr. Vasco reports, most church officials say that within 60 years, if nothing is done to stem this Christian exodus, all we’ll have is empty religious monuments and museums an no living, woshipping community.In other words, there will no longer be a Christian community in the Holy Land — only empty churches and holy monuments.70 new homes for poor Christians: Franciscans help Christ’s followers stay in the Holy LandJerusalem (Agenzia Fides) – During the Season of Lent, in view of Palm Sunday, the Franciscan Custodians of the Holy Land will build 70 new homes in Jerusalem for poor Christian families living in ever more difficult conditions of persisting insecurity and conflict. The homes will be handed over on the occasion of the traditional Lenten Pilgrimage to a tiny village of Bethpage on the eastern slopes of mount Har Ha-Zetim, near the Garden of Olives. Here in a small Franciscan church there is a block of stone said to stand on the point from which Jesus descended to make his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, recalled in the annual celebration of Palm Sunday.The new homes will give new hope to Christians inclined to emigrate because of poverty, insecurity, restrictions and lack of work. The Franciscan Custodians of the Holy Land wish in this way to stop the hemorrhage of Christians to Europe or America.The problem was raised by Pope Benedict XVI when he met on February 1 in the Vatican members of the Commission for Catholic Orthodox Theological Dialogue. He voiced deep concern for the difficult situation of Christians in the Holy Land, “in the midst of such a volatile geopolitical panorama” and how they “are often tempted to emigrate. In these circumstances, Christians of all traditions and communities in the Middle East are called to be courageous and steadfast in the power of the Spirit of Christ. May the intercession and example of the many martyrs and saints, who have given courageous witness to Christ in these lands, sustain and strengthen the Christian communities in their faith” the Pope concluded. Link:< HREF="http://www.ffhl.org/newsmanagerdotnet/templates/news.aspx?articleid=139" REL="nofollow">Franciscans help Christ’s followers stay in the Holy Land<>

  • Lydia McGrew says:

    Well, of _course_ Obama will turn a deaf ear to opposition to his agenda. That goes without saying. That doesn’t exempt his supporters from criticizing him, though. Not by a long, long shot.

  • e. says:

    Lydia,“Well, of _course_ Obama will turn a deaf ear to opposition to his agenda. That goes without saying. That doesn’t exempt his supporters from criticizing him, though. Not by a long, long shot.”I’m just pointing out to the Obama supporters that if they justified their Obama vote by relying on this contingency, they’re in for quite a lesson — unfortunately, so will the innocent who will suffer as a result.

  • cg says:

    Why don’t you go ahead and support your new President in any way you can ‘help.’ I think I’ll sit that out.We already know that this President will ensure that there will be far, far less Americans in four years–whether we have an America at all after this mess called Obama leaves office, only God knows.

  • Anonymous says:

    There is no traditional or doctrinal view against the death penalty in Catholicism. JPII had a personal view only.There is a difference between guilty life and innocent life.

  • Anonymous says:

    The last post was me. I might add that JPII had a number of – um – novel views. He was fine when he repeated traditional teaching, but not so reliable when he ventured out on his own.Julian

  • Anonymous says:

    I didn’t support the puppet before he ran, why would I offer to support him now?How can you help? Start working on getting him out of office in 2012, if you’re truly interested in genuinely helping.Man, are you nuts?

  • zippy says:

    I’m not sure people have understood the message of my post; so I’ve tried to make it more clear in a < HREF="https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2008/11/measure-of-sincerity.html" REL="nofollow">new post<>.

  • Zippy:Your post was a brilliant display of reasoning. I wish I had thought of it myself. Your post was quite clear. Only someone still insisting on justifying themselves would have a problem with it.

  • Christopher Sarsfield says:

    Zippy,

    Can you remind which presidential candidate you voted for that supported the criminalization of abortion? I know I voted for one, which one did you vote for?

  • Anonymous says:

    I’m pretty sure Zippy didn’t vote for < HREF="https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/search?q=mccain" REL="nofollow">McCain<>.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Congratulations, you won! How can we help? at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: