Washington D.C., Jul 17, 2017 / 04:31 am (CNA).- Travis Rieder and his wife Sadiye have one child.
She wanted a big family, but he’s a philosopher who studies climate change with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. One child of their own was all the world could environmentally afford, they decided.
In his college classes, Rieder asks his students to consider how old their children will be by 2036, when he expects dangerous climate change to be a reality. Do they want to raise a family in the midst of that crisis?
Many scientists concur that the earth is currently in a warming phase – and that if the earth’s average temperatures rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius, the effects would be disastrous.
The 2015 Paris Agreement, signed by nearly 200 countries within the United Nations, aims to address just that. Signatory countries agreed to work to keep the global temperature from increasing by two degrees through lowering their greenhouse gas emissions, and to work together on adapting to the effects of climate change that are already a reality.
But reproductive solutions, such as the ones proposed by Rieder, are wildly controversial for the ethical and moral questions they raise.
Penalizing parents
In his book “Toward a Small Family Ethic,” Rieder and two of his peers advocate for limited family size because of what they believe is an impending climate change catastrophe.
They suggest a “carrots for the poor, sticks for the rich” population control policy, which they insist is not like China’s harsh one-child policy.
For poor developing nations, they suggest paying women to fill their birth control and widespread media campaigns about smaller families and family planning. For wealthier nations, they suggest a type of “child tax,” which would penalize new parents with a progressive tax based on income that would increase with each new child.
“(C)hildren, in a kind of cold way of looking at it, are an externality,” Rieder told NPR. “We as parents, we as family members, we get the good. And the world, the community, pays the cost.”
While it might sound strange, the idea that climate change and overpopulation morally necessitate couples to limit their family size (or to have no children at all) is not new.
Since the 1960s, some scientists have been advocating for smaller families for various reasons – overpopulation, climate cooling, the development of Africa – and now, global warming and climate change.
And while the idea isn’t new, neither are the moral and ethical concerns associated with asking parents to limit their family size for the sake of the planet.
Should Catholics limit their family size?
Ultimately, Catholics ethicists said, while environmental concerns can certainly factor into lifestyle choices, those who would ask people to completely forego children simply due to their carbon footprint are approaching the topic from the wrong perspective, not realizing the immeasurable worth and dignity of every human person.
“The proposals (on limited family size)…need to be assessed with a perspective as to the very nature of the human person, marital relationships, and society,” Dr. Marie T. Hilliard told CNA.
Hilliard serves as the director of bioethics and public policy at The National Catholic Bioethics Center (NCBC), a center designed specifically to answer the moral bioethical dilemmas that Catholics face in the modern world.
What’s problematic about the policies proposed by Rieder and other scientists is that they ask married couples to frustrate one of the purposes of their sexuality, Hilliard said.
“(T)he procreative end of marriage must be respective. Couples cannot enter into a valid marriage with the intent of frustrating that critical end, and one of the purposes of marriage,” she said. If couples are not open to the possibility of a child, “it frustrates at least one of the two critical ends of marriage: procreation and the wellbeing of the spouses.”
Dr. Christian Brugger is a Catholic moral theologian and professor with St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver. He clarified that while the Church asks couples to be open to life, it does not ask that they practice “unlimited procreation.”
“The Catholic Church has never held – and has many times denied – that responsible parenthood means ‘unlimited procreation’ or the encouragement of blind leaps into the grave responsibilities of child raising,” he said.
“It does mean respecting marriage, respecting the moral principles in the transmission of human life, respecting developing human life from conception to natural death, and promoting and defending a social order manifestly dedicated to the common good.”
Considering the common good can include considering the environment, as well as a host of other factors that pertain to the flourishing of the human person, when couples are considering parenting another child, Brugger said.
But he cautioned Catholics against the moral conclusions of scientists whose views on life and human sexuality differ greatly from Church teaching.
“Catholics should not make decisions about family size based upon the urgings of these activists,” he said.
“Why? Because they hold radically different values about human life, marriage, sex, procreation, and family, and therefore their moral conclusions about the transmission of human life are untrustworthy.”
“(P)opulation scare-mongering has been going on in a globally organized fashion for 70 years. The issues that population activists use to promote their anti-natalist agendas change over time…But the urgent conclusion is always the same: the world needs less people; couples should stop having children,” he said.
And many worry that legislated policies encouraging and rewarding smaller families could open up a host of ethical and moral problems.
Rebecca Kukla of Georgetown University told NPR that she worries about the stigma such policies would unleash on larger families. She also worried that while a “child tax” might not be high enough to be considered coercive, it would be unfair, and would favor the wealthy.
Hilliard agreed.
“(A) carte blanche imperative to limit family size can lead us to the dangers the (NPR article) cites, as discrimination and bias and government mandates can, and have, ensued,” Hilliard said.
Women in particular would bear the brunt of the resulting stigmas of such policies, Brugger noted.
“(W)omen will and already do suffer the greatest burden from this type of social coercion. Women have always been the guardians of the transmission of human life. They share both the godlike privilege of bearing life within them and the most weighty burdens of that privilege. Anti-natalist demagoguery is always anti-woman, always,” Brugger said.
All things considered, the Catholic Church would never take away the right and responsibility of parents to determine their family size by supporting a policy that would ask families to limit their size because of climate change, he said.
It’s not people, it’s your lifestyle
William Patenaude is a Catholic ecologist, engineer and longtime employee with Rhode Island’s Department of Environmental Management. He frequently blogs about ecology from a Catholic perspective at catholicecology.net.
The idea that we must choose between the planet or people, he told CNA, is a “false choice.” The problem isn’t numbers of people – it’s the amount each person is consuming.
“The US Environmental Protection Agency reports that in 1960 the United States produced some 88 million tons of municipal waste. In 2010 that number climbed to just under 250 million tons—and it may have been higher had a recession not slowed consumption. This jump reflects an almost 184 percent increase in what Americans throw out even though our population increased by only 60 percent,” he wrote in a blog post about the topic.
There is a similar trend in carbon emissions, which increase at a faster rate than the population.
“We can infer from this that individuals (especially in places like the USA) are consuming and wasting more today than we ever have, which gets to what Pope Francis has been telling us about lifestyles, which is consistent with his predecessors,” Patenaude told CNA.
Climate change has been one of the primary concerns of Pope Francis’ pontificate. While not the first Pope to address such issues, his persistence in addressing the environment has brought a new awareness of the urgency of the issue to other Church leaders.
In May 2015, Pope Francis published “Laudato Si,” the first encyclical devoted primarily to care for creation.
In it, the Holy Father wrote that the earth “now cries out to us because of the harm we have inflicted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her. We have come to see ourselves as her lords and masters, entitled to plunder her at will.”
But never does the Pope ask families to have fewer children. Instead, he urges Catholics to address pollution and climate change, to make simple lifestyle changes that better care for “our common home” and to work toward a better human ecology.
“It seems that voices that urge fewer children aren’t interested in new and temperate lifestyles. In fact, they are implicitly demanding that modern consumption levels be allowed to stay as they are – or even to rise. This seems selfish and gluttonous, and not at all grounded in a concern for life, nature, or the common good,” Patenaude said.
Furthermore, the good of any individual person outweighs the damage of their potential carbon footprint, he said.
“The good and dignity and worth of every human person is superseded by nothing else on this planet. If we don’t affirm that first, we can never hope to be good stewards of creation, because we will never really be able to appreciate all life,” he said.
“On the other hand, one way to affirm the dignity of human life – collectively and individually – is to care for creation. Because as I noted earlier, creation is our physical life-support system, and so to authentically care for it is to care for human life.”
Dan Misleh is the executive director of Catholic Climate Covenant, which was formed in 2006 by the United States Catholic Bishops in order to help implement Church social teaching regarding climate change.
Misleh agreed that while reducing the consumption of fossil fuels is “imperative” to reducing negative effects of climate change like droughts and rising sea levels, that does not mean mandated population engineering and smaller families.
“As for population, places like the U.S., Japan and many European countries have both high carbon emissions and relatively low population growth and birth rates. So there is not a direct correlation between low-birth rates and fewer emissions. In fact, the opposite often seems to be true: countries with the highest birthrates are often the poorest countries with very low per-capita emissions,” he told CNA.
What is needed is a true “ecological conversion,” like Pope Francis called for in Laudato Si, Misleh said.
“(P)erhaps we Catholics need to view a commitment to a simple lifestyle not as a sacrifice but as an opportunity to live more in keeping with the biblical mandate to both care for and cultivate the earth, to spend more time on relationships than accumulating things, and to step back to appreciate the good things we have rather than all the things we desire.”
This article was originally published on CNA Oct. 27, 2016.
[…]
There is good reason to believe that Vance will promote the pro-life cause as VP despite the recent politically expedient comments he made in support of access to the abortion pill. He campaigned hard against the abortion legalization initiative in Ohio last fall and has a perfect record on the issue as a Senator. He has not declared himself “pro-choice” and has made it clear that he wants judges that will not impose abortion by judicial fiat and opposes federal funding for it. He deserved to be called out, but his critics need to keep some perspective.
I’m hoping for the best also.
It’s very disappointing that more American voters are not on board as they should be on this human rights issue but Mr Vance is not our enemy. I think we can work with him.
In politics that’s the best you can hope for sometimes.
I agree.
Idea for a t-shirt – “I’m voting for the guy with the pierced ear”
Dude, that’s an awesome idea. Hilarious comment.
Part of my own story includes the chairman of my dissertation committee (1970s). A transparent fellow, formerly an anthropologist who had worked in the Afghanistan of the 1960s to reform the education system. In a small group around the coffee table, he switched tracks completely and confided:
“My wife is Catholic and I am Episcopalian…and I don’t really know if God talks [!] to people.” The ACHILLES HEEL of the entire secularist education system and worldview! Does God ever talk to people?
All to the point that the historical and even alarming event of the INCARNATION, Jesus Christ, is not just another a religious “expression.” But, rather, the self-disclosure (!) of the Triune God. Christians listen to “the Word made flesh.” And, Catholics are also converted to the sacramental Real Presence which/Who assembles the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. More than a sola Scriptura congregation, or a synodal convener of some polyglot Worldreligion.
Moreover, in the reasonably distinct SECULAR DOMAIN of robust and political rough and tumble, however, it is quite enough to simply respect the universal and already inborn Natural Law. Beyond respect for the moral absolutes, the Catholic Social Teaching (CST) does offer added perspectives, but: “The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly effective can only arise within the framework of different historical situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural aspects, as these interact with one another” (Gaudium et Spes, n. 36). The CST is the negation of all ideology…
Plenty of room there for robust dialogue and negotiation on the means for communities to define and achieve their moral and complex ends.
The attentive reader will be able to spot the eyebrow-raising statements, in light of aligning oneself with a political platform that doesn’t merely wait for a better, politically possible reality in order to defend unborn human life, but has scrubbed it and actively allowed for the opposite. One may also notice that Sen. Vance has deleted statements defending the unborn from his website, all presumably for political expediency. Will we ever learn not to rush and promote public converts especially for their Catholicism, before they are allowed time to develop and/or consistently express doctrinal coherence? Or in the case of abortion, before they are aware of the need to express one’s “absolute personal opposition” (Pope John Paul II) when faced with political realities that make the Good “impossible” (St. Thomas Aquinas)
Daniel. Vance’s initials JD appear to be John Donald. His duplicitous adoration of his great leader comes with a signifcant historical flip.
Before and during his 3 years as a fledging US senator his hypocractical moment was when he fierecely disparaged and unCatholic like said…
he was a “never-Trump guy.” “the reason, ultimately, that I am not … is because I think that (Trump) is the most-raw expression of a massive finger pointed at other people.”
Trump is “reprehensible” and an “idiot.”
In another deleted tweet following the release of the “Access Hollywood” tape on which Trump said fame enabled him to grope women, Vance wrote: “Fellow Christians, everyone is watching us when we apologize for this man. Lord help us.”
Trump was “unfit for our nation’s highest office.”
“I’m a Never Trump guy,” Vance said in an interview with Charlie Rose in 2016, according to Politico. “I never liked him.”
Vance also deleted a tweet saying he found Trump reprehensible from October 2016. “My god what an idiot.”
Vance has not mentoned his support for Project 2025. The so called GOP “platform”. If you haven’t read it you should. The most egrious part is “Install A Totalitarian Administration”. A monarchy!
Which must mean that, per Harris, Biden did “praise racists” opposed to busing, and therefore her attitude could not evolve within the political reality of assuming the office, and her support of Biden has ulterior motives, similar to Vance/Trump, correct?
Grieving the departure of the public defense of the unborn, for political “reality”, does not equate to therefore supporting the Progressive celebration of abortion as emancipation, the enabling of the mutilation of gender dysphoria subjects, etc.
The “lesser of two evils” remains an applicable description of the situation.
Mr. Morgan, I’m partial to constitutional monarchies. It would save us the election circuses we endure every 4 years. But that’s not what Donald Trump or any other GOP candidate has in mind. And again, please don’t go down that rabbit hole.
Mr. Vance was correct that many people thought of Donald Trump as a giant “finger” at the elites. And that’s still true. But after his term in office he earned more credit than just a protest against the status quo.
If you venture down that TDS rabbit hole please say hello to my friend from grade school. She’s been down there incommunicado since last November.
🙂
Balderdash on the 2025 GOP Platform.
I’m not sure if your are calling Project 2025 bunkum, or my article?
Thanks.
Project 2025 is not any part of the Trump platform, per Trump himself. Once again you are simply spouting talking points.
Morgan D brings into discussion a very significant set of issues regarding his concerns about Project 2025. I think it is less that adequate to argue as Michael Caldwell and Athanasius have done in providing a one or two sentence rebuttal that is essentially dismissive of Morgan D’s stated concerns. The Heritage Foundation has been around for decades and were major players in policy direction for the Regan Administration therefore thy have influence in the heavy hitting end of the spectrum of influence. Secondly Project 2025 was authored almost entirely by individuals who were at the apex level of Pres Trump’s admin when in office and are likely to hold positions high up in Pres Trump’s admin if elected. Several spoke at the convention.
Secondly it is accurate to acknowledge that together with recent rulings of the Supreme Court coupled with some relevant Project 2025 proposals, the checks and balances on executive power are effectively removed. The posibility that foundation principles of the Constitution become open to the Presidents interpretation seems a likely outcome. The Republic then has the potential to move in the direction of that of an Emperor. Surely this is worthy of careful, informed and impartial examination.
Donald Trump pays little attention to the Establishment. There are some good people in the Heritage Foundation but I doubt Mr. Trump pays a great deal of attention to them either.
Americans voted for President Trump the first time around because they wanted a disruptor against the Establishment and status quo. Not someone who took instructions from a Reagan era think tank.
I personally wish Donald Trump would pay a little more heed to folks at places like the Heritage Foundation but that’s not who he is.
You are concerned about nothing, and you are mindlessly parroting DNC talking points here. At his Grand Rapids, MI speech, Trump clearly stated that he does not endorse or support Project 2025. He would know, after all. You are simply spreading lies, and that’s not appropriate. One cannot have legitimate concerns about something that isn’t legitimate. It needs no further elaboration.
It seems to me upon further investigation that Project 2025 is very relevant to this election cycle and the political agenda Trump intends to pursue from, as he has often mentioned, from Day One. To dismiss Morgan’s point by offering Trumps recent statements of distancing is not an acceptable rebuttal.
I will begin with this observation:
Kevin Roberts, the Heritage Foundation president and the architect of Project 2025, the conservative thinktank’s road map for a second Trump presidency, has close ties and receives regular spiritual guidance from an Opus Dei.
Trump has repeatedly referenced the Heritage Foundation in recent years and particularly in the aftermath of his 2016 victory.
Trump knows personally most of the major contributors to the document because they worked in his administration. The authors include Trump’s former Cabinet secretaries, top White House officials and senior aides — including former Trump appointees to EPA, the Interior Department and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Thomas Homan, former acting director of the US immigration and customs enforcement agency, responsible for the disastrous tactic of separating children from their families is a major contributor.
The list goes on.
What is of some concern at present is are the recent actions of the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court Justice’s wife flying the US flag upside down…. here we have another example of the influence of Opus Dei. Leonard Leo is a conservative activist who has led the Republican mission to install the rightwing majority in the supreme court and finances many of the groups signed on to Project 2025.
[Nov. 18, 2023, 6:17 AM GMT+11 / Updated Nov. 18, 2023, 10:18 AM GMT+11
By Katherine Doyle]
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/donations-surged-groups-linked-conservative-project-2025-rcna125638
We can see that the Heritage Foundation are heavy hitters in the Republican Parties history:
Major input into President Regans policy suit.
Engaged in restructuring Iraq with policy and personnel.
The Trump Campaign’s other formal policy document Agenda 47 has many close parallels to Project 2025
I am of the opinion that the agenda outlined by Project 2025 is central to Trumps agenda and will be perused with haste from Day One if he is elected.
You write that James Donald Vance ‘adores’ Trump? Seriously, dude, you need to get out more. Any Catholic worth his salt understands that adoration is directed to God alone. Not even the BVM gets it from us.
Iv’e been to a DUDE ranck though. And, I got plenty of fresh air. Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements. I do not.
Thanks.
“Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements.”
Says the guy who disparages Trump at every turn. Pot meet kettle, etc.
I am actually concerned that too much is being made of Vance’s Catholicism.
Cleo, Tmthat’s an odd comment for a Catholic to make (forgive me if I assumed you are a Catholic but are not).
As Pope John Paul II indicated regarding a situation where it is not possible to overturn or completely defeat a law allowing abortion, “an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”(EV 73; also CPL 4). (Source: Priests for Life “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics”)
Trump/Vance are doing exactly what Pope John Paul II has acknowledged as “licit:” “supporting proposals aimed at limiting the harm done” by abortion laws that they cannot fully undo at this time and expect to get elected in this political climate in America.
The truth (if we are willing to face it) is that we are living in a Constitutional Republic that is fading away. The moral character of the country is such that it cannot be sustained. I encourage readers to convince me otherwise (please don’t make appeals based on pure sentimentality).
It would behoove my fellow Catholics to listen to an interview with J.D. Vance at the NAPA Institute Conference three years ago. Here goes…
https://youtu.be/Mhgz-03M-7w?si=c96QHVecr9guIf35
Having now been behooved, I thank you for this link…especially Vance’s criticism about corporate boardrooms and the culture wars.
Recalling, here, that in 2015 corporate America formally positioned itself in favor of gay “marriage”. As broadly reported and rewarded in the media, AT&T and Verizon, Dow Chemical, Bank of America, General Electric, Coca-Cola and Pepsi, Google, Apple, Facebook and Microsoft, and the San Francisco Giants, were among nearly four hundred corporations and business organizations that weighed in with probably duplicate amicus briefs filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Together they orchestrated their dollar-sign argument for a constitutional right to the oxymoron same sex “marriage.” The reason: stock market numbers might benefit (very, very marginally) from spending patterns (one billion dollars: sounds big, but not even an infinitesimal fraction of the $20 Trillion annual GNP).
In this hostile takeover by the tribal LGBTQ religion, the empty-suit business world gave an entirely new meaning to the term “bottom line.”
I assume the readership here are aware that JD Vance’s entire career and upward trajectory has been financially supported and facilitated by Peter Thiel, who in 2017 married his long term partner Mat Danzeisen.
Many of us have worked for employers or corporations that differed with us ideologically or politically. How does that signify?
I assume the readership above IS aware that Mother Teresa received $1.25 million from one Charles Keating, a major player in the savings and loan debacle of the 1980s. So? That Vance’s campaign may have taken money from a man practicing homosexuality proves what? Nothing!
I once inadvertently gave $1000 to Francis’ Peter Pence Collection. That in no way means that I agree with its leader or its goals. I entirely disagree with the idea of structured global charity drives; funds have sometimes been proven subject to dishonorable misappropriation. I do not particularly like the personality and leadership style of Francis. And many organizations and persons that I do approve don’t receive a dime from me. So what!?
My first point would be to say that such association when applying to a Democrat candidate would elicit much opposition from many here. So this situation at least indicates the existence of confirmation bias.
I did not specify what this financial and other support for JD Vance did prove but proof is likely not the appropriate word here. The support implies a common agenda, overt or hidden. The relationship gives Peter Theil some influence simply because when such consistent and significant support is given it is wise to assume something is expected in return. My main point would be this is worth exploration. JD Vance is direct in line to become POTUS if Trump is elected and he is a relative newcomer with limited experience. There surely would be many more qualified for the position of potentially leading the nation. Personally I am somewhat mystified by Trumps choice of VP.
Certainly people with diverse views on some issues can find common ground on others. Why not?
You need to consider which issues are being promoted. That’s what counts.
To John Allan, wondering about intersecting interests of Thiel, Vance, and Trump, see Financial Times:
http://www.ft.com/content/408fb864-5831-4b1d-beef-fd1966b3beed
If he is truly converted to Catholicism, his first order of business is to apply Catholic principles of justice and compassion to the plight of the Palestinians.
Unfortunately, like Trump, he greenlights the ongoing murderous ethnic cleansing in Gaza.
Chris Albrecht: There was no killing until the Palestinians in Gaza invaded, raped, killed and kidnapped innocent civilian Israeli, American and other nationals who were minding their own business. It’s no different than the invasion of our Southern border by illegals who come here and rape, murder and bring their Fentanyl to sell to our children. Your version of reality is woefully warped.
Thank you
If Vance did anything like what you want, he wouldn’t be a senator let alone vice-presidential candidate. If trimming your sails is essential when it comes to abortion, it is even more so when discussing foreign policy in the Middle East. You have to rhetorically bend the knee to Israel if you are to survive in American politics. BTW, the same principle applies in Europe as well. Even Orban sides with Israel. The Israelis have committed outrageous injustices and brutalities against the Palestinians. That doesn’t mean that the conduct of the Palestinians has been in any way admirable – it has not been. The relevant point is that the US unjustifiably and, contrary to its national interests, supports Israel to the hilt. Vance, despite some his almost obligatory comments, is a voice of reason and peace through strength on international affairs.
Of course, there is a problem of israeli dominion over american political speech, but resistance must begin somewhere, and we need moral principles and a more than natural courage. I would point out as an example of standing up to Israel Rep. Thomas Massie–who explained on Tucker Carlson’s program that every republican and democrat has an assigned AIPAC handler to make sure that they submit to Israel. Massie stands up to Israel and wins. It can be done.
As Joan of Arc said: fight! God will provide the victory!
Chris Albrecht. Who should listen to an anti-semite?
A fine Catholic columnist, Joseph Sobran, once wrote:
An “anti-semite” used to mean someone who hated Jews.
Now it means someone whom Jews hate.
This quote is relevant to today’s controversies.
Joseph Sobran was a brilliant writer and I always looked forward to his articles.
Perhaps his illness played a part in his going off the rails. It was a shame.
May he rest in peace.
Mrs. Cracker: Sobran did not “go off the rails,” rather he had the courage to touch the “third rail” of American politics: the issue of Jewish/Israeli control over what constitutes acceptable political discourse. This control is destroying the American Republic.
Massie is terrific, but he is neither a senator nor a vice-presidential candidate. Also, he merely objected to the aid package to Israel, largely on the grounds that, with our towering national debt, we should not be giving aid to a First World nation. Of course, that was enough to put him in the crosshairs of AIPAC. I am sure he would offer much deeper criticisms of Israel and its lobby among friends. The same is true of Vance, I am confident.
I hope that you are right and I have not given up on Vance, but so far he looks like a neo-con who has simply decided to pivot a half-step, because of the many failures of the neo-con agenda. thus it is easy now to oppose aid to Ukraine or criticize the now distant Iraqi invasion.
But he argued recently for “hitting Iran hard” (that is, with violence,–and he approved of Trump’s murder of Solemani)
and “focusing on China” as the main enemy, and, by implication, he continues to press ardently for an “endlosung” for the Palestinians (i.e. the complete removal of Palestinians from that region of the middle east).
It is a mere shift of emphasis, tactically and optically necessary.
Same agenda–America as Israel’s golem, hater of dem Ay-rabs and dem Muslims, and the overweight bully on the world playground.
Re: the Palestinian issue. if a person votes for an arms and aid to israel package, *knowing full well that it will be used to wage war on the civilians of Gaza–he is complicit.* God will hold Vance accountable.
But pray that God may amend him–and Trump.
It is not too late. “The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord” (Proverbs?)
All it takes to end the war is to for Hamas to surrender and free the captives. At least one or twwo kidnapped victims are American citizens. Hopefully if Trump is elected we will hear good news from the Middle East. Sort of like when Reagan took office and our citizens were being held by Iran.
For all intents and purposes it’s Iran all over again today.
trump should be in prison.
Okay. Why don’t you fill out the appropriate form to put him there? You don’t have it? Well, back to school with you then. September is only a month away.
The Palestinians who committed and/or supported the October 7 massacre, have no just call for our support. They are thenauthors of their own fates. Hamas hates Christians as much as it does Jews. It is an arm of the Muslim world domination culture.
I doubt Vance will save us.
No one who is truly Christian would expect anyone but Christ to save us. Only Christ can save us from our own individual wantoness.
De above – It’s early days. I think people are putting a lot of expectations on Vance.
I am disappointed in the lack of nuance in his position on mifepristone. As I understand it, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case because the presenters didn’t have standing, i.e. they lacked the necessary qualifications to present the case. That’s not the same as approving mifepristone.
Yes, Cleo that’s what I understood also.
And currently, each state has the right to restrict abortifacient drugs. So both chemical & surgical feticides can be banned state by state.
Further to De above – Fr. De Souza has an article on Vance’s Catholicism today, July 19, in The Catholic Thing.
I think Fr. De Souza’s assessment is more tentative, wait-and-see than I’m getting from many commentators.
This is the time for Catholic thought to grow. Morality must be seen in terms of an ascent towards transcendence that can be realized only by the free and mature individual. This implies both a kind of gnosis by which conflicting transcendental invitations are experienced and a conscious synthesizing of the opposites. Epistemology and politics are challenged to expand. This can be seen as where Catholic thought must go rather than where it has been.
Frank Ruppert
You’re insight is enlightening, appreciated and spoken truthfully. In summation, we are all a work in progress in our search for the Wisdon, Knowledge, Understanding of God, His Merciful Love and Abundance of Grace.
i certainly hope trump does not get in. i cant believe anybody would actually want a felon to be in the white house. he should be in prison.
i certainly hope biden does not get in. i cant believe anybody would actually want a hair-sniffing groomer to be in the white house. he should be in prison.
Holy Scripture says: “Put not your trust in princes.” I’m sure this applies to Vice-Princes, too.
Mrs. Cracker above – Thanks for the confirmation of my understanding of the Supreme Court’s action on mefipristone. I read an article explaining it but haven’t been able to re-find it.
I wasn’t clear that each state could ban abortifacient drugs. Perhaps we will eventually hear that from Vance. “Hope springs eternal”.
Abortifacient drugs are a controlled substance in our state Cleo.
Got it. Vance has proven his Catholic allegiance at Napa. His conversion to the faith is an example for others. But, his litany of disparagements against Trump proves he isn’t quite there yet. His acceptance of Project 2025, the Trump, not GOP “platform” shows he is an extremist. 2025 is a plan to OVERHALL GOVERNMENT. Paul Dans is the director along with Trumps inner-circle advisers. Ben Carson, Ken Cuccinelli, Rick Dearborn, Jennifer Hazelton, Peter Navarro, Steven Miller… Read it.
https://democracyforward.org/the-peoples-guide-to-project-2025/
Thanks.
Every election cycle we get fearmongering talking points like “Project 2025”, January 6th, Christian Nationalism,etc.
There are good people in the Heritage Foundation but President Trump doesn’t take marching orders from them.
Maybe the crowd who cant stop attacking Trump and Vance for not being even MORE pro-life, should direct their energies toward the current Pope. He appears to have a lukewarm approach to the subject. He has provided a smiling warm welcome to those DEM politicians who have given public full throated support of PRO-abortion policy loud and clear. ( Here I mean his welcome to Biden, Pelosi and Whoopie Goldberg, etc, who have met the Pope in person.) NO American politician has any obligation at all to support a pro-life agenda, although many do. Its unfortunate but true that many who voice pro-life support end up voted out of office. If they had an opportunity to remain IN office, they could have helped enact MANY policies which would have assisted our poor and marginalized citizens. Voicing extreme pro-life legislation will almost guarantee they will be voted out of office and then able to accomplish NOTHING. Failing to vote for politicians who appear to be friendly to the pro-life agenda in at least SOME measure is cutting off your nose to spite your race. Like it or not, compromise MUST be used on this topic. Otherwise you will not even get the “half a loaf”. You will in fact get NONE. How on earth does that help anyone or save ANY babies??? Progress is most often made in increments, not in one fell swoop. If you cant see the difference between a party which supports abortion til the day of birth, and one which might allow some rare exceptions but does not support 3rd trimester abortion at all, do us all a favor and stay at home election day.
LJ above – Thanks for your comments.
The battle continues and you’re right, Pope Francis’ welcome mat isn’t helping. And he doesn’t have the problem (excuse) of having to win power.
Retort to Carl. I want to reply to your comment on disparagement of Trump, but you no longer seem to accept a reply.
Carl E. Olson
JULY 23, 2024 AT 12:04 PM
“Don’t follow Trump by using vial disparagements.”
“Says the guy who disparages Trump at every turn. Pot meet kettle, etc.”
Give me an example.
I don’t use disparagements like, “crooked Joe, crooked Kamala, wackjob E. Jean Carroll, AG Barr a fat pig, lock her up Hilliary Clinton…
Pot? I cook with a pot and a kettle every day.
Thanks
I think in the first place it’s not clear if you meant to write vile but you put “vial”.
If you meant “vial disparagements” it would be an image of disparagements lumped into a sort of container. Like pot and kettle in a combined metaphorical sense.
If you meant “vile” then you’re emphasizing the disparaging and that you think Trump doesn’t deserve that. Pot and kettle in traditional metaphor.
Trump has disappointed A LOT OF PEOPLE and I am not surprised it isn’t going over well. He’s also multiplying his overlaying of his self-management, eg., as we just saw, “I’m going to tell you what I experienced with that bullet and then I never want to have to talk about it again.” Since when there’s Presidential immunity for that?
Some tenants pay rent and suddenly they’re never accountable again. Trump wants to live in your head rent free (not my metaphor but it’s spectacular! at least it’s not VP Harris!) and then even with exempting himself from paying rent he wants to then be unaccountable! Haha good one!
John Allan,
Every election cycle either party comes up with scare tactics and hype. Project 2025 is just the latest one for the DNC. I haven’t seen it getting much traction lately so they probably have other plans in the works to distract voters with
And Opus Dei is not a powerful, sinister organization. That’s more spin.