MARIO CUOMO – THE CINOP BRAIN – 4 of 5
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone – Tuesday, January 13, 2009
We continue with historian Carlin’s book, “Can a Catholic Be a Democrat?”
# 3 Catholic shortcomings/hypocrisy: (cont’d)
“Despite the teachings in our homes and schools and pulpits, despite the sermons and pleadings of parents and priests and prelates, despite all the efforts of defining our opposition to the sin of abortion, collectively we Catholics apparently believe –and perhaps act – little differently from those who don’t share our commitment.
Are we asking government to make criminal what we believe to be sinful because we ourselves can’t stop committing the sin? The failure here is not Caesar’s. This failure is our failure, the failure of the entire people of God.
Nobody has expressed this better than a bishop in my own state, Joseph Sullivan … “The major problem the Church has internal,” the bishop said last month in reference to abortion. “How do we teach? As much as I think we are responsible for advocating public policy issues, our primary responsibility is to teach our own people. We haven’t done that. We’re asking politicians to do what we haven’t done effectively ourselves.”
I agree with the bishop …. Unless we Catholics … set an example that is clear and compelling, then we will never convince this society to change the civil laws to protect what we preach is precious human life."
For the most part, any Catholic can say, “Amen!” to this. Yet Cuomo (committing what logic textbooks call “the fallacy of division”) speaks as though all Catholics exhibit the softness on abortion that’s exhibited by the “average” Catholic. He fails to note that when it comes to abortion there is found among American Catholics something that statisticians call a bimodal distribution. Some (let’s call them “orthodox Catholics”) strongly adhere to traditional Church teaching; they regard abortion as unwarranted homicide and judge America’s abortion regime to be a system of mass killing of innocents. Others (let’s call them “cafeteria Catholics”) have “conformed themselves to the world.”… But does this mean that orthodox Catholics must strictly abstain from seeking anti-abortion legislation because their “cafeteria” co-religionists condone abortion? This hardly seems reasonable or fair – yet this is what Cuomo is arguing. 206-7
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe Mario Cuomo forgot what happened in Louisiana. “In early 1962, Archbishop Joseph Rummel said that in the following year, Catholic schools would integrate. Several Catholic politicians organized public protests and letter-writing campaigns. They threatened a boycott of Catholic schools.
On April 16, 1962 , Rummel excommunicated three prominent Catholics – a judge, a political writer, and community organizer –for publicly defying the teaching of their church.”
The New Orleans events made national news, covered by the Time magazine and the New York Times. The Times editorial board gushed that “ men of all faiths must admire {Rummel} unwavering courage” because he “set an example founded on religious principle and is responsive to the social conscience of our time.” p. 56-7, Charles J. Chaput, Archbishop of Denver, Render Unto Caesar, Doubleday, 2008.
George H. Kubeck
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Monday, January 12, 2009
MARIO CUOMO - THE CINOP BRAIN - 3
MARIO CUOMO – THE CINOP BRAIN - 3
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone – Monday, January 12, 2009
We continue with David Carlin’s book, “Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? 204-6
# 2 – The practicality – and – prudence defense. (cont’d) This wasn’t because they held slavery to be morally permissible; rather, it was because they made a prudential judgment that denouncing it would serve no useful purpose – indeed, it might even cause harm. Cuomo says he’d like to see the bishops observe a similar reticence when it comes to abortion, for legal bans on abortion are not practical and therefore are imprudent.
“I believe {he says} that legal interdicting of all abortions by either the federal government or the individual states is not a plausible possibility and, even if it could be obtained, it wouldn’t work. Given present attitudes, it would be Prohibition revisited, legislating what couldn’t be enforced and in the process creating a disrespect for law in general.”
Cuomo is obviously correct that it would be impossible in practice to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning abortion. It was a political impossibility at the time he made his Notre Dame speech, and it remains so today. But is it impossible to ban abortion in individual states? It might have been, and might still be today, impossible in his own state of New York, and in other states in the Northeast and on the West Coast. But even in these “impossible” states, a strong case can be made for attempting to enact anti-abortion laws. The proposed legislation might not pass, at least not for many years, but the legislative and public debates surrounding such proposals could well serve a useful educational purpose. Such would not be the first time that unsuccessful legislative attempts gradually enlightened the public.
What about the “red” states? Even in 1984, many of those states would have been able to enact strong anti-abortion laws if the Court’s Roe decision had not stood in their way. And certainly they would be able to do so today, especially when the Republican Party, an anti-abortion party, is far more powerful in the South than it was in 1984. Should Roe be overturned in the near future, there can be little doubt that many states – and not just in the South – would rush to enact abortion-restriction legislation.
And what about Cuomo’s contention that laws banning abortion couldn’t be enforced? He makes this assertion without defending it - other than to suggest comparisons with Prohibition-era speakeasies and bootleggers. I’ll discuss the practicality of enforcement later, but for now let us just say this: in the 1920’s, it was far easier to sneak an illegal drink during Prohibition than it would be to sneak an illegal abortion in 21st century Alabama. It’s true enough that a haphazardly enforced law against abortion in the state of New York might create “disrespect for law in general,” but would a well- reasonably enforced law in Alabama have the same effect? More important, if he’s concerned about how bad law can create disrespect for law in general, why does Cuomo not mention the disrespect for law in general, why does Cuomo not mention the disrespect generated by the Roe v. Wade decision? Hasn’t the cultural divide over that decision served to undermine respect for the Supreme Court and for courts in general – and worse still, for the Constitution?
# 3 – Catholic shortcomings/hypocrisy: It ill befits Catholics, says Cuomo, to demand anti-abortion laws when they themselves are so “soft” on abortion:
“Catholics, the statistics show, support the right to abortion in equal proportion to the rest of the population….”
George H. Kubeck
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone – Monday, January 12, 2009
We continue with David Carlin’s book, “Can a Catholic Be a Democrat? 204-6
# 2 – The practicality – and – prudence defense. (cont’d) This wasn’t because they held slavery to be morally permissible; rather, it was because they made a prudential judgment that denouncing it would serve no useful purpose – indeed, it might even cause harm. Cuomo says he’d like to see the bishops observe a similar reticence when it comes to abortion, for legal bans on abortion are not practical and therefore are imprudent.
“I believe {he says} that legal interdicting of all abortions by either the federal government or the individual states is not a plausible possibility and, even if it could be obtained, it wouldn’t work. Given present attitudes, it would be Prohibition revisited, legislating what couldn’t be enforced and in the process creating a disrespect for law in general.”
Cuomo is obviously correct that it would be impossible in practice to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning abortion. It was a political impossibility at the time he made his Notre Dame speech, and it remains so today. But is it impossible to ban abortion in individual states? It might have been, and might still be today, impossible in his own state of New York, and in other states in the Northeast and on the West Coast. But even in these “impossible” states, a strong case can be made for attempting to enact anti-abortion laws. The proposed legislation might not pass, at least not for many years, but the legislative and public debates surrounding such proposals could well serve a useful educational purpose. Such would not be the first time that unsuccessful legislative attempts gradually enlightened the public.
What about the “red” states? Even in 1984, many of those states would have been able to enact strong anti-abortion laws if the Court’s Roe decision had not stood in their way. And certainly they would be able to do so today, especially when the Republican Party, an anti-abortion party, is far more powerful in the South than it was in 1984. Should Roe be overturned in the near future, there can be little doubt that many states – and not just in the South – would rush to enact abortion-restriction legislation.
And what about Cuomo’s contention that laws banning abortion couldn’t be enforced? He makes this assertion without defending it - other than to suggest comparisons with Prohibition-era speakeasies and bootleggers. I’ll discuss the practicality of enforcement later, but for now let us just say this: in the 1920’s, it was far easier to sneak an illegal drink during Prohibition than it would be to sneak an illegal abortion in 21st century Alabama. It’s true enough that a haphazardly enforced law against abortion in the state of New York might create “disrespect for law in general,” but would a well- reasonably enforced law in Alabama have the same effect? More important, if he’s concerned about how bad law can create disrespect for law in general, why does Cuomo not mention the disrespect for law in general, why does Cuomo not mention the disrespect generated by the Roe v. Wade decision? Hasn’t the cultural divide over that decision served to undermine respect for the Supreme Court and for courts in general – and worse still, for the Constitution?
# 3 – Catholic shortcomings/hypocrisy: It ill befits Catholics, says Cuomo, to demand anti-abortion laws when they themselves are so “soft” on abortion:
“Catholics, the statistics show, support the right to abortion in equal proportion to the rest of the population….”
George H. Kubeck
Sunday, January 11, 2009
We are a Church divided! - 2 of 2
We are a Church divided! – 2 of 2
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone – Sunday, January 11, 2009
This concludes A. Hendershott’s insightful article in New Oxford Rev. Jan. 09
While the papal document (Ex Corde Ecclesiae) acknowledges that the Catholic university, as a university, possesses the institutional autonomy …, the document reminds those working on Catholic campuses that this freedom must always be viewed “WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE TRUTH AND COMMON GOOD,” and there must be “fidelity to the Christian message” as it comes to us through the Church.
For Pope John Paul II – and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI – the pursuit of the truth is the university’s way of serving at one and the same time both the dignity of man and the good of the Church. Literally translated as “From the Heart of the Church,” Ex Corde Ecclesiae calls for Catholic colleges to be accountable to local bishops. A key component of this accountability is the controversial requirement within the papal document that all theologians obtain a MANDATUM, or mandate, from the local bishop attesting their teaching is in communion, or in keeping with, official Church teachings. …
So alarmed with the demands of Ex Corde in the early days of its release were Donald Moran S.J. chancellor of Boston College, and Edward Malloy, CSC., president of Notre Dame University, that they wrote an article in the Jesuit magazine America warning that the implementation of the directives would threaten the status of their institutions: “The universities acceptance of the obligations spelled out here would mean the sacrifice of many of those prerogatives that make Catholic universities and their professional staffs the respected and influential members of the higher education community that they are.”...
Describing Ex Corde as “unworkable and dangerous,” the editors of AMERICA warned that the impact of the norms would be “disastrous” for Catholic colleges and universities. The faculty senate at Notre Dame voted unanimously to ignore the guidelines of EX CORDE. …
When Pope Benedict XVI addressed the presidents of Catholic colleges in Washington, D.C., this past April (2008), the Holy Father reminded them to remain faithful to Catholic teaching both inside and outside the classroom. He spoke of a “crisis of truth” rooted in a “crisis of faith” and warned of the creeping “dictatorship of relativism.” …
Until recently, most Catholic bishops have remained silent on these issues – acquiescing to faculty demands for academic freedom. Rejecting the role of the presiding bishop on Catholic campuses. FR. RICHARD McBRIEN, …, has been especially critical of episcopal oversight since the release of EX CORDE.
In an interview in The Chronicles of Higher Education, FR. McBRIEN made his views … clear: “The idea of even suggesting any kind of oversight by non-academic operations of a university – Catholic or not – is odious to anybody in an academic institution … I want criticism to come from people with credentials to criticize. Bishops should be welcome on a Catholic university campus. Give them tickets to the ball games. Let them say Mass, bring them to graduation. Let them sit on the stage….”
Most bishops have complied with faculty demands. Yet, there are signs that this is coming to an end. Since EX CORDE was issued, MARIST COLLEGE, MARYMOUNT MANHATTAN COLLEGE, NAZARETH COLLEGE, AND ST. JOHN FISHER COLLEGE have been stripped of their designation as Catholic colleges by their bishops. …
Pope Benedict XVI would likely favor “evangelical pruning” rather than maintain ties to Catholic institutions that have become too secular…. The time may have come for a “mustard seed Church.” suggesting a “much smaller presence, but with faith whose dimension could move mountains.”
Some of the most faithful members of this mustard-seed Church have been introduced in recent books like “God on the Quad” by Naomi Schaefer Riley and “The New Faithful” by Collen Carroll. … These students are increasingly demanding that the culture of their religious colleges reflect their faith. They are getting assistance from the Cardinal Newman Society…
George H. Kubeck
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone – Sunday, January 11, 2009
This concludes A. Hendershott’s insightful article in New Oxford Rev. Jan. 09
While the papal document (Ex Corde Ecclesiae) acknowledges that the Catholic university, as a university, possesses the institutional autonomy …, the document reminds those working on Catholic campuses that this freedom must always be viewed “WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE TRUTH AND COMMON GOOD,” and there must be “fidelity to the Christian message” as it comes to us through the Church.
For Pope John Paul II – and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI – the pursuit of the truth is the university’s way of serving at one and the same time both the dignity of man and the good of the Church. Literally translated as “From the Heart of the Church,” Ex Corde Ecclesiae calls for Catholic colleges to be accountable to local bishops. A key component of this accountability is the controversial requirement within the papal document that all theologians obtain a MANDATUM, or mandate, from the local bishop attesting their teaching is in communion, or in keeping with, official Church teachings. …
So alarmed with the demands of Ex Corde in the early days of its release were Donald Moran S.J. chancellor of Boston College, and Edward Malloy, CSC., president of Notre Dame University, that they wrote an article in the Jesuit magazine America warning that the implementation of the directives would threaten the status of their institutions: “The universities acceptance of the obligations spelled out here would mean the sacrifice of many of those prerogatives that make Catholic universities and their professional staffs the respected and influential members of the higher education community that they are.”...
Describing Ex Corde as “unworkable and dangerous,” the editors of AMERICA warned that the impact of the norms would be “disastrous” for Catholic colleges and universities. The faculty senate at Notre Dame voted unanimously to ignore the guidelines of EX CORDE. …
When Pope Benedict XVI addressed the presidents of Catholic colleges in Washington, D.C., this past April (2008), the Holy Father reminded them to remain faithful to Catholic teaching both inside and outside the classroom. He spoke of a “crisis of truth” rooted in a “crisis of faith” and warned of the creeping “dictatorship of relativism.” …
Until recently, most Catholic bishops have remained silent on these issues – acquiescing to faculty demands for academic freedom. Rejecting the role of the presiding bishop on Catholic campuses. FR. RICHARD McBRIEN, …, has been especially critical of episcopal oversight since the release of EX CORDE.
In an interview in The Chronicles of Higher Education, FR. McBRIEN made his views … clear: “The idea of even suggesting any kind of oversight by non-academic operations of a university – Catholic or not – is odious to anybody in an academic institution … I want criticism to come from people with credentials to criticize. Bishops should be welcome on a Catholic university campus. Give them tickets to the ball games. Let them say Mass, bring them to graduation. Let them sit on the stage….”
Most bishops have complied with faculty demands. Yet, there are signs that this is coming to an end. Since EX CORDE was issued, MARIST COLLEGE, MARYMOUNT MANHATTAN COLLEGE, NAZARETH COLLEGE, AND ST. JOHN FISHER COLLEGE have been stripped of their designation as Catholic colleges by their bishops. …
Pope Benedict XVI would likely favor “evangelical pruning” rather than maintain ties to Catholic institutions that have become too secular…. The time may have come for a “mustard seed Church.” suggesting a “much smaller presence, but with faith whose dimension could move mountains.”
Some of the most faithful members of this mustard-seed Church have been introduced in recent books like “God on the Quad” by Naomi Schaefer Riley and “The New Faithful” by Collen Carroll. … These students are increasingly demanding that the culture of their religious colleges reflect their faith. They are getting assistance from the Cardinal Newman Society…
George H. Kubeck
Saturday, January 10, 2009
We are a Church divided! - 1 of 2
We are a Church divided! – 1 of 2
In the pursuit of the truth- cinops be gone – Saturday, January 10, 2009
When all is said and done the truth hurts and our know-it-all-pride gets angry. Irregardless, we must strive together to turn a negative into a positive. For example: Wanted: Pro-life atheist or agnostic to run for office against any CINOP.
Question: What is the difference between a CINOP who is for abortion, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research; and another politician who is for fornication, adultery and pornography? Answer: There isn’t any difference.
There is an article in the New Oxford Review, Jan. 2009, by Anne Hendershott titled, “QUO VADIS, CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION?” I will comment with my own words and with most of the writer Anne.
The social justice agenda, separated from the pro-life agenda of some Catholic college educational system are screwed up. For example, many Catholic colleges encourage student internship at Planned Parenthood. In October 2007 College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., hosted a conference on pregnancy prevention and invited Planned Parenthood to campus to present 3 workshops on the “latest and greatest” pregnancy-prevention methods.
As a commitment to social justice, students on some Catholic campuses are encouraged to bring their advocacy to the greater community and beyond. IN FACT, THESE COLLEGES HAVE BECOME SPRINGBOARDS OF ADVOCACY FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Kara Suffredini, a graduate of Boston College Law School and now the legislative attorney for the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, told an alumni gathering of the Lambda Law Students in 2005 that “I want to begin by saying that everything I know about queer activism, I learned at Boston College Law School. Put that in your admission brochure.” Sad!
For those who have spent the past two decades working toward the implementation of EX CORDE ECCLESIAE, Pope John Paul II’s 1990 apostolic constitution designed to revitalize Catholic higher education, the recent release of a study by the CARDINAL NEWMAN SOCIETY commissioned a study in 2008 which revealed that a majority of the 506student respondents from 128 Catholic colleges and universities REJECT traditional Catholic teachings on key issues of faith and morality. Drawing from a represent sample of current and recent Catholic college students, findings reveal that, despite Catholic teachings to the contrary, 60 percent of the respondents agree that abortion should be legal, and 57 percent support the legalization of same-sex marriage.
61% of the respondents believe that women should be allowed to be ordained as Catholic priests - `even thought the Vatican has repeatedly affirmed that the all-male priesthood is an unchangeable tradition instituted by Christ Himself….
The study also reveals that a majority of our current and recent students claim that the experience of attending a Catholic college or university made no difference in their support for the Church or her teachings. Worse, 11 percent of the respondents say that their campus experiences decreased their support for Catholic teachings, and 12 percent claim that their campus experience decreased their respect for the pope and the bishops of the Church.
Hold it! One can prove almost anything with statistics. Maybe the above statistics are all wrong. Where does the problem originate? Let’s find out tomorrow in writer Anne Hendershott’s article!
George H. Kubeck
In the pursuit of the truth- cinops be gone – Saturday, January 10, 2009
When all is said and done the truth hurts and our know-it-all-pride gets angry. Irregardless, we must strive together to turn a negative into a positive. For example: Wanted: Pro-life atheist or agnostic to run for office against any CINOP.
Question: What is the difference between a CINOP who is for abortion, same-sex marriage, and embryonic stem cell research; and another politician who is for fornication, adultery and pornography? Answer: There isn’t any difference.
There is an article in the New Oxford Review, Jan. 2009, by Anne Hendershott titled, “QUO VADIS, CATHOLIC HIGHER EDUCATION?” I will comment with my own words and with most of the writer Anne.
The social justice agenda, separated from the pro-life agenda of some Catholic college educational system are screwed up. For example, many Catholic colleges encourage student internship at Planned Parenthood. In October 2007 College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass., hosted a conference on pregnancy prevention and invited Planned Parenthood to campus to present 3 workshops on the “latest and greatest” pregnancy-prevention methods.
As a commitment to social justice, students on some Catholic campuses are encouraged to bring their advocacy to the greater community and beyond. IN FACT, THESE COLLEGES HAVE BECOME SPRINGBOARDS OF ADVOCACY FOR THE LEGALIZATION OF SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. Kara Suffredini, a graduate of Boston College Law School and now the legislative attorney for the “National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, told an alumni gathering of the Lambda Law Students in 2005 that “I want to begin by saying that everything I know about queer activism, I learned at Boston College Law School. Put that in your admission brochure.” Sad!
For those who have spent the past two decades working toward the implementation of EX CORDE ECCLESIAE, Pope John Paul II’s 1990 apostolic constitution designed to revitalize Catholic higher education, the recent release of a study by the CARDINAL NEWMAN SOCIETY commissioned a study in 2008 which revealed that a majority of the 506student respondents from 128 Catholic colleges and universities REJECT traditional Catholic teachings on key issues of faith and morality. Drawing from a represent sample of current and recent Catholic college students, findings reveal that, despite Catholic teachings to the contrary, 60 percent of the respondents agree that abortion should be legal, and 57 percent support the legalization of same-sex marriage.
61% of the respondents believe that women should be allowed to be ordained as Catholic priests - `even thought the Vatican has repeatedly affirmed that the all-male priesthood is an unchangeable tradition instituted by Christ Himself….
The study also reveals that a majority of our current and recent students claim that the experience of attending a Catholic college or university made no difference in their support for the Church or her teachings. Worse, 11 percent of the respondents say that their campus experiences decreased their support for Catholic teachings, and 12 percent claim that their campus experience decreased their respect for the pope and the bishops of the Church.
Hold it! One can prove almost anything with statistics. Maybe the above statistics are all wrong. Where does the problem originate? Let’s find out tomorrow in writer Anne Hendershott’s article!
George H. Kubeck
CARDINAL MINDSZENTY FOUNDATION
Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation
50th Anniversary - November 22, 2008
Dear Friends,
It has been my joy and privilege to make the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation my life’s work for 50 years. This non-profit educational organization has been blessed in its apostolic mission to uphold the teachings of Christ and defend the faith, families and freedom from Communism and the inroads of atheistic secular culture.
How much the world has changed in a half-century! I have lived to see our hero, Cardinal Mindszenty, freed at last in 1971; the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 along with the collapse of the Soviet Communist empire; the opening of Communist China to the West even as it continues to oppress believers; the tragic rise in abortions all over the world; the emergence of militant Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to the West; and the re-emergence of Russian Communist oppression of the neighboring countries. Although Marxist economics and rhetoric have been thoroughly discredited, Communism remains a threat to liberty in large parts of the world, and a culture of death continues to challenge our beliefs.
One of motives for helping to form the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation arose from my experience in New York City for Radio Liberty in the 1950’s, when I met refugees from many nationalities that comprised the Soviet Union, including Georgians, Ukrainians and Azerbaijanians. Each refugee told a sad, similar tale of loss of family members, lose of home, loss of Church, job and country because of the Communist takeover of his nation. Each refugee was grateful to America for its welcome and opportunities. I was inspired to work to preserve America’s freedom and to support the freedoms of all people. As time went on, refugees from other Communist countries continued to stream in to America’s shores, such as Hungarians, Cubans, Vietnamese, Afghans, Poles and Nicaraguans, each with his own story of loss.
Our work at CMF would not, of course, be possible without the dedication of our many members and volunteers, generous donors, inspiring Council members, faithful board members, and our small staff in St. Louis. What a thrill it has been for me to have such loyal friends all over the country and beyond. Only the Lord can reward so much kindness.
The need for the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation has not abated. Read the beautiful testimonials on the following pages for a tribute to our work and your contributions to it. With God’s blessing and the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima, we will continue to combat evil and work for peace throughout the world.
Gratefully,
Eleanor Schlafly, Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation
P.O. Box 11321, 7800 Bonhomme Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63105 – 0121
www.mindszenty.org - info@mindszenty.org
P.S. I have been a member of the above for more than 40 years. Their monthly Mindszenty Report is outstanding. Subscription rate: $20.00/year Geo. H. Kubeck
Posted: in pursuit of the truth blog – cinops be gone – Saturday, January 10, 2009
50th Anniversary - November 22, 2008
Dear Friends,
It has been my joy and privilege to make the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation my life’s work for 50 years. This non-profit educational organization has been blessed in its apostolic mission to uphold the teachings of Christ and defend the faith, families and freedom from Communism and the inroads of atheistic secular culture.
How much the world has changed in a half-century! I have lived to see our hero, Cardinal Mindszenty, freed at last in 1971; the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 along with the collapse of the Soviet Communist empire; the opening of Communist China to the West even as it continues to oppress believers; the tragic rise in abortions all over the world; the emergence of militant Islamic fundamentalism as a threat to the West; and the re-emergence of Russian Communist oppression of the neighboring countries. Although Marxist economics and rhetoric have been thoroughly discredited, Communism remains a threat to liberty in large parts of the world, and a culture of death continues to challenge our beliefs.
One of motives for helping to form the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation arose from my experience in New York City for Radio Liberty in the 1950’s, when I met refugees from many nationalities that comprised the Soviet Union, including Georgians, Ukrainians and Azerbaijanians. Each refugee told a sad, similar tale of loss of family members, lose of home, loss of Church, job and country because of the Communist takeover of his nation. Each refugee was grateful to America for its welcome and opportunities. I was inspired to work to preserve America’s freedom and to support the freedoms of all people. As time went on, refugees from other Communist countries continued to stream in to America’s shores, such as Hungarians, Cubans, Vietnamese, Afghans, Poles and Nicaraguans, each with his own story of loss.
Our work at CMF would not, of course, be possible without the dedication of our many members and volunteers, generous donors, inspiring Council members, faithful board members, and our small staff in St. Louis. What a thrill it has been for me to have such loyal friends all over the country and beyond. Only the Lord can reward so much kindness.
The need for the Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation has not abated. Read the beautiful testimonials on the following pages for a tribute to our work and your contributions to it. With God’s blessing and the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima, we will continue to combat evil and work for peace throughout the world.
Gratefully,
Eleanor Schlafly, Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation
P.O. Box 11321, 7800 Bonhomme Avenue, Saint Louis, MO 63105 – 0121
www.mindszenty.org - info@mindszenty.org
P.S. I have been a member of the above for more than 40 years. Their monthly Mindszenty Report is outstanding. Subscription rate: $20.00/year Geo. H. Kubeck
Posted: in pursuit of the truth blog – cinops be gone – Saturday, January 10, 2009
Friday, January 9, 2009
St. Thomas More - 7
St. Thomas More – 7
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone – Friday, Jan. 9, 2009
More’s Early Years – 6 p. 44-6
While More was straddling the line between the world and the cloister, he was elected, in 1504, as a burgess of Parliament, thus drawing him for the first time into the thickets of public affairs. All too soon More proved to be a courageous politician, beginning his career by engaging in a head-on confrontation with reigning monarch over the question of revenue….
In the autumn of 1504, at the end of his years spent with the Carthusians, More wrote to his friend John Colet. Expressing regret that Colet was away from London, he laments that he is thereby deprived of the wisdom of Colet’s sermons and spiritual direction, the latter of which he seems to have felt in particular need of. He then complains of the way the city life can stifle and choke the aspirations of the soul, as contrasted with the spiritually refreshing atmosphere of the countryside…
More’s final decision to remain a layman in the world could not have been easy one for him to make, we know this to have been the case from a comment he made to his daughter thirty years later, shortly before his death….
One need only look at the exemplary family life of Thomas More’s subsequent years, together with his high ideals of lay spirituality and service to his Church, to understand why God kept him in the world. While we cannot know the specific reasons that entered into More’s decision on a state of life, perhaps the best explanation that has been offered is that provided by the author of the so-called “Ro:Ba:” biography of the saint:
…. {A}s God appointed that worthy man John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, to be the Champion of the Clergy, so he reserved Thomas More in the degree of the laity, to be the proto-Martyr of England that suffered for the defence of the union of the Catholic Church.
Stapleton’s thoughts in this regard are equally valid:
…{P}erhaps it was that God, for his own greater glory, wished him to remain a layman, to accept the honours and to meet the difficulties of public life, and at the same time wished to kept his servant unspotted and unharmed, and even to lead him to the highest perfection of sanctity.
Finally there is the particular eloquent observation of Cresacre More, who had good reason to be especially grateful for his great-grandfather’s decision to embark upon the family life:
… God had allotted him for an other estate, not to live solitary, but that he might be a pattern to married men, how they should carefully bring up their children, how dearly they should carefully bring up their children, how dearly they should love their wives, how they should employ their endeavour wholly for the good of their country, yet excellently perform the virtues of religious men, as, piety, charity, humility, obedience, and conjugal chastity….
As we have already seen above, Thomas More considered the English countryside a far more wholesome place than the city, and thus when he had decided upon his state in life, he was ultimately to ask for the hand of a young and simple country girl in marriage. ...
Mark your calendar for Thursday, Jan 22nd, 2009 from 7-9 P.M. @ the Haskett Library –2650 W. Broadway, Anaheim, Ca. Our “Thomas More Study Group” on American Politics and Religion will meet.
George H. Kubeck, P.O. Box 865, Stanton, Ca. 90680-9998
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone – Friday, Jan. 9, 2009
More’s Early Years – 6 p. 44-6
While More was straddling the line between the world and the cloister, he was elected, in 1504, as a burgess of Parliament, thus drawing him for the first time into the thickets of public affairs. All too soon More proved to be a courageous politician, beginning his career by engaging in a head-on confrontation with reigning monarch over the question of revenue….
In the autumn of 1504, at the end of his years spent with the Carthusians, More wrote to his friend John Colet. Expressing regret that Colet was away from London, he laments that he is thereby deprived of the wisdom of Colet’s sermons and spiritual direction, the latter of which he seems to have felt in particular need of. He then complains of the way the city life can stifle and choke the aspirations of the soul, as contrasted with the spiritually refreshing atmosphere of the countryside…
More’s final decision to remain a layman in the world could not have been easy one for him to make, we know this to have been the case from a comment he made to his daughter thirty years later, shortly before his death….
One need only look at the exemplary family life of Thomas More’s subsequent years, together with his high ideals of lay spirituality and service to his Church, to understand why God kept him in the world. While we cannot know the specific reasons that entered into More’s decision on a state of life, perhaps the best explanation that has been offered is that provided by the author of the so-called “Ro:Ba:” biography of the saint:
…. {A}s God appointed that worthy man John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, to be the Champion of the Clergy, so he reserved Thomas More in the degree of the laity, to be the proto-Martyr of England that suffered for the defence of the union of the Catholic Church.
Stapleton’s thoughts in this regard are equally valid:
…{P}erhaps it was that God, for his own greater glory, wished him to remain a layman, to accept the honours and to meet the difficulties of public life, and at the same time wished to kept his servant unspotted and unharmed, and even to lead him to the highest perfection of sanctity.
Finally there is the particular eloquent observation of Cresacre More, who had good reason to be especially grateful for his great-grandfather’s decision to embark upon the family life:
… God had allotted him for an other estate, not to live solitary, but that he might be a pattern to married men, how they should carefully bring up their children, how dearly they should carefully bring up their children, how dearly they should love their wives, how they should employ their endeavour wholly for the good of their country, yet excellently perform the virtues of religious men, as, piety, charity, humility, obedience, and conjugal chastity….
As we have already seen above, Thomas More considered the English countryside a far more wholesome place than the city, and thus when he had decided upon his state in life, he was ultimately to ask for the hand of a young and simple country girl in marriage. ...
Mark your calendar for Thursday, Jan 22nd, 2009 from 7-9 P.M. @ the Haskett Library –2650 W. Broadway, Anaheim, Ca. Our “Thomas More Study Group” on American Politics and Religion will meet.
George H. Kubeck, P.O. Box 865, Stanton, Ca. 90680-9998
Thursday, January 8, 2009
MARIO CUOMO - THE CINOP BRAIN - 2
MARIO CUOMO – THE CINOP BRAIN - 2
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone - Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2009
Historian David Carlin continues in his book, “Can a Catholic Be a Democrat,” to Cuomo’s # 1. the pluralism defense. 202-4:
The fact is that public morality can’t possible be neutral on the matter of abortion: it will to some degree or other, be either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Cuomo, no matter how sincerely anti-abortion he might be in his private religious convictions, favors a pro-abortion public morality.
Besides, Cuomo’s argument takes for granted that American pluralism is of what may be called the absolute kind, whereas in fact it’s only relative. Pro-pluralism Americans aren’t prepared to tolerate all forms of cultural diversity. Would our cultural pluralists be willing to tolerate, for instance, grisly practice of female genital mutilation, which in parts of Africa is culturally mandated?
After all, in recent decades, migration to the United States from Africa has notably increased, so it’s increasingly likely that there will be African immigrants living in America who approve of this practice. Or are American pluralists ready to tolerate another idea held by many recent immigrants – that men are entitled by nature to outrank women in society and the family and are entitled, if need be, to enforce that social superiority with force?
Of course not. Except for a small number of exceptions among the multiculturalists lunatic fringe, it’s clear that the champions of pluralism don’t favor absolute pluralism; they won’t, in the name of pluralism, allow those who favor genital mutilation or male supremacy to veto American cultural rules banning such things.
But if poor and relatively uneducated immigrant groups aren’t entitled to veto certain values that the majority of Americans prefer, why should a pro-choice minority have a greater entitlement? Why should they be entitled to veto the anti-abortion will of the majority in, say, South Dakota? If the people of South Dakota, acting through their elected officials, wished to ban abortion, why shouldn’t they be free to do so, just as they’re free to ban female genital mutilation and male supremacy.
Cuomo’s “pluralism” argument hinges on the principle of absolute pluralism – a pluralism that virtually nobody believes in, including Mario Cuomo.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. The practicality-and-prudence defense. Cuomo has not doubt that abortion is contrary to moral law. Neither does he have any doubt that Catholics ought to try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. But how best to do this – according to Cuomo, that’s the important question. When bishops teach Catholics that abortion is wrong, they speak with legitimate authority. However, he said, recommending political strategies based on that teaching is something else. When it came to battling moral evils, American bishops have traditionally been pragmatic and prudential. Cuomo notes how in the pre-Civil War period, for example, they didn’t denounce slavery…. To be continued
George H. Kubeck
In pursuit of the truth – cinops be gone - Thursday, Jan. 8th, 2009
Historian David Carlin continues in his book, “Can a Catholic Be a Democrat,” to Cuomo’s # 1. the pluralism defense. 202-4:
The fact is that public morality can’t possible be neutral on the matter of abortion: it will to some degree or other, be either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. Cuomo, no matter how sincerely anti-abortion he might be in his private religious convictions, favors a pro-abortion public morality.
Besides, Cuomo’s argument takes for granted that American pluralism is of what may be called the absolute kind, whereas in fact it’s only relative. Pro-pluralism Americans aren’t prepared to tolerate all forms of cultural diversity. Would our cultural pluralists be willing to tolerate, for instance, grisly practice of female genital mutilation, which in parts of Africa is culturally mandated?
After all, in recent decades, migration to the United States from Africa has notably increased, so it’s increasingly likely that there will be African immigrants living in America who approve of this practice. Or are American pluralists ready to tolerate another idea held by many recent immigrants – that men are entitled by nature to outrank women in society and the family and are entitled, if need be, to enforce that social superiority with force?
Of course not. Except for a small number of exceptions among the multiculturalists lunatic fringe, it’s clear that the champions of pluralism don’t favor absolute pluralism; they won’t, in the name of pluralism, allow those who favor genital mutilation or male supremacy to veto American cultural rules banning such things.
But if poor and relatively uneducated immigrant groups aren’t entitled to veto certain values that the majority of Americans prefer, why should a pro-choice minority have a greater entitlement? Why should they be entitled to veto the anti-abortion will of the majority in, say, South Dakota? If the people of South Dakota, acting through their elected officials, wished to ban abortion, why shouldn’t they be free to do so, just as they’re free to ban female genital mutilation and male supremacy.
Cuomo’s “pluralism” argument hinges on the principle of absolute pluralism – a pluralism that virtually nobody believes in, including Mario Cuomo.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. The practicality-and-prudence defense. Cuomo has not doubt that abortion is contrary to moral law. Neither does he have any doubt that Catholics ought to try to reduce the number of abortions in the United States. But how best to do this – according to Cuomo, that’s the important question. When bishops teach Catholics that abortion is wrong, they speak with legitimate authority. However, he said, recommending political strategies based on that teaching is something else. When it came to battling moral evils, American bishops have traditionally been pragmatic and prudential. Cuomo notes how in the pre-Civil War period, for example, they didn’t denounce slavery…. To be continued
George H. Kubeck
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)