Wednesday, May 5, 2010

An interesting post

As we continue pondering the topic of immigration, I'd like to point out this very interesting blog post by Jack Smith at the Catholic Key:

It is not the “strangers” from Mexico, the Philippines, China or Vietnam, almost all of which have a very solid grasp on gender and are happy to work hard at the many small, often family businesses they run who would regard Sparks as “too conservative”.

Actually, the “strangers” who have loused up San Francisco, and indeed California, are immigrants from other states. The massive immigration in the 1950s to the 1970s of rootless individuals from other states seeking to find themselves or lose themselves in San Francisco has turned a once great, and once very Catholic, city into an embarrassing freak show. From the transsexual sex toy salesman Theresa Sparks (Kansas City) to the abortion queens Barbara Boxer (Brooklyn) and Nancy Pelosi (Baltimore) to psychopaths like Jim Jones (Indiana) to the intolerant gay narcissists Tom Ammiano (New Jersey) and Mark Leno (Milwaukee), nearly every kind of nut in California shares in common being a white, native born American from another state (Mayor Gavin Newson, admittedly, is a native San Franciscan).

I used to joke that California doesn’t need a wall along its Southern border, but along the Sierra Nevada. [...]

Similar scenes are common throughout other immigrant communities in the City. In the Mission, an impossible number of taquerias, carnicerias, groceries, panaderias and other small businesses are manned by Mexicans and other Latinos (legal and not). In a City which has the lowest number of children per capita of any American city (SF literally has more dogs than children), a single parish in the Mission, St. Peter's, has over 400 baptisms a year. A largely Hispanic parish south of San Francisco had 500 First Communions last week. I'll bet those statistics are alarming to some people. To me, they are a glimmer of hope and a sign of life in a city otherwise intent on suicide. I'll take the culture and fecundity of the Mexicans over the alternatives in the Mission - like the massive BDSM porn factory in the former San Francisco Armory or the useless, unemployed, pasty-white, pierced, art/activist/anarchist “community” which also finds a home in the Mission. [All links in original--E.M.]

This is an interesting viewpoint, and one that it makes sense to discuss: if America were a healthy nation with a healthy culture, would there be the "gaps" in labor, population etc. that immigrants, legal or not, are coming here to fill?

32 comments:

  1. I don't know -- I really have a problem with arguments that sound like "we should favor immigration, because the immigrants will vote Republican!" type arguments.

    It's a question of justice. Whether the perspective immigrants are gay liberal hedonists or daily 20 decade Rosary prayers in stable marriages does not beat on the question.

    This is especially important given the founding issue of this blog -- torture of detainees. People often justify torture because the targets are Really Bad Guys. Demographically, most victims of abortion would probably be culturally liberal.

    Let's concentrate on being the best people we can, rather than whether the people we may extend rights to are our kind of people.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Interesting, John, but I didn't really read the post as being partisan, so much as aware of the cultural collapse of the area in question.

    On other blogs I've heard and participated in discussions about demographics, and I think that was Jack Smith's ultimate point: immigrants want to come here because America is still seen as the land of opportunity, but the reason there is "room" for them to come (using "room" in a loose sense, of course) is because Americans aren't replacing themselves, in part because of a diseased and failing culture that has rejected religion and morality. More apparent, perhaps, in a place like SF.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I know that this isn't the right post to put this under; however, I think that Matthew Bellisario at Catholic Champion makes a very convincing argument at his blog and was wondering what your thoughts are.

    http://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2010/05/pope-benedict-xvi-and-condemnation-of.html

    God Bless

    ~Henry~

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mr. Bellisario writes in part:

    "For example many people quote Pope Benedict XVI in a public audience to a commission for the World Congress when he said, "...I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances...” as if that were a dogmatic statement condemning all torture. Catholic apologists should know that this was not a dogmatic statement, and they should know better than to take a quote like this one out of context."

    This is exactly the same argument made by the Catholic proponents of sodomy, abortion artificial contraception and other evils.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mr. Bellisario also writes in part:

    "For example, Pope Innocent IV openly endorsed torture during the Inquisition."

    No. Pope Innocent IV (1195 – 1254) did not endorse torture. (See his Papal Bull Ad extirpanda). The Spanish Inquisition (if this is what the writer is referring to) was established by Ferdinand and Isabel in 1478.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Bellisario also writes in part:

    "There are certain times that someone can be put to death, and certain times where it is immoral. The same goes for when physical or mental violence can be used on a person."

    No. The Church teaches that the State under certain rare circumstances has the right to exercise capital punishment. The Church teaches that physical or mental violence (torture) is inherently evil.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mr. Bellisario also writes in part:

    "Of course, the definition of what and when this happens is very obscure, and I have yet to come across a very detailed definition of what violates this dignity, and what exact circumstances it falls under."

    The US Army Field Manual on interrogation (FM 34-52) and the 1949 Geneva Convention (to which the Vatican is a signatory) regarding the treatment of prisoners go into exhaustive detail defining acts which violate human dignity.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mr. Bellisario also writes in part:

    "The State is incarcerating a person against his or her will to either punish or to rehabilitate them. This falls into the working definition of torture. To deny this use is to let every criminal on death row go free. But I think we could argue that this is not done in order to violate their human dignity."

    This is not a working definition of torture. The State also coerces drivers to stop at stop signs. I may be in a hurry but a cop with a radar gun and a ticket book is not torture. Neither is humane incarceration with due process.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Bellisario also writes in part:

    "Another reason would be for self defense. The State can carry out physical or mental violence to stop a violent act against innocent people."

    The Pentagon disagrees with Mr. Bellisario. Torture (Jack Bauer to the contrary) is counter productive as an interrogation tool. See the Above cited FM 34-52.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  10. RE: Popes and Councils vs. Mr. Bellisario

    For 2,000 years every time a Pope or Council has taught the universal faithful regarding the morality of torture is has been to condemn torture as evil. In 1899 Pope Leo XIII wrote to the American Primate (Cardinal Gibbons) and warned him of the heresy titled "Americanism" wherein Catholcis would surrender certain points of faith and morals in order to better fit in with American society.

    Cardinal Gibbons denied that the heresy was active here; and, when Pope Benedict XV called on him to do everything in his power to prevent the USA from entering WW I, he established the Catholic War Council (forerunner of USCCB) to facilitate our entry into WW I.

    The heresy titled Americanism is real; and sadly, widespread on both sides of the political spectrum. For a Catholic to stubbornly, persistently and publicly advocate for an inherent evil (whither torture, sodomy, artificial contraception of abortion)is for that Catholic to sink into heresy. We should pray for heretics; and also pray that Our Lady, Scourge of Heretics, to protect us from them.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  11. Richard wrote, "No. Pope Innocent IV (1195 – 1254) did not endorse torture. (See his Papal Bull Ad extirpanda)."

    Yes he did, read the text of the document. It gave specific instruction as to how far torture could go during the Inquisition. Research your facts before you comment and start accusing people of heresy. Also the Geneva convention is not the infallible authority who is able to define what torture is and is not. Not everything falls into the military definition of torture.

    Richard wrote, "For 2,000 years every time a Pope or Council has taught the universal faithful regarding the morality of torture is has been to condemn torture as evil."

    Once again no that is not the case. It condemned torture to be immoral in many circumstances, not all. All torture is not intrinsically evil.

    Richard wrote, "The Pentagon disagrees with Mr. Bellisario."

    The Pentagon is not an infallible authority. Does it make you feel good to quote a source that has nothing to do with the Church? This argument is fallacious, since the Pentagon has nothing to do with defining what is and what is not immoral concerning the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mr. Bellisario:

    "Yes he did, read the text of the document. It gave specific instruction as to how far torture could go during the Inquisition. Research your facts before you comment and start accusing people of heresy."

    The words "torture" and "inquisition" do not appear in the Papal Bull Ad Extirpanda issued in 1252 by Pope Innocent Iv> Consult Mr. Google for a copy.

    "Also the Geneva convention is not the infallible authority who is able to define what torture is and is not"

    So what? Both the USA and the Vatican are signatories. It is the law whether you like it or not. It is consistent with the teachings of Popes and Councils on this matter - unlike yourself.

    "Not everything falls into the military definition of torture."

    You mean if a guy in a green army suit does it then it is torture; but if a guy in a blue cop suit does it then it is not torture? Sorry, but the 5th Commandment applies to everyone no matter the color of their uniform.

    "Once again no that is not the case. It condemned torture to be immoral in many circumstances, not all. All torture is not intrinsically evil."

    OK. Consult Mr. Google. Cite a single Pope or Council over the past 2,000 years who have solemnly taught the universal faithful as a matter of faith and morals that torture is moral under certain circumstances.

    "The Pentagon is not an infallible authority. Does it make you feel good to quote a source that has nothing to do with the Church? This argument is fallacious, since the Pentagon has nothing to do with defining what is and what is not immoral concerning the Church."

    You clearly did not read FM 34-52 just as you clearly did not read the Papal Bull Ad Extirpanda. The FM cites as authority the 1949 Geneva Convention. If you consult Mr. Google you will discover that the Convention is based on the Church's teachings regarding the proper treatment of prisoners.

    If you also bothered to do a little more consultation with Mr. Google you would discover that the intelligence professionals are united in their opinion that torture is counter productive as an interrogation tool. (Again consult Mr. Google for a copy of FM 34-52.)

    I wore both a green suit, a blue suit as well as a civilian suit doing this stuff. I have decades of experience. Torture as an interrogation tool is stupid. The idea that it would work as an interrogation tool flies in the face of human nature. The only people I know who promote torture as an interrogation tool are Jack Bauer political partisans.

    Time to put Faith above politics.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  13. Richards says, "The words "torture" and "inquisition" do not appear in the Papal Bull Ad Extirpanda issued in 1252 by Pope Innocent Iv> Consult Mr. Google for a copy."

    The word torture does not have to be there to understand that torture is being condoned to the point of the loss of limbs, read the text.

    Richard says, "So what. (In reference to the Geneva convention not being infallible) Both the USA and the Vatican are signatories. It is the law whether you like it or not. It is consistent with the teachings of Popes and Councils on this matter - unlike yourself."

    Another false argument from authority. The fact is the Geneva convention has no authority whatsoever to define moral definitions even if the Vatican and the USA choose to use them as a reference pertaining to torture in the military and political setting. The fact is the Church has condemned torture in the cases of extracting confessions and for the purpose of degrading human dignity, etc. Not all forms of torture are condemned in every circumstance. You son, have to prove that every form of torture in every circumstance violates human dignity. It is clear that it does not.

    Richard writes, "OK. Consult Mr. Google. Cite a single Pope or Council over the past 2,000 years who have solemnly taught the universal faithful as a matter of faith and morals that torture is moral under certain circumstances."

    The fact is the Church has never taught on torture in a universal sense one way or the other. Popes have proposed the use of torture under certain circumstances and they have condemned it certain circumstances.

    "You clearly did not read FM 34-52..."

    I don't care what the FM says, that has nothing to do with Church teaching, don't you get that? No one cares how much you know about military history. We are talking about Catholic morality.

    Richard, "If you also bothered to do a little more consultation with Mr. Google you would discover that the intelligence professionals are united in their opinion that torture is counter productive as an interrogation tool."

    What is with the condescending tone? We are not debating how effective it is Richard, we are talking about morality. Don't try and change the subject.

    "I wore both a green suit, a blue suit as well as a civilian suit doing this stuff. I have decades of experience."

    No one cares about your experience. You sure seem to be have a high opinion of yourself. Beating your chest about your experience has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

    "Time to put Faith above politics"

    Then why are you making all of thees over-reaching fallacies to support your fallacious argument? So far all you have talked about is the Geneva convention, the FM, and your military knowledge and experience, which has nothing to do with the Catholic faith or its teaching on morality in any decisive fashion. Time to actually argue the points and quit all of your saber rattling.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The word torture does not have to be there to understand that torture is being condoned to the point of the loss of limbs, read the text."

    The text does not mention, let alone condone, torture or the inquisition. There is not a single historical incident wherein a victim was put to torte by a Catholic Church Inquisition based on the Papal Bull Ad Extirpanda. Your interpretation of the Papal Bull is the same interpretation that anti-Catholic writers, who blame Catholicism for all the world's evils, place on it. However the Bull was not a Papal teaching on faith and morals aimed at the Universal Church; but, rather it was an administrative document directed to a portion of Italy that had fallen out of the control of the Emperor and into the control of the Pope.

    "The fact is the Church has condemned torture in the cases of extracting confessions and for the purpose of degrading human dignity, etc. Not all forms of torture are condemned in every circumstance."

    Again I ask you to consult Mr. Google. IN what document does Pope or Council teach the universal faithful as a matter of faith and morals that: " Not all forms of torture are condemned in every circumstance."

    "You son, have to prove that every form of torture in every circumstance violates human dignity. It is clear that it does not."

    No I do not. I submit to the teaching authority of the Catholic Church - not to the teaching authority of Mr. Bellisario and Jack Bauer. Pope and Council has taught that torture is intrinsically evil.

    "The fact is the Church has never taught on torture in a universal sense one way or the other."

    ReplyDelete
  15. No. You have again failed to consult Mr. Google. See the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, Gaudium and Spes, No. 27 and John Paul's Veritatis Splendor No. 80.

    "Popes have proposed the use of torture under certain circumstances and they have condemned it certain circumstance"

    OK. This should be easy. Ask Mr. Google for a copy of a primary document wherein a Pope has taught the universal faithful as a matter of faith and morals that torture is moral under certain circumstances.

    "I don't care what the FM says, that has nothing to do with Church teaching, don't you get that?"

    Really? If torture as an interrogation tool is counter productive then what is the moral basis for its use - besides increasing the ratings for Jack Bauer?

    "What is with the condescending tone? We are not debating how effective it is Richard, we are talking about morality. Don't try and change the subject."

    Personally I have never run into a torture advocate who has actaully gone into harms way for the USA. The torture advocates all seem to be political partisans and intellectuals of some type. If an interrogation technique does not work, yet inflicts suffering on the subject, then how can it be moral?

    "No one cares about your experience."

    Really? I am crushed.

    "You sure seem to be have a high opinion of yourself."

    And well deserved I might add!!!!

    "Beating your chest about your experience has nothing to do with the subject at hand."

    Well since we are talking about interrogation, counter terrorism, intelligence production and the like; and I have been doing this for a couple of decades I thought it was relevant. You have any experience on these matters outside of cyberspace and Jack Bauer reruns?

    "Then why are you making all of thees over-reaching fallacies to support your fallacious argument?"

    I am merely repeating the clear and constant moral teaching of the Catholic Church that torture is evil. These teachings are now acknowledged in the cited secular documents which are presently the law of the land.

    The persistent, stubborn and public denial of a moral teaching of the Catholic Church by a Catholic is heresy.

    St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas"

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  16. I haven't had time to comment on this conversation--I'll try to put up a post about it tomorrow.

    In the meantime, let's remember to be civil in discussing this and all matters here.

    One question to Matthew: how do you read the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor on the issue of torture?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Richard says, "No. You have again failed to consult Mr. Google. See the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, Gaudium and Spes, No. 27 and John Paul's Veritatis Splendor No. 80."

    Insult and assumption on your part. Not a very convincing argument.

    Richards says, "OK. This should be easy. Ask Mr. Google for a copy of a primary document wherein a Pope has taught the universal faithful as a matter of faith and morals that torture is moral under certain circumstances."

    As I said, the Popes have not taught definitively one way or the other an infallible universal teaching concerning all torture.

    Richard says, "Really? If torture as an interrogation tool is counter productive then what is the moral basis for its use - besides increasing the ratings for Jack Bauer?"

    You have not proven it is counterproductive, and that is not what we are discussing. Again, we are talking morality here. Keep your eye on the topic. Your reference to Jack Bauer is just rhetoric, which again has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    Richard says, "Personally I have never run into a torture advocate who has actaully gone into harms way for the USA. The torture advocates all seem to be political partisans and intellectuals of some type. If an interrogation technique does not work, yet inflicts suffering on the subject, then how can it be moral?"

    Again what you have experienced personally has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Trying to paint me as a political partisan is a dishonest characterization of me to which you have no knowledge. Again, pure rhetoric, no substance.

    Richard says, "Well since we are talking about interrogation, counter terrorism, intelligence production and the like; and I have been doing this for a couple of decades I thought it was relevant. You have any experience on these matters outside of cyberspace and Jack Bauer reruns?"

    Again your experience has nothing to do with whether or not all torture is intrinsically evil. Again your Jack Bauer comments are ridiculous and at this point you are really starting to look ridiculous. The whole Jack Bauer nonsense is old, and does not add anything to your argument.

    Richard says, "I am merely repeating the clear and constant moral teaching of the Catholic Church that torture is evil. These teachings are now acknowledged in the cited secular documents which are presently the law of the land."

    No you are repeating what you hear other people tell you. Secular documents are not the Church's infallible teaching.

    Richard says, "The persistent, stubborn and public denial of a moral teaching of the Catholic Church by a Catholic is heresy.

    St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas"

    I will pray for you and the rash judgments that you have made here in a public forum to which you have no authority to do. It seems that insults are all that you are capable of. No rational discussion can be had with someone like yourself. As we can see, almost everything that you have done is appeal to yourself as an authority, and use insulting language on top of that. If that is the best you have then I am done here. I will keep you in my prayers so that hopefully you may find some humility.

    Red, I have tried to have a civil discussion here, but as you can see, your friend Richard does not seem to have it in hm to do the same. If anyone else would like to have a civil, rational discussion about the actual topic, then you are more than welcome to do so on my blog.

    May God bless and keep you.
    Matthew.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mr. Bellisario:

    "Insult and assumption on your part. Not a very convincing argument."

    Well; have you bothered to actually read Gaudium and Spes, No. 27 and John Paul's Veritatis Splendor No. 80?

    "As I said, the Popes have not taught definitively one way or the other an infallible universal teaching concerning all torture."

    Well obviously you have not read Gaudium and Spes, No. 27 and John Paul's Veritatis Splendor No. 80. Pope and Council have taught definitely that torture is intrinsically evil.

    "You have not proven it is counterproductive, and that is not what we are discussing."

    The United States Department of Defense disagrees with you. Again ask Mr. Google for a copy of FM 34-52. And it is indeed what we are discussing. If torture is in fact counter productive then on what moral basis can we subject a prisoner to torture as an interrogation technique? Name a single intelligence professional who has publicly come forth and stated that torture is an effective interrogation tool.

    "Again, we are talking morality here. Keep your eye on the topic."

    Christ commands us to love our enemy. It is immoral to subject our enemy to torture for no reason other than to inflict pain an suffering.

    "Your reference to Jack Bauer is just rhetoric, which again has nothing to do with the topic at hand."

    No. There is not a single historical example, verified by an independent third party, of torture working as a reliable interrogation technique. Consult Mr. Google. Back in the Dark Ages, when I was a young soldier, torture was seen as Un-American. Then Jack Bauer comes along and we are swamped with ivory tower dwelling torture advocates. God help us.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Again what you have experienced personally has nothing to do with the topic at hand."

    Torture produces bad intelligence. Bad intelligence kills good soldiers. Right now we have lost over 6,000 good men to bad intelligence. What I and other soldiers have experienced has very much to do with the topic at hand.

    "Trying to paint me as a political partisan is a dishonest characterization of me to which you have no knowledge."

    Sorry; but Mr. Google says that you indeed have a published history of partisanship.

    "No you are repeating what you hear other people tell you. Secular documents are not the Church's infallible teaching."

    Yes indeed I am repeating what other people have told me. These "other people" are the successors to the Apostles, the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and the successors to Peter. Christ's Vicars on earth. And the secular documents in question are, as mentioned above, based on the Church's teachings on this mater.

    "I will pray for you and the rash judgments that you have made here in a public forum to which you have no authority to do."

    Baptized and confirmed Christians are indeed authorized and required to defend the faith against heresy.

    "It seems that insults are all that you are capable of."

    Why is it that all of you tuff torture advocates appear to be so very sensitive?

    "No rational discussion can be had with someone like yourself."

    Have you been talking with my wife?

    "As we can see, almost everything that you have done is appeal to yourself as an authority,"

    True; but also a couple of unimportant guys named Innocent, John Paul and Benedict.

    "and use insulting language on top of that"

    Again, why do you heroic, manly torture advocates get your feelings hurt so easily?

    "If that is the best you have then I am done here."

    Promise?

    "I will keep you in my prayers so that hopefully you may find some humility.

    Am I not humble because I do not bow down and accept your teaching on torture?

    "I have tried to have a civil discussion here, but as you can see, your friend Richard does not seem to have it in hm to do the same"

    I am bad, bad, bad.

    "If anyone else would like to have a civil, rational discussion about the actual topic, then you are more than welcome to do so on my blog."

    Do people actually visit your blog?

    Christ has commanded us to love our enemy. Ultimately we followers of Jesus Christ have to choose between following the Council Fathers, John Paul and Benedict or the worldly, torture advocates. Rome has spoken. Torture is intrinsically evil.

    Love, not torture, is the key to dealing with our enemies.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  20. Richard says, "Torture produces bad intelligence. Bad intelligence kills good soldiers. Right now we have lost over 6,000 good men to bad intelligence. What I and other soldiers have experienced has very much to do with the topic at hand. "

    Where did I say to torture people to get intelligence? Again stick to the toic at hand. Did you even read my post. It deals with self defense, not trying to get intelligence.

    Richard says, "Sorry; but Mr. Google says that you indeed have a published history of partisanship."

    That is a lie and I have not endorsed any politiacl party's policies of torture. Richard, I do not appreciate your character assasination attempt here and i do not concider that this type of an attack to be Christian iin character.

    Richard says, "Baptized and confirmed Christians are indeed authorized and required to defend the faith against heresy"

    That does not give you the autority to amke public condmening pronouncements on other Catholics. You are not the Magisterium.

    Richard says, "Why is it that all of you tuff torture advocates appear to be so very sensitive?"

    Why is that you are only capable of insulting the people who disagree with you?

    Richard says, "True; but also a couple of unimportant guys named Innocent, John Paul and Benedict."

    Neither have sopken infallibly condemning torture under every circumstance.

    Richard says, "Again, why do you heroic, manly torture advocates get your feelings hurt so easily?"

    Again why do you defend your uncharitable actions of being insulting?

    Richard says, "Do people actually visit your blog?"

    Yes they do.

    Richard says, "Christ has commanded us to love our enemy. Ultimately we followers of Jesus Christ have to choose between following the Council Fathers, John Paul and Benedict or the worldly, torture advocates. Rome has spoken. Torture is intrinsically evil."

    No Rome has not condemned all forms of torture under every circumstance infallibly.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Finally, there are documented cases of police officers who used physical coercion to save innocent lives in the self defense of innocent people. So your argument that torture does not work is not true. FOrgive my grammatical errors in the above post. I happen to be in a rush. May God bless and keep you.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mr. Bellisario:

    Gee. I thought you had left in a huff?

    "Did you even read my post."

    Sadly, yes.

    "It deals with self defense, not trying to get intelligence."

    Torture has nothing to do with self defense. Self delusion perhaps.

    "Richard, I do not appreciate your character assasination attempt here and i do not concider that this type of an attack to be Christian iin character."

    You are the self anointed "Catholic Champion". If you were truly championing Catholic truth then you would expect insults However when confronted with clear Church teachings you fall apart and start to whine. Perhaps you need a new moniker?

    "That does not give you the autority to amke public condmening pronouncements on other Catholics. You are not the Magisterium."

    I have condemned no one.

    "Why is that you are only capable of insulting the people who disagree with you?"

    Everyone should disagree with me. No one should disagree with the Church.

    "Neither have sopken infallibly condemning torture under every circumstance."

    Do you understand what "intrinsically evil" means?

    "Again why do you defend your uncharitable actions of being insulting?"

    If your feelings have been hurt then you should not have anointed yourself the "Catholic Champion". So sensitive.

    "No Rome has not condemned all forms of torture under every circumstance infallibly."

    Do you understand the concept of "intrinsic evil"? Your claim regarding infallibility is the same used by the advocates for sodomy, artificial contraception and abortion.

    "Finally, there are documented cases of police officers who used physical coercion to save innocent lives in the self defense of innocent people. So your argument that torture does not work is not true."

    In Jack Bauer land yes. In real life no. If there is a documented then cite it.

    Your advocacy for torture is based on myth, superstition and hearsay. You have ignored the clear teaching of Popes and Council that torture is intrinsically evil.

    Jack Bauer has been regulated to reruns. So should torture advocacy.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  23. Richard says, "Torture has nothing to do with self defense. Self delusion perhaps."

    No that is incorrect. Torture has everything to do with self defense, as I have demonstrated in my post.

    Richard says, "You are the self anointed "Catholic Champion". If you were truly championing Catholic truth then you would expect insults However when confronted with clear Church teachings you fall apart and start to whine. Perhaps you need a new moniker? "

    Where did I call myself the Catholic Champion? More person attacks by you again? That is the name of my website, not my personal identity. Can you not tell the difference between a website name and someone's personal identity? Or should I now assume that everyone who has website titled something or another should be identified as taking on the website's name?

    Richard says, "I have condemned no one."

    You have aligned me with political positions of which I have never subscribed to, and you have called me a heretic.

    Richard says, "Everyone should disagree with me. No one should disagree with the Church."

    I have not disagreed with the Church. The Church has not condemned torture in self defense where a known guilty person is threatening the lives of innocents.

    Richard says, "Do you understand what "intrinsically evil" means?"

    Yes.

    Richard says, "If your feelings have been hurt then you should not have anointed yourself the "Catholic Champion". So sensitive."

    Again more insults from a guy who has done nothing but tell us how great and knowledgeable he is. Again, can you tell the difference between a website name and a person's? I guess not.

    Richard says, "Do you understand the concept of "intrinsic evil"? Your claim regarding infallibility is the same used by the advocates for sodomy, artificial contraception and abortion."

    Yes, and I don't care what people say or do who endorse sodomy, I am not even addressing such topics, or can't you tell the difference between the two? Again, I guess not.

    Richard says, "In Jack Bauer land yes. In real life no. If there is a documented then cite it."

    Another canard, the Jack Bauer card is not worth anything but saber rattling rhetoric. For example there is one documented case of police officers using physical violence to stop a known criminal from letting a baby die in a car in intense heat in the summer, after he left a stolen car abandoned with a baby in it. This is an example of using torture in self defense, which you have erroneously claimed can't happen.

    Case Study provided by John Blackler, a former New South Wales police officer.

    Richard says, "Your advocacy for torture is based on myth, superstition and hearsay. You have ignored the clear teaching of Popes and Council that torture is intrinsically evil."

    No you have a poor understanding of how and what the Church teaches, what is and is not infallible, and what is actually being addressed in each document.

    Richard says, "Jack Bauer has been regulated to reruns. So should torture advocacy."

    You seem to the one obsessed with Jack Bauer not I, and you are the one who is not dealing with reality here. We have real cases involving real people to deal with, not TV shows. Grow up Richard and start dealing with actual argument son.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mr. Bellisario:

    Back yet again?

    "Torture has everything to do with self defense, as I have demonstrated in my post."

    No you have not so demonstrated. The US Department of Defense also disagrees with you. See FM 34-52. The Catholic Church further disagrees with you/ See Gaudium et Spes No. 27 and John Paul's the Splendor of Truth No. 80. The only authority who agrees with you is Jack Bauer.

    "Where did I call myself the Catholic Champion? More person attacks by you again? That is the name of my website, not my personal identity."

    Ok. So who is the REAL Catholic Champion. Is he in hiding like Batman? Perhaps you should change the name of your website to "Torture Champion"?

    "You have aligned me with political positions of which I have never subscribed to, and you have called me a heretic."

    I have never called you a heretic. I have not "aligned" you with any political position.

    "can you tell the difference between a website name and a person's?"

    So you are not the true champion of Catholic truth?

    "I don't care what people say or do who endorse sodomy, I am not even addressing such topics"

    You use the same infallibility argument to advocate for the intrinsic evil called torture that other advocates use to advance the the intrinsic evil called sodomy.

    "For example there is one documented case of police officers using physical violence to stop a known criminal from letting a baby die in a car in intense heat in the summer, after he left a stolen car abandoned with a baby in it. This is an example of using torture in self defense, which you have erroneously claimed can't happen."

    You are clearly not familiar with this infamous case or the court record. The white officers beat the native suspect unconscious before he revealed any information about the whereabouts of the allegedly kidnapped white missing child. Try again.

    "No you have a poor understanding of how and what the Church teaches"

    I agree. I have a hard time grasping the meaning of words like "prohibited" and "intrinsically" and "evil" when uttered by the Council Fathers and the Vicars of Christ. Those darn Popes are so difficult to understand.

    "what is and is not infallible, and what is actually being addressed in each document."

    Gee. That is just like what the sodomy advocates say.

    "You seem to the one obsessed with Jack Bauer not I"

    True. The character is an utter idiot.

    "and you are the one who is not dealing with reality here."

    Me and John Paul and that Benedict guy.

    "We have real cases involving real people to deal with, not TV shows."

    Ok. I will say to you what my instructors said to me back in the Dark Ages before Mr. Google: Find a single case in 4,000 years of human history, verified by an independent third party, wherein interrogators used torture to extract reliable information from a subject which was processed into actionable intelligence. Just one. We could not find one. Now you have Mr. Google. Ask him.

    "Grow up Richard and start dealing with actual argument son."

    Oh no, reality!!!I am trying to but it is just so hard.

    The Catholic Church teaches the faithful that torture is "intrinsically evil". It has never taught the faithful that torture, under any circumstance, is morally acceptable. For a Catholic to stubbornly, persistently and publicly deny a teaching of the Church on faith or morals is for that Catholic to leave full communion with the Vicar of Christ and to sink into the terrible state of heresy.

    Let us all cling to the Bark of Peter.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  25. Richards says, "No you have not so demonstrated. The US Department of Defense also disagrees with you. See FM 34-52. The Catholic Church further disagrees with you/ See Gaudium et Spes No. 27 and John Paul's the Splendor of Truth No. 80. The only authority who agrees with you is Jack Bauer."

    Yes I have demonstrated the fact since police officers have done so. Again your appeal to the FM means nothing. Jack Bauer again has nothing to do with it.

    Richard says, "Ok. So who is the REAL Catholic Champion. Is he in hiding like Batman? Perhaps you should change the name of your website to "Torture Champion"?"

    Again it is the name of the website. Insult taken as written.

    Richard said, "I have never called you a heretic. I have not "aligned" you with any political position."

    Did you not write the following or was that your evil twin? "Sorry; but Mr. Google says that you indeed have a published history of partisanship." What history of partisanship were you referring to Richard? Please tell.

    Richard says, "So you are not the true champion of Catholic truth?"

    No that would be Jesus Christ.

    Richard says, "You use the same infallibility argument to advocate for the intrinsic evil called torture that other advocates use to advance the the intrinsic evil called sodomy. "

    Again where did I refer to sodomy Richard? What does that have to with anything? Again you make it clear that you are unequipped to debate a topic rationally without using Red Herrings or ad-hominems.

    Richard says,"Gee. That is just like what the sodomy advocates say."

    Gee you are one sick individual who is obsessing over sodomy, which I have never even brought up. Address me and my argument, not other people who have debated sodomy before to which I have no clue as to what you are even talking about. This proves that you have no argument for what I presented. The only recourse you have is to try and align me with another person, who I do not even know or even care, who argued about another topic altogether which I am not even addressing.

    Richard says, "Ok. I will say to you what my instructors said to me back in the Dark Ages before Mr. Google: Find a single case in 4,000 years of human history, verified by an independent third party, wherein interrogators used torture to extract reliable information from a subject which was processed into actionable intelligence. Just one. We could not find one. Now you have Mr. Google. Ask him. "

    Again we are not talking about your military interrogations. I have given you a true case involving police, who saved and innocent person by inflicting physical pain on a known criminal who refused to co operate in saving an innocent child to which he was responsible for putting his life in jeopardy by his criminal action. That is a documented case Richard, by a police officer Richard. This is a documented case where physical coercion saved an innocent life by self defense.

    Richard says, "The Catholic Church teaches the faithful that torture is "intrinsically evil". It has never taught the faithful that torture, under any circumstance, is morally acceptable. For a Catholic to stubbornly, persistently and publicly deny a teaching of the Church on faith or morals is for that Catholic to leave full communion with the Vicar of Christ and to sink into the terrible state of heresy."

    Again, no you are incorrect Richard. The Church has not spoken about torture infallibly in every circumstance, and it has never addressed the topic of torture concerning the right and duty of the State in self defense of innocent human beings. When are going to start debating the topic and quit worrying about a TV show and people arguing about sodomy?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Mr. Bellisario:

    "Yes I have demonstrated the fact since police officers have done so."

    You have not read the New South Wales case. The white detectives who admit beating the minority suspect did not find the allegedly kidnapped white girl. The officers who actaully found the girl did not communicate with the detectives beforehand. Try again.

    "Again it is the name of the website. Insult taken as written."

    You own the website. You title it "Catholic Champion". Yet you claim not to be the Catholic Champion? A true Catholic Champion would glory in alleged insult taken for Christ and not whine about it.

    "What history of partisanship were you referring to Richard? Please tell."

    Have you not Goggled yourself?

    "No that would be Jesus Christ."

    So the titled of your blog refers to Our Lord and Savior and not to yourself? Perhaps you should change the title and avoid giving people the impression that you are the "Catholic Champion"?

    "Again you make it clear that you are unequipped to debate a topic rationally without using Red Herrings or ad-hominems."

    No doubt. But throughout history heretics have made the same arguments to deny points of faith and morals. These days the advocates for torture, abortion, contraception and abortion use the same argument - the Pope (purportedly) did not teach on that subject in an infallible manner.

    "Gee you are one sick individual"

    Why do people keep telling me that? However the advocates of sodomy have set the standard as to how to defy the clear and constant Church teaching on faith and morals by claiming that the teachings are purportedly not infallible.

    "Again we are not talking about your military interrogations."

    Police and military use the same interrogation techniques. See FM 34-52.

    "That is a documented case Richard, by a police officer Richard."

    The case is indeed documented and is famous. It is used in Police Academies as "not" what to do. The officer you cite who initially made the claim that torture worked was not present for the torture session. Meanwhile, the actual torturers, could not keep their stories straight. The white detectives who tortured the minority suspect into unconsciousness never communicated the purported location to the officers who actually found the missing girl. Try again.

    "The Church has not spoken about torture infallibly in every circumstance"

    Do you grasp the meaning of "intrinsically evil"? Have you read Gaudium et spes No. 27 or the Splendor of truth No. 80?

    "it has never addressed the topic of torture concerning the right and duty of the State in self defense of innocent human beings"

    Sure it has. "Intrinsically evil" means evil under all circumstances.

    "When are going to start debating the topic"

    When are you going to listen to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and John Paul the Great?

    "and quit worrying about a TV show and people arguing about sodomy?"

    A TV show that regularly promotes an intrinsic evil to my entire country and advocates of sodomy are indeed things to worry about.

    Sooner or later a Catholic in full communion with the Vicar of Christ actaully has to read and follow what Christ's Vicar teaches on points of faith or morals or risk falling out of communion.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  27. Richard says, "You have not read the New South Wales case. The white detectives who admit beating the minority suspect did not find the allegedly kidnapped white girl. The officers who actaully found the girl did not communicate with the detectives beforehand. Try again."

    Wrong case Richard. The case I referred to in this combox deals with a stolen car and a baby inside of it who was abandoned in the heat by the criminal. Try again when you actually get the case right.

    Richard says, "You own the website. You title it "Catholic Champion". Yet you claim not to be the Catholic Champion? A true Catholic Champion would glory in alleged insult taken for Christ and not whine about it."

    A true Catholic would not resort to ad-hominem attacks and deal with the actual argument I presented and not worry about what my website is called.

    Richard says, "Have you not Goggled yourself?"

    Richard, you are the one making accusations about my partisanship. The least could do is to tell me what that might be, because last I looked I have never endorsed torture in relation to any political partisanship.

    Richard says, "So the titled of your blog refers to Our Lord and Savior and not to yourself? Perhaps you should change the title and avoid giving people the impression that you are the "Catholic Champion"?"

    Perhaps you should quit worrying about the title of my website and start dealing with the arguments presented.

    Richard says, "But throughout history heretics have made the same arguments to deny points of faith and morals. These days the advocates for torture, abortion, contraception and abortion use the same argument - the Pope (purportedly) did not teach on that subject in an infallible manner."

    Once again I do not even know who are talking about Richard, why don't you focus on the my argument and not someone else'?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Richard says, "Why do people keep telling me that? However the advocates of sodomy have set the standard as to how to defy the clear and constant Church teaching on faith and morals by claiming that the teachings are purportedly not infallible. "

    Maybe because you demonstrate the fact that you keep referring to a subject that has no bearing on the one we are currently discussing? The standard that you are speaking of I have never heard of, nor do I care about. I know it is hard for you, but try and stay on point Richard.

    Richard says, "Police and military use the same interrogation techniques. See FM 34-52. "

    I don't care about the FM, we are talking about the Church's teaching. The incident I used in this combox deals with police using physical coercion to save a baby.

    Richard writes, "The case is indeed documented and is famous. It is used in Police Academies as "not" what to do. The officer you cite who initially made the claim that torture worked was not present for the torture session. Meanwhile, the actual torturers, could not keep their stories straight. The white detectives who tortured the minority suspect into unconsciousness never communicated the purported location to the officers who actually found the missing girl. Try again."

    Richard you don't even have the right case! It doesn't involve a missing girl. If you read my previous posts in this combox, it involves a missing child abandoned in a stolen car.

    Richard says, "Do you grasp the meaning of "intrinsically evil"? Have you read Gaudium et spes No. 27 or the Splendor of truth No. 80?"

    Yes, and yes.

    Richard says, "When are you going to listen to the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council and John Paul the Great?"

    When are you going to start reading and interpreting the documents correctly?

    Richard says, "A TV show that regularly promotes an intrinsic evil to my entire country and advocates of sodomy are indeed things to worry about."

    As far as I remember I am not debating the morality of the TV show 24. Only you are doing that, instead of actually debating the scenarios that I put up in which one is documented by actual police officers.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mr. Bellisario:

    Still here?

    "Wrong case Richard. The case I referred to in this combox deals with a stolen car and a baby inside of it who was abandoned in the heat by the criminal."

    That is the known as the New South Wales Case wherein white officers arrested a minority suspect who appeared to match the description of a car thief who had allegedly stolen a car with a white child inside. The white officers tortured the suspect both en-route to and at the police station. During the torture session the minority suspect lapsed into unconsciousness. Patrol officers found the abandoned car with the lost child inside and unharmed without the aid of the torturers. This case is used in Police Academies as an example of how NOT to conduct an interrogation. Try again.

    "A true Catholic would not resort to ad-hominem attacks and deal with the actual argument I presented"

    You have not presented an argument. You have merely ignored teh Church's teaching on this matter and substituted your own judgment.

    "and not worry about what my website is called."

    Well it is pretty confusing try to figure out who is the Catholic Champion and what he or she is championing. It is certainly not Catholic Orthodoxy.

    "Richard, you are the one making accusations about my partisanship."

    Not me. Complain to Mr. Google.
    "
    Once again I do not even know who are talking about Richard, why don't you focus on the my argument and not someone else'?"

    Well since that someone else is John Paul the Great why should I pay attention to you?

    "Maybe because you demonstrate the fact that you keep referring to a subject that has no bearing on the one we are currently discussing?"

    Heretics tend to use the same techniques. In this case advocates for sodomy, birth control, abortion and torture all claim that the Pope has (purportedly) never taught in a n infallible manner on their particular pet evil.

    "I don't care about the FM, we are talking about the Church's teaching."

    So what? Intelligence professionals wrote the manual based on the 1949 Geneva Convention which is in turn based on the Church's teaching regarding the humane treatment of prisoners. The professionals point out that torture as an interrogation technique is counter productive. There is no moral basis for torture.

    "The incident I used in this combox deals with police using physical coercion to save a baby."

    No. The police torturers who tortured the suspect never communicated with the patrol officers who found the hijacked car and missing child. Try again.

    "Richard you don't even have the right case!"

    Same case. It is used as an example of how NOT to conduct an interrogation.

    "Yes, and yes."

    Why then are you advocating an intrinsic evil such as torture on a blog titled "Catholic Champion"?

    "When are you going to start reading and interpreting the documents correctly?"

    You mean like the way Pope Benedict XVI interprets the documents: "I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances"?

    "instead of actually debating the scenarios that I put up in which one is documented by actual police officers."

    Look. I was a sworn law enforcement officer. I was an instructor for law enforcement (principally tactical units) for about 10-years. I still get asked to instruct from time to time. The case you are citing is now used as an example as to why torture is stupid and dangerous and is counter productive as an interrogation tool. Try again.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  30. Richard said, "That is the known as the New South Wales Case wherein white officers arrested a minority suspect who appeared to match the description of a car thief who had allegedly stolen a car with a white child inside."

    Now you found the right one on Google aye? But you have the facts wrong. They beat the guy to find out where the kid was. That is self defense on part of the State to protect innocent lives. You try again. My point is made.

    Richards says, "You have not presented an argument. You have merely ignored teh Church's teaching on this matter and substituted your own judgment."

    Yes I have, read the original post. I presented and argument for self defense.

    Richard says, "Well it is pretty confusing try to figure out who is the Catholic Champion and what he or she is championing. It is certainly not Catholic Orthodoxy. "

    It is only confusing to someone who would rather critique the name of my website rather than address the argument at hand.

    Richards says, "Not me. Complain to Mr. Google."

    Again if you are not going to reference your accusations then stop making them.

    Richard says, "Well since that someone else is John Paul the Great why should I pay attention to you?"

    Well why are you? You are the one who attacked what I wrote, so it must be that you payed attention, no? Your fault, not mine.

    Richard says, "Heretics tend to use the same techniques. In this case advocates for sodomy, birth control, abortion and torture all claim that the Pope has (purportedly) never taught in a n infallible manner on their particular pet evil."

    Eskimos eat a lot of fish in their igloos too, who cares? Again, you would never make it in a real debate if this is the kind of nonsense you fall back on.

    Richard says, "So what? Intelligence professionals wrote the manual based on the 1949 Geneva Convention which is in turn based on the Church's teaching regarding the humane treatment of prisoners. The professionals point out that torture as an interrogation technique is counter productive. There is no moral basis for torture."

    Intelligence professionals do make make moral law.

    Richard says, "Why then are you advocating an intrinsic evil such as torture on a blog titled "Catholic Champion"?"

    I am not advocating an intrinsic evil on my blog. You are just too dense to understand Catholic teaching.

    Richards says, "You mean like the way Pope Benedict XVI interprets the documents: "I reiterate that the prohibition against torture “cannot be contravened under any circumstances"?"

    Again read the text, you only quoted part of a sentence out of context.

    Richard says, "Look. I was a sworn law enforcement officer"

    Look, I don't care who you are, or what did, or what you thought you did in your past life.

    Richards says, "I was an instructor for law enforcement (principally tactical units) for about 10-years."

    Again, so what, I don't care.

    Richard says, "I still get asked to instruct from time to time."

    So what?

    Richard says, "The case you are citing is now used as an example as to why torture is stupid and dangerous and is counter productive as an interrogation tool."

    No it is not and tactics like the above have saved lives, and the tactics did not violate anyone's human dignity any more than any act of self defense does. You try again.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mr. Bellisario:

    I thought you were going to pursue this matter on your own blog???

    "They beat the guy to find out where the kid was. That is self defense on part of the State to protect innocent lives."

    You are relying on a version of this case provided by a former Australian cop named Blackler. The author was not present for the torture session. Mr. Blackler's description of events relies on hearsay. His description of the the torture session and other incidents are not supported by the sworn testimony of the officers involved. Try again.

    You have no background in the military, law enforcement or intelligence. The US Departments of Defense and Army, the CIA and indeed every US Government intelligence service (all 16 of them) reject torture as an effective interrogation technique. To inflict torture in a subject for no purpose is simply evil.

    The Church clearly teaches that torture is intrinsically evil. That means evil all the time and under all circumstances. The Church has never taught that torture is moral under any circumstances.

    American Catholcis who advocate for torture are advocating not only for a felony crime but for a serious sin.

    When the Pentagon and the Papacy are united on a subject American Catholics are wise to listen.

    God bless

    Richard W Comerford

    ReplyDelete
  32. Okay, gentlemen. This argument is going around the same blocks over and over, and getting a little too heated and personal. I'm going to close this thread, though I hope you'll check in later, as I intend to post on a related matter.

    ReplyDelete