« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Does the Catholic League Use Colons?

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  April 12th, 2012 at 03:43 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

I’m not sure if this is a parody account or not. If it is legitimate, I presume the Catholic League twitter account holder does not use colons in tweets going back to at least April 2nd because his head is so far up his rear end he’s blocking his own colon.

I’m referring to this bit of hate in its twitter feed. Today while the right is pushing back on Hilary Rosen’s comments about stay at home moms somehow not having jobs like women who work outside the home, the Catholic League, via twitter, presumes to divide up moms between authentic moms who have their own children and moms who adopt — not to mention raising the wholly irrelevant issue of Hilary Rosen’s sexuality.

A mother is a mother however she received her blessing. Trying to claim natural mothers are superior to mothers through adoption is rather vile in my mind. Would the Catholic League prefer adoption or abortion?

If this is a legitimate twitter account, shame on the Catholic League for stooping to the same level of hate it combats in those it views as going after the Catholic Church.

If this is a phony account, I hope the Catholic League will take swift action to shut it down lest it be further maligned by the idiocy of whoever is twittering under that account.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • phototiger

    Sorry Eric, I don’t see their tweet as “a bit of hate.” They simply identified her as what she is, a lesbian democrat. After all, the media have told us that we have to use “gay” to indicate a homosexual man and “lesbian” to indicate a homosexual female, as though the word “homosexual” is somehow demeaning.

    Again, I don’t see their tweet as hateful. I would’ve gone further and called a spade a spade by tweeting that homosexuality is a perversion straight from the pit of hell, but the truth is considered hateful now, of course.

  • brianr

    That tweet implies that Ann Romney is a better person somehow for having birthed her own children as opposed to adopting. What about all of the people who can’t have children for medical reasons who adopt? Or who choose do adopt based on their own personal moral grounds? Are they inferior to Ann Romney for adopting instead of birthing children?

  • avgjo

    I’m the first to argue that calling out homosexuality is not hateful. And in fact, when i first read this article, I was afraid that EE might have fallen into the PC morass.

    but brianr’s comment nails it. That’s exactly how it comes across, as an attack on those who adopt. I don’t agree that this woman’s sexuality is irrelevant, but that’s really not what remains with you when you read this tweet. It looks like an attack on adoption.

  • tnguy

    When examining the comments or opinion of someone, that person’s practice of a lifestyle that is an affront to God is always relevant.

  • phototiger

    I guess it could be interpreted as an attrack on adoption, but I didn’t see it that way. Also, I doubt that the Catholic League would say such a thing because they promote adoption over abortion.

  • shadowtax

    Or perhaps it was meant as a play on words? No doubt it is work for women (and men) to raise adopted children, but is not childbirth called labor? While everyone is entitled to dignity, I cannot deny that the two forms of motherhood are qualitatively different.

    And while we are blowing a tweet all out of proportion, what about the perennial feminist charge against men that they don’t have to deal with pregnancy? Is that not a source of resentment between careerist feminists and men and/or stay at home moms?

    I find the tweet distasteful. And I’m not happy with some of the others which I read. But they are tweets and I judge them accordingly. I am not so quick to invoke the charge of hate.

  • phototiger

    I meant “attack,” not “attrack.”

  • earlgrey

    Rosen did herself enough damage. Why did someone have to make a fool out of themselves here?

  • westcoastpatriette

    I don’t think the point being made by the Catholic League tweet was trying to demean parents who adopt so much as it is trying to make the point that unless a lesbian was once a heterosexual who gave birth to her children, the only option she would have would be to adopt. In that regard, it was meant to be an insulting swipe to all lesbians.

  • Papabile

    If he had more than 140 characters, I imagine Bill would have cited this:

    “As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.” … “The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.

    Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.”

    (CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS, CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

  • chuckludd

    I am generaly a strong supporter of the Catholic League, but this tweet not only undermines pro-life values but it severly distracts from Rosen’s absurd remarks.

    This is a bad set-back if it’s real. I am hoping it is not.

  • Papabile

    For some reason the above truncated. The above was signed by the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctine of the Faith, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, on June 3, 2003 and it also contained the following note:

    “The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.”

  • naraht

    I’m just getting it as a weird swipe against Adoption. The way I read it, if Rosen and her Lesbian Partner (Does she have a partner?) had birthed 5 kids after Rosen got artificially inseminated, well then that would be fine.

    OTOH, if Rosen were straight married and infertile and she and her husband adopted, then she would still be unequal to Mrs. Romney.

    I know in some countries Adoption is discouraged, but I’ve never seen it viewed as inferior to having your own children.

    The only fights I’ve seen relating to adoption in the last 15 years are
    1) Adoption is Better than Abortion
    2) Single parents and/or Gay couples should/shouldn’t be able to adopt.

    There is no way that Governor Romney would set that inequality to birthing/adopting, the LDS Church supports single women who are LDS and get pregnant to give up the child through LDS Family Services for adoption by an LDS couple.

  • Papabile

    I think Bill Donohue would have the same problem with that as it’s prohibited for Catholics.

  • naraht

    Um,. what if she was made unwillingly pregnant with quintuplets?

  • Uma Richie

    tweets.

    We’re not talking about an organization as big as the ACLU. This isn’t an official Church feed. I have been a practicing Catholic for my entire life and the only times I have seen the Catholic League’s name were related to free pamphlets in the back of church. If the Catholic League were a force to be reckoned with, the Church would be in a much better position regarding the HHS mandate.

    They don’t speak for us. Stop letting the left pretend they do.

    It is impossible to expect fidelity to message from every person in every organization that is critical of Obama. The liberals are going to get away with their errors if we give up momentum to distance ourselves from every questionable half-thought posted on twitter.

    I can’t believe the right is responding to this non-story and allowing it to grow legs.

  • avgjo

    point you make about the feminist charge.

    And I am with you about invoking the charge of hate. I pretty much reserve it for people that just look at someone who’s done nothing morally objectionable and holding malice towards them because of how God made them, like certain racists of all colors.

  • chuckludd

    And surely the author knew that! It is a terribly imprudent comment.

    I understand the arguments against homosexual adoption and I do not support State policies that favor or promote homosexual adoption. However, we do not know the circumstances of her 5 adopted children. Were they from relatives? Were they saved from overseas famine or war? Were they the last option for an agency? We do not know the facts of these children. Homosexual adoption is preferable than allowing children to starve, be pawns in warlords games, end up as targets in gangland turf battles, or be snuffed out in the horror of an abortion. I know people who have adopted children from all of those circumstances and the children have been given a chance at life.

  • proudmarinemom

    Erick, I have not commented here in over a year. This needs addressing.

    In admonishing the “tweet” (of uncertain origin) for its uncharitable characterization of adoption as an inferior means of building a family, you should be very careful to avoid a paraphrase that reinforces the perception that families who adopt have no “children of their own.” The “own” part needs to be stricken from all dialogue on adoption. Just stop using it.

    While I highly doubt that the Catholic League generated that insensitive, off-point message, somebody did. Somewhere, somebody just could not resist perpetuating the “not quite the same as your own” myth about adoptive children.

    Ms. Rosen is a strident buffoon, with a steel-cold heart. I despise her insinuation that the years of struggle that preceded the Romneys financial success don’t count, that Ann Romney’s support for her husband during the lean years made no contribution to the success they now both enjoy. What would Ms. Rosen say about her own mother’s or grandmother’s contributions to her own family? The tongue-lashing my grandmother could give her . . .But she would not ever say that her children are not her “own.”

    “Anonymous” said it best:

    I
    Did not plant you,
    True.
    But when
    The season is done -
    When the alternate
    Prayers for sun
    And for rain
    Are counted -
    When the pain
    of weeding
    And the pride
    of watching
    Are through -
    Then
    I will hold you
    High,
    A shining sheaf
    Above the thousand
    Seed grown wild.

    Not my planting,
    But by heaven
    My harvest -
    My own child.

  • avgjo

    I think everyone needs to get a thick skin.

    If everyone weren’t so danged sensitive, we’d not have to worry about this false construct irresponsibly called ‘hate’ that pervades our current political and social culture.

    I’m mixed race – my dad’s white, my mom’s American of mexican descent. It is completely cool make fun of white people and still pretty ok to make fun of mexicans on tv and in public. I don’t really care, and in fact, I laugh at a lot of the jokes. Let someone insult my mother or my father because of their skin color, and that someone’s gonna get a fight. But I was raised to be thick skinned, and to distinguished real offenses from perceived ones. That distinction is missing in our culture. Gran Torino caught a lot of hell, but it was a fine movie IMO and I think that was a major part of what the movie was trying to convey – grow up and get a thick skin.

  • avgjo

    ‘to distinguish’

  • zip27

    I love that quote, I’ve never seen it before.

  • chuckludd

    If a homosexual legislator proposed a bill in a State legislature that restricted abortion would you oppose the legislation because he is a homosexual? Would you not applaud him for the courage of being pro-life in a culture of death? If a heterosexual and public adulteress legislator proposed the same bill, would you oppose the legislation because she is an adulteress? If an apostate opened a homeless shelter would oppose the shelter because it is run by an apostate?

    Yes, in some instances the person’s personal life is legitimately relevant when examining their opinions, but it is not “always relevant.” We are all sinners. But we are also all children of God. If a person’s personal life were always relevant in assessing their opinions, then every last one of us is not worthy of stating an opinion. Justice is objective, despite the sinner who proclaims it.

  • Jack_Savage

    More like “poor choice of words”. That seems to be popular these days.

    Anyway, whomever tweeted this took a swing at Rosen and hit all adoptive mothers, which is off base, uncalled for and wrong. What their point may have been, and if it were I would completely agree, is that Rosen seems to be spectacularly unqualified to lecture Ann Romney on anything having to do with marriage and family, and should shut the hell up on that particular subject from now on.

  • altexas

    “Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.”

    A valid concern worth noting and safeguarding against but presumptive. The word “violence” is particularly harsh. As a “consideration” of the Church, it is part of an ongoing discussion among theologians and carries no moral weight. It should be viewed in that light.

    If a Hindu adopts a Muslim child and raises that child as a Muslim to the best of his abilities, he will have done a good thing.

    This particular presumption speaks in a general way about a valid concern of the Church. It does not directly condemn but is a caution against the inherent weakness of non-traditional unions that may lead to condemnable errors.

    “the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children ”

    Obstacles exist in all unions, some more than others. A traditional Marriage is obviously on the surface a more natural environment for raising a child.. This too is not an absolute.

    Parents die, are imprisoned, sent off to war or other situations which cause obstacles for more ideal child development.

    Some children become complete orphans. These are the children we are speaking of. The Church is right to caution against environments that present inherent obstacles. The caution should be noted well. All Christians should be watchful of all in need, that they be cared for as best we can provide within our means. Not more.

    I do not see in the Congregation’s consideration any condemnation of non-traditional adoption. I do see a strongly worded caution against it. I doubt any of the good fathers would argue against a child having one good parent or two caring guardians of the same gender being in any way worse than the institutional setting of an orphanage. If these loving caretakers are mindful of their proper role as parents, no artificial impediments should be imposed. To my knowledge, the Church has imposed no such impediments.

    The commitment to care for a child, not ones own. is not a light commitment. Those that do so should be respected for their freely given love.

    As for this Catholic League crap, just read back through a few tweets. It another snarky twitterer hiding behind the anonymity of the web. Not worth my time.

  • tnguy

    …from the fact that we are all sinners vs. comparing that to an openly sinful, unrepentant lifestyle. We all sin, but perpetually living in that sin – while advocating that your abomination is perfectly normal – is far different from the besetting sin that creeps into the life of believers.

    Did I say that I would, in your example, oppose the homeless shelter? No, I didn’t. But you better believe that I’d view it much differently than one ran by a believer.

  • rabun1016

    Don’t think anything like that is authorized. No twitter on their webpage. Hijacked name.

  • rabun1016

    Erick, I think you were caught like a big fish. Look at the content and it is clear that is not from the Catholic League.

  • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

    for the Catholic Church and since I have heard Bill Donohue speak many times and have never heard him say anything that I would call hateful I doubt seriously that this is an authentic Catholic League Twitter account. Of course, I could be wrong. It’s happened before and it will happen again. If I’m wrong, I will stand corrected (orthopedic shoes).

  • altexas

    Although I am a bit older. I used to watch Cardinal Sheen.

  • http://realpolitik-kaiser.blogspot.com/ Patrick

    She’s self-admittedly in a partnership with another woman (or has been for some extended period of time) and an outspoken LGBT activist to boot.

  • freedom555

    …much more than the openly, blatantly……in-your-face pious folk.

    Politically speaking, this talk of “openly sinful, unrepentant lifestyle(s)”…….is a sure step toward irrelevancy.

    tnguy, I don’t question your right to believe as you do, and to judge others harshly because of your beliefs.

    But I don’t believe any but a small minority want a return to the moralizing in your message.

  • aesthete

    Put another way, heterosexual adoption > homosexual adoption doesn’t mean that homosexual adoption < every other arrangement that a child can find him or herself in.

  • bobvious

    ?????! ??????? ? ??? ?? ?????? ? ??????! ??????

  • witherspoon

    This feed is linked from http://www.catholicleague.org/.
    Looks legitimate.

  • tnguy

    …by voters speaks volumes to the contrary. Even in liberal states like Oregon.

  • mizzou1776

    Of homosexual adoption. Nor do the American people. But you want to stay on cnn & must defend scum like rosen! Becoming just another hack & playing the game, Eric?

  • titanl9

    It’s not about one woman being better then another woman.. it’s about a “Lesbian” adopting vs. Heterosexual married woman going through natural childbirth, as it was meant from the Catholic perspective.

  • naraht

    Wikipedia says Rosen and Birch separated…

  • eddiethegeek

    Their point, made perhaps inartfully, is that homosexuals oughtn’t be allowed to adopt. To think that they are differentiating between adoptive parents and birth parents is erroneous. They are attempting to differentiate between two parent (mother and father) families and homosexual “families.”

  • naraht

    Love the poem.

  • http://www.erickerickson.org Erick Erickson

    Than stay at home moms?

    Because its not the debate we’re having right now and is not relevant.

  • funwithknives

    Check over all the varying opines, on this line, on what the “perceived position” of this Tweet “meant” and how many varying definitions appear? Looks like another day in America, to me….

    Just when you think you’ve ‘heard it all’, you are proven oh-so wrong.

  • zachv

    Appreciate it.

    I’ll add that even religiously speaking, the “openly sinful …” bomb throwers are beginning to be taken to task. Obviously there’s the Presbyterians and Anglicans who have full out abandoned ship, but even within Catholic circles you can see the evolution beginning to take place against the anti-gay themes.

  • soljerblue

    has an adopted daughter — who’s a working woman and a superb Mom of two — and has adoptions within my family, I would cheerfully take a heavy, blunt instrument to the sorrysob who posted that canard

  • evawire

    PuuuhLEEEEEEEEZZZZZ, Erick, OF COURSE, that is a parody account! No Catholic would write those collections of TWEETS!!! (And, btw, it’s not “twittering.” It’s TWEETING.)
    Rosen’s comments were HATE FILLED. So, what else is new??!! The Dem LIBS always generalize and make untrue statements. She has free speech rights. So, IGNORE, or RESPOND, it’s all good, as they say.

    And ERICK, BTW, the fact that she is HOMOSEXUAL, IS NOT “WHOLLY IRRELEVANT,” as you believe and stated.

    HOMOSEXUALITY affects ALL of our AMERICAN FAMILIES AND MOTHERS. Duh.