We are the drain the swamp people

Blame global warming – it has made things too busy dealing with frigid weather for humans to get other things done — so we supply this weather related interlude:

0

0

• The moniker Cardinal Fatty Butterpants fits quite well
• The illogic,  the cowardliness, of His Eminence, Cardinal Dolan is astounding
• What a pathetic big-Irish glad-hander, funny-man, bullshit artist practitioner
• Just another Democrat-first Catholic
• If Quomo’s support, aid and abetting, material cooperation with abortion/infanticide does not qualify for excommunication then nothing can ever.  Ditto Pelosi, Durban, Harkin and so many more
• The fecklessness, the lack of leadership is a bigger scandal  in its way than Cuomo’s long list of apostasies, because a shepherd is involved
• Dolan, excusing his own inaction, is trying to have it both ways, if not with Cuomo with other Democrat-first Catholics — he wouldn’t want to insult them or their voting patterns 
• Second (bottom) picture and comment not in original

Judi McCleod at Canada Free Press:

Cardinal Dolan sitting elephant-like on Christian hearts and souls, will NEVER excommunicate his buddy Gov. Cuomo

Cardinal Dolan will NEVER Excommunicate His Buddy Gov. Andrew Cuomo
“Please never use the word weigh in when I come on, I’ve asked you to avoid that,” portly Cardinal Timothy Dolan, head of the archdiocese of New York,  told Brian Kilmeade in yesterday’s interview on Fox & Friends.

For Christian pro-lifers still reeling in shock that Democrat New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed into law new rules that permit babies to be aborted up to the day of birth, Dolan is an elephant sitting on their hearts and souls.
“When asked whether New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) should be formally excommunicated from the Catholic Church because he signed into law new rules that permit babies to be aborted up to the day of birth—what one bishop has called “infanticide”—New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan said such a step “would be counterproductive.” It would give “ammo to our enemies,” he added. (CNS News, Jan. 28, 2019.)

But the cardinal and the governor have been “giving ammo” to anti-Catholic/Christian enemies for years.

“Also, when asked whether Communion should be denied to Cuomo at Mass, Dolan said such questions make him “restless,” and he’d be “uncomfortable going into that” pastoral issue.  (CNS News)

“Restless”? “Uncomfortable?”

How about cowardly and governor butt kissing?
Because when it comes to not taking a stand against abortion, that’s exactly what Cardinal Dolan is.

In the Jan. 28 interview Fox & Friends co-host Steve Doocy tried to cut to the chase, something the prevaricating cardinal never does:
“The fact (is) that the baby can be born alive and then they can terminate it. There have been calls from within the Catholic Church for Governor Cuomo to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church.”

“Cardinal Dolan, head of the Archdiocese of New York, replied, “You’re telling me. I get wheelbarrows of letters every day. I think that [excommunication] would be counterproductive myself.”

“Well he’s not following Catholic doctrine,” said Doocy.

“Dolan answered, “I don’t know – but there’s my point, Steve. We would be giving ammo to our enemies who say, ‘This is an internal Catholic disciplinary matter. This is really not civil rights, this is not biology. These Catholics don’t have freedom when it comes to this.’ I think we’d be giving our enemies ammo.”

“Doocy then said,  “But the Catholic Church, cardinal, stands against abortion. And here is the most prominent Catholic in the state of New York, and he’s saying, ‘Eh, this is a good thing!’”

“The Canon Law [915] you quoted also says you have to use it for medicinal purpose and you think there’s going to be a good effect that can come out of this,” said Cardinal Dolan. 
 


“He continued, “We have a governor that brags about it. We have a governor who uses his dissent from Church teaching as applause lines. We have a governor that takes quotes from Pope Francis out of context to draw an artificial cleavage between the bishops of New York and the Holy Father himself. He’s [Cuomo’s] not going The use would be to stop the hypocritical Cuomo from identifying as a Catholic.

The use would be to stop the hypocritical Cuomo from identifying as a Catholic.

“A little later in the interview, Doocy asked, “What about denying him Communion?” (CNS News)

“A little later in the interview, Doocy asked, “What about denying him Communion?” (CNS News)

“Cardinal Dolan did not answer directly but said, “Well, look, that’s – I don’t rarely get restless but I am – that’s kind of a pastoral issue that I think one has to talk to him about, and I think proper people have. And I’d be uncomfortable going into that, rather spiritual and pastoral. That’s a good point. Not denying him [Communion]. He may have already said, ‘I cannot approach [Communion].’”

be moved by this. So what would be the use?”

Cardinal Dolan fills in perfectly as Gov. Cuomo’s “Fr. Fatty Butterpants”, a description for others originated by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, better known as Fr. Z.

Cardinal Dolan, the governor and mayor are part of the deepening rot in the city known as The Big Apple.

The cardinal, sitting elephant-like on Christian hearts and souls, will NEVER excommunicate his buddy Gov. Cuomo.

Though the current pope would never do it, it is Cardinal Dolan who should be excommunicated as well.

Cardinal Dolan on excommunication: I Wouldn’t want to give our enemies ammo so instead I will eat with him, appear with him, ask their indulgence. Besides they might excommunicate me from the Democrat Party! And surely no confusion is sown, you all know I am authentic right, wink, wink. And it is an old discipline not of this time and meant for other people doing serious wrong, seriously helping people do wrong, or something.

0

0

OUR CHATTY POPE, FRANCIS, HAS CONTINUED, AS HE OFTEN DOES, TO OPINE ON A VARIETY OF SOCIAL AND POLITICAL ISSUES OVER THE PAST SEVERAL DAYS, AND ACTUALLY, THROUGHOUT HIS PAPACY.

HE HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN DEPRESSINGLY SILENT ON ISSUES OF GREAT IMPORTANCE WHICH ONE WOULD EXPECT HIM TO KNOW MUCH ABOUT AND BE WITHIN HIS PRIMARY AREA OF RESPONSIBILITY AND EXPERTISE (OR “WHEELHOUSE”, AS HE WHO LOVES TO SOUND HIP, MIGHT SAY).

His Holiness has generously given us his views on “migration, and the ‘evils’ of borders. He has advised young people to “not waste TIME on the internet and smart phones”. On his first day, in Panama, Francis “blasted ‘fears and suspicions’ over “migration” and his disdain for “walls that divide people”. Almost in passing, he did make reference to the sex scandals which have recently plagued the Church.

Oddly, though, unless I missed it, up until just lately I hadn’t heard Il Papa say much about the Venezuelan crisis nor the ravages that socialism under the late Hugo Chavez and the current president, Nicholas Maduro has wrought on that desperate nation and its people.

Now Pope, where’s that grace face?

Nor have I heard the Holy Father express an opinion, much less an appropriate condemnation of the New York senate’s and the state’s “Catholic” governor’s (Cuomo) joyous approval of the new abortion law…ONE OF THE MOST EXTREME AND INHUMANE ANY STATE HAS IMPLEMENTED! (No protection for infants who survive abortion; abortion right up to virtually the moment of birth; no doctor required to perform abortion, etc.)

As far as Francis’s views on Venezuela, he did address the issue on Sunday during his return to the Vatican from his’ triumphant’ visit to Panama for the “Catholic World Youth” gathering..

His comments on the crisis in that beleaguered nation, however, could correctly be described as ‘laughable’ in view of the Pope’s history of eagerly speaking out about all manner of political matters in other countries, particularly the United States, as if he knows this country.

The Pontiff has made a practice of making thinly veiled criticism of US foreign and domestic policy, our capitalist system, and President Trump on a wide variety of topics.

But this Sunday, he told reporters that, while he is “terrified of a blood bath” in Venezuela, “HE DOESN’T WANT TO PICK SIDES IN THE POLITICAL STANDOFF BECAUSE “IT IS NOT HIS ROLE AS A PASTOR”!

An outspoken fan of socialism and Marxism, perhaps the “Pastor” doesn’t wish to have to acknowledge the distinction between that ideology, despite the suffering it has imposed on the people of that forlorn country and the relative freedom possible under capitalism.

He didn’t say if the Holy See would recognize opposition leader Juan Guaido in his claim for the presidency over Socialist President Nicolas Maduro.

Oh, and I’ve not heard Pope Francis’ comments on New York’s abortion law…and the fecklessness of church discipline towards Catholic politicians there and elsewhere.

Guess we’ll see.

In the mean time: VIVA LA PAPA!    DLH

Pope fears bloodshed in Venezuela, not taking sides for now

0

0

BROKAW’S COMMENTS ON RACE DRAW HUGE ‘BACKLASH! APOLOGIZES FOR OFFENSIVE REMARKS…  

• WELL, MAYBE NOT FOR ALL OF HIS “OFFENSIVE REMARKS”
• APPARENTLY HIS ‘ERUDITE’ OBSERVATIONS ON THE “REPUBLICAN SIDE” ARE OK

Tom Brokaw’s alter ego, without speech impediment

What happens when an aging, one time “super star newsman” comes to realize that he is no longer relevant in an age where many Americans are realizing that in reality, he was not a “superstar”, and maybe not even a “good newsman”.

To find out, one need go no further than to listen to Tom Brokaw as he tells us what our nation’s problem is regarding the average “Republican’s” attitude toward “others”.

In a panel discussion on NBC’s “Meet the Press, here’s what Tom Brokaw had to say about the “effectiveness” of his reporting techniques in getting to learn how “people really feel”.

“On the Republican side, a lot of people see the rise of an extraordinary, important new constituent in American politics, Hispanics, who will come here and all be Democrats,” he said.

“Also, I hear, when I push people a little harder, ‘Well, I don’t know whether I want brown grandbabies.’ I mean, that’s also a part of it. It’s the intermarriage that is going on and the cultures that are conflicting with each other,” he added.

Brokaw went on to say: “I also happen to believe that the Hispanics should work harder at assimilation. That’s one of the things I’ve been saying for a long time. You know, they ought not to be just codified in their communities but make sure that all

Left sent message to Brokaw

their kids are learning to speak English, and that they feel comfortable in the communities. And that’s going to take outreach on both sides, frankly.”

Seems that Mr. Brokaw’s comments attracted a huge backlash!
Not surprisingly, the 78 year old former NBC News anchor quickly apologized for his remarks!

Well, maybe not ALL of his remarks!:

Sunday evening, Brokaw tweeted: “I feel terrible a part of my comments on Hispanics offended some members of that proud culture.”    DLH

0

0

WE KNOW VERY WELL WHY FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY “ALLOWED MUELLER’S THUGS TO USE 29 FBI AGENTS ON ROGER STONE”  

So does everybody else in Washington! Christopher Wray has been, and is the “Establishment’s”, and thus, the Deep State’s AND MUELLER’S guy all along.

One must realize that in today’s toxic political climate, no Donald Trump presidential nominee will ever get all but 5 Democrat senators to vote to confirm him, as Wray had, UNLESS the “uni-party” knows damn well what that person Wray is. And all America should know what Christopher Wray is.

OF COURSE he was ‘all in’ on Mueller’s “secret police” tactic (and not for the first time).   Was Mr.Wray not aware that his Deputy (and defacto head of the FBI) Rod Rosentein was stalling, slow walking, refusing to turn over legally and Constitutionally requested documents to Congress?

Why is Director Wray quiet as a little mouse while legitimate questions are being asked by Congress about the bureau’s past illegal activities?

But now, however we see that:

“On Thursday, Wray denounced the partial government shutdown by posting on the FBI website that “It takes a lot to get me angry, but I’m about as angry as I have been in a long, long time.”

Conservatives should be “really angry” about Christopher Wray’s conduct. He could not be acting more effectively on behalf of the Deep State and the Congressional Left than if he were on Chuck Schumer’s payroll…and reported directly to Rod Rosenstein. Come to think of it, Christopher might well be both of those things.  DLH

Victoria Toensing writes at The Daily Caller:

Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Chris Wray should hang his head in shame. At a time when he should be restoring the FBI’s reputation after Jim Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok and others tarnished its image as our country’s premier law enforcement agency, he allowed 29 gun slinging agents to make a predawn arrest of former Trump advisor Roger Stone.

Stone is not a drug dealer, nor is he a terrorist. Stone is charged with obstruction of justice and making false statements to the special counsel. Significantly, the alleged false statements specified in the indictment were about conduct, which, if admitted, was not criminal.

I prosecuted drug dealers. I never sent more than a handful of agents to arrest them, and these were were gun toting, vicious dudes. Stone does not own a gun nor does he even have a license to do so.

I supervised the prosecution and, thus, the capture of foreign terrorists. The FBI never sent 29 agents to capture even the most dangerous.

Department of Justice protocol for non-violent defendants with no flight risk is to contact defense counsel and arrange a time to appear in federal court for arraignment. Stone has claimed for months that he was about to be indicted. Yet, he did not flee. He has stated that his passport is expired. The judge did not find Stone a flight risk, releasing him on his own signature.

The reason for not sending armed agents unnecessarily into an arrest situation is the possibility of danger to law enforcement, the defendant, and family members. Stone’s deaf wife was still in bed at 6:00 a.m. when the agents barked “Open up. It’s the FBI.” The announcement is intended to alert people inside not to fight and to voluntarily open the door. But Stone’s wife would have had no idea what was happening. Are we to believe that after over a year of tracking Stone’s every move and reading all his correspondence, Mueller’s henchmen did not know this fact?

Worse, someone with the FBI or Mueller’s team dropped a dime on CNN, which sent a reporter who falsely claimed he was only there because of “reporter’s instinct.” The presence of the press was intended to send a message: “If you cross Mueller, you will be publicly humiliated.”

On Thursday, Wray denounced the partial government shutdown by posting on the FBI website that “It takes a lot to get me angry, but I’m about as angry as I have been in a long, long time.” It is time for him to get angry about how Mueller’s team used the FBI. He can start by investigating who got CNN to the arrest scene.

RedState has video and compelling commentary by Streif (excerpt)

Early this morning, long time Trump crony Roger Stone was arrested by the FBI on a federal arrest warrant that charged him with one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering (read it here). This is the scene:

There are few things notable about this.

First, there is actually a SWAT team, complete with automatic weapons, employed to make this arrest. This if for a 67-year-old man with no criminal record, no history of violence, and no passport on a bunch of hardcore chickensh** charges.

Second, like the Manafort arrest, this was carried out in a way calculated to cause maximum inconvenience and spectacle.

Third, somehow CNN had a camera crew pre-positioned at the scene for exclusive video.

This is quintessential Mueller, or perhaps I should say Weissmann. They’ve picked their target and now they are out to extract maximum humiliation and pain as a way of making their prey plead guilty and, as part of the guilty plea, they won’t be allowed to complain about the way they were treated. It is bullying. It is modeled on now the CHEKA, the NKVD, and KGB operated. . . .

0

0

Where can one find Republican organizations and solid GOP candidates who have a little “feck”?

I remember in the not-too-distant past , our would be “Republican” leaders telling us gullible voters that having the House of Representatives in the party’s clear control was “just not enough to really impact the federal government’s trajectory”.

As controlling “only one-half of one third of the three co-equal branches of government”, (for four years) there just wasn’t the ‘power’ to much influence events as directed by the other ‘four-fifths’ (Executive, both partisan halves of the Senate, and one partisan half of the House), they told us.

We need control of the Senate ( we gave that to them for two years) and the White House and then watch us “roar”, we were assured!

So, America gave it to them in 2016 . . . three branches, both ‘halves’…the Oval Office, the Senate ‘floor’, the House of Representatives’ “Chambers” (you may recall, that’s where presidents give the State of the Union address to the nation).

And that’s when voters learned what the term “feckless” means. (*see the definitions below)

And, if there was a person who could be the embodiment of that term, “feckless”, it would be Paul Ryan.

And, if a group of persons could be the embodiment of the term, it would be the “Establishment Republicans ” we voters unwittingly sent to Washington!

And, so here we are.

One half of one third of the “co-equal” branches of the United States government is now in control of this nation’s destiny…its eventual status as a second rate socialist ‘non-nation’!

How is that possible?! DLH

‘Have I not been clear about the wall?’ Pelosi signals Trump still won’t get what he wants

An excerpt from Rollcall story:

Three weeks of negotiations not likely to result in a Trump-friendly agreement on border wall funding

ANALYSIS — It took 35 days, but President Donald Trump ultimately caved to Democratic demands that he reopen the government before they’d entertain negotiations on border security. And in 21 more, Trump will have to decide whether to give in again, because he’s not likely to get what he wants.
Trump agreed Friday to back a three-week continuing resolution that will reopen the government through Feb. 15. But he is not giving up on his quest to secure funding for wall along the southern border.

“We really have no choice but to build a powerful wall or steel barrier,” Trump said as he concluded remarks from the Rose Garden announcing the deal to temporarily reopen government. “If we don’t get a fair deal from Congress, the government will either shut down on Feb. 15 again or I will use the powers afforded to me under the laws and the Constitution of the United States to address this emergency.”

Democrats say they will not agree to provide funding for the wall, period. If they were willing to entertain that, they would’ve done so before the government shutdown in December or in the more than a month since as roughly 800,000 federal workers went without pay.

“Have I not been clear on the wall?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Friday when one asked if Democrats would continue to object to wall funding in the upcoming negotiations. “I’ve been very clear.”

Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer was more direct: “Democrats are against the wall.”

DLH

———– read more at roll call website—————
—————————–*————————

*Some definitions of “feckless; which is how many describe the former GOP Speaker Paul Ryan, and many other “Republican” members of Congress?

ineffective; incompetent; having no sense of responsibility; indifferent; lazy.

Our managing editor adds (apocryphally): roost is what poultry do. Feck is a corruption of peck, something poultry do. Fittingly, adding “er” to the poultry analogy and you get the drift as regards those who fail or are too shy about ruling the roost . . . they are feckerless, a.k.a. . . .

0

0

If the entire history of the two “incidents” must be rehashed for the communicators to get the message, then the effort to achieve honest discourse between the Left and regular people in America is futile.

Must anything more to be said about the irreconcilable divide in America today than the mention of two names: Nick Sandman of Covington, KY and David Hogg, “survivor” of the Parkland (Fla.) school shooting in 2018.

Here’s Mr. Hogg idea of “dialogue” (via Twitter):

David Hogg‏ @davidhogg111 . . .27 Oct 2018

Fuck the NRA, vote.

And here is how “Slate” magazine’s Ruth Graham chooses to characterize Sandman, even after the full video shows the way MSM hoped to vilify and discredit the youthful “Right to Life” marchers exposed it as the disgrace for the media that it was:

• “Many other March for Life attendees and supporters reacted in horror and shame. This is because of what everyone saw so clearly in the initial clip, and what hasn’t changed with the additional information: Sandmann’s smirk, and his failure to get out of Phillips’ face. I described Sandmann’s expression on Saturday as “The face that sneers, ‘What? I’m just standing here,’ if you flinch or cry or lash out.” Or, as Sandmann put it in his statement, “I never interacted with this protestor. I did not speak to him. I did not make any hand gestures or other aggressive moves.”

0

0

My oldest brother David died suddenly Wednesday night. My brother and I lived in the same house, well his research material, library, my stuff, David and I shared a house. The house still has all the things but it seems empty. The loss is deep and abiding for me.

The following tribute was posted in the National Right to Life News by Editor Dave Andrusko, who was also a friend of my brother. I hope readers will forgive this somewhat personal indulgence and that postings here could be disrupted for a period of time, not that I do not find posting therapeutic.

January 25, 2019   Pro-Lifers

David Mall: RIP

By Dave Andrusko

A friend of well over 30 years passed away this week. David Mall was not only one of our Movement’s earliest intellectual giants, he also helped found Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL is National Right to Life’s state affiliate) and was executive director of Americans United for Life (AUL).

“David Mall was an important pioneer of the right to life movement and wrote some excellent books which helped shape the early thinking of the Movement’s leaders,” said Darla St. Martin, Co-Executive Director of National Right to Life.

His brother, Roger, wrote, “This was a shock to the family. David loved life and the friends, compatriots, associates and acquaintances that were part of it.”

As a friend said to me when I informed him of David’s unexpected passing, “A great loss. Two books he contributed to and helped edit, ‘New Perspectives on Human Abortion’ and ‘Death, Dying and Euthanasia,’ still sit on the bookshelf right in front of me when I work at my desk.”

David’s contribution to the latter was titled, “Death and the Rhetoric of Unknowing.” To the former, David wrote, “Toward an understanding of the abortion debate: rhetoric as a reticulate structure.”

Rhetoric was the principle subject of David’s academic work. There was, for example, “Stalemate of Rhetoric and Philosophy,” which he contributed to “Abortion and Social Justice” and the preface he wrote for “When Life and Choice Collide: Essays on Rhetoric and Abortion.”

(In an incredible coincidence I was recently going through my book shelves at National Right to Life when I ran across still another book David co-edited: “The Psychological Aspects of Abortion.”)

But David was not only an academician. My earliest involvement, which goes back to the 1970s, was with “S.O.U.L.”—Save Our Unwanted Life—a kind of precursor to Teens for Life. I learned today that David was active in that organization as well as the National Youth Pro-life Coalition. These expressions for his concern for the future of the Movement do not surprise me at all.

In his preface to the aforementioned “When Life and Choice Collide: Essays on Rhetoric and Abortion,” David laid bare his unyielding conviction that truth, if given a chance, will carry the day in the abortion debate no matter how ugly the pro-abortion ethos:

When all is said and concluded about media bias, however, one thing is certain. What is logically and ethically correct about abortion will be decided in favor of justice and love only if rhetoric is left free to assist the process of public decision making. Thomas Jefferson perhaps said it best when he wrote: ‘We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.’ In authoring the Declaration of Independence, he also, in turn, supplied the trade name for the right-to-life movement and spoke for all those contributing to this anthology who believe in the proposition that any idea no matter how distasteful must be give a chance to be disproved. Stripped to it essentials what this means is an unflinching belief that truth is not only stronger than falsehood but that it cannot be bested in an unhindered encounter.

0

0

Francis abdicated his responsibility to name that country’s Catholic bishops, deferring to its “devout religious leaders” who know just what the people’s souls need:

“This month, the Vatican asked two underground Chinese bishops to step down in favor of their Beijing-approved counterparts, one of whom the church in Rome had already excommunicated. Then yesterday, the Vatican indicated it would recognize the legitimacy of seven Communist Party-approved bishops. The moves come after several years of statements and other indications from Pope Francis that he hopes to mend ties with China.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/democracy-post/wp/2018/02/02/pope-francis-is-giving-in-to-the-chinese-communist-party/?utm_term=.47df5a8f3204

0

0

A commentary to which I would, unsurprisingly, wholeheartedly agree, Weigel is accurately describing the pitiful position of the Catholic Church today.

Weigel, however, fails to mention the Pope’s eagerness to welcome Cuba and its oppressive dictatorship into the ‘family of compassionate nations’.

Francis’s Mass and speech, given under the benign gaze of the Che Guevara mural in Cuba’s “Revolution Square” still resonates with Catholics who recognize the Church is now “ruled” by its first Marxist/ Communist Pope.

Indeed. Don’t cry for him Argentina! DLH (bold emphasis ours)

Squandering Moral Capital

Published in George Weigel’s weekly column The Catholic Difference on January 23, 2019

The morality of tyrannicide is not much discussed in today’s kinder, gentler Catholic Church. Yet that difficult subject once engaged some of Catholicism’s finest minds, including Thomas Aquinas and Francisco Suárez, and it was passionately debated during the Second World War by German officers—many of them devout Christians—who were pondering the assassination of Adolf Hitler. (Their efforts were known and tacitly approved by Pius XII, but that’s another story.)

What about today? Were I back in the classroom, I’d ask my students to construct a morally defensible argument for killing a tyrant. If the student followed Aquinas’s reasoning, the case for tyrannicide would involve a leader who was doing grave evil, who could not be removed from power except by being killed, and whose assassination would not make matters worse. Were those conditions met, Aquinas argued in his Commentary on Peter Lombard, a citizen might even be “praised and rewarded” for being the “one who liberates his country by killing a tyrant.”

With the 30th anniversary of the Revolution of 1989 coming this fall, we’ll all be reminded that there are alternatives to killing tyrants or surrendering to evil: Awakened consciences can discover nonviolent tools of resistance to tyranny, tools preferable to assassination. And consciences are awakened when men and women hear a summons to moral heroism—to living in the truth, which is the greatest of liberators. That is why the current stance of the Holy See toward Latin American tyrannies is so disconcerting. For rather than calling the people of hard-pressed countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua to effective, nonviolent resistance against tyrants on the model of Poland and Czechoslovakia in the 1980s, the Vatican is constantly bleating about “dialogue” with murderous thugs who’ve demonstrated for decades that they’re only interested in maintaining their power, masking their gross personal ambition and greed with a foggy cloud of gibberish about “the revolution.”

Now, however, 20 former Latin American heads of state and government have said, politely but firmly, that enough is enough. In a January 6 letter to their fellow Latin American Pope Francis, the signatories, including Nobel Peace Prize winner Oscar Arias of Costa Rica, acknowledged the “good faith” and “pastoral spirit” of Francis’s Christmas blessing Urbi et Orbi (to the city and the world). But they also reminded the pope that Venezuelans “are victims of oppression by a militarized narco-dictatorship which has no qualms about systematically violating the rights to life, liberty, and personal integrity,” a corrupt regime that has also “subjected [Venezuelans] to widespread famine and lack of medicine.” As for Nicaragua, President Arias and his colleagues noted that the Ortega regime has recently killed 300 Nicaraguans and wounded 2,500 others in a “wave of repression” against nonviolent protesters.

In these contexts, the former leaders concluded, the papal “call for harmony….can be understood by the victimized nations [as an instruction] that they should come to agreement with their victimizers.” Which is why the majority in Nicaragua and Venezuela received the pope’s Christmas message “in a very negative way.”

In 2013, the Church’s moral influence in world affairs was at its modern apogee. John Paul II was widely recognized as a pivotal figure in the nonviolent collapse of European communism and a significant player in the democratization of Latin America and East Asia. Drawing on John Paul’s social doctrine and his own penetrating insights into political modernity, Benedict XVI had made powerful statements about the moral foundations of the 21st-century free society in lectures at the Collège des Bernardins in Paris, London’s Westminster Hall, and the Bundestag in Berlin.
What has the world seen since then?

It has seen a papal initiative in Syria that, however well-intended, provided cover for the Obama administration to back off its “red line” about Bashar al-Assad’s use of chemical weapons against his own people. It has seen a Vatican that refuses to use the words “invasion,” “war,” and “occupation” to describe Vladimir Putin’s Anschluss in Crimea and his war in eastern Ukraine, which has killed more than 10,000 and displaced more than a million Ukrainians, many of them Ukrainian Greek Catholics. It has seen a Vatican deal with China that is widely regarded as a kowtow to ruthless, aggressive authoritarians.

Where is the moral challenge to tyranny? Where is the summons to heroic resistance? Great moral capital is being squandered, in a world that desperately needs a moral compass.

George Weigel is Distinguished Senior Fellow of Washington, D.C.’s Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he holds the William E. Simon Chair in Catholic Studies.

0

0