My Photo

Insight Scoop

Catholic World News Top Headlines (CWNews.com)

The Curt Jester

JIMMY AKIN.ORG

Poor Box

Render Unto Us

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad

« Halloween Mass 3 - The Barney Blessing | Main | Tridentine Liberalization Rumors Abound »

Wednesday, December 06, 2006

Comments

Kris

sounds good to me. only if we're sure there's no possible way to bring back reagan...

Rita

He sounds wonderful! Anyone who has the guts to publicly defend the basic right to life has got to have character in other areas. We'll see.

jimbo

Sounds promising...I hope he's against the Iraq War. The federal government has wasted and spent far too much there...

Dan Hunter

The only issue is to save the babys.
If we kill innocent life there will be no life.
In Hoc Signo.

Salvacion

Senator Brownback is an Opus Dei member. He doesn't deny it because there is nothing wrong with being a member of Opus Dei. However,some Catholics (and some clergy) do not trust Opus Dei (I don't know why when it is very orthodox, follows the Magisterium and is always faithful to the pope). This may be his Achilles' heel. The irony is, being in the Work should be his strength. I'm praying that he runs for President.

roland

I think we who fight against abortion should be accurate in our usage of the term. We should call ourselves as those making up the "pro-birth" rather than "pro-life" movement. For our consideration here's an article by Richard McBrien. I know some of you will immediately react to him being cited here. Let's remember that we Catholics are neither left-wing nor right-wing, we are for the whole bird! We are neither red nor blue, our color is purple - the color signifying royalty in the Roman empire and appropriated by the early Christians to refer to the royalty of Christ based on John's account of Christ having been given the purple-colored robe by Pilate mocking him as King of the Jews. So back to the Mc
Brien article, let's be open and be accurate in our usage of the term. This is not political correctness, just plain common sense and linguistic accuracy.(Let's leave the point on the "Christianist" label It's a given that we who enjoy this blog can be rightly called Christianist in a sense. No debate about that!) Here's the article.

"In a column for TIME magazine early last month, Andrew Sullivan coined a new term, “Christianist,” to describe ultra-conservative Christians who, in his opinion, claim that their version of Christianity is the one and only legitimate expression thereof (“My Problem with Christianism,” 5/7/06).

"“The number of Christians misrepresented by the Christian right is many,” Sullivan wrote. The “misrepresented” include evangelical Protestants who “believe strongly that Christianity should not get too close to the corrupting allure of governmental power.”

"They also include “lay Catholics who, while personally devout, are socially liberal on issues like contraception, gay rights, women’s equality and a multi-faith society.”

"“And there are those,” Sullivan continued, “who simply believe that, by definition, God is unknowable to our limited, fallible human minds and souls.” For them, faith is “interwoven” with doubt, which means “having great humility in the face of God and an enormous reluctance to impose one’s beliefs, through civil law, on anyone else.”

"Sullivan is convinced that “a clear majority of Christians in the U.S. fall into one or many of those camps. Yet the term ‘people of faith’ has been co-opted almost entirely in our discourse by those who see Christianity as compatible with only one political party, the Republicans, and believe that their religious doctrines should determine public policy for everyone....The ‘Christian’ vote has become shorthand in journalism for the Republican base.”

"In his TIME column, Sullivan insisted that the “worst response” to this situation would be to attempt to construct something comparable on the left. Many Christians who distance themselves from the Christian right are not on the left either. They are opposed to “any politicization of the Gospels by any party, Democratic or Republican, by partisan black churches or partisan white ones.”

"Sullivan suggests, by way of an alternative, that mainline Christians take back the word Christian and identify the religious right by a new name: Christianist. “Christianity, in this view, is simply a faith. Christianism is an ideology, politics, an ism.

"“The distinctions between Christian and Christianist echoes the distinction we make between Muslim and Islamist. Muslims are those who follow Islam. Islamists are those who want to wield Islam as a political force and conflate state and mosque.”

"Andrew Sullivan was careful in his column not to accuse Christianists of favoring violence. Indeed, not all Islamists are violent, he pointed out, and only a tiny few are terrorists. In his rendering, the Christianist simply believes that “religion dictates politics and that politics should dictate the laws for everyone, Christian and non-Christian alike.”

"“I dissent from having my faith co-opted and wielded by people whose politics I do not share and whose intolerance I abhor,” he concluded. “The word Christian belongs to no political party. It’s time the quiet majority of believers took it back.”

"While Sullivan’s proposal merits serious consideration, most efforts to coin a new word or expression are usually doomed to failure. The odds are heavily weighted against the widespread adoption of the word “Christianist” as a parallel to “Islamist.”

"But that in no way invalidates Sullivan’s basic concern, his criticism of the political usages of religion, or his resentment of the religious right’s co-opting (with the media’s implicit support) of the term Christian.

"His column, however, may provide a logical segue to a comparable expression of concern, criticism, and some measure of resentment regarding the co-opting of the term “pro-life” by religious conservatives closely identified with the anti-abortion movement.

"Applying Andrew Sullivan’s proposal to the highly charged abortion issue, we might consider referring henceforth to the self-described pro-life contingent within the U.S. Christian community as “pro-birth” rather than as “pro-life.”

"I first heard this idea raised, in a far different form and context, by Benedictine Sister Joan Chittister, a prolific author and lecturer, on the Easter Sunday installment of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

"Many, but surely not all, in the so-called pro-life movement are politically and socially conservative on issues affecting the quality of human life after birth: child care, health insurance, education, housing, safety standards in employment, a clean environment, immigration, non-discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation, the right to unionize, equitable tax policies, capital punishment, war and peace.

"Indeed, Catholics identified with the self-described pro-life movement have been quick to criticize their own bishops for pressing a consistent-ethic-of-life approach over against one that focuses almost exclusively on abortion, with embryonic stem-cell research, homosexuality, and the continuation of life-sustaining measures (as in the Terri Schiavo case) running not far behind.

"Clearly, such Catholics are pro-birth. Whether they are also pro-life in the comprehensive sense that the U.S. Catholic bishops are pro-life is another matter entirely."

The Original Mark

It is dangerous for us to identify more with conservatism than with Christianity. It's also dangerous for us to define ourselves as "purple-staters," just for the purpose of finding middle ground. More often than not, the middle ground isn't right.
As for Brownback, I'll be curious to see what he can do. He'll need to be very charismatic to have any chance of beating McCain, Guiliani or Romney.

Miller

SPECIAL REPORT from www.vaticans.org

STOP JUDGING BY EXTERNAL STANDARDS, AND JUDGE BY TRUE STANDARDS-John 7:24(TEV) - (CINS)

A remarkable day in the history of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey. Benedict XVI thus became the second Pope to visit a mosque after his predecessor Pope John Paul II.

At the Blue Mosque, the Pope removed his shoes and put on white slippers. Then he walked beside Mustafa Cagrici, the head cleric of Istanbul. Facing the holy city of Mecca — in the tradition of Islamic worship — Cagrici said: "Now I'm going to pray." The Holy Father, too, bowed his head and his lips moved as if reciting words."

Pope's moving lips were captured by television cameras and transmitted by satellite instantaneously around the world, to the ends of the earth. For this moment, Pope Benedict XVI was not teaching, or explicating, or lecturing. He was not debating historical events and their meaning. He was not the "German professor," the "professor pope."

He was "THE POPE OF PRAYER”

But he was praying in a very unusual place, for a pope: in a Muslim mosque. One of the famous Muslim mosques in the world. And mosques are places dedicated to Allah, not to the Trinitarian God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Was this right?

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the mosque visit was added as a "sign of respect" to Muslims. "A (Christian) believer can pray in any place, even a mosque," Lombardi said, calling it an "intimate, personal prayer."

This shows that, in such matters, external, visible signs may be of less importance than the moment’s inner meaning. For the inner meaning of a thing is something that cannot be seen or heard, but only understood with heart.

Miller

SPECIAL REPORT:THE POPE OF PRAYER- from www.vaticans.org

STOP JUDGING BY EXTERNAL STANDARDS, AND JUDGE BY TRUE STANDARDS-John 7:24(TEV) - (CINS)

A remarkable day in the history of the Catholic Church, Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey. Benedict XVI thus became the second Pope to visit a mosque after his predecessor Pope John Paul II.

At the Blue Mosque, the Pope removed his shoes and put on white slippers. Then he walked beside Mustafa Cagrici, the head cleric of Istanbul. Facing the holy city of Mecca — in the tradition of Islamic worship — Cagrici said: "Now I'm going to pray." The Holy Father, too, bowed his head and his lips moved as if reciting words."

Pope's moving lips were captured by television cameras and transmitted by satellite instantaneously around the world, to the ends of the earth. For this moment, Pope Benedict XVI was not teaching, or explicating, or lecturing. He was not debating historical events and their meaning. He was not the "German professor," the "professor pope."

He was "THE POPE OF PRAYER”

But he was praying in a very unusual place, for a pope: in a Muslim mosque. One of the famous Muslim mosques in the world. And mosques are places dedicated to Allah, not to the Trinitarian God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Was this right?

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the mosque visit was added as a "sign of respect" to Muslims. "A (Christian) believer can pray in any place, even a mosque," Lombardi said, calling it an "intimate, personal prayer."

This shows that, in such matters, external, visible signs may be of less importance than the moment’s inner meaning. For the inner meaning of a thing is something that cannot be seen or heard, but only understood with heart.

Billy D

I for one hope he does run! If he could team with Tom Tancredo or Ron Paul, it'd be not only a great ticket, but also the only Republican ticket that stood a chance at all of beating the left's offering. None of the three mentioned above have a shot, as they're all so liberal they deter a very large portion of the base. The middle gained cannot replace that. Politically, it's going to be a very interesting two years...

Chris Naaden

Negatory. Senator Brownback is a waffler on national security, which is THE #1 issue, not abortion. Abortion is #2; if we ever conquered by the Islamists, everything else is moot, because we will be ruled by sharia.

Besides, this is not the blog for politics. This is a blog for principles. Politics is not about principles, it's about winning. Senator Brownback cannot win. He's not visible enough, and doesn't endear himself day in, day out, to garner enough political base to win. His principles are a non-factor until he has popularity and money.

Doug

Chris,

Maybe...but there was an unknown governor from Arkansas that had NO money and NO national reputation...and look where that ended up. I'm not predicting that for Senator Brownback, but I think you are too dismissive, especially since there are few good Republican alternatives.

Chris Naaden

I realize this is off topic, but Doug, I can't let that pass. First, there is a disconnect between Republican and conversative, where there is none between Democrat and liberal. I know about the exceptions already. If you like Republicans, Romney and Giuliani are all right (I think McCain has no chance because he sold out the judges with the Gang of 14 deal); I agree, though, there are no solid conservative choices, but only because solid conservative choices can't win, suffering from a lack of popular marketing.

Second, W.J. Clinton was far from unknown, having served 12 years as AR gov, and having had presidential ambitions in 1987 for the '88 nomination, but decided to put it off and relationship build, which he was very successful in, because he had the superdelegates wrapped up long before the '92 nomination convention. It's not like he just showed up in 1992.

DenverCatholic

Unfortunately Sen Brownback is as exciting as a wet newspaper. He is dull as a speaker and will not run well at all outside his state. He does not have the outside connections nor money it takes to win the Presidential nomination in the Republican Party.

Good Catholic, poor candidate. (Flipside of many Dem "Catholics-in-name-only").

The comments to this entry are closed.

Pope Benedict XVI Homilies & Statements

Codex of Catholic Blogs

Orthodox Blogs

Blogs From People We Wish Were Catholic