...from a source with, er...knowledge. Terry McAuliffe's application for the Knights of Malta was "withdrawn." The Knights office in DC was flooded with emails and calls - and, I'd expect, many of them from the good Knights and Dames themselves.
Amen.
4 comments:
As a Democrat who strongly favors the Democratic over the Catholic position on reproductive rights,I'm curious as to why you tagged this strictly "contraception".Catholics are far more justifiable when it comes to opposing the Democratic position on homosexuality,for instance.
I don't really know why McAuliffe would have been nominated for the SMOM and as a secular theist (there must be a God but there's no evidence He founds official fan clubs or writes books) I certainly wouldn't apply to join any religiously chartered institution myself.
Louis:
The simplest answer is that I am not really a fan of having tens or hundreds of tags. Since I didn't feel like creating a new one, I just stuck this under contraception/(abortion) as sort of a catch-all. No really ulterior motives involved.
However, regarding your point about contraception versus homosexuality, whether people agree or not, the Catholic position is that life starts at conception and thus abortion and those forms of contraception that prevent embryos from attaching to the uterine wall are forms of murder. Homosexuality is fornication outside of marriage.
I've never gotten how people can support Democrats, even on peace and justice grounds. History has shown us time and again that government absolutely sucks at large-scale efforts to 'help' people. There are bright spots, but all too often, there are dark spots where things went wrong as well as corruption, etc. (Hurricane Katrina being Exhibit Number One). The Democratic/paternalistic mindset is not my idea of the American way of life. Emerson, Boone, Jefferson, et. al. pretty much agree.
As I see it,to treat an embryo as if it were already a person is to treat the woman of whose life it is a totally dependent part as less than a person;that the status of person be denied before birth is an inseparable part of securing it to those post-birth.Obviously women who disagree are free to adhere to the Catholic position,but that position should not be imposed on those of all beliefs.
That persons be of opposite sexes must rank first among pre-requisites for any sexual relationship between them being appropriate.
From my perspective,again,the general take-care-of-the-poor ethos is one that is a virtue,and only assistance rendered through secular institutions is free of sectarian strings (which religious charities should be free to have without the state telling them they must aid all under state rules,as is being imposed by the governments adulating same-sex-couple adoption).The public sector has no monopoly on corruption.
On the rights of embryos, their mothers and homosexuals, we'll have to agree to disagree.
Care-for-the-poor is a virtue, but I disagree that secular institutions are free of as you say 'sectarian' strings.
Just one example relates to abortion. It's been pointed out time and again that the 'secular' United Nations' programs in the Third World are aimed at 'population control' and that there is precious little in the way of pre-natal care for mothers who would wish keep their babies.
While the public sector does not have a monopoly on corruption, it does have a monopoly on the sanctioned use of force to see its viewpoint through.
Post a Comment