Saturday, August 30, 2008

Palin Has More Experience Than Obama

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: In what has become the most laughable argument used by Obama supporters against Governor Sarah Palin, the issue of her "experience" as a leader has been pushed to the forefront. The argument is simply this. Sarah Palin is not "experienced" enough to be the vice presidential nominee because she's only been governor of a state (with a small population) for two years.

Now before we compare and contrast the differences between Palin and Obama, let's examine the merits of the argument. Admittedly, on the surface, the argument does have value. We could say that Palin is indeed an inexperienced leader in comparison to someone who has served as governor of a state for a much longer period of time - such as Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee for example. Indeed, compared to Washington political veterans like Senator John McCain, and even Senator Joe Biden, Governor Palin is very green and inexperienced. So if this election were about experience alone, then we could say those who criticize Palin on this have a point to be reckoned with. However, it's ironic (and considerably humorous) that those who make such criticisms do so in defense of Senator Barack Hussein Obama, who happens to be just as green and inexperienced. Obama entered high-level (national) politics just three and a half years ago, and most of the time he's spent in the U.S. Senate since then has been campaigning for the Democratic presidential nomination. That's hardly a "long and distinguished" career. 

Sarah Palin was sworn in as the Governor of Alaska on December 4th, 2006.  That means she's been functioning as governor for about 21 months.  Unlike Obama, she's had no other campaigns running until last Friday, so she's been able to dedicate that time exclusively to the job of running the state.  

Obama was sworn in as the U.S. Senator from Illinois in January of 2004, which means he's held that office for approximately 55 months as of today.  However, he began his presidential campaign in February of 2007, just 36 months after he took office.  It is at that point, after just 36 months in the U.S. Senate, that Obama (and his supporters) believed he was qualified to hold the office of President of the United States.  All so-called "experience" after this time frame was split between his Senate commitments and his presidential campaign.  So what we're comparing here is Palin's 21 months of undivided "experience" to Obama's 36 months of undivided "experience."  It seems to me, and I would dare say to most voters, that if 36 months in the U.S. Senate is all the "experience" required to run for President of the United States, than certainly 21 months as a state governor is enough "experience" to run for Vice President of the United States.  I mean, fair is fair, right?  If Obama is qualified to be President at 36 months "experience," then certainly Palin is qualified to be Vice President at 21 months experience.

But that's not the only kind of experience we're talking about.  Barack Obama also served in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 to 2004.  That's a good eight years of "experience" in smaller state government.  So in all, Obama had exactly ten years of total political "experience" in elected office before he (and his supporters) decided he was "experienced" enough to run for President of the United States in February of 2007.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, began her political career as an elected official in 1992, a good five years before Obama ever held an elected office.  She served as a member of the Wasilla City Council until 1996.  She then went on to serve as mayor of the city from 1996 to 2002 - for a total of 10 years of political "experience." After that, Governor Murkowski appointed Palin to the office of Ethics Commissioner of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, where she served from 2003 to 2004. That year in appointed office would be critical to her political career, as she resigned in protest over state internal corruption. After she resigned, Palin exposed the state Republican Party's chairman, who was accused of doing work for the party on public time and supplying a lobbyist with sensitive information. Palin filed formal complaints against both the chairman and the Alaska Attorney General, who both resigned in disgrace. In 2006 she launched her campaign to become governor of the state and in December of that year, she was sworn in. So in total, Sarah Palin has had at least ten years and twenty months "experience," as an elected official, before she was nominated to the office of Vice President of the United States. This does not include the one year she served as an appointed state officer, nor the time she spent rooting out corruption in the Alaska state government.

So to compare, Obama (and his supporters) believed he was "experienced" enough to become President of the United States after just ten years of holding an elected office of some type. While Palin (and her supporters) believe she is "experienced" enough to become Vice President of the United States after exactly ten years and twenty months of holding some kind of elected office, and one year of appointed office. Now isn't that interesting? Both Obama and Palin had almost the exact same amount of "experience" time in elected office, before they (and their supporters) believed they were ready for the Whitehouse. The only difference being that Palin has almost one more year "experience" in elected office than Obama, and one more year in a high appointed office, which Obama did not hold.  So when it comes to actual time of "experience" in official government capacity, Palin beats Obama by almost two years.  So the question remains, why do Obama supporters downgrade her experience over his?  How is twelve years of political experience somehow less than ten years?  Is it because she's a woman?  Does her being a wife and mother somehow diminish her longer time of "experience" in elected public office?

But supporters of Obama will often cite the type of "experience" when confronted with the fact that Palin has actually served more time. They'll point out that Obama was a State Senator, and a U.S. Senator, which are much higher offices than City Council and Mayor. To which I will concede that these are much higher offices in the sense that they are a function of higher government. But if we're going to talk about "type" of experience, then we cannot exclude the "type" of jobs Obama and Palin were doing during those times. For the entire duration of Obama's political career, he served as a legislator. He did not govern anything. There is a difference. A legislator writes laws, and lobbies to get them passed. Aside from public appearances and campaigning, that's about all a legislator does. He doesn't have to sign budgets, and he doesn't even have to submit them. He doesn't have to enforce laws. He has no responsibility over police forces or state guards. If there is a disaster, he has no responsibility to act. When there is an emergency, nobody looks to him for guidance. (When was the last time somebody turned to a senator for leadership during a natural disaster?  That doesn't happen.  People look to mayors, governors and presidents during those times.)  In effect, a legislator is not a leader. He's a representative of the people, assigned to a specific task within a much larger body of legislators. Palin also served as a legislator on a city council, but then she went on to serve as a mayor.  This is where her job changed from representative to leader. Now she was in charge of things. As mayor, the police force answered to her. She had to submit balanced budgets to the Council, and then sign them once they were approved. She had to plan for city management during emergencies, oversee the fire department, and plan for city development. Then as governor, she did the same thing, but on a much larger scale. Instead of a police force, she commanded a state guard. Instead of one fire department, she commanded them all, in addition to all emergency response teams, in the event of a statewide emergency. She was responsible for submitting balanced state budgets to the state congress, and signing them once they were approved. Then she had to enforce every single detail within them, and make sure that those who did not obey the laws of the state, were properly prosecuted by the state attorney general. In her hands were placed the power of life and death, as governor, she alone had the authority to pardon and grant clemency.  This is just a fraction of the duties Sarah Palin had responsibility for as governor of the state of Alaska.

In contrast, Barack Obama has never experienced any of this. He's never held an executive office, and he has ZERO executive experience. Yet, this man (and his supporters) believe he is qualified to be President of the United States after just ten years of "experience" in elected office as a mere LEGISLATOR!

Now granted, I suppose we could chalk that legislative experience up for something IF Barack Obama had been a legislator for a very long time. We could say this of John McCain and Joe Biden. But Obama hasn't been a legislator for nearly as long, and since the responsibilities of a legislator as significantly less than that of an executive officer, we could say Barack Obama really has very little "experience" at all. Especially when we compare him to Sarah Palin, who has served in elected office a little longer than him, and those duties included significant EXECUTIVE roles.

Now we could rightly say that no matter who wins the general election in November, both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama will require significant on-the-job training. The difference is that if McCain wins in November, Palin will be getting that training in McCain's shadow, and it will be in an area of government (executive branch) in which she is already very familiar.  McCain will be the Commander in Chief, and Palin will be his understudy. If however, Obama wins in November, it will be Obama who will be getting the on-the-job training, while he IS the Commander in Chief at the same time. So the real "experience" question of this election is this. Do we want our on-the-job trainee to be at the top of the presidential ticket, or the bottom of it? Is it better to have a boss that is learning how to do a job, or an understudy? Shall we have a president (like Obama) who is learning all executive duties from scratch, or shall we have a vice president (like Palin) who is simply upgrading duties she already knows?  Shall we have a Vice President with SOME executive experience, or a President with NO executive experience? Which is better? In this time of grave national security, what would be the best decision?

(UPDATE: 9/2/2008): Obama responds to The Catholic Knight...
circular logic: says he has "more executive experience" than Palin, because he's running a political campaign for an executive office.  ;o)  read it here 

Friday, August 29, 2008

Sarah Palin Will Net The Catholic Vote

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT:  Not only will she reel in the Catholic vote, but the Evangelical vote, and the pro-life vote in general. McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin for the vice presidential slot was brilliant, but perhaps not for the reasons he might have expected. Going into this decision, McCain had a major problem. While making a strong pro-life commitment at the Saddleback Civil Forum, and appearing to back away from embryonic stem-cell research there, he still had not energized the social conservative vote. Among those social conservatives who did indicate they would vote for him, it wasn't necessarily because they were supporting John McCain, but rather because they were voting against Barack Obama. Obama's nomination of Senator Joe Biden to the vice presidential slot, a brazen "Cafeteria Catholic" who opposes the Church's teachings on human life, only served to solidify the pro-life, anti-Obama sentiment. McCain's problem however was that voting against somebody isn't usually good enough to win an election, and if John McCain wants to win, he MUST have the conservative Evangelical and practicing Catholic vote. In order to do that, he's got to have a solid pro-life running mate - somebody who has a stronger record on life then he does.

Thus enters Governor Sarah Palin. Sure, she had a pro-life voting record, and has sported all the pro-life rhetoric, including the conservative Evangelical credentials. But there is something about Sarah Palin that makes her more pro-life than any person who ever ran for the Whitehouse. Sarah Palin not only talks the talk, but she has walked the walk. When confronted with the diagnosis that her preborn baby carried and extra chromosome, and would certainly be born with Down Syndrome, Sarah Palin chose to give birth to her baby boy Trig. She stood for life both politically and personally, and that was something no Whitehouse contender has ever done in that way.

John McCain, himself a pro-life Southern Baptist, may have considered this, but my guess is it wasn't a major factor in his decision making process. There are those who believe he was simply trying to reach out to Hillary voters, and they may have a point. Personally, I think that is only a minor reason, which I'm sure he'll exploit to it's fullest potential. The reason why I think John McCain likes Sarah Palin is because she too is a maverick. She's got no problem going against her own party establishment to do what she thinks is right, and that is just the kind of person McCain wants at his side during his presidency, when he plans to stick it to the Republicans just as much as the Democrats. The theme song of John McCain's political career could easily be "I Did It My Way," and for that matter, it seems that Palin is following right in his footsteps, for better or worse.

Back to the Hillary vote factor. I think McCain considered this as a minor issue, behind the maverick reputation of Sarah Palin, but one he's surly not going to let slip by without exploiting to it's fullest potential. In the Senate, McCain and Hillary Clinton have a warm relationship, though they disagree on more than a few matters. Last year, he promised Hillary the most fair and polite contest in recent political memory, should the two of them get the nominations from their respective parties. Bill Clinton reiterated that sentiment in an interview around the same time. It is the opinion of this blogger that the two of them (Hillary and McCain) entered into a "Survivor" style alliance during the early primary season of 2007. That being if one of them didn't get the nomination, the other would do whatever he/she could quietly, behind the scenes, to get the other elected. Then once the other got elected, the one who lost the nomination would find himself/herself in political favor with the Whitehouse for the next administration. This would have worked for McCain because it would be his last slap at the GOP for not giving him the nomination, which I believe he felt he was entitled to. It also would have worked well for Hillary, because if McCain gets elected, it would insure her a chance to run again in 2012. She can't do that if a Democrat (Obama) is already in the Whitehouse. Mark my words, if John McCain is elected, Hillary Clinton will play some kind of important role in his administration, even if it's just as a Senate liaison. McCain will use her resources to get things done in the Congress, and Hillary will use her pull with McCain to get what she wants out of the Whitehouse. But the nomination of Palin was something that I don't even think Hillary saw coming. It is nothing less than John McCain's thumb in the eye of Barack Obama and the entire Democratic Party establishment. In effect he's saying; "if you won't give a woman a place on the ticket, then I will!" This must be a bitter-sweet moment for Hillary. Bitter because the history-making role of a female nomination is being given to somebody else, but sweet because this makes it all the more easy to torpedo the Obama campaign at an opportune time. Is McCain hoping this will reach across the isle to disaffected Hillary voters? Sure! But who cares! This is politics, and that's the way the game is played. Will it work? I doubt it. In my experience, Hillary Clinton attracts Liberals, and Liberals are Liberals before they are anything else. A Liberal Catholic is a Liberal before he's a Catholic - that's where the term "Cafeteria Catholic" comes from. Liberal blacks are Liberals before they are black, and that is evident in the way they regularly assail Justice Clarence Thomas. And Liberal women are Liberals before they are women, so I don't expect the conservative Sarah Palin to steel many Hillary voters. I do however expect her to get a few Hillary votes just out of spite, simply because so many Hillary supporters are still hacked off about how things went down in the Democratic primaries this year. But I don't expect to see a mass exodus of Hillary Democrats to the McCain/Palin ticket.

Where Palin helps McCain is in the area he needed the most, that being the social conservative vote, particularly among conservative Evangelicals and practicing Catholics. Already practicing Catholics (meaning those who take the teachings of the Church seriously) are fuming mad over Obama's pick of "Cafeteria Catholic" Joe Biden, compounded by the heretical statements made by Nancy Pelosi last Sunday, which earned her the rebuke of every major Catholic bishop in the United States. This practicing Catholic demographic will surely pick a pro-life Evangelical over a pro-abortion "Cafeteria Catholic" in this election, just as they did in Ohio during the 2004 election. But one more thing has happened, that John McCain desperately needed, which I'm not even sure he expected. He's excited the conservative Evangelical vote, and that is the demographic that got George W. Bush elected in 2000, and reelected in 2004. Republican candidates cannot survive without this demographic, and up until today, John McCain had no certainty they would even show up to the polls in November. With the selection of Sarah Palin, that dynamic just changed. It's a whole new election now...
Palin a ‘Natural Choice for Catholics’
Fidelis Urges Catholic Support for Pro-Life, Pro-Marriage Ticket
August 29, 2008
CHICAGO – John McCain’s decision to pick a pro-family and pro-life running mate will make the McCain-Palin ticket a ‘natural’ for Catholic voters, said Brian Burch, President of Fidelis Political Action.

“A presidential candidate’s first major executive decision is selecting a running mate and John McCain’s unexpected choice of Sarah Palin inspires real confidence that a McCain Administration will be a strong ally in the pro-life and pro-family cause,” said Burch. “Governor Palin is the most pro-life vice presidential candidate ever to run. We are thrilled with this choice.”

“John McCain and Sarah Palin have matched their public defense of life with their own personal commitment to life,” said Burch....

read full story here

Pro-Lifers Applaud Palin Pick

By: Jim Meyers

The influential pro-life Susan B. Anthony List is applauding John McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate.

“Sarah Palin is the whole package. There couldn’t be a better vice presidential pick,” said Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser.

“Women voters are electrified, and Sarah is someone who is truly in sync with the way real American women think. She is a reform-minded woman who will give all Americans, born and unborn, the authentic leadership they deserve.”

“The majority of American women support commonsense restrictions on abortion. Adding Palin to the GOP ticket will resonate with independent women voters nationwide. By choosing the boldly pro-life Sarah Palin as his running mate, John McCain has taken his stand as the one true, authentic pro-life ticket....

read full story here

Dobson: "I would pull that lever" for John McCain - Sarah Palin

by Dennis Prager

Earlier this year Dr. Jim Dobson, President of Focus on the Family made news when he announced on “The Dennis Prager Show” that he “cannot and will not vote for Senator John McCain.” Today, on The Dennis Prager Show, the conservative leader changed course and announced his enthusiastic support on the heels of the announcement by Senator McCain of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate.

Dennis Prager: I have a guest here who’s extremely significant in American life, whether you call it American political, certainly American religious life, one of the best known Christians in America— Dr. James Dobson who is president and founder of Focus on the Family…. The last time you were on was a very serious conversation about your feeling at the time that you just couldn’t vote for John McCain, and where do you stand now?

Dr. James Dobson: Well, Dennis, I shared with a colleague just a few minutes ago exactly what you said about the period of time when Ronald Reagan had broken onto the scene and I was in Washington D.C. the day he was inaugurated. That was one of the most exciting days of my life, because everything that we had hoped for and been working for had come to pass. I feel very much that way today. Maybe that’s an overstatement. Maybe time won’t validate it, but this is a very exciting and encouraging day for conservatives and pro-family activists. I am just very, very pleased....

read full story here

McCain's VP Pick - Who Is Sarah Palin?

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: When I first heard her name I was a bit skeptical. My first reaction was to say "who is that?" Then I read a bit about her and thought "hey, she sounds pretty good." Then I saw a picture of her: "WOW!" She's pro-life, pro-family, conservative, powerful and gorgeous! I've got to hand it to John McCain. In spite of whatever problems I may have with the man, he knows how to surround himself with beautiful women, and I certainly can't fault him for that. I don't know how the old codger does it, but more power to him!

Sarah Palin is the governor of Alaska. She was elected in 2006 as the 11th governor of that state. Currently, she enjoys an 80% approval rating. That makes her the most popular governor in America! The people love her, but the political establishment hates her. Why? Because she's made her crusade against government corruption a hallmark of her administration. Though herself a Republican, she has even gone after corruption in her own party.  

She is a fiscal conservative who has line-item vetoed over 13% of the state's capital budget. She is militantly pro-life and opposes gay-marriage outright. She is also a gun owner and a card-carrying member of the NRA. She was born and baptized Catholic, but raised as a Pentecostal (Assemblies of God).  She now  attends a nondenominational and independent Evangelical Church (learn more here).  She is married, the mother of five children, and soon to be a grandmother.  Her youngest son has Down Syndrome, and her husband, Todd, was a union worker on Alaska's North Slope before becoming a full-time stay-at-home dad. 

On the pope's three-point rule for Catholic voting (see details here), Palin appears to rank well, and would be a perfectly acceptable choice for vice president based on the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church. Unlike Obama's vice presidential choice (Senator Joe Biden), there are no disqualifying factors. Though Biden claims to be a "Catholic," he actually opposes the Church on every major social doctrine the pope views as most important - namely abortion, gay-marriage and school choice. McCain's pick of Palin eliminates this problem, and though she was never raised Catholic, her political views are in perfect harmony with the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church on at least the major issues of most importance.

Governor Palin is chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, an interstate organization that promotes efficient recovery of domestic oil and natural gas while protecting the environment. For that, the media hates her. But any enemy of the anti-Catholic leftist media establishment is a friend of mine, and a friend of practicing Catholics in general. The media ruthlessly attacked her in the 2006 general election, but she still won by a fair margin - eight percentage points! If McCain wins this election, she may potentially be a "Hillary" spoiler in 2012 and/or 2016 by becoming the first female president of the United States, and folks, this is one woman I would definitely vote for.

Her conservative Christian record makes for a sure attack by the Christophobic leftist media, and they will most certainly try to dig up any scrap of dirt they can on her. But in doing so they'll only energize practicing Catholics and Evangelicals, all the while showing themselves to be anti-feminist hypocrites, who oppose the success of a woman whenever she doesn't agree with their leftist political agenda. She is sure to make McCain look quite moderate and "open minded," and that can only help McCain in the general election as most American voters seem to be leaning in that direction. She'll appease the conservative voters, and the values voters as well. She may even help McCain pick up some disaffected Hillary voters.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Obama: Is He America's Messiah or Just Another Caesar?

Graphic courtesy of

THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: Obama's promise to America - BIGGER government, higher taxes, more federal control, less freedom, more dependency. From the holy "temple" on Mount Olympus, ( I mean a stadium in Denver Colorado), Barack Hussein Obama, "The Chosen One," set forth his messianic plan to save America from herself. His ideas were nothing new. We've heard them all before. Simply vote for him, and he'll give us everything we'll ever need. We can have free healthcare for all, and a good job for everyone. We'll save the environment, and punish the "evil" rich. Then nobody will ever go in want again. Elect Obama, and he'll bring an end to wars, restore respect among the nations, and bring peace to every American home. All of this comes at the modest price of your freedom and prosperity. Obama will decide who is poor enough to keep their money. Obama will decide who is "too rich" in his estimation. The Lord may give, but Obama will taketh away, and "redistribute" according to how he sees fit. For Catholics this is a familiar song. We've all heard it before. Whether it be the communists of eastern Asia or the socialists of western Europe, it's a familiar tune with a common note. When representatives of the State ask us to put the trust into them, that rightfully belongs to God alone, they are asking us to make an idol of the government. Government takes the place of Church, and government officials take the role of gods. They become the masters of our universe, and sadly, it is we who are gullible enough to let them do it. The Catholic Church warns us of the dangers of false messianism in the form of the collectivist state...
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church...

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good." 

1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.

1885 The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.

NBC Admits To Supporting Gay Agenda

( - The National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA) just held its annual convention here in Washington D.C., attracting hundreds of journalists - and ringing endorsements - from virtually every major publication and broadcaster in the news media.

In a full-page ad in the convention program, NBC Universal declared it is "proud to support NLGJA," under the bold headline: "YOUR VICTORIES ARE OUR VICTORIES....

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: It is yet more confirmation of what we always suspected. The mainstream media is fully behind the advancement of the gay-agenda which includes gay-marriage, gay-adoptions, and pro-gay indoctrination of public school children. At least it's nice to know who your enemies really are.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Biden Joins Pelosi On Heresy Row

From left to right...
Bishop Michael A. Saltarelli
Senator Joseph Biden
Bishop W. Francis Malooly

Archbishop George Niederauer
Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Archbishop Donald Weurl

"My views are totally consistent with Catholic social doctrine," says Biden, a six-term Democratic senator from Delaware. "There are elements within the church who say that if you are at odds with any of the teachings of the church, you are at odds with the church. I think the church is bigger than that...

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: One would think that after the Pelosi heresy flap, Biden would be keeping a low profile. But then, that wouldn't be consistent with Joe Biden's personality. Barack Obama's vice presidential nominee, a supposed "Catholic," charged right into the whole heresy row over whether it is permissible for Catholic politicians to go against Church teaching and adopt a "pro-choice" (pro-abortion) political posture.

House Speaker Nanci Pelosi, also a so-called "Catholic," recently made a complete fool of herself on national television last Sunday, by actually committing what the Church defines as heresy. She asserted that a "pro-choice" political viewpoint was totally consistent with Church teaching (read more on that here).   She then went on to say that one can be a "good Catholic" and a "practicing Catholic" while holding to the view that abortion is morally permissible because the Catholic Church really does not profess to know when life begins. This immediately prompted a flurry of official responses from bishops, archbishops and cardinals around the nation, reiterating the Church's teaching that all human life is sacred, discrediting Speaker Pelosi's argument, and lamenting that such a high ranking official in the U.S. government would be so ignorant about her own religion.

Now Senator Joe Biden joins the mix. A long time advocate of "abortion rights," the vice presidential nominee has now come out wearing his Catholic religion on his sleeve. Eager to point out that he's a "practicing Catholic" who carries a rosary in his pocket, and looks forward to mass every week, he concluded his religious bluster with the assertion that his political views (apparently including those on abortion) are "totally consistent" with the social teachings of the Church.  That sounds a lot like the position held by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Hopefully Biden's comments will not go unnoticed by the bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church, many of whom reacted strongly to Pelosi's heretical assertion. They should be applauded for that. Unfortunately, as laudable as their rebuke of Pelosi was, it all goes to underscore the notion that talk is cheap, and actions speak louder than words. Both Pelosi and Biden are a product. They were created, partly by their own political choices, and partly by the atmosphere of "tolerance" that has far too long existed within many diocese of the U.S. Catholic Church. Virtually all bishops, throughout America, echo the Vatican in it's defense of the unborn. One would be hard pressed to find a single American bishop who does not assert the sanctity of all human life from the womb to the tomb. But by the same measure, one would have to look far and wide, just to find a handful of bishops willing to back this teaching with concrete disciplinary action toward Catholics who publicly oppose the Church on this matter. 

The former Archbishop of St. Louis, Raymond Burke, stands out as a shining leader in this arena. He denied communion to "pro-choice" Catholic politicians in his archdiocese, forbade them from speaking at Catholic gatherings, and did not hesitate to exercise his episcopal authority over all matters of rebellion within the Church. For this, the pope rewarded him with the office of Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura - effectively the "chief justice" of the "Vatican Supreme Court."  In an recent interview he divulged his official opinion that "pro-abortion" Catholic politicians should be denied communion, and that it is indeed the responsibility of the one administering communion to withhold it when such politicians present themselves at the communion rail. How this will actually translate into official Church policy remains to be seen, but one thing is certain. The U.S. Catholic bishops, for the most part, have been completely derelict in this duty. 

In refusing to exercise their episcopal authority on this matter, in accord with Canon Law 915, the bishops have effectively created an atmosphere of "tolerance" toward dissenting Catholic politicians - one which was ripe for the production of "pro-choice" heretics like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. Here we have Catholic men and women, who may honestly believe that their dissent against the Church, on the issue of human life, is morally permissible simply because, in their personal experience, the Church does not back what it teaches on the matter with concrete disciplinary action. The simple fact of the matter is this. In most diocese throughout the United States, a Catholic may be excommunicated from the Church for many reasons, but publicly advocating the legalized murder of helpless unborn babies is not one of them. Is it no surprise then that some politicians, steeped in the political rhetoric of a highly polarized culture war, might start to believe their own lies - especially when their own bishops do virtually nothing (of any real consequence) to stop them?

Once again, the focus falls back to the bishops of the U.S. Catholic Church. What will they do now? They can publicly rebuke the likes of Pelosi and Biden, as well they should, but after all is said and done, the bishops have to recognize they are more than partially to blame for this. A good majority of them are principally responsible in creating the environment necessary for such Catholic politicians to rise to power. Now that they've "tolerated" this mess for so long, should they be the least bit surprised when these very same politicians turn around and try to tell the public what the Catholic Church "really teaches" about abortion? Come on! We all know the Vatican comes down tough on abortion, and the U.S. Catholic bishops have to echo that in their own statements. But when it really comes down to it, the average pro-abortion Catholic politician is met at the communion rail with the proverbial "wink and nod" just before receiving the sacrament. With that, what kind of message are our bishops really sending?

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Archbishop Says Democrats No Longer Know Christianity

(WorldNetDaily) - Denver Catholic Archbishop Charles Chaput says Democrats simply don't know Christianity if they insist on continuing to spin the Bible's teachings on abortion.

"It's always important to know what our faith actually teaches," he said in a "clarification" for Catholics in northern Colorado as Democratic National Committee members met in Denver this week to hear a speaker from the National Abortion Rights Action League promote Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, as the next "pro-choice" president....

read full story here
THE CATHOLIC KNIGHT: What can I say? He's right. If the leaders of the Democratic Party insist on twisting the Scriptures, ignoring the 2000-year history of the Catholic Church on this issue, and continue to imply that a "pro-choice" position on abortion is somehow compatible with Christianity - even Catholicism! (read more here) - then we can only conclude that they do not know Christianity at all.