Joe Biden has really put his foot in it with the Catholics
Joe Biden loses Barack Obama the Catholic vote
Gerald Warner
Sep 19, 2008
Telegraph
More, as promised, on Senator Joe Biden (why should Sarah Palin get all the coverage?). Remember, you read it here first: on September 11 this blog reported a mounting backlash from Catholic bishops against Biden, Barack Obama's "Catholic" pro-abortion running mate. At that time I estimated eight bishops had come out to denounce Biden; the total is now 55. Beyond that, Biden is being trashed across every state of the Union by Catholic newspapers, TV and radio stations, and blogs. It is a tsunami of rejection.
The story has now hit the secular media. Last Saturday Time magazine asked: "Does Biden Have a Catholic Problem?" By Wednesday the issue had moved onto the front page of the New York Times. Joe the Jinx has blown it, big time. Biden has only himself to blame: he started this war, with his notoriously undisciplined mouth. He knew the dangers. Last August, Archbishop Raymond Burke, former Archbishop of St Louis and now Prefect of the Apostolic Segnatura in Rome, said communion should be denied to pro-abortion politicians "until they have reformed their lives".
Archbishop Chaput of Denver had already announced Biden should not receive communion because of his pro-abortion views. Defiantly, Biden took communion in his home parish in Delaware in late August. On September 2 the Bishop of Scranton, Pennsylvania (a crucial swing state) banned him from communion in his diocese. That is effective excommunication. Then came the crucial provocation. On NBC's Meet the Press programme on September 7 Biden grossly misrepresented the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion and audaciously cited St Thomas Aquinas in his own cause.
That did it. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had already done the same thing on the same programme, in her instance citing St Augustine. Even the torpid US bishops could not have false doctrine glibly broadcast by public figures, misleading their flock. So the counterattack described here last week began, culminating in a statement from the US Bishops' Conference. The bishops of Kansas City have also issued a pastoral letter on the subject. It is open season on Biden.
There are 47 million Catholic voters in the United States. One quarter of all registered voters are Catholics. At every presidential election in the past 30 years the Catholic vote has gone to the winning candidate, except for Al Gore in 2000. This year 41 per cent of Catholics are independents - up from 30 per cent in 2004. Psephologists claim practising Catholics were the decisive factor in the crucial swing states in 2004: in Ohio 65 per cent of Catholics voted for Bush, in Florida 66 per cent. They were drifting away in disillusionment from the Republicans and split 50-50, until Joe Biden worked his magic. This is electoral suicide by the Democrats.
Bidenisis - noun -a type of foot in mouth disease.
ReplyDeleteBidenize - verb -to wreck havoc in an otherwise close election
Psephology
From Wiki
Psephology (from Greek psephos ψῆφος, 'pebble', which the Greeks used as ballots) is the statistical analysis of elections. Psephology uses compilations of precinct voting returns for elections going back some years, public opinion polls, campaign finance information and similar statistical data. The term was coined in the United Kingdom in 1952 by historian R. B. McCallum to describe the scientific analysis of past elections. In Britain the term occasionally appears in scholarly literature.
Psephology also has various applications specifically in analysing the results of election returns for current indicators, as opposed to predictive purposes. For instance, the Gallagher Index measures the disproportionality of an election.
-----
Psephology (from Greek psephos ψῆφος, 'pebble', which the Greeks used as ballots)
I suppose a winning campaign could be said to have stoned the other side to death.
For too long we were fooled into accepting that abortion was a simple procedure to remove gelatinous tissue. Now, we learning the inescapable truth.
ReplyDeletebobal recently shared a pearl of wisdom that anyone who buys a condom knows when life begins.
We can continue to fool ourselves as a society and as individuals but it's my belief that abortion has serious consequences both in this life and the hereafter. 50 million plus live cannot be aborted at no cost to the individuals involved or the society as a whole. The price will be heavy and it will be paid one way or another.
Although this article is from the Telegraph, I wonder if we will begin to see the US MSM back away from and even disparage Biden in the runup to the "October surprise." If we see a more concerted media drumbeat against Biden, it could signal a coming change.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what St. Thomas Aquinas said in the Summa about abortion, but I did hear the other day that Biden had gotten it wrong.
ReplyDeleteI'm uncertain of this. Aquinas was always arguing two sides of a question, so maybe there is some confusion here.
Bobal: I don't know what St. Thomas Aquinas said in the Summa about abortion, but I did hear the other day that Biden had gotten it wrong.
ReplyDeleteAquinas holds forth on the subject, but it's hard to see how Biden got it wrong, since the explanation resembles so much one of Biden's own answers in its length and impenetrable complexity.
Some say that the vital functions observed in the embryo are not from its soul, but from the soul of the mother; or from the formative power of the semen. Both of these explanations are false; for vital functions such as feeling, nourishment, and growth cannot be from an extrinsic principle. Consequently it must be said that the soul is in the embryo; the nutritive soul from the beginning, then the sensitive, lastly the intellectual soul.
Therefore some say that in addition to the vegetative soul which existed first, another, namely the sensitive, soul supervenes; and in addition to this, again another, namely the intellectual soul. Thus there would be in man three souls of which one would be in potentiality to another. This has been disproved above (Question 76, Article 3).
Therefore others say that the same soul which was at first merely vegetative, afterwards through the action of the seminal power, becomes a sensitive soul; and finally this same soul becomes intellectual, not indeed through the active seminal power, but by the power of a higher agent, namely God enlightening (the soul) from without. For this reason the Philosopher says that the intellect comes from without. But this will not hold.
First, because no substantial form is susceptible of more or less; but addition of greater perfection constitutes another species, just as the addition of unity constitutes another species of number. Now it is not possible for the same identical form to belong to different species.
Secondly, because it would follow that the generation of an animal would be a continuous movement, proceeding gradually from the imperfect to theperfect, as happens in alteration.
Thirdly, because it would follow that the generation of a man or an animal is not generation simply, because the subject thereof would be a being inact. For if the vegetative soul is from the beginning in the matter of offspring, and is subsequently gradually brought to perfection; this will imply addition of further perfection without corruption of the preceding perfection. And this is contrary to the nature of generation properly so called.
Fourthly, because either that which is caused by the action of God is something subsistent: and thus it must needs be essentially distinct from the pre-existing form, which was non-subsistent; and we shall then come back to the opinion of those who held the existence of several souls in the body--or else it is not subsistent, but a perfection of the pre-existing soul: and from this it follows of necessity that the intellectual soul perishes with the body, which cannot be admitted.
There is again another explanation, according to those who held that all men have but one intellect in common: but this has been disproved above (Question 76, Article 2).
We must therefore say that since the generation of one thing is the corruption of another, it follows of necessity that both in men and in other animals, when a more perfect form supervenes the previous form is corrupted: yet so that the supervening form contains the perfection of the previous form, and something in addition. It is in this way that through many generations and corruptions we arrive at the ultimate substantial form, both in man and other animals. This indeed is apparent to the senses in animals generated from putrefaction. We conclude therefore that the intellectual soul is created by God at the end of human generation, and this soul is at the same time sensitive and nutritive, the pre-existing forms being corrupted.
when a more perfect form supervenes the previous form is corrupted: yet so that the supervening form contains the perfection of the previous form, and something in addition.
ReplyDeleteThis has the distinct odor of Hegelianism.
We conclude therefore that the intellectual soul is created by God at the end of human generation
This does not have the odor of Hegelianism. But the soul in this world needs a home, a place to reside, and if that is taken away, the soul has no place to pitch its tent and take up residence, so interfering in this, interfers with the whole process.
For if the vegetative soul is from the beginning in the matter of offspring, and is subsequently gradually brought to perfection; this will imply addition of further perfection without corruption of the preceding perfection.
This seems modern in the sense of evolutionary development.
Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny.
Modern biology rejects the literal and universal form of Haeckel's theory.[5] Although humans are generally understood to share ancestors with other taxa, stages of human embryonic development are not functionally equivalent to the adults of these shared common ancestors. In other words, no cleanly defined and functional "fish", "reptile" and "mammal" stages of human embryonal development can be discerned. Moreover, development is nonlinear. For example, during kidney development, at one given time, the anterior region of the kidney is less developed (nephridium) than the posterior region (nephron).
Modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, and explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory. wiki
Aquinas is turgid, excessively ornate and complex in the style of his language, grandiloquent and opaque when clarity is needed.
No wonder that after his moment of infused comtemplation towards the end of his life, he said everything he had written was like straw, gave it over to his followers to complete, and prayed God grant him a speedy death, the world no longer being of any interest to him.
I don't know what his position is.
Aquinas is turgid, excessively ornate and complex in the style of his language, grandiloquent and opaque when clarity is needed.
ReplyDeleteThen here's what Catholics fall back on:
Luke 1:
[39] And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
[40] And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
[41] And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
[42] And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
[43] And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
[44] For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
If abortable pieces of "tissue" can experience joy, then we oughtn't abort them.
the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
ReplyDeleteGood one Teresita, does cut through a lot of verby crap.
It doesn't matter. He won't be on the ticket much longer.
ReplyDeleteHabu, if you're right about that I'd be kind of surprised. Really surprised. I'd be surprised Clinton would take it, and it would look so damned bad. But, maybe. Why would Clinton want to sit there for eight years? She's better off hoping he loses.
ReplyDeleteThe more sand that has escaped from the hourglass of our life, the clearer we should get a load of from one end to the other it.
ReplyDeletehttp://forums.sabnzbd.org/index.php?action=profile;u=71646