The powers that be n the Democrat party must be getting real nervous over the final passage of the health-care bill if Bob Shrum’s article in The Week Magazine is any indication.
Shrum, a Georgetown graduate and a political consultant who has led every major failed Democrat campaign for president for a generation, is in full on attack mode on any Catholic politician (Stupak by name) who actually considers what the Church teaches to be important.
In the most smug way possible, he derides any Catholic politician who lets their faith inform their politics and dropping a non sequitur reference to the abuse scandal to discredit the Bishops.
Stupak noted that his position was a product of his Roman Catholic faith. This is a simple-minded reading of the relationship between religion and the public sphere. As both Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo argued a generation ago — Kennedy in the lion’s den of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty Baptist University, and Cuomo at the Catholic stronghold of Notre Dame — in a free and pluralistic society, not every command of faith can be written into secular law. Otherwise, for example, the Catholic bishops might be pushing to outlaw divorce — a cause for which they have lobbied in other countries.
Here in America, the bishops have been unable to persuade a majority to ban abortion. It’s not for lack of trying; they’ve become overt political actors — assailing John Kerry in the 2004 campaign and Joe Biden in 2008 because both are Catholics who refuse to subordinate their judgments on public policy to church doctrine.
This is a long way from the commitment John Kennedy, the first Catholic President, offered during his 1960 campaign — to “an America where no public official requests or accepts instructions…from…any…ecclesiastical source, where no religion seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly on the public acts of officials.” Half a century later, the bishops are attempting to achieve by indirection what they cannot achieve outright — a partial ban on a woman’s right to choose. Having abetted thousands of priests in molesting children, they’re now set on abusing health reform.
Shrum is obviously not capable of making an actual argument against the position of the Bishops so instead he dismisses them and attacks them. The best his pathetic reasoning can offer is that nobody needs to listen to the church because Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo didn’t. Yeah, so?
To come out and attack his fellow Democrats like this reveals the desperation they must be feeling that abortion may yet still be the undoing of the health-care bill. I hope they are right.
January 12, 2010 at 3:25 pm
I hope they are right, the bigots … I hope it hits them next election … that they love attacking Catholics so much!
January 12, 2010 at 3:57 pm
"The best his pathetic reasoning can offer is that nobody needs to listen to the church because Ted Kennedy and Mario Cuomo didn't. Yeah, so?"
For people with views similar to Mr. Shrum, Ted Kennedy (and JFK) and Mario Cuomo are the voices of the Church, i.e. their bishops.
January 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm
"…Cuomo at the Catholic stronghold of Notre Dame…"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA! Whew, excuse me… not sure what came over me there. Catholic stronghold?! That statement right there discredits his entire argument, as it shows that he clearly has no idea of what real Catholicism looks like.
January 12, 2010 at 5:15 pm
That last line of his invalidates his entire rant. No credibility.
January 12, 2010 at 8:58 pm
Wow. I agree the last line takes away any semblance of credibility.
January 12, 2010 at 10:43 pm
"Half a century later, the Congress is attempting to achieve by judicial fiat and birbery what they cannot achieve outright — a partial ban on everyone's Constitutional rights to freedom of speech and worship. Having abetted thousands of unelected bureaucrats in destroying intact families, especially in inner cities, they’re now set on comandeering the health insurance industry."
There. Fact-checked Shrum's quote. Really, you'd think they had copy editors over at The Week.
January 12, 2010 at 10:59 pm
And was Archbishop Cody overreaching his authority when he excommunicated Louisiana politicians for "following their consciences" on segregation fifty years ago?
January 13, 2010 at 12:46 am
"Having abetted thousands of priests in molesting children, they’re now set on abusing health reform."
I just love the deviency spin. I'll bet they INTENTIONALLY recruited pedophile priests, didn't they, Shrum? And while they're set on denying 30 mil health insurance, no doubt they needlessly try to extend the lives of the elderly and the comatose (as they gleefully watch families delve into bankruptcy and move out on the streets) or did Shrum forget to mention that particular gimmie?
WOO HAH HAH ha ha ha haaaaaa!!!!
January 13, 2010 at 1:08 am
When all else fails, bring in the sexual abuse scandal.
January 13, 2010 at 5:36 am
They are bound to prove it otherwise, With crediblity.
Youth For Jesus.
January 13, 2010 at 6:39 pm
"As a debate involving the Catholic Church (either a discussion about the Church specifically, or a discussion in which the Church is taking a position) grows longer, the probability of someone mentioning the sex scandal approaches one."
~ Anderson's Law