American Catholic Magazine Lectures the Bishops on Politics and Obama

(Update- Looking at the Title of this Post I realize it might be Misleading- As you can see at the link the Magazine I reference is Commonweal which is based in the United States. For the purpose of this post I am not talking about America also a Catholic publication based in the United States)

I think the folks at this Catholic Publication are naive.

Hey I am all for compromise and the Church in the political square compromises on a LOT. Sometimes rightly so and sometimes too much.

Sometimes there are issues you do not compromise on and got to get the ball rolling in opposition. I often notice that a last minute appeal to call your Senator to vote against x next week does not work. Sometimes a full court press to stop it is needed. Politics is not bean bag.

I am not sure the folks at this publication have noticed but as the world is talking about Hillary being Sec of State many of us have noticed Obama has appointed the Former Communications Director of a radical abortion group ,Emily's List, as White House Communication Director and as his Director of Domestic Policy someone that set on the boards of both Emily's List and Planned Parenthood. May I be so bold to suggest that this might mean something.

I very much love this line as to FOCA "the bill’s attempt to establish a fundamental right to abortion by statute is probably unconstitutional." I recall that was the view of the people that voted for Campaign Fiance Reform It was the assumption of many of us that the Court would just declare it Unconst. Oooops!!!

I do wonder this. When the immigration debate was real nasty and Tom Tancredo and Peter King put language into a House bill that had the effect of putting priest , clergy, religious, and Catholic Lay folks in danger of imprisonment if they gave aid to illegal aliens the Bishops went ballistic. Was Commonweal back then talking everyone calm down and that " decision-making in a pluralistic democracy “requires an acceptance of the open, pragmatic, contingent, uncertain, inconclusive, and tolerant character of all arguments, positions, and alliances on the political side of the line.” and don't worry there is little chance this bill will pass and if it does Bush will Veto it so everyone chill stop the "prophecy of denunciation" and lets read a little Thomas Merton

Hmm maybe so but I doubt it.

There is a excellent post in response to all this line of argument at American Catholic called Trust Us, We Were Lying! A great post I loved this part because well we all know it is true:

I don’t really doubt that if a some Republican presidential candidate were to get up in front of The American Nativist Association and announce that “the first thing he would do” about immigration reform would be to the sign the “Pure America Act” which would allow for the immediate deportation of all non-citizens and the sealing of the borders, that people would unhesitatingly call that candidate and dangerous yahoo and heap scorn upon him. Sure, such a bill would doubtless never pass congress, but the fact that he said he wanted to sign such a bill would be considered to be indicative of his character and policies.

I think that is so true. Also common sense politics would require if you opposed such an matter an all out offensive on it so it could be shown that such a bill should never see the light of day again. I can tell you I don't think Commonweal would be taking the above tact on this hypothetical "Pure America" Bill.

There will be many issues that the Bishops and Catholics can agree with Obama on. There are some issues thought that battle must be done. That is part of part of a democracy too