Various and Sundry, 3/5/15

Facebook 0
Twitter
LinkedIn 0
Reddit 0
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon 0
WhatsApp
Email
Print

– Jay Anderson has indicated he has written his final blog post, so I will provide him one last link. It seems that the heads of the four families – excuse, me the big four Catholic publications have joined forces and issued a joint editorial. They have set aside their differences and collaborated to discuss the burning issue of the day. Liberal and conservative, orthodox and heterodox: these labels mean nothing when it comes to this unequivocal teaching of the Church*. Yes, finally, America, National Catholic Register, National Catholic Reporter, and Our Sunday Visitor have written their joint editorial calling for an end to abortion, rebutting same-sex marriage, condemning the genocide of Christians taking place in the Middle East, calling for the abolition of the death penalty.

These four Catholic publications have decided that the paramount issue bridging the gap between these distinct entities is the death penalty. What’s more, they’re not calling for the election of local legislators who will vote to outlaw the death penalty in their respective states. Oh no, they’re calling for the raw judicial activism when the Court decides on the case of Glossip v. Gross. Despite the fact that the death penalty is one of the few things manifestly countenanced by the U.S. Constitution, (after all, if you need to write amendments saying you can’t deprive someone of their lives without due process you’re tacitly admitting you can deprive citizens of their lives with due process) these four publications are totally cool with judicial activism so long as such activism comports with their personal preferences.

Jay notes that in his very first blog post he wrote:

Sir Thomas More’s admonition to Roper should serve as a warning and a reminder to Catholics that the activist Court that sides with us in this particular instance is the same activist Court that is likely in the future (as it has in the past) to “turn round on us” and use its increasingly strident activism to decide cases contrary to our Catholic values.

This was in reference to Roper v. Simmons, another death penalty case. Now, here we are, ten years later these supposedly Catholic publications are totally fine with the use of raw judicial power. They’re fine with it now, but where will they be in ten years when judicial activists deprive Catholics of basic First Amendment rights?

Like Jay I am personally opposed to the death penalty, but I’m even more opposed to legislation by judicial fiat, and those who support the Court declaring unconstitutional that which is concretely and unambiguously constitutional are compliant in an act of judicial tyranny, even if it is for an ostensibly good cause.

*Footnote here for the sarcasm impaired. Let’s just say that traditional Catholic teaching is no more prohibitive of the death penalty than the U.S. Constitution.

– Anna Mussmann muses that we’re over-complicating motherhood. It’s of a similar vein to what I’ve written before, suggesting that helicopter parenting is a symptom of selfish parenting. Her take is a little different, but well worth the read.

– I just can’t quit the latest Clinton scandal. It’s odd that this is the thing that has dented the Clintons’ teflon coating, to the point where even Lawrence O’Donnell is abandoning ship. Now the website Gawker demonstrates that Clinton’s use of a personal email account was a huge security risk. Long story short, Clinton preferred having her emails fall in the lap of Russia than an intrusive American press.

Here’s another Hot Air link. The Republican party now controls more state houses than any point in recent history, and they owe it all to President Obama. The party that is supposedly on its deathbed is routing Democrats at all local levels. This ascendancy started before Obama was immaculated, but has only sped up since.

– Darwin’s take on when to call the cops on a kid.

If you see a property or violent crime being committed, by all means call the cops. Or if a kid is doing something which seems likely to directly result in death or injury. If a child seems genuinely lost, upset or hurt, and you’re not able to find an adult connected with them (especially if you’ve taken the time to ask the kid if she needs help and she says yes) then by all means summon help.

But keep in mind that calling the cops on a family can have traumatic (and at times even fatal) consequences. “I wouldn’t let my kid walk home alone,” is probably not a serious enough reason, unless you happen to live rather literally in a war zone.

A victory today for the revolutionaries who dared to sled on Capitol Hill.

More to explorer

Advent and Anti-Christ, Part III

Part three of my presentation of the four sermons of John Henry Cardinal Newman on the Anti-Christ delivered in 1835 before his conversion. 

10 Comments

  1. “What’s more, they’re not calling for the election of local legislators who will vote to outlaw the death penalty in their respective states. Oh no, they’re calling for the raw judicial activism when the Court decides on the case of Glossip v. Gross. Despite the fact that the death penalty is one of the few things manifestly countenanced by the U.S. Constitution, (after all, if you need to write amendments saying you can’t deprive someone of their lives without due process you’re tacitly admitting you can deprive citizens of their lives with due process) these four publications are totally cool with judicial activism so long as such activism comports with their personal preferences.”

    National Catholic Register should know better. America and National Catholic Reporter have as much respect for the Constitution as they do for the Constitution: bupkis. Our Sunday Visitor should have this as their official song:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGhTr8lDCV0

  2. ….Well, I guess we won’t be subscribing to the NCR. Too bad, although at least they didn’t do this the week after we subscribed. (We were planning on it as soon as our mail situation got sorted out.)
    ***
    Tons of binding teachings, and they decide to go for prudential activism, and in an especially stupid way. I’d like to call it something other than stupid, but that’s solidly in the “let’s chop down all the laws of England– again!” category.

  3. The motherhood article has some good points, but I think it starts out with a big problem:
    Some time ago I made the mistake of picking up a parenting magazine.
    Don’t do that, unless it’s for amusement. It’s like picking up Cosmo or some guy version, but with fewer pretty ladies.
    They make money by making problems, and trying to get folks to solve them. (Also, the recipes tend to either not work, or taste horrible. I’m now pretty sure that the “creative treats” are more for impressing other adults than for the kids.)
    Biggest problem with motherhood is that, if you do it right, it puts a lie to the “you can have it all” BS we’re fed– you are not going to have a high-pressure male type career and be supermom.

  4. Thanks, Paul!
    ***
    One point of clarification: I’m not just “personally opposed” to capital punishment, I’d actually like to see it abolished. Just not by judicial fiat. I know that’s what you meant, but just wanted that point to be clear when the inevitable accusations start rolling in that we’re only “personally opposed” and therefore just like Mario Cuomo.
    ***
    Also, I’d just like to point out that, while I want to see the death penalty abolished, those Catholics who are essentially arguing that opposition to capital punishment is de fide for Catholics are full of it. Yes, I agree that, as Catholics we SHOULD oppose capital punishment, following the admonitions of Pope John Paul II; but it is a blatant misstatement of the Faith to proclaim that Catholics MUST oppose capital punishment or else be “dissenters”.
    ***
    Finally, this “cooperation” among the “Group of 4” national Catholic publications on this particular issue raises a question for other issues: Since these publications are “uniting [them]selves with the Pope and his predecessor on this issue” (to quote the justification offered by Register on the publication’s Facebook page), I am assuming that they will similarly unite and show Catholic solidarity with a joint editorial backing the Church’s teachings when the Supreme Court rules on same-sex “marriage” later this year?

    Yeah, right. I won’t be holding my breath.

  5. They use (among other sophomorical ruses) that capital punishment meme as smoke screen to justify support for the uber evil Dem party, a.k.a., Abortion, Inc.

  6. Please see my comment on the death penalty at the next post: A Disgrace.
    Herewith is my take on informed consent and guilt and devil possession.
    When a sovereign person chooses to relegate himself to entertain evil he chooses a diminished capacity, forfeits his sovereignty over himself and literally sells himself, his soul to the devil. Even for atheists, who do not believe in the human being, composed of body and soul, embracing a big lie and the Great Liar poses some hazards. Informed consent becomes impossible because of diminished capacity. Obsessed or possessed by the devil, a person’s free will is bound and therefore informed consent cannot be forth coming.

Comments are closed.