Editors’ Round Table on Sarah Palin: One Catholic’s View

by Scott P. Richert

September 5th, 2008 • Related • Filed Under

[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].

John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin to be his running mate was surprising, but the surprise pales in comparison to the reaction of conservative Christians, especially Catholics. In their race to endorse McCain-Palin, they have cast aside any questions about the complementarity of the sexes, or even the late John Paul II’s theology of the body.

Catholic laymen who have always voted Republican but were unhappy with McCain were, not surprisingly, the first to crumble at the sight of the moose-hunting, pistol-packing pro-life mother of five, but I have since seen orthodox priests say that they wish Mrs. Palin were at the top of the ticket. And one traditionalist Catholic is now implying that it might even be sinful to vote for a third-party candidate instead of McCain. (In fairness, he sees the pick of Palin as one of several signs that the Republican Party is avowedly pro-life with no exceptions in this election cycle, but since Catholics are not bound to vote under pain of sin, it’s ridiculous to imply that a vote for any candidate—as long as you are not supporting that candidate because he supports policies in opposition to Christian moral teaching—could be sinful.)

The negative reactions have been few and far between. One Catholic mother of seven, upon hearing the news, wondered why the mother of a four-month-old child (let alone a child with Down Syndrome) would want to run for vice president. Of course, that same child was born prematurely after Palin, leaking amniotic fluid, refused to cancel a speech at a Republican Governor’s Conference at which John McCain was in attendance. The Palins chose not to abort baby Trig (not a minor matter, considering that upward of 90 percent of Down’s babies are murdered in their mothers’ wombs), but they were willing to take a calculated risk with his life in order to advance her political career.

The revelation of the pregnancy of Palin’s 17-year-old daughter has been jumped on by the left with glee, but Catholics can certainly understand that sin happens. More disturbing is the fact that Mrs. Palin knew that accepting the nomination meant exposing her daughter to international scrutiny and ridicule—and yet she did it anyway. Unlike her daughter’s premarital sex, that was not a decision made in the heat of passion.

This is just sexism, some Catholic women (and a few men) have responded. Would I be raising the same issues if Mrs. Palin were a man? Well, the question of throwing the 17-year-old daughter under the bus would be the same if we were discussing Todd rather than Sarah. But they are right: Most of the other questions wouldn’t come up, not because I would go easier on a man, but because they wouldn’t exist.

That doesn’t mean, however, that it is sexist to raise them. Instead, it points to the very heart of the problem: From a Catholic understanding of the complementarity of the sexes, should a woman ever find herself in the position where she has to choose between her vocation as a wife and mother and political service? Even considering this a choice that needs to be made implies that, at best, motherhood and political service are of equal value.

But they aren’t—not in the eyes of the Church. That is not to demean wives and mothers, but to raise their vocation to its proper dignity—a dignity that dwarfs any that may once have been attached to politics.

It’s hard not to like Sarah Palin. Her accent may grate even on my Midwestern ears; she may be all too happy to accept the role of a “pit bull in lipstick” (not exactly a dignified way for a woman—much less a mother—to act); and she has certainly shown an eagerness to cast aside political positions that no longer serve her interests. (Despite her pro-life credentials, in her last political race—for governor of Alaska in 2006—Mrs. Palin refused to discuss the issue except to vow not to propose pro-life legislation if elected.) But there is no doubt that, compared with Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John McCain, she seems more normal—more one of us. Her failings as much as her virtues bolster that feeling.

But that doesn’t change the decision before us in November. Anyone who votes for John McCain because of Sarah Palin still votes for John McCain, with all that that implies: rabid support for a war that two consecutive popes have condemned; the possible expansion of that war to Iran, and maybe Syria; a new Cold War with Russia; a vow to expand funding of embryonic stem-cell research, including the creation of new lines, which requires the destruction of more embryos; an unwillingness (as McCain repeatedly stated back in 1999) to overturn Roe v. Wade; support for contraception, sex education, and family-planning programs.

Anyone who planned to abstain from voting in November or intended to vote for a third-party candidate and is now considering voting for McCain-Palin needs to ask himself this question: Why? Is Sarah Palin providing cover for his desire to vote for McCain? Or is her nomination simply a convenient excuse to allow him to vote against Barack Obama?

If the latter, it would be better to own up to the reason and state forthrightly that he is not voting for McCain-Palin but against Obama-Biden. Then, his vote for the Republican ticket at least would not imply support for all of the anti-Christian policies that McCain has proposed, and the voter will not feel compelled to defend McCain when he carries through on his promises.

For myself, nothing has changed. Neither ticket will receive my vote. Instead, I will offer a prayer on Election Day that Mrs. Palin’s presence on the ballot does not signal the final triumph of feminism over the traditional Christian understanding of the proper relationship between the sexes.

Comments

There Are 126 Responses So Far. »

1 Comment by Peter Erickson on 5 September 2008:

My hat’s off to Scott Richert and the other wise men of Chronicles for resisting the Palin mania. Palin may say some of the right things and embrace some of the right positions, but that shouldn’t blind us to her unforgivable irresponsibility in the matter where she is most responsible: her children. She and McCain our simply pushing our buttons. Don’t let them do it!
2 Comment by Alex on 5 September 2008:

Sarah Palin’s presence on the McCain ticket certainly signifies that a feminist definition of the so-called “life balance” between the career of a woman and her domestic responsibilities (if any) is now understood as a given in the lives of most educated Americans – whether Christian or not.

Not many people can hold out against the spirit of the age, and there is no perfect decision in an imperfect world. So in order to stop Obama/Biden, some traditional Christian values may have to be compromised by some voters. Half a loaf is better than no bread.
3 Comment by Justitia on 5 September 2008:

“But that doesn’t change the decision before us in November. Anyone who votes for John McCain because of Sarah Palin still votes for John McCain, with all that that implies: rabid support for a war that two consecutive popes have condemned; the possible expansion of that war to Iran, and maybe Syria; a new Cold War with Russia; a vow to expand funding of embryonic stem-cell research, including the creation of new lines, which requires the destruction of more embryos; an unwillingness (as McCain repeatedly stated back in 1999) to overturn Roe v. Wade; support for contraception, sex education, and family-planning programs. ”

EXACTLY!!!!!! A vote for McCain because of Palin is still a vote for McCain. I dont understand why some people cant understand that issue.
In fairness however, I am one of those who, as Mr. Richert mentioned, has been tossing the issue of voting for the McCain/Palin ticket just because its a vote against Obama. Reading these fine articles by the Chronicles writers has helped my decision. One cannot do/support evil in order that good may come from it.
Mr. Richert, excellent article.
4 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 5 September 2008:

I can’t say that Sarah Palin’s political career means she neglects her children. I lack the information and decline to judge her on that score.

The issue is really McCain. Palin will have only a minor role, at least for a while. For me, the fundamental question is whether electing him will increase the danger of war. In his speech, he spoke in a heartfelt way about the evils of war, and yet the atmosphere was one of rather unthinking patrioteering, and his pack of advisers and the fact that Sarah Palin was immediately briefed by AIPAC are not reassuring.

Obama, the supposed peacenik, makes noises about attacking Pakistan, an unstable, populous, nuclear-armed Muslim country that has done nothing to endanger or offend us. Given his self-regard, his global do-gooder rhetoric, and the possibility that he will want to compensate for his nerdy image, is he really less dangerous than McCain?

I live in California, where an Obama win is virtually certain, and so a vote for Bob Barr, or anyone else, won’t affect the result. Is a vote for Barr, though, just away of asserting my moral superiority over the voting cattle of the two major parties?
5 Comment by Robert on 5 September 2008:

Scott,
Thanks for laying this case out so clearly before the court of public opinion. You have haggled with some obnoxious Catholics in the past year, even some who should know better –James Hitchcock for instance— but here you have the ax striking the very root of the cultural problem. I hope there are a few celebrity Bishops in America who will read this.
6 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 September 2008:

I can’t say that Sarah Palin’s political career means she neglects her children.

I very deliberately said nothing to suggest that. Instead, I mentioned two situations that can be judged objectively. Sarah Palin herself is the source of the details surrounding Trig’s birth and the speech that she was not going to fail to deliver. And there’s simply no way that she could have accepted the nomination without exposing her daughter to media scrutiny and ridicule.

The bigger problem is not a question of “judging” Palin or any other mother who has a career, but of the fact that we’re at the point that “conservatives” and Christians now often regard the traditional vocation of women as less worthy than something as trivial as politics.

It’s been only a week, but my wife is already sick of people saying to her, “Wow? You have seven kids? You could be vice president!” These aren’t mean-spirited people; they’re actually people who are genuinely happy to hear that we have a large family. The problem is that they mean their remark as a compliment–as if being vice president is another rung up from being a mother and wife.

That’s the hidden danger of this nomination. Forget the ERA and the battles in the 1970’s and 80’s against feminism; conservative Christians have now swallowed the worst aspects of feminism—the derogation of the traditional vocations of women—hook, line, and sinker.

Perhaps it was inevitable. After all, it was under Ronald Reagan that, for the first time in history, more mothers worked outside the home than in it.
7 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 5 September 2008:

On the contrary, it seems to me that a big part of Palin’s appeal is fascination with her fertility (a notion of Steve Sailer’s). Ultimately there is mystery and spiritual power in pregnancy and motherhood, and people sense that. Not the whole story, of course, but important.

As to the speech/labor matter, an intelligent woman who has delivered four times is likely to know her body better than either of us.

The exposure of her daughter’s pregnancy is a matter of concern, but nowadays I don’t know how bad it is. The continued support of the family is also on display, and it may end up as a salutary lesson for many.
8 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 September 2008:

it seems to me that a big part of Palin’s appeal is fascination with her fertility

Sure. But most people do know at least one family with four-plus kids, and they don’t go this gaga over them. It’s the combination of her fertility with the sense that “You can have it all, baby!” that makes Sarah Palin so fascinating.

But that image is deceptive. Most women can’t have it all–and, more important, why is it that we regard participation in the rough and tumble of national politics as part of having it all? How is this a “value-added” element of the Palins’ life?

As to the speech/labor matter, an intelligent woman who has delivered four times is likely to know her body better than either of us.

Yes. And a pregnant women over the age of 40 would have been advised (incessantly) by her doctor that her age increases the possibility of early labor. Not to mention the fact that Down’s children often arrive four to six weeks early, and Mrs. Palin was 36 weeks pregnant.
9 Comment by Bruce on 5 September 2008:

In many ways the role the Lord has given our wives is much more important than our jobs. If I’m successful, my company’s stock might go up by an unmeasurably small amount. I think she’ll have a longer-lasting effect on the world.
10 Comment by M.A. Roberts on 5 September 2008:

Scott: I am happy to see that you aren’t drinking the Palin punch.
11 Comment by Edward on 5 September 2008:

What bothers me is seeing the pseudo-conservative Republicans become so celebratory over Palin’s nomination. It is one thing to point out the liberal hypocrisy on Republican women. It is wholly another thing to actually become a feminist yourself. Its fine to mock Gloria Steinem and all the other man-haters for suddenly finding a woman (Palin) working outside the home abhorrent, but if you then attempt to usurp the feminist banner for your own party with rhetoric of ‘breaking the glass ceiling,’ then you cannot call yourself anything other than a liberal. Somewhere along the line ‘conservatives’ decided to become true liberals and criticize other liberals for being inauthentic. I prefer to just call them wrong.
12 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 5 September 2008:

Great essay, Mr. Richert, as are those of Aaron Wolf and Thomas Fleming. As for Pat Buchanan, I can’t say that he disappoints – his support of McCain was predictable and widely predicted by me and many others. Only the pretext was unexpected. He apparently has no self respect in fawning over a woman who has taken great pains to repudiate him. I just wish he’d quit using “we” as if he speaks for the rest of us.
13 Comment by Guadalupe Guard on 5 September 2008:

Dear Mr. Richert,

Though you proved to be dead wrong in your assertion that His Holiness Pope Benedict was NOT fawning over Bush et al. (as evidenced by the special reciprocal hospitality HH gave Bush at the Vatican), you redeem yourself by yourself not fawning over a feminist.

The Catholic position, if anything, was against woman’s suffrage. So too, any woman that would hang out with a man like McCain is no Christian lady, and any woman who would allow McCain’s scary concubine Cindy to hold her baby is no prudent mother.
14 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 5 September 2008:

Excellent points Scott Richert, although I do take issue of this:

“The Palins chose not to abort baby Trig (not a minor matter, considering that upward of 90 percent of Down’s babies are murdered in their mothers’ wombs), but they were willing to take a calculated risk with his life in order to advance her political career.”

Are you that cynical? I mean, a kid is a lot more long term than a political career.

As a Catholic myself, I do get a bit of glee over reading some of the fuming reactions from the liberal media and their progressive allies. Palin is the opposite of what the ‘first woman vice president’ (or president) is supposed to be in the eyes of the left. The ‘I am Woman’ sort of aged feminist, who mercilessly murders her own child and then eggs on her daughter to do the same – in some twisted ‘Maude’ like fashion – is seen as ideal to the left. Thus, in breaking this I do get a good chuckle over their reaction.
15 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 September 2008:

Are you that cynical? I mean, a kid is a lot more long term than a political career.

I’m not sure what you mean—are you suggesting that I’m saying that she carried the child to term to advance her political career? If so, you’re misreading my remarks.

The calculated risk with his life was Sarah Palin’s decision to let nothing stop her from delivering the speech, even though she had been leaking amniotic fluid for hours—a condition that greatly increases the possibility of infection and pre-term labor. (And, of course, he was born 24 hours later, four weeks premature—though the premature birth is not unexpected with a Down’s child.)
16 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 5 September 2008:

Sorry, Guadalupe, but the fact that the Holy Father has good manners does not prove me dead wrong. Nor am I concerned with redeeming myself in your eyes, but with speaking the truth.
17 Comment by Daniel Maxwell on 5 September 2008:

“I’m not sure what you mean—are you suggesting that I’m saying that she carried the child to term to advance her political career? If so, you’re misreading my remarks.”

I guess I did. I apologize.

“The calculated risk with his life was Sarah Palin’s decision to let nothing stop her from delivering the speech, even though she had been leaking amniotic fluid for hours—a condition that greatly increases the possibility of infection and pre-term labor”

Ah. Perhaps I should have researched a bit more before making my comment. Now I see what you mean.

Now my thoughts as a Catholic again, I echo Dr. Fleming’s thought that her church views Catholicism as ‘out of the mainstream’ at best and Non-Christian or Pagan at worst. Not to mention the hyper Christian zionism those Churchs hold dear. Normally I say it would not matter, but in regards to foreign policy .. scary. At first, I wondered what McCain was thinking in selecting her, as they seemed an odd pair. But now it all makes sense.

I have to admit I was suckered into liking her at first. But the combination of the Chronicles ’roundtable’, Justin Raimondo’s article on her today (‘The War Party’s Xena’ – hahaha!) has dashed my hopes.
18 Comment by G.S. on 5 September 2008:

Were I of a suspicious nature, I’d wonder if all the earlier speculation & chatter about McCain possibly choosing a pro-choice VP candidate was calculated precisely to generate tension, and set the stage for exactly the sort of hysterical relief we’re now seeing from the “Christian Right”.

Oh, wait….
19 Comment by Joseph on 5 September 2008:

To Guadalupe Guard: I have to disagree with you about the Holy Father being seen as fawning over President Bush.

Yes, the president was received at the Vatican in a very special way.

However, one thing that many have not considered….The Holy Father was received at the White House at what some (with Chronicles, I believe) considered to be something of a war rally, complete with the repulsive “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

Again, you are remembering, however, the Holy Father meeting the President in the Vatican at St. John’s Tower (if I remember correctly), and think that this was special treatment.

Indeed, it was highly out of the ordinary, however, Pope Benedict is an immensely intelligent man, and we should not forget that they were serenaded there by a choir. Surely, we can think (and perhaps someone can find out), that the choir was singing beautiful Latin motets and hymns.

Sometimes, I think that we must look very deeply at what this pope does, as this occasion was perhaps meant to be a moment of teaching for our president.

We offered, to the Vicar of Christ, songs of war, and he showed us hymns of the truest peace, and love of the Most Holy Trinity.
20 Comment by robert m. peters on 5 September 2008:

Prior to last Friday, I must admit that I did not know who or what was governor of Alaska – man, woman or polar bear.

Upon first hearing about Mrs. Palin, driving from somewhere to my house, I was heartened: she was pro-life and had birthed a child with Downs Syndrom; she was against gay marriage; she had once been associated with Pat Buchanan (I do not always agree with Pat.); she had had contacts with Dr. Ron Paul; she had been a member of or associated with the Alaska Party – with secession as one of their options; she had challenged the federal governments authority to limit drilling in her state; she had a number of children; and had been married over twenty years without a divorce – something indeed in the early 21st century. Then, the quite obvious became quite obvious to me: she was going to be a GOP VP on the McCain ticket. I immediately knew that the things which I liked about her, things I had just heard, had already been either subordinated or corrupted, assuming that they were genuine positions in the first place.

Mr. Richert:

I have frequented this site enough to know that Baptist and Catholics can get bowed up at each other like two coons trying to pass on the same limb at night; however, as I review what you have said about “the Christian understanding of the proper relationship between the sexes,” this sandhill Southern Baptist from North Louisiana was brought up with and taught the exact same understanding from my pastor of nineteen years – Moses Eli Mercer. So, on this very important issue, we Procyon lotors can pass in peace and in total agreement.
21 Comment by Mark Higdon on 5 September 2008:

OK, OK, all points well-taken.

But is anyone besides me having trouble taking Sarah Palin seriously?

Shortly after she was chosen, I looked at her on TV and it dawned on me: McCain had picked as his running mate Mary Ann from “Gilligan’s Island.”

From that start, a friend and I quickly cast “Gilligan’s Convention.” Here are the other Dramatis Personae:

McCain as the Skipper
Cindy as Ginger
Ron Paul as the Professor
Poppy and Bar as the Howells

and

W as Gilligan
22 Comment by Chuck Hicks on 5 September 2008:

That is funny, Mark, except that, unless I am terribly mistaken, the Professor did not show up for this particular episode.
23 Comment by robert m. peters on 5 September 2008:

Chuck @ 22

The professor was not invited; however, if he had been willing to pay with his soul, he could have been. He respectfully declined.
24 Comment by Mark Higdon on 5 September 2008:

Right on, Chuck and Robert. Just trying to inject some levity here. “Gilligan’s Island” was, after all, a fantasy. Like Sarah Palin.

BTW, the “professor” acquitted himself splendidly–as always–last night on the “Colbert Report.”
25 Comment by Observer on 5 September 2008:

Maybe I’m responding to the wrong one of the three articles, but with regards to the moralizing, the Gospel for the tenth Sunday after Pentacost is relevant: Luke xviii. 9-14. “The Pharisee standing, prayed thus with himself: O God, I give Thee thanks that I am not as the rest of men…”
26 Pingback by Chronicles’ Editors Roundtable on Sarah Palin « The Vermont Traditionalist on 6 September 2008:

[...] http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=725#more-725 [...]
27 Comment by Caryl Johnston on 6 September 2008:

Palin lacks the qualifications to be Vice president, McCain’s judgment is seriously to be questioned in appointing her, and the whole Republican farce is just a self-indulgent spectacle put on by people who want power without responsibility. Thank you for speaking out against Palin. The endorsement of this ticket by so-called conservatives (e.g. Taki Mag) and Catholics is embarrassing. What we are seeing is the protestantization of Catholicism – the prelude to its final dismemberment and the worship of Caesarism. Obama is certainly not flawless, especially from a Catholic point of view; but he represents a clear choice and a slender hope – I think Catholics and true conservatives should support him.
28 Comment by jack bailey on 6 September 2008:

I just wonder why the correct decision is to not vote at all. It is not as if the nonvoters force a new election. Or to put it another way; if Obama costs you a $100000 and McCain $50000 why do you want to settle for a more expensive choice?
29 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

Observer, perhaps instead of a general charge of “moralizing,” you might be more specific. What, exactly, constitutes moralizing in my piece? Believing in the traditional Christian understanding of the complementarity of the sexes?
30 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

jack bailey (@28):

I just wonder why the correct decision is to not vote at all.

I never said I wouldn’t vote; I’m simply not voting for the Republican or Democratic candidates for president. I may cast a vote for president, though that will depend on which candidates finally make it on to the ballot here in Illinois.

And I will certainly vote in other races, most especially those most close to me, where my vote can do some good.

As for this:

if Obama costs you a $100000 and McCain $50000 why do you want to settle for a more expensive choice?

I haven’t the foggiest idea what that means. If you’re suggesting that I should simply vote my pocketbook, well, then I’d have to vote Obama, because his tax plan would save me about $1,600 versus McCain’s, which would save me about $300. But I don’t make decisions based (entirely, at least) on my pocketbook, which is why Obama won’t receive my vote.
31 Comment by jack bailey on 6 September 2008:

Certainly all local races are the most important. But what I was getting at is that despite all the misgivings, it will make a great deal of difference whether the country is run by Obama or McCain. Therefore, neither should be allowed to win by default which happens when the votes don’t get cast. The second point, my cost comparison is not only about some tax savings, but all your costs ( including opportunity costs). If that means Obama, that’s fine, but I do not think that such a choice is clear at this point to anyone.
32 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

jack bailey (@31):

it will make a great deal of difference whether the country is run by Obama or McCain.

That’s not exactly self-evident. Domestically, we’ll probably be somewhat worse off under Obama, though I think that McCain will do more to destroy the remnants of the American manufacturing base, so those of us here in the Rust Belt might be worse off under McCain than others elsewhere.

Foreign-policy wise, the country will be worse off under McCain than under Obama. And that will continue to have domestic repercussions, as it has under Bush, since we simply cannot afford the costs of our belligerence.

Finally, I’d love to see the math on your cost comparison. Tell me, how exactly did you arrive at a dollar value for my “opportunity costs”?
33 Comment by Michael Kenny on 6 September 2008:

Viewed from outside the US, I am always shocked at the way some American Cathoilcs seem to think that the catholic Church is the sex church! They foam and froth about abortion and same-sex marriage and throw the other 90% of Catholic morality out the window!

But since they want sex, the whole sex and nothing but sex, they should bear in mind that part of Mr and Mrs Palin’s duty as parents was to educate their daughter so that she would understand that she should not have sex outside of marriage and certainly not procreate a child. They needed to educate her to understand that couples who marry so young are unlikely to stay together and that, therefore, she and the child’s father are unlikely to be able to fulfil their obligations to their child. Equally, they should have educated her to understand that a girl of 17 is unlikely to be mature enough to fulfil her maternal obligations to her child. Mr and Mrs Palin have failed miserably in that duty, as indeed, have the young man’s parents, and the victim of that failure is the unborn child.

What is truly shocking is the shoulder-shrugging way in which Governor Palin dismisses all of this. Fundamentally, she does not really accept that children, whether born or unborn, are full human beings, with full human rights, independent of those of their parents. She does not seem to accept that children are not the “property” of their parents, to be disposed of as suits the latter, to be treated as an “asset” and shown off to impress others. That more American Catholics are not shocked by all this is shocking to me.

That Mrs Palin is not the only one who thinks that way is not the point. The others are not running for vice-president.
34 Comment by jack bailey on 6 September 2008:

If it does not make a geat deal od difference who’s the president that you need not worry about voting. So you are off the hook. As for the costs, a 10-15% increase in taxes over four years on incomes over $100000 would amount to about $30000 to $40000. The other $10000 or more would be miscellaneous local, property, estate taxes. Opportunity costs would go under the rubric of income not realized due to the investments that were not made. You will make less under Obama. That’s the theory.
35 Comment by Mark Higdon on 6 September 2008:

Caryl Johnston (@27)

“Obama is certainly not flawless, especially from a Catholic point of view; but he represents a clear choice and a slender hope…”

Well, he IS slender…
36 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

jack bailey (@33):

The problem with your “theory” is that the numbers accord neither with my salary (significantly under $100,000) nor with the details of either candidate’s tax proposal. Under both, at an income of $100,000, you will see a tax decrease. In fact, under both, you’ll see a tax decrease all the way up to $227,000 of income, according to a report issued by the Tax Policy Center.

Jack, I’m not going to condemn anyone who votes for McCain solely to stop Obama. But it was in anticipation of remarks like yours here that I wrote that anyone who does vote for McCain for that reason should be forthright about it. Otherwise, he’ll fall into the trap that you seem to be falling into: Trying to come up with a positive reason to vote for McCain.

And in the end, that will lead him to justify some or all of McCain’s policies in order to justify himself.
37 Comment by D Simmons on 6 September 2008:

The Stupid party saved feminism. The race hustling Bolsheviks had triumphed over the aging feminist Mensheviks and along come the Social Democrats of the GOP to realign the political players and keep hope alive for that ragged band of rapidly graying losers. Then there is the identity politics angle, I hazard a guess that a giant wedge was just dropped into the political divide.
38 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

The race hustling Bolsheviks had triumphed over the aging feminist Mensheviks and along come the Social Democrats of the GOP to realign the political players and keep hope alive for that ragged band of rapidly graying losers.

Very well put.
39 Comment by Tom Flinn on 6 September 2008:

I was initially impressed with the fact that McCain chose someone who appeared to be strongly pro-life, etc. Also, as a Catholic, I don’t have anything per se against women in politics, although as Mr. Richert points out, motherhood is the most important vocation of women. There have, after all, been Catholic queens who ruled well and never let their motherhood or femininity take second place. Still, those were Catholic QUEENS. More and more I find democratic politics (note the small “d”) particularly degrading. What has to be done to get elected pretty well disqualifies anyone from truly being qualified to rule. However, after the initial reaction wore off I began to ask myself; is this another attempt by the GOP to hold on to traditional minded religious people? Is it really going to change anything that a “pro-life, pro-family” woman is the VP candidate? After all, look at the speakers at the convention: Rudy Guiliani, Tom Ridge, etc. Not exactly strong on the “social issues.” I suspect some of them will end up in McCain’s cabinet. McCain’s speech, while moving in his description of his experience in the Viet Nam war, was a bit disconcerting in many other aspects. I heard nothing to dispel the neo-con version of American Destiny. We are to police the world. Everything that happens must involve us in some way. A la Woodrow Wilson,”democracy” and “freedom” must be established throughout the world come Hell or high water. How long will it be before we attack Iran? Syria? North Korea? Canada? McCain says his country “saved” him. He said this, not in a practical sense of getting him out of a North Vietnamese prison, but almost in a metaphysical sense, in the same way a Catholic would say that Christ saved him. The extreme emphasis on “country first” also bothered my Catholic world view. I am a Catholic who happens to be an American, not an American who happens to be a Catholic. Patriotism, yes. But not extreme nationalism. Granted, the Democrats, in spite of their protests, often seem to display even a lack of patriotism. But that doesn’t justify the almost fanatic devotion to “country.” A few months ago I wrote on this site that I no longer considered myself a Republican. I have voted GOP all my life with a couple of exceptions. Sarah Palin’s pick as VP almost nudged me back, but I will still have to stick to my guns of either not voting or writing in the name of someone. I won’t go so far as saying there is no difference between the parties, but in reality it seems it is more difference of rhetoric than reality. It is sad, as I thought there was a time a few years ago that the GOP could have become a truly conservative party. That dream is pretty much gone. By the way, if the Mark Higdon who posted above is the same Mark Higdon from Columbus, Ohio…..Hi, Mark. My wife, Nancy, sings with you in the St. Patrick’s choir.
40 Comment by Elena on 6 September 2008:

Frankly, I think whenever an American woman steps foot into an American Hospital to give birth she is taking a calculated risk with her health and the health of the baby. Mrs. Palin obviously found a hospital and a provider she felt safe with and she was probably much safer delivering there than stepping site unseen into an unfamiliar Texas hospital where she probably would have been cut open simply for being a high risk older mother.
41 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

Elena, I sympathize with your general point, but you’re leaving out some details. When she began leaking amniotic fluid, Sarah Palin did not take the first flight back to Alaska to deliver in a hospital that she trusted; instead, she stayed in Texas because, in her own words, nothing was going to stop her from delivering that speech.

It was only after the more important matter was out of the way that she went to the airport.
42 Comment by TJF on 6 September 2008:

Tom Flinn raises the interesting point of Catholic queens. Setting aside the question of whether or not this is a good thing–Greeks and Romans were decidedly cool on the idea, Mr. Flinn is right to distinguish between women who inherit power from the fathers and thus represent the dynasty and women who compete for political office. Most queens have been either disastrous–like Hatshepsut–or erratic like the Tudor queens or under some man’s thumb like Mary II wife of William. Over all, it is not a good track record. What is interesting to note is that 1) queens often have to play at being men: Hatshepsut wore a beard and Elizabeth I was rumored to have to shave, and 2) some women rulers are able to play the sex and chivalry card quite effectively in binding men to irrational loyalty. Two obvious examples are, again, Elizabeth I but also Mary Stuart and Margaret Thatcher, several of whose advisers told me she inspired in some of her male followers a chivalrous loyalty they would not have accorded to a man. While I believe in loyalty, I think the affection that arises from sexual differences may not be entirely a good thing.
43 Comment by Tom Flinn on 6 September 2008:

My point about queens was not to defend queens per se (although I would take Isabella, Mary Stuart, Mary Tudor and Maria Theresa any day over George Bush, McCain, Obama, ad nauseum). It was that democratic politics tends to degrade anyone running, men or women. Frankly, I don’t know why anyone of any decency would want to run for anything. There may be plenty of valid reasons for criticizing Sarah Palin, but the vile abuse heaped upon her from the moment of the announcement of her choice as VP was despicable. This happens on both sides. There is no real debate anymore, the goal is to demonize and destroy the person. And there is precious little real conservative or traditionalist critique of this fiasco. What passes for conservative “thought” these days largely makes me lose my lunch. And why is it that we get so wildly enthusiastic about voting for people that we wouldn’t trust to take our daughters out on a date or to guard our personal valuables?
44 Comment by TJF on 6 September 2008:

Yes, I understood your point, and a valid one it is, but I wanted to broaden the question to include a distinction between women who hold power by the accident of their relationship to a father or husband and those who imitate men by seeking power on their own account. Naturally, the Democrats attacked Palin. They have no issues on which to run other than the electorate’s understandable exasperation with George Bush.
45 Comment by Kelly on 6 September 2008:

Doesn’t the Bible say, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul and mind this is the first and greatest commandment”? It doesn’t say a women’s place in the home exempts her from this commandment or if the husband doesn’t give permission the wife is exempt from this commandment. Spiritually, a woman is responsible for her own soul. A woman’s life too has purpose and for some woman (example Deborah in Judges chapters 4 and 5) it is God’s purpose to use woman in leadership. God is the one who chooses. So to diss a woman and say it’s not her role or that it is feminism is to not trust God. We may not understand why a woman, but in Proverbs it says, to pray for understanding and to trust God. I believe there is a purpose with all my heart that God’s hand was on the VP pick. Many Christians and I pray for the leadership of this country –do you? I will support McCain/Palin versus the alternative of supporting Barack Hussein Obama a man who doesn’t even salute our flag. You have got to see this to believe it (put this link in your browser): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU9iCANi02o
46 Comment by jack bailey on 6 September 2008:

I think we are arguing apples and oranges here as the remark you were anticipating is not the one I made. My point is that one should vote for the person that will cost him the least. If that is Obama as you seem to believe, so be it, I’ll vote for him too.(However, the 10% tax increase on incomes of 100000 dollars is more than likely regardless of what is being bandied about by some tax institutes.) I just don’t believe that the President should be decided by default, i.e. by the others who voted instead of us, us being those who are permanently dissatisfied by the state of affairs. Our nonvoting may be regarded by ourselves as a form of passive resistance and a badge of honor. But in reality, it’s meaningless.
47 Comment by Tom Flinn on 6 September 2008:

I have voted in every election since 1972 and I can’t say it has made one bit of difference in moving the country in the direction I think it should go. Is not voting really more meaningless than that?
48 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

Kelly (@44):

God is the one who chooses. So to diss a woman and say it’s not her role or that it is feminism is to not trust God. We may not understand why a woman, but in Proverbs it says, to pray for understanding and to trust God. I believe there is a purpose with all my heart that God’s hand was on the VP pick.

Why do you believe that this choice was made by God, and not by John McCain? And, since McCain did choose her, are you seriously suggesting that God suspended McCain’s free will and forced him to choose Sarah Palin? Or (the only alternative, if you believe that the choice was made by God) that John McCain’s will is so closely aligned with God’s that he incarnates God’s will?

As for Deborah, remind me how many children she had. And then tell me where I suggested that a woman’s life doesn’t have purpose.

The problem, it seems to me, is that you’re suggesting that “A woman’s life too has purpose” only if she is involved in political action; or, at least, that it has more purpose if she is involved in political action. Neither statement is defensible within the context of traditional Christian morality.
49 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

jack bailey (@45):

(However, the 10% tax increase on incomes of 100000 dollars is more than likely regardless of what is being bandied about by some tax institutes.)

You’re making a different argument from the one you made before, and this one can’t be proved. Previously, you stated your numbers as facts; the Tax Policy Center has analyzed the plans that both candidates have put forth, and the numbers don’t support your facts. (Indeed, the numbers are much more favorable for both candidates than you claimed.)

Now, you’re turning around and implying that the proposal put forth by Obama is a lie. That may well be, and it may well be that the proposal put forth by McCain is a lie, too. Both parties have been known to lie–remember “Read my lips”?

So here’s the problem: If we cannot analyze the policy proposals of either candidate because both are likely liars, then we can’t really make much of an informed choice, can we?

And, it seems to me, you really have no desire to make an informed choice. You’ve convinced yourself that it is your duty to vote for one of the two major parties, and you cannot bring yourself to vote for Obama. I understand the second part of that (I cannot vote for him either), but I disagree with the first part.

But once again, if you’re making the decision to vote for McCain primarily on the basis of not liking Obama, please don’t make excuses for John McCain. And don’t clutter up our comment threads with claims about either candidate’s proposals that have no basis in what they have proposed.
50 Comment by Kelly on 6 September 2008:

Do you really want to debate traditional Christian Morality. First of all what the heck is “traditional” christian morality:) Is that something you made up??? The “I AM” never changes. I don’t know what kind of Catholic you are, but if you have brushed up on your Old Testament you would know God choose woman and worked through woman to preserve the lineage of Jesus Christ(remember Ruth and Esther?). Ones name and lineage is very important in the Bible. Of couse after the blood sacrifice of Jesus lineage is offered through the grace of God and acceptance of Jesus Christ and the forgiveness of sins now. Through the workings of the Holy Spirit, God can work in all things. This country was started by Christians who were persecuted for their Christian beliefs and they made many sacrifices and said many prayers. If it is through a woman VP like Palin, we’ve seen it before–it may be God working to still preserve the Christian foundation laid in the USA before all immorality (worldliness) and evil takes over. In this political race we can say Barack Hussein Obama doesn’t have a Christian name and his lineage involves 6 years of Muslim schooling in Indonesia–his mother was an atheist–his foundation is tainted and he deceives like an antichrist would. I have read some of these silly posts about money and taxes–we’re not on this earth for those purposes. Jesus Christ came to testify to the truth and for that he was crucified. Ones existence basically comes down to one ultimatum–who ya gonna serve?
51 Pingback by Scott Richert: One Catholic’s View of Palin « The Paleocrat on 6 September 2008:

[...] Read his entry HERE. [...]
52 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 September 2008:

Kelly, you’re right–I don’t want to debate traditional Christian morality. I’d rather than everyone adhered to it and tried to live it.

As for why I used the word “traditional,” it was simply to distinguish the unchanging Christian teaching from the sort of Marxian sentimentalism that masquerades behind the name of “Christianity” today.

I have no idea what you’re saying with regard to the Old Testament. I’ve never once suggested that God does not “choose” women or work through them; I simply questioned your confident assurance that God chose Sarah Palin through His Right Hand, John McCain.

God does indeed work through women, and in the Blessed Virgin, he elevated motherhood to a dignity that infinitely outstrips the dignity of the vice presidency of the United States. It has never once occurred to me that God failed to honor Mary (or Ruth or Esther, for that matter) by not choosing her to be John McCain’s vice presidential running mate.

Ones existence basically comes down to one ultimatum–who ya gonna serve?

On that, we agree. Serve John McCain and Sarah Palin if you believe that God has chosen them. “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD”–not political hacks of either party.
53 Comment by Nathan Friend on 6 September 2008:

I have read the Chronicles editors’ roundtable discussion on Sarah Palin and I agree with them in thinking that McCain is pandering to social conservatives and orthodox Christians with his VP pick. Moreover, it is also true that most social conservatives and orthodox Christians were taken in by this pandering hook, line, and sinker. They think the pick reveals a real commitment on McCain’s part for a culture of life when the facts on the ground are at best ambivalent. Moreover, although I love how Sarah Palin decided to keep her child with Down’s syndrome and how her eldest daughter is keeping her own baby and marrying the baby’s father, these facts do not change the more important point regarding McCain’s great and dangerous bellicosity on geopolitical matters, which might actually involve the United States in a thermonuclear war that would end life and civilization as we know it. Think of the pertinent example of McCain’s dangerous rhetoric towards Russia over the Georgia debacle. Such rhetoric is not a gauge of McCain’s strength as a statesman, but rather reveals a man who doesn’t respect Russia’s impressive nuclear deterrent nor the realities of Great Powers and their spheres of influence. Such a lack of awareness on the part of anyone who is making a serious bid to be our next President is downright terrifying. Obama, for all of his many philosophical flaws, has not taken such a dangerous path of confrontation with Russia. Hence, such a series of facts have inclined me, tentatively for the moment at least, to hold my nose and vote for Obama, who though he may support Roe v Wade and the killing of millions of innocent babies in the womb, would probably not push the red button to start Armageddon over so worthless and minuscule an issue as Georgia.

Respectfully yours,

Nathan Friend
54 Comment by Mark Higdon on 6 September 2008:

Tom Flinn (@38):

!@#$$%^!!!!, Tom, you went and blew my cover here!

Oh well, see ya in church. But don’t act like you know me. I’ve got a bunch of people there pretty PO-ed over some things I’ve recently blogged on the local Catholic Yahoo group.
55 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 6 September 2008:

Regarding whether or not to vote in the presidential contest and who to vote for: I long ago gave up on voting for the lesser of two evils. In my opinion, by doing so, you only encourage the major parties to continue nominating evil candidates. On the other hand, I think you have to vote, even if only for a write-in candidate, in an attempt to let the major parties know what kind of candidate you will support. If enough voters get behind such a candidate, one or both of the major parties may nominate an acceptable candidate in the future. I am frequently accused of wasting my vote, but I think those who vote for the lesser of two evils waste an opportunity to vote against evil.

(Where did I recently read the definition of bipartisanship? That is when the stupid party and the evil party get together to do something incredibly stupid and incredibly evil!)
56 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 6 September 2008:

Regarding traditional Christian teaching on the proper role of men and women, both in and outside the Church, I recommend that you read Patrick Mitchell’s The Scandal of Gender.
57 Comment by JMB on 7 September 2008:

“Of course, that same child was born prematurely after Palin, leaking amniotic fluid, refused to cancel a speech at a Republican Governor’s Conference at which John McCain was in attendance.”

Can you direct to your source for this piece of information? It is highly inflammatory if it is not the truth.
58 Comment by RK on 7 September 2008:

Mr. Richert

Thank you very much for this brilliant essay.

JMB

Here is the reference:

http://www.adn.com/front/story/382864.html

[Palin said she felt fine but had leaked amniotic fluid and also felt some contractions that seemed different from the false labor she had been having for months.

"I said I am going to stay for the day. I have a speech I was determined to give," Palin said. She gave the luncheon keynote address for the energy conference.]

Kelly

Perhaps you can clarify if Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, and Trig are Christian names.
59 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 7 September 2008:

Thanks, RK.

The story of the hours leading up to Trig’s birth has been widely reported, but as far as I can tell, almost all of the details for all of the stories have been drawn from the Anchorage Daily News article that RK linked to. By the time her speech began, Palin had been leaking amniotic fluid for over eight hours (she says it started around 4 A.M.).

The ADN article does make a mistake in referring to the event as a meeting of the National Governors Association; it was a meeting of the Republican Governors Association, as an ADN article from four days earlier, announcing Trig’s birth, correctly states.
60 Comment by Kelly on 7 September 2008:

Specifics on #44 about Deborah, who was an appointed judge of God over Isreal in Judges 4 & 5. After her appointment and rule Israel had 40 years of peace and the Bible does call her a mother, but it does not reveal how many children she had (does the number of kids matter?), but we know back then the Jewish woman had a slew of kids:) God gave this woman, Deborah a different purpose than that of the Virgin Mary and it was our Lord Jesus, who reiterated the first commandment in Mathew 22:37,38.

Being a mother of children in private school, who is trying to preserve Christian values. It tickles me to know that Sarah Palin has the Alaska public schools teaching “Creationism”. I love it, I love it, I love it.
61 Comment by RK on 7 September 2008:

Kelly (#59)

You said: “It tickles me to know that Sarah Palin has the Alaska public schools teaching “Creationism”. I love it, I love it, I love it.” Can you please cite a source? I looked for evidence and got this instead:

“Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that if she were elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members.”

(http://http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0)

To quote further from the article above:

“Palin’s children attend public schools and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.”
62 Comment by RK on 7 September 2008:

Apologies. The link in #60 should be:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gV5jvU52RD3WBflzbmSu5l6zwOqAD92V3VQG0
63 Comment by Justitia on 7 September 2008:

@45 Jack Bailey

“My point is that one should vote for the person that will cost him the least.”

Exactly why you shouldn’t vote for Obama or McCain. They will both cost you more than just money.
64 Comment by Kelly on 7 September 2008:

Hi RK,

I can not site a source, but it is factual that Sarah Palin is a proponent to teach both creation and evolution theory, which is a monumental blow to atheists. It is so sad today that people accept a theory as fact.

Also, Palin’s kids aren’t running for office so I’m less concerned about their names, but now “Sarah” is a beautiful, Bible name and as I recall she was divinely appointed by God to be a mother of a nation and her name means “Princess”, “Princess of the multitudes,” “Woman of high rank”.

RK, whenever God’s truth is exposed I LOVE IT and if there is any candidate willing to risk “persecution” for christian beliefs and stand against the “so-called politically correct agenda” falsehoods that demand acceptances of gay marriages, abortion, and the removal of God anywhere–are o-k with me and I will stand behind a leader without prejudice for God’s truths.
65 Comment by TJF on 7 September 2008:

#59 shows the dangers of selective Scriptural quoting, especially of the Old Testament. From Genesis to Revelations there is a consistent portrayal of sex differences. A better scholar than I could explain in detail how the Jews were a patriarchal people. When women have political power in Israel, as Jezabel did, it is not something to emulate. This is simply not a question on which reasonable and honest people can disagree. Sarah Palin is, quite simply, an unreflective feminist. Gloria Steinem should be ecstatic, though she is not, that a self-described Christian conservative has completely absorbed the feminist agenda. Obviously, people are free to embrace that point of view, but it must never be confused with anything Christian.

Another red herring is the teaching of Creationism. Is the problem of American schools really the fault of Darwinist theory or is it rather that the schools fail to teach math, English, and foreign languages, but do teach hatred of Christianity, America and the West. Besides, how does a non-biologist go about pronouncing on matters entirely outside his/her competence? Not, I would hope, on the strength of the Old Testament, which seems to teach that the earth is flat and square and that the value of pi is 3. Why are so many Christians today afraid of pursuing truth by rational means? I assume it is because, in the face of the challenges of science, history, and archaeology, they take refuge in obscurantism, which permits them to be serene in their ignorance. So long as the fear of truth remains a dominant element in American Christianity, we are doomed to slavery.
66 Comment by Kelly on 7 September 2008:

I’ll quote something from the New Testament for you, too:

Hebrews 11:1-3

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good testimony. By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.”

TJF, I don’t have to be a biologist to know that God created this world, you and me.

The Word of God is flawless and not all woman are Jezebels. Hence the story of the brave and courageous Deborah, who was not a coward.

The path of least resistance is hardly commendable.
67 Comment by Hislittlelamb on 7 September 2008:

Scott Richert ‘likes’ Palin in a similar way that the press ‘likes’ Palin with a blatant double-standard claiming that:

>only dad’s should go to work, only mom’s should stay home with the kids
>exposed pregnant daughter to scrutiny for political aspirations
>endangered Trig’s life by traveling while pregnant
>Catholic laymen forget their opposition to the party/candidate because they crumble at the sight of the moose-hunting, pistol-packing pro-life mother of five,

all echoing the mainstream media, all deeply entrenched double standards and sexism against both women & men (claiming their judgment is impaired by a pretty face).

He may say “It’s hard not to like Sarah Palin” but then he goes on to list all the petty things he dislikes:

Her accent
Her role of a “pit bull in lipstick” which he calls undignified
He falsely claims she has “shown an eagerness to cast aside political positions that no longer serve her interests”

The only thing he listed in that paragraph that could even be remotely interpreted as ‘liking’ is that “she seems more normal—more one of us”.

News flash, Mr. Richert

It’s not a choice between motherhood and political life. Motherhood doesn’t just go poof because a woman is fulfilling her vocation in political life. She’s still a mother. She still comes home after a hard day’s work, helps with homework, goes to school plays.

You’re creating a false dilemna. It’s not a choice between motherhood and political life. It’s a choice between which parent stays home during which hours where both are fulfilling their duties as parents. The parenting role has grown in the past 30 years from being solely the mother’s responsibility while Dad goes out to pursue his vocation, to where both parents share equally in their responsibilities as ‘One’.

The Palin’s, as with many people I know and work with, have rearranged their work/home schedules so that both parents care for their children.

The equal sharing of the duties and responsibilities of parenthood and civic life is much more in keeping with the Gospel as Pope John Paul II clarifies in his Letter to Women “After creating man male and female, God says to both: “Fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). Man and woman alike share equal responsibility from the start. In their fruitful relationship as husband and wife, in their common task of exercising dominion over the earth, woman and man are marked neither by a static and undifferentiated equality nor by an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference.”
68 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 7 September 2008:

Hislittlelamb, perhaps you should read that quotation from John Paul II a little more closely:

“In their fruitful relationship as husband and wife, in their common task of exercising dominion over the earth, woman and man are marked neither by a static and undifferentiated equality nor by an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference.”

The difference between the sexes, John Paul is saying, is more than merely an accident of biology. There can be no “static and undifferentiated equality” because men and women have different roles, though this is not “an irreconcilable and inexorably conflictual difference.”

In other words, nothing that John Paul is saying here contradicts what I have written—but it does contradict your blithe reduction of motherhood and fatherhood to a generic “parenthood,” with responsibilities which can simply be doled out any way the “parents” (now Mother and Father in little more than name only) see fit.

Instead of selectively quoting from John Paul II (and choosing your quotations poorly, at that), you might try reading his Theology of the Body, or his earlier books on marriage and family. You will find in all of them his insistence that the equality of men and women is not “static and undifferentiated.” And you’ll also find that he believes that the way to reconcile the differences between the sexes is to embrace, rather than deny, those differences.
69 Comment by TJF on 7 September 2008:

Kelly is, alas, not following the argument at all. The question is not whether or not God created the universe, a view that derives both from revelation and from reason, but a) whether the teaching of Creationism–note the “ism”, by the way–can seriously improve public education to the point it would not be toxic to the minds and morals of the students and b) whether the ideology of Creationism is consistent with reason and science. As to b), no one who has not studied biology is competent to judge, just as no one who has not studied many years of Greek should arrogate to himself the right to an opinion on the New Testament. That his why pastors and priests used to be required to know Greek and Latin. Today they spend more time on budgets, church growth, counseling. In an increasingly long life, I have run into perhaps two or three Christian ministers (out of many hundreds) whose study of Greek was sufficient to read the NT independently. When I taught Greek courses at the university level, I had well-intentioned ministers as my students. They claimed to have had several years of Greek in seminary, but they could not cut it in my second year course. So long as the shepherds are ignorant, we cannot expect very much out of the sheep.

What this leads to is pretty obvious in this discussion. Deborah was a prophetess, poetess, and judge. She was inspired by the Lord but did not seek political power. As a wise woman she was listened to but she did not rule. Her example–a solitary one at that–in no way contradicts the truth that is clear to anyone who studies the Scriptures, that political and religious authority is reserved to men. Wives are to subject themselves to their husbands. Period. That means that if the Palins were married in the Christian sense, Todd would be ruling Alaska through his wife, because she could not exercise authority over him. Similarly, women are not to exercise most spiritual functions, though they may prophesy and in some early churches they appear to have served as deacons, but that was in an age when deacons were in charge, mainly, of serving the bread and wine and supervising charity. Women, so far from being able to preach in Church, were told by St. Paul to remain silent. It is highly irresponsible for people to cite irrelevant Scriptural texts to justify positions that are inconsistent with Christian teaching. It is equally irresponsible to cite papal statements out of context to support positions that are inconsistent with Catholic teaching throughout the history of the Church.

As a matter of historical fact, stupid liberal men gave women the power to vote and hold public office, in complete defiance of Christian teaching. We have to accept this reality much as we accept the reality of having to pay taxes to support the soul-destroying public schools that promote homosexuality and abortion. But it is unconscionable for Christians to pretty up this ugly reality by pretending it has something to do with Christianity. Ordinary uneducated laymen have never known very much about the faith and its traditions, but there was a time when they were content to receive instructions from the clergy. One of the gravest problems we face today, as I observed above, is the ignorance of the clergy. Has anyone ever attended a Megachurch? Read something by Rick Warren? Watched Pat Robertson on TV or tuned in for a few hours to TBN? Spoken with a progressive Catholic priest or listened to the soft Marxist he peddles in his sermons? People like Ms Palin, 100 years ago, would have stayed home to take care of her husband and children and would not have intruded herself into a political realm in which her ignorance and incapacity would be put on public display.

What a world we live in, where people who say they are Christian and conservative, pin their hopes on a female journalism-major who attended six schools before graduating. Well, at least they must be happy, because “where ignorance is bliss…..”
70 Comment by TJF on 7 September 2008:

PS Here’s what you get with women in politics. A female judge in Texas puts a man on death row and sees no problem in the fact that she and the prosecutor were having a “relationship.” Perhaps she could be McCain’s Attorney-General:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0908/p03s05-usju.html
71 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 7 September 2008:

Hislittlelamb, you might also read the section “Men and Women” of God and the World, the 2002 book by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. There you will find such “deeply entrenched double standards and sexism against both women & men” as the following:

There is one kind of human being. And because the body is not just an exterior addition to man, then these physical differences naturally affect the person as a whole, and the difference represents two distinct ways of being human. I think we should be equally opposed to false theories of equality and to false theories of difference.

It is false when people want men and women to be cut to the same measure and say that this tiny biological difference has absolutely no significance. That tendency is dominant nowadays. Personally it still horrifies me when people want women to be soldiers just like men, when they, who have always been the keepers of the peace and in whom we have always seen a counter-impulse to stand up and fight, now likewise run around with submachine guns, showing that they can be just as warlike as the men. Or that women now have the “right” to work as garbage collectors or miners, to do all those things that, out of respect for their status, for their different nature, their own dignity, we ought not to inflict on them and that are now imposed on them in the name of equality. That, in my opinion, is a Manichaean ideology that is opposed to the body.

. . . Basically this ideology of equality is a kind of “spiritualism”, a way of despising the body that refuses to recognize that the body itself is the person. Because of this, it seems to me, this kind of egalitarianism does not exalt women but diminishes their status. By being treated as male, they are dragged down to being undistinguished and ordinary.
72 Comment by Guadalupe Guard on 7 September 2008:

Scott,

Little Lamb is correct in her belief that JP II would support the likes of Palin. “A long tradition has seen mostly men involved in politics. Today more and more women are asserting themselves even at the highest levels of representation, national and international. This process should be encouraged. Politics, in fact, geared as it is to promoting the common good, can only benefit from the complementary gifts of men and women.” (Angelus Reflection “Women in Political Life,” 27 August 1995.0 And such feminism flow throughout his writings. That being said, JPII was clearly out of sync with the traditional Catholic position in regards to feminism.

Thus it is you, Scott, that need to (re)read JPII’s writings. It is glaringly obvious that you either haven’t read his writings closely or you have read them the same way you have viewed Pope Benedict’s social interactions with the Bush administration, with rose colored glasses.

In regard to the latter, you said HH Pope Benedict was just “showing good manners” by give Bush a private tour of the inner sanctums of the Vatican. I would think “good manners” are trumped by avoiding giving scandal or showing favoritism toward a political figure that much of the world as well as many good traditional Catholics find, to put it mildly, “unworthy” of such special consideration.
73 Comment by Kelly on 7 September 2008:

Hey TJF–don’t patronize me. Your a sinner just like everyone else, so lose the educated, elitist attitude–you sound just like a Pharisee. I hope your effort to dissuade anyone from reading the Word of God brings conviction to your heart.

The only reason why you are trying to downplay the use of scriptures and the story of Deborah is because it speaks of God’s truth and you are not able to deal with God’s truth so you are making an effort to discredit the scripture references I have used to then bring glory to yourself. The Bible is for everyone. You don’t need to know latin, greek or hebrew. Just start reading. The Bible has changed so many hearts including mine.

Philippians 2:3

“Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself.”
74 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 7 September 2008:

Kelly, one problem, which I’ve pointed out already, is that you’re saying, “God used Deborah” and then jumping to the conclusion that God is using Sarah Palin. Perhaps He is; but if you’re willing to concede that He might not be, then a little caution is in order.

Romans 11:33-34:

“O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

“For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counsellor?”
75 Comment by Kelly on 7 September 2008:

Sarah Palin is worth a strong consideration at this time with the election results revealing God’s perfect will. Praying for wisdom is in order for all Christians before they cast their vote.

Now, how did I land on your blog after searching for “Loggia Designs” Go Figure:)

God Bless.
76 Comment by Livy on 7 September 2008:

“One of the gravest problems we face today, as I observed above, is the ignorance of the clergy. Has anyone ever attended a Megachurch? Read something by Rick Warren? Watched Pat Robertson on TV or tuned in for a few hours to TBN?”

OT: I wish you would write a column on this general topic. This is spot-on.
77 Comment by TJF on 8 September 2008:

I am sure all the editors are happy to have Kelly as a participant in this discussion, and since he is new to these pages, I will explain to him that the observations and corrections offered by a teacher are not intended to be taken as patronizing. Where correction is required, however, it will be given.
78 Comment by dcs on 8 September 2008:

since Catholics are not bound to vote under pain of sin

Jone teaches that voting is a civic duty binding under venial sin and might be mortally sinful whenever a worthy candidate is opposed by an unworthy one. So I don’t think it is accurate to state unequivocally that Catholics are not bound to vote under pain of sin.
79 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 September 2008:

dcs, are you referring to Fr. Heribert Jone’s 18th-century work, Moral Theology? If so, I mean no disrespect to Father Jone, but I am unaware of any official document of the magisterium that supports his view.

What does he cite as his evidence?
80 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 8 September 2008:

John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as his candidate for Vice-President was a cynical attempt to bring energy to his candidacy which had previously been about as exciting as watching old Lawrence Welk re-runs. And the Palin pick seems to have done wonders; even Pat Buchanan raves over the choice. Yet is anyone foolish enough to think that, if elected, that Mrs. Palin will be anything but the loyal foot soldier to the odious McCain? Does Mrs. Palin as Vice-President make a illegal amnesty bill cobbled together by McCain sidekick Lindsey Graham and the dying Ted Kennedy any less likely in 2009?

As for Mrs. Palin, she probably amazed herself in 2006 by trouncing Gov. Frank Murkowki and the corrupt Alaska Republican Party in the primary election and besting the popular Democratic ex-Governor Tony Knowles in the general election. Her family would now come second and her political career would come first. We saw some results of her decision on the stage at the recent Republican spectacle. But, of course, the wretched Barbara Amiel(aka Mrs. Conrad Black, felon) approves of Sarah Palin making her family a secondary interest so all must be to the good. And the party of “family values” approved with full-thorated roars. Welcome to modern day “family values.”
81 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 September 2008:

Hey, now—no need to get nasty, Derek. I grew up on Lawrence Welk reruns!

“Ah-won, anna-too, anna Sonja Henie’s tutu.”
82 Comment by dcs on 8 September 2008:

18th century? Fr. Jone lived and wrote mostly in the 20th century. But I seem to have misquoted him – the actual quote is:

“Voting is a civic duty which would seem to bind at least under venial sin whenever a good candidate has an unworthy opponent. It might even be a mortal sin if one’s refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate.”

I apologize for this error (the real statement is obviously much weaker than the one is misquoted), I was working from memory.

Calling for an “official document of the magisterium” is a bit minimalist, don’t you think? Moral theology is mostly handed down and received; an official magisterial document would only be issued when a particular teaching is seriously threatened. For example, there are no “official magisterial documents” prior to 1930 teaching that contraception is a sin. Yet when Pius XI issued [i]Casti Connubii[/i] in December of that year, he wasn’t teaching anything new, but only what the Church had been teaching all along.
83 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 September 2008:

Sorry–you’re right; I was going off of faulty memory, having seen Father Jone’s book on our book table at church. Looking it up online, it looks like the TAN edition (the one I saw) is the 18th English edition, so that’s probably the source of my confusion.

As for the question of my minimalism, I’d respectfully submit that there’s a major difference between the Church’s teaching on contraception–a moral teaching that can be determined through the study of natural law and which concerns human sexual, something that is universal to humanity–and democratic voting, an historical phenomenon and quite a recent one at that.

So, yes–I do think that something a bit more authoritative is in order.

But even if we agree to follow Father Jone’s exposition of our duty to vote, then I think one would be hard-pressed to claim that not voting in this particular election would even begin to approach venial sin. From a Catholic perspective, it’s hard to argue that McCain is a “good” candidate, even if Obama is clearly an unworthy one.
84 Comment by jack bailey on 8 September 2008:

And don’t clutter up our comment threads with claims about either candidate’s proposals that have no basis in what they have proposed.
Once again we are arguing apples and oranges. My numbers were not proposed as facts that were analyzed by this institute or any other institute but they are none the less very real. The tax increases are in the making by Obama. It is only a matter of how much Obama can get away with if he gets elected, regardless of what his current positions are. As a few percentages are statistically insignificant and increases on the order of 20% are revolutionary, we are dealing with figures in 10%-15% range.
Nor am I changing my argument but I do feel that I am getting dragged into side issues that I have inadvertently brushed upon, issues which to me are not interesting. Once again, my original argument was and is that letting presidential elections be decided by default is a mistake. I have no problem with your article aside from that, as we agree on the inadequacies of the conservative position in the current political climate. Not voting will not improve the power of conservatism. But if your advice instead of not voting was that we should vote for Obama because this would strenghten the conservatives (a kind of a “the worse, the better” logic) I would have been all for it.
85 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 8 September 2008:

Actually, Scott, Lawrence Welk brings back to me thoughts of my departed grandparents, to whom I owe so much. But as for 60s television, I am more of a “Lost in Space” man, a show my children force me to watch these days.
86 Comment by Pauli on 8 September 2008:

Well, hey, I guess we can agree to disagree.

But honestly, how hard can being a VP be? Granted it’s more difficult than being a grocery bagger or writer or some other kind of academic, but that’s not saying much. I suppose it’s harder than being a community activist unless you have to run when the fed boys bum rush the crack house.
87 Comment by R. McCabe on 8 September 2008:

This thread has been highly educational, as long as one reads slowly through some parts and quickly through others.

I do have a contention though for those who find their moral exemption in picking from these two candidates comforting. Surely, there are more relevant things for us to tend to in our lives. I should be reorganizing a part of my thesis now, for example, or brushing up on my Latin. I agree.

Picking the lesser of two evils may still be picking evil. But depending upon what state you live in, silence may be viewed morally as consent. Certainly voting can be viewed not as a whole-hearted moral endorsement but rather as a simple defense mechanism.

So much of this debate seems to predefine our conscience or the context of our vote in a moral eternity that does not exist in reality. What, has there been a long line of excellent options leading up to this election and so now, faced with this decision, we are now finding ourselves in a unique position of abstinence?

I can only assume the opposite were true, that many would admit that if they have been faithful to their own words, they should never have voted at all.

Is that right? If there is no way to align your vote with your personal, moral compass, must you do nothing? Is that the only reason to vote? I hate moral practicality to justify incremental change, but I think it can be justified not matter how used I feel for it! If we limited our votes to those we personally trusted, we would be unable to elect any president at all.

We have gotten ourselves into this brutal moral and political culture incrementally. And that is the way we will get out of it, save total collapse. Clearly there are small differences between these two candidates. There are also other branches of government that are supposed to do their sworn jobs.

Lew Rockwell, in a recent speech, quipped that Bush had done nothing decent for America in 8 years. That may not be true. Alito and Roberts in tandem may be one decent thing (however, we shall see). The presidency is the gateway to the supreme court, which has done much damage to our country for a long time. This court hangs in balance with many of her justices in worse shape than Mr. McCain himself. Who replaces those justices could have a dramatic impact on very many aspects of our lives and for a long time.

It is far easier to throw bums out of the white house or the congress than the SCOTUS.
88 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 September 2008:

What, has there been a long line of excellent options leading up to this election and so now, faced with this decision, we are now finding ourselves in a unique position of abstinence?

Of course not. I haven’t voted for one of the major-party candidates for president since 1988 (and shouldn’t have then).

That doesn’t, mean, however, that I haven’t voted for president. I’ve voted for president in every election except for 1992, when I was attending graduate school in Washington, D.C., and didn’t have the desire to go wait in a D.C. government office to register to vote.

You’re setting up a false dichotomy–either we have to vote for one of the two major-party candidates or we have to abstain. Of course, you might regard voting for a third-party candidate to be the same as abstaining. I don’t, and I suspect most of those on this thread who don’t plan to vote for McCain or Obama do not, either.

We have gotten ourselves into this brutal moral and political culture incrementally. And that is the way we will get out of it, save total collapse.

Of course. And I think many us of have a pretty clear idea about how to make such incremental changes. And it might surprise you to find out that presidential politics has very little to do with it.

But let’s look at incremental change in the context of the presidential election. You write that “Clearly there are small differences between these two candidates.” Clearly. But to use an analogy from physics, no candidate represents merely a set of coordinates. Each has a velocity, too: He’s moving in a certain direction.

And most of us on this comment thread, I think, agree that both major-party candidates are moving in the wrong direction. So, if we’re talking about “incremental change,” and the “small differences” between the two candidates, that means that we’re saying merely that one candidate is moving in the wrong direction more slowly than the other.

The presidency is the gateway to the supreme court, which has done much damage to our country for a long time.

Indeed. And during the time of the worst damage, over the past 50 years, the Republicans have appointed some of the worst justices. Brown v. Board of Education, Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey–all would not have been possible without the votes of Republican appointees to the Supreme Court.

Which puts a slightly different color on your statement that “Who replaces those justices could have a dramatic impact on very many aspects of our lives and for a long time.”
89 Comment by dcs on 8 September 2008:

From a Catholic perspective, it’s hard to argue that McCain is a “good” candidate, even if Obama is clearly an unworthy one.

Oh, I quite agree.
90 Comment by R. McCabe on 8 September 2008:

I have left a lot of room for your sound replies.

First, I do believe I conditioned my statements upon the geographical state the person lives in. What I meant by this, is that if one lives in a state where the 2 party outcome is in question, then that reality affects the nature of the moral considerations a person faces when voting.

If one lives in a state where the outcome is sort of predetermined, then the moral conditions change, and I agree wholeheartedly in supporting another voice.

Unlike some, who seem to me to be looking for a sort of universal moral answer to this question, I am approaching it from a game theory perspective and am applying my morality to the reasonably likely causes and effects. I obviously can’t predict the future, and politicians are so often liars.

Also, I am not endorsing the GOP in general. One need only go back so far as Souter to find a discomforting appointment by a very practical and “prudent” man. It is a dangerous game.

And yet that man’s son, appointed two justices who may be two decent options this side of aborted Bork. It is a mystery as to why he did this. It is also a mystery as to how this man got elected. But if I had to hazard a guess, I would guess that in this fractured, weakling system we have, special interest groups — even religious ones — are being pandered to *quid pro quo*.

So, although according to traditional Christian values, both parties are moving in the wrong direction, one may at least be negotiating with the right people.

Underneath velocity is acceleration. And although either of these options may only nominally change our velocity, if we can control the acceleration of one important moral dimension at a time, we may have a chance to make incremental positive changes while playing an overall losing game. Parrondo knew this.
91 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 September 2008:

If one lives in a state where the outcome is sort of predetermined, then the moral conditions change, and I agree wholeheartedly in supporting another voice.

But if those are the only conditions under which a vote for a third party is something to be considered, then voting for a third party has the same effect as abstaining. It’s actually only in those states where such a vote might affect the outcome that a vote for a third party is likely to be noticed at all.

Everyone knows that Buchanan and Nader had an effect in Florida in 2000; but I doubt that most Americans know whether either candidate was on the ballot in Illinois in that year.

As a political science undergrad, I loved game theory. As a political theory graduate student, I began to see that attempts to reduce human interaction to rules and sequences and probabilities was fundamentally wrongheaded.

Beginning to break out of that mindset was a true intellectual liberation (and a spiritual one, too, because I finally came to understand the moral value of free will). I write “beginning to break out” because, in this modern world, it is a constant struggle to keep from falling back into scientistic attempts to analyze human nature and human interactions.
92 Comment by Jack on 9 September 2008:

Thanks to TJF /65 for his comments on creationism and evolution. The results of Christian schooling and fundamentalist preaching have taught people that ‘theory’ means basically ‘wild guess’. The scientific meaning of ‘theory’ is quite different. For example, electromagnetism is ‘theory’ but is well grounded. Go into any museum of natural history and you will see evolution well supported. The dumbing down of Christianity will lead us to slavery or at least barbarism. In the field of science, I must admit that the Catholic Church is way ahead of most protestants.
93 Comment by Fred Breisch on 9 September 2008:

Mrs. Palin, if she wanted to be a Christian role model for young women, should be at home being a homemaker for her family. Her husband should be hard at work trying to provide for their needs and defending the home…and maybe shooting a moose for the family table. As it is she’s a typical careerist/feminist who puts her family responibilies second or third to her God given role. It’s hard to understand how Christians can get excited about her as VP.
94 Comment by R. McCabe on 9 September 2008:

Abstaining from voting under any condition where more than 2 options exist contains additional information than does voting 3rd party. For example, abstaining from voting could say, “I like both the guys in the 2 parties so much, I simply cannot make up my mind!” Or, “I thought the election was on Wednesday.”

There are even more of these examples.

And although I see your point about the 3rd party message being louder in the contested states, I would argue that the magnitude of whatever symbolic message is generated is less than the magnitude of the differential effects of the actual outcome. I had been assuming the message of voting for a 3rd party to be at a general, national level.

Otherwise, I was not meaning to draw a sharp connection between game theory and my thought process for this decision. It might be better to say I am relying upon “outcomes-based” morality. I am doing this because I believe that although the general effects of this 2 party election may be approximately the same, as you put it, velocity, I believe there are specific victories that can be won in small corners of our political halls and that these victories are categorical and important rather than differential and nominal.

My assumption, which is admittedly highly arguable, is that despite the frothing at the mouth and keen political opportunism that the Palin pick has caused and represented, I see her pick as another step in a promise for McCain to appoint constructionist judges to the bench. Take that for what it’s worth.

I do not accept the argument some seem to be putting forward for abstaining from voting by the following process: 1) My heart is somewhere near the heart of traditional Christian morality 2) I can tell where these politicians’ hearts are relative to mine 3) By establishing an arbitrary perimeter around myself in morality world, I may find that I can vote for no one, since they all fall outside of this perimeter.

And even if that process is the only one a person can use, abstaining from voting still does not seem like a moral option to me. In that case, I would accept a write in of a personal friend, for example.

(I think a fuller discussion on “scientistic” conflicts in moral decision making would be an excellent piece.)
95 Comment by Derek Leaberry on 9 September 2008:

Mr. Breisch, you are correct but expect that most “conservatives” will agree with Sarah Palin when she calls your views “Neanderthal”.
A majority of Republicans and conservatives are part of the cultural zeitgeist.

Anyone else find the parading around of Bristol Palin a macabre spectacle? If one of Obama’s daughters was seventeen, unmarried and pregnant, the very Republicans and conservatives would be full of derision. But Bristol’s mother is on our side so all is well.
96 Comment by Fred Fowler on 9 September 2008:

People are forgetting that, no matter which of the two members of the two party cartel are elected, the permanent government of judges and bureaucrats will still be in place. There will be no change in how they act, especially when it comes to the millions of employees of the executive branch. A president has very little power over the ‘civil servants’ who are charged with administering and enforcing the enormous mass of laws and regulations. He can hire and fire at the very top, and give orders to his cabinet, but there is no guarantee that any of his orders will have much effect on how the various departments, bureaus, and agencies operate.

The president does appoint Supreme Court justices directly, but the Supreme Court hears very few cases in any given year, and in any event it is unlikely that in the next few years any of the justices will be replaced. Also, the abysmal record of presidents of either party with regard to the quality of their appointments does not encourage me to consider this a very important point when voting.

As for the federal judiciary in general, I suspect that only a small handful the judges will be replaced, and since the president doesn’t really have time to take a detailed look at the record of anyone who is in the running to be appointed to the federal bench, the usual organizations will vet the appointments.
97 Comment by R. McCabe on 9 September 2008:

Sorry, Mr. Fowler, if you won’t dig a little, I will. I’d prefer to let people make up their own minds about whether or not a justice might retire in the next 4 year term (not to mention 2 just retired in Bush’s second term – care to imagine whom Mr. Kerry would have appointed?).

John Paul Stevens: 88 years old
Antonin Scalia: 72
Anthony Kennedy: 72
David “Hack” Souter: 69
Ruth B. Ginsburg: 75
Stephen Breyer: 70

O’Connor retired at age 76, Rehnquist died at 80. John McCain is 72, which many fear is a risky age to be heading into office. Since 1970, the average age of departure from the bench is 78.8 years old.

I believe the pendulum has swung slowly for too long to one side and that most people are getting wise to it. Even the careerists in the House and Senate are tired of the Supreme Court usurping their power. If I am wrong, then I contend we will be no worse off than we are now, I will adopt a third party for consolation and make some tea.
98 Comment by John Jakubczyk on 9 September 2008:

I must correct you on your inaccurate assertion that John McCain has “vowed” to expand embryonic stem cell funding. While he did vote for funding in 2007, there have been continuing conversations with him on the subject. Together with rapid changes in research, there is now a consensus that there will not be any further focus or promotion or support for destructive embryonic stem cell research funding. He is on record as supporting adult stem cell research and using non-destructive means to harvest stem cells. Given the need to curtail wasteful government spending, this is a logical position for him to hold. Further he has been on record as opposing Roe v Wade and does not want to increase federal funding of contraception and family planning services. He has been a long time supporter of the Mexico City Policy, supported the selection of judges like Thomas, Roberts and Alito, and has a 26 year history of voting pro-life with three rare exceptions ( back in 1992 on the fetal tissue question and the ESCR issue).

I would therefore suggest that if one does not want the socialists or left leaning democrats to win, one strongly consider voting for McCain.

I also think that McCain chose Palin, a sitting governor from an energy rich state, to highlight the energy issue, the traditional values issues, and to mix things up. Typical McCain thinking.

Now many may object to the notion of the woman being in public office when she has a family, etc. You mention the complementary roles of the sexes and hte natural order of things, etc.

But I would provide a different argument in light of current events and the need we have to re-focus the nation on the need for law to protect all human beings.

A woman who holds strong pro-life positions who can present the arguments well and is not afraid to stand up to the media, whose own family may not be “picture perfect” but filled with the every day challenges that many families face, just might be the tool God can use to awaken the deeply placed desire in people to seek the good , the true and the beautiful.

Perhaps if people like Sarah and find out she is pro-life, and that she loves life even when that life comes in a baby named Trig, they will realize that choosing life is preferable to choosing abortion, that believing in God is a good thing to do, and that all of us are called to serve the other.

When I watched the min-series John Adams, I recalled, having read the book, the tremendous sacrifices made by both John and Abigail and the children. We can consider what each of us may desire or choose to do in the face of a calling to public service. But I would not judge the decision of someone as Governor Palin
to accept the call. The enemy would like nothing more than for those of us who love life to cede the political field to them.

It is always good first to pray and then to labor to bring about a better place for our children.
99 Comment by Fred Fowler on 9 September 2008:

I guess I should have looked. Still, I don’t think it will make too much difference, especially if Congress decides to start taking back their power to make laws. The lower federal courts are probably more important in the long run. Congressmen have the power to reshape the whole structure of these courts.
100 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 10 September 2008:

Mr. McCabe, #97. Of five bad Justices you list, three are Republican appointees and only two Democrat.
101 Comment by Fred Fowler on 10 September 2008:

Dr. Wilson, #100:
Your comment is one of the reasons why I don’t agree with my friends that it is important to elect McCain because he will appoint more conservative Justices. Republican presidents never have done that.
102 Comment by Fred Fowler on 10 September 2008:

Correction to my comment at 101: I should say that Republican presidents very seldom appoint any Justice to the Supreme Court that could reasonably be considered to be more conservative than most of the Justices are. “Never” may make the statement not quite true.
103 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 10 September 2008:

Of all the possible reasons to make excuses for the evil deed of voting for McCain, the possibility he MIGHT appoint good Justices is the least convincing.
104 Comment by Kurt Hetke on 10 September 2008:

Has anyone seen the response from the Vatican to the Palin selection? I think they said it was a “dream”.
105 Comment by Fred Fowler on 10 September 2008:

That is definitely why the Supreme Court excuse doesn’t convince me. I’ve never understood why good Christians whom I know are intelligent and well educated can vote on such a basis. Of course, most of the time their opinions on some of the other issues fit the general trend of the Republican Party’s policies. I’ve been reading Chronicles too long, and haven’t been a member of that party or any other for the past eight years.
106 Comment by R. McCabe on 10 September 2008:

Mr. Wilson, if you equate voting for a politician with evil, then it is pointless to continue with trying to figure out how to make the most of a bad situation. In fact, why are you even reading and commenting? You and Mr. Fowler seem content to define yourselves by what you are not, but that is of no good to anyone but yourselves.

I am well aware of who appointed the judges I mentioned. I learned that while looking them up. But you are confusing the vague constructs and histories of the GOP with the specific future of John McCain the man and what he would do as President. I do not entirely trust John McCain at all. But as Mr. Jacobczyk (and others) pointed out, it is not an entirely dumb gamble. As I also said earlier, this is a dangerous game we are playing. However, if we reduce ourselves to only playing the most isolated games, making only the decisions where we can feel no evil, then we will be playing by ourselves and all, including ourselves, would be lost by then.
107 Comment by ural haines on 11 September 2008:

Mr McCabe @ 105

You said “I do not entirely trust John McCain”

-John McCain has in the past staunchly supported affirmative action

-He was, and no doubt still is, an absolutely fanatical supporter of Third World colonization of America

-He supports the ongoing bankruptcy of this country

-He has a long history of insulting and belittling Christians

If you fancy yourself a conservative, what leads you to “trust him” in the least bit?!
108 Comment by R. McCabe on 11 September 2008:

I use “trust” to describe my belief that I know what I’m going to get. I do not use trust to describe how parallel another’s beliefs are to mine, although I see how it could be used as such.

I trust Obama more than I trust McCain, because I think I know almost exactly what to expect from him. I trust him to keep his word.

Trusting presidents, though, to nominate supreme court justices has always been a hard thing to do. The nominees themselves can be deceiving.

My argument in this election relies on a string of events of John McCain 1) openly promsing to appoint constructionist judges, 2) saying plainly and simply at that Christian circus that he believes life begins at conception, and 3) picking up Palin for the ticket.

The fact that Bush got reelected on a similar promise to ~4 million evangelicals and was actually able to get 2 consctructionists (I think) through speaks to my believe that it is possible with McCain.

All the other things you say are true as well, as they might also be with Obama, which is leading many to despair. But if we cannot find a general representative of Christian beliefs to lead our country, we must at least win something in the process, rather than make ourselves feel better by not participating.

The analogy is that I’m willing to save the city for one good person.
109 Comment by Joseph Klein on 14 September 2008:

Scott,

Sorry if you’ve answered this question above, but I’m curious. Do you vote for third party candidates whose governance would conform to your moral values, or do you have more flexibility in voting for a third party candidate. In other words, do you vote for the person you would prefer, in an ideal world, to be president, or do you vote to send a message?
110 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 15 September 2008:

Joe (if I may call you so, after all these years), the simple answer is yes and yes. If a third-party candidate is someone I can support wholeheartedly, then I’ll support him rather than, say, a different third-party candidate who might be expected to get more votes (and, therefore, to send a message more clearly).

On the other hand, I have voted for Ralph Nader in previous presidential elections (yes, plural), and I obviously don’t agree with him on any number of issues. Yet even there, I voted for him on the basis of issues that we do agree upon. My vote, however, was more to send a message (no matter how insignificant) than to signal support for Nader.
111 Comment by stari_momak on 15 September 2008:

As a white nationalist I look at it this way — the only developed countries that have been able to boost fertility in the post-feminist age is to make it easier for women to have a career and to have children. Countries like Denmark and Norway now have significantly higher fertility than Spain and Italy (and I am talking indigenous population here), and part of the reason is long periods of maternity leave , creches, all sorts of help for women to both have kids and have a job. I see no way other than that. Palin represents a woman that has had lots of kids and has had a career. This is good for our women and our future. She is a good symbol and perhaps would have some influence in the white house over such matters.
112 Comment by M.J.Harrington on 17 September 2008:

I confess I am staggered by the intensity of Dr Fleming’s malevolence towards women.I am a Catholic man and I reject what he says with all my heart and soul. Such contempt for women cannot possibly reflect the will of a benevolent Creator. What what have here, I regret to observe, is purely human resentment seeking divine sanction for itself.

I am very interested in the history of ideas–which I consider to be the true inner history of the world–but I will not have ancient writers, however distinguished or inspired in their own time, overruling common sense and common decency in our time.

I hope that brilliant and ambitious women will not read Dr Fleming and his followers and come to the conclusion that they had better be liberals and agnostics.
113 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 17 September 2008:

I have no idea what has prompted Mr. Harrington’s outburst, but if he would like to offer a substantive comment on this post, I would be happy to engage him. Until then, these remarks seem to have nothing whatsoever to do with what I have written and strike me as a way of avoiding the very real issue of what the Catholic Church teaches about the complementarity of the sexes.
114 Comment by M.J.Harrington on 19 September 2008:

Scott P. Richert
I am surprised that that you have “no idea ” what prompted my “outburst” as you call it. It is obvious that I was responding to Dr Fleming’s remarks in this thread, specifically in post # 69 above.
For example : “Wives are to subject themselves to their husbands…..stupid liberal men gave women the power to vote and to hold public office…People like Ms Palin, 100 years ago,would have stayed home to take care of her husband and and children and would not have intruded herself into a political realm etc etc”

Are you perhaps so used to reading stuff like this that you have lost your awareness of how malevolent and thoroughly offensive it is? Have you failed to notice the meanness of spirit, and the bad tempered bluster Dr Fleming uses instead of argument?

With the help of Google I found a statement by the Catholic Church presented to the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995: “A woman has a right to choose between having a profession,being a mother and simultaneously carrying on a profession, and being a mother and dedicating all her activity to the home.”

No doubt I could find more and stronger statements, but that one will do. It makes the essential point.

Dr Fleming dismisses anything like this as the work of “silly Bishops” who I suppose resemble the “stupid liberal men” who gave women the vote. It is not persuasive or even interesting to keep calling people “stupid” or “silly”. There was a time when reactionaries at least had charm, and wit, and irony. Alas.

Dr Fleming can quarrel with his Church, but he has no warrant to set himself up as a superior religious authority.

I confess I am not attracted to discussions about “the complementarity of the sexes.” I think I can work out most of it for myself without clerical guidance. In any case such “discussions” usually boil down to men who want to confine women to the home trying to draft God into their corner–to provide balsam for their septic egos.

I know two very bright young women, daughters of friends of mine. They are far better Catholics than |I am.I am happy to say that they have been brought up to understand that their are no positions in academic or professional life to which they cannot aspire if they can show the ability and the character.

They are well armed, I would say, against the boorishness of fools, but the malice of educated men could be more difficult becasue it is not expected.
115 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 19 September 2008:

Mr. Harrington, you indict yourself, not anyone else, when you refer to the claim that “Wives are to subject themselves to their husbands” as “malevolent and thoroughly offensive.”

That is, after all, simply a paraphrase of St. Paul. If your idea of Catholicism excludes the Apostle, then you are the one who is “quarrel[ing] with his Church” and “set[ting] himself up as a superior religious authority.”

I confess I am not attracted to discussions about “the complementarity of the sexes.”

That’s fine–then you don’t need to take part in the discussion of my piece, which hinges on this Catholic understanding. Though your remark about “provid[ing] balsam for their septic egos” would undoubtedly come as a surprise to both John Paul II and Benedict XVI who, between the two, have written more on the Catholic understanding of the complementarity of the sexes than anyone else in the last century. (John Paul himself, of course, devoted much of his public writing as pontiff to just such a discussion.)
116 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 20 September 2008:

To Mr. Harrington and others of like mind, I again repeat my recommendation of #55 above regarding traditional Christian teaching on the proper role of men and women, both in and outside the Church. You can still get a copy of Patrick Mitchell’s The Scandal of Gender on amazom.com. It explicates the scripture-based teachnings of the Fathers and Saints of the Church on men and women. You can disagree with those teachings, but you should know what those teachings are and who you disagree with.

Of course the modern mind finds those teachings to be offensive. It is a conceit of the modern mind to believe it knows better than the ancients. You can work everything out for yourself, but the chance of working it out correctly is nil.
117 Comment by M.J.Harrington on 20 September 2008:

Mr Van Sant.

Thank you. I will look out for the book you recommend. Any book with “Scandal” in the title is bound to arouse my curiosity.

However ancient minds could be just as conceited as our own. Conceited and worse. It was, I think, the early Church that invented the lie that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute.Why was that? The modern fiction that Jesus married Mary is, I would surmise, a feminist response to an ancient slander.

Would you really say to a bright young girl eager to face the challenges of life, “You can never be president because you are a woman. You can never run a large business because you are a woman. You can never run a a government department because you are a woman. You can never hold an academic Chair because you are a woman.”

An outlook so malign , so mean spirited and frankly ridiculous, cannot possibly reflect the mind of the divine Creator.

You can find ancient supporters for any point of view.In the end you have to rely on your own common sense and common decency because they are all that you have got.

Best wishes.
118 Comment by S. Hack on 20 September 2008:

Mr. Richert,
If you happen to have a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church handy, you may want to read section 2240 where it states “Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one’s country:”
119 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 20 September 2008:

Mr. Harrington,

I will not deny that some ancient minds could be just as conceited as our own. I was not referring to all ancient minds. I was referring to the minds of those who were chosen and taught by Christ, as well as those taught by the Apostles and their followers who had to refute the wrong ideas of their time. (As there is nothing new under the sun, those wrong ideas keep coming back.)

You say that you think this and surmise that. I’m suggesting that is where you make your mistake. I referred you to a book that cites authority for what I believe. Apparently your authority is your own “common sense” and your idea of “common decency.” Do you have any other authority that I might value or find persuasive?

I would never tell any bright young girl that she cannot do anything. It is not a question of “can”; it’s a question of “ought.” If I knew the young girl well enough, like my own daughters or nieces, I would recommend a different direction for her life.

Perhaps you can tell the rest of us how you know what is in the mind of God. Are you unaware that the Son of God was male, that He referred to His Father as father, not mother, and that He chose only males to be Apostles? (Perhaps there is some significance to Christ’s example.) Do you not agree that Christ established His Church and we are to be subject to its teachings? If so, please read the book. It explains some of those teachings in a clear, concise manner. If not, try reading E.F. Schumacher’s, A Guide for the Perplexed. It may get you thinking in a more productive manner.
120 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 21 September 2008:

S Hack (@118):

I’m aware of the passage, but what I wrote is that we would have to be obliged to vote under pain of sin–a higher standard than “morally obligatory.”
121 Comment by M.J.Harrington on 21 September 2008:

Mr Van Sant

I don’t claim to have a private line to the Almighty. However I believe, as a matter of faith, in the benevolence of the Creator. It is in the light of benevolence, to the extent that I am given the light, that I consider the questions we have been discussing.

In the light of benevolence, as I understand it, I have no hesitation or doubt in affirming my belief in fair opportunity for women to practice any lawful profession and rise to any position of authority that her talent,character, and motivation may carry her. That is justice. That is decency.

I think St Paul was wrong about women, and the Church is wrong about women priests. However I can recite the creed without misgivings and I will remain in the Church until I am sacked.
122 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 22 September 2008:

Mr. Harrington,

Against my better judgement, I’ll continue our discussion. If you do not accept the instruction of St. Paul who God commissioned to instruct the Gentiles, then it senseless for me to try to tell you anything. I’m curious, though. What creed is it that you recite without misgivings? The one with or without the filioque? Why do you recite that particular creed and not the other? Why do you consider yourself to be a member, or even want to be a member, of a church with which you disagree? Why not just be an unaffiliated Christian? Or start your own church?
123 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 22 September 2008:

Mr. Harrington,

I forgot my most important question. What criteria do you use to determine if a teaching of St. Paul is correct or incorrect?
124 Comment by M.J.Harrington on 23 September 2008:

Mr Van Sant

Thank you. I do not claim to have all the answers. However, Paul thought that the world was going to end shortly. He supported slavery or at least tolerated it. I would say that he was wrong on these points. Common sense tells us so. And his views about women were wrong because they were based on false and malicious ideas about female inferiority. We might excuse Paul because of his ignorance, but there is no excuse for an educated man today saying the same thing.

We do not take our opinions from ancient authorities. We find the ancient authorities who will support our opinions. Always that has been so–with the exception, in my experience, of the sayings and teachings of Jesus, which have an authoritative quality which speaks directly to the soul and overrules anything we may have thought before.
125 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 23 September 2008:

Mr. Harrington,

I take your response to mean that you are your own authority. You pick and choose whatever pleases your sensibilities. No need for further discussion.
126 Pingback by Chronicles, November 2008 « Panther Red on 1 November 2008:

[...] by acilius under Periodical Notes, Poetry | Tags: Chronicles, McCain/ Palin, Peter Green | Scott Richert expresses consternation that many who identify themselves as conservative Catholics support the [...]

Manufacturing Bust (13)
- Etienne Gervaise: @9 justine Kodachrome is not gone, but it is indeed becoming more of an artistic medium. The same...
- Etienne Gervaise: Well said, Greg. I’m pretty certain small towns which become business-friendly will be the...
- S.B.: Very good article Mr. Kraza. Ohio has been hit hard, as this administration has continued to suck us dry....
Secularism and the Mosque Flap (42)
- Thomas Fleming: Taking these points in reverse order: I have no idea what rights Satanists can be supposed to have....
- Norwegian Shooter: One does not draw the line, that is the whole point. Legislatures pass laws, executives enforce...

Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture

About the Author

Editors’ Round Table on Sarah Palin: One Catholic’s View

Comments

There Are 126 Responses So Far. »

Cultural Revolutions

Search This Site

Advertisements

Recent Comments