Busted Halo
January 26th, 2009

“Yes We Did”? No–our work has just begun

The fourth installment of Marc Adams' inaugural vlog


In the fourth installment of his video blog from Washington D.C., contributing editor Marc Adams checks in a week after the inauguration, with an important reminder that the work is not over; it has just begun.

The Author : Marc Adams
Marc Adams is a contributing editor at BustedHalo.com. He writes from Washington DC.
See more articles by (49).
Please note that the editorial staff reserves the right to not post comments it deems to be inappropriate and/or malicious in nature, as well as edit comments for length, clarity and fairness.
  • judy

    your idea of “funny” is a bit bizarre. At any rate, it appears that you are one “wordy” individual and that’s fine–but being a disciple of Christ requires a heart that loves not words that divide. Catholicism is one path to God..our brothers and sisters of other faiths have found their path.

  • pff

    I can bet that when I meet Our Lord face to face He won’t ask me anything about the Aristotelian geocentric idea. He will ask me if I fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave drink to the tjirsty, visted the prisoner and the sick, welcomed the stranger. How do I know that ? He told us all in Matthew 25.
    CJ, I’m sure your way to God is consistent with the way God fashioned you, but if you really look at the gospel message of Jesus you will see that our obligations to Him are pretty simple: Love God with everything in us and love our neighbor as ourselves.

  • Gennie


    For the record, no Catholics do not believe we are the only who can enter eternal life. Of course we believe our way is right, with the Church as our vehicle, if you will. Our faith and God’s grace lived out in the life of the Church is the “ordinary” way to eternal life, but we also believe that through God’s infinite mercy it is possible for other Christians and those of other religions to enter the kingdom of Heaven. God bless.

  • CJ

    Poor Pff,

    Judging by what you’re saying, it appears you have nothing more than an elementary understanding of the Galileo affair. It had little to do with Church Doctrine and a whole lot to do with a conflict with the Aristotelian geocentric idea held by the scientific community of the time. The debate was between scientists, the Church stepped in when Galileo overstepped his bounds after he tried his hand at Biblical exegesis. Get the facts straight before you start with the rhetoric. You could crack open a legitimate history book and educate yourself on this.

    Your hatred for the clergy is really un-Christian, assuming you are Christian. If you have any faith in the Eucharist I’d imagine you’d have a whole lot more respect for priests. If you call yourself Catholic, with that sort of attitude, I’m afraid to say from appearances you aren’t, and you are really just one of the apostates that Bravo16 is talking about, doing yourself a disservice by living in abject hypocrisy. Take a look in the mirror and quit calling yourself Catholic if you do, because you aren’t. Like Pontius Pilate you ask, what is Truth? You don’t believe in God’s Revelation? You think that the Truth can be found in other Creeds? There may be reflections of the Truth, but the Truth of Revelation is only found in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

    God Bless and hopefully you’ll seek and find Christ one day and enter into communion with His Body the Church.

    And to Judy:
    Judestar was pretty funny… LOL! =)

  • judy

    Hey, Bravo16 :
    Judester ? Are you for real ??

  • pff

    In all things God has the last word. Do you really believe that protestants are not welcome in eternal life ? Jews ? Muslims ? Is the TRUTH only captured in the teachings of Church councils ( many of which were politically motivated) or in the words of popes ? ( Remember GAlileo??). God cannot be pinned down or confined in one dogmatic tradition. God is greater than us all and always manages to get the last laugh. Despite the rantings of celeibate old men in Rome, we will see married and women priests yet…either that or forego the Eucharist.

  • Bravo16

    Judy, CJ, interesting debate going on, but I will have to side with CJ on the argument. The Church and the Magisterium are the Truth, as Jesus Christ has instituted. Any deviation from the most basic of tenets will result is apostasy, kind of like how the Council of Trent said about Protestants who do not believe confession of sins to a priest ordained by the Church is valid.

    You could have 5000 years of experience, or be a new convert, and your moral foundation can still be rotten with pride either way. Submission to Christ and His Church is needed, no subjectivity or “conscience” about it. Its okay to not believe in the Lourdes apparitions, that won’t make you lose salvation. But believing that abortion in any form (other than an ectopic pregnancy) is ok and should be legal, is blasphemous.

    Okay, well to the point of why I was posting here in the first place, I read your post where you said Jesus didn’t “litmus test” those at the Last Supper with his body and blood speech…. well newsflash Judester, HE DID! Lets go straight to the source, the historical records in John 6, starting at, oh lets say VERSE 60… and here we go!

    60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”

    61Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you? 62What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before! 63The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit[a] and they are life. 64Yet there are some of you who do not believe.” For Jesus had known from the beginning which of them did not believe and who would betray him. 65He went on to say, “This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless the Father has enabled him.”

    66From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

    See? He knew that he’d lose some of his followers by that saying. It was REVOLUTIONARY and INSANE what he said, to the apostles there (lower case a, note). Then Jesus goes on saying…

    67″You do not want to leave too, do you?” Jesus asked the Twelve.

    68Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life. 69We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.”

    The 12 Apostles stick it out with Him, believing that the body and blood REALLY ARE HIM, not symbolically, but literally (minus scumbag Judas ;) )

    Sorry if I come off condescending, thats something I’m working on but Truth is the Truth is the Truth, and must be defended properly.

  • CJ

    If you think that making a distinction between intrinsic evil and evil is merely parsing the law, and judging by your tone something to be avoided, then I suppose you disagree with both the Catechism and Aquinas, who deal at length with both evil and intrinsic evil. Both types of evil are critical to a sound understanding of morality. The problem with your form of Catholicism, the relativistic variety, is that you make yourself the sole judge of what is right and wrong. No it doesn’t surprise me that you’re opposed to abortion, I don’t jump to conclusions as quickly as you apparently do, given that you think it would surprise me. To make the argument that society isn’t threatened by abortion, and therefore abortion is not of the same league as those other crimes, is terribly absurd, what is society but a community of individuals, when one is lost to abortion the world is changed irreversibly. One person makes an infinite amount of difference in the word, it’s mind boggling to consider.

    Jesus said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate to be with you always, the Spirit of truth, which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.” John 14:15-17

    That law is what Christ asks us to follow, those are his commandments, and we know this because we have a Tradition, which “transmits” the Truth to us. We can’t claim to have any objective truth without recourse to a body that transmits absolute Truth, a instrument of God’s revelation as it were, that is the Magisterium. Otherwise what is left are people trying in vain to make sense of a world without any logical and coherent epistemology, a relative reality, hence the sad breakdowns and tragic sense of life that so many of the secular world’s most esteemed philosophers suffered from. They asked the existential questions but had no True answers. But I’m off on a tangent now.

    The fact that you need to keep commenting to me over the course of an hour tells me a lot too, so I’ll ignore the fact that you felt the need to brandish your degrees. Throwing out highly rhetorical statements like “blind acceptance to law” also speaks volumes. Remember that the root of all sin is pride. I’ve chosen to submit before Christ’s body, the Church, you’ve decided to make yourself the arbiter of Truth. We’ll see how that works out in the end.

    And by the way, I’ve only got 2 decades under my belt and haven’t completed my bachelors degree. Oh well.

  • judy

    Oh, CJ, By the way. I have a doctorate in Theology–so I have spent a number of years studying catechism, popes, encyclicals, etc. The conversion you speak of is one of blind acceptance to Law. The conversion I speak of is one of the heart. God has the last word. Not you. Not me. Not Pope Benedict XVI.

  • judy

    In every moral argument there has to be a pastoral application. And yes, Pharisee, the “label” stands..and you should wear it proudly. The Pharisees were upright, honorable, honest men ( by and large) and they believed that the law was God..That by following the law one was assured of God’s approval. That all who deviated from the law were sinners. The Pharisees continued to parse the law just to make sure that God wasn’t being offended. Many you speak of intrinsic evil, evil, etc. are basically parsing the law. the bottom line is : What does Jesus require of all of us ?
    As for the abortion question. This may surprise you…I am absolutely against abortion. I would do ( and have done) anything in my power to stop a person from making that choice. But the major difference between the legality of choosing rape, murder, etc ( you mentioned) is that society at large is threatened.

  • CJ

    “Outlawing abortions will not end the act of abortion.”

    Certainly, you’re right it won’t. But does that have any affect on the need for law? We outlaw murder, robbery, rape, drugs, yet still these things are prevalent. By your logic we should then legalize all these things. Our laws stand because they are wrong, because they need to be stopped and should be, if we legalized any of these things then we are making a moral statement, that such things are permissible. The same goes with abortion, your point isn’t really a valid one. Secondly, abortion is NEVER necessary, though you are right we should work to limit it by aiding those that feel tempted to look to it for relief.

    “A twelve year old who is raped by a relative ( or stranger) and finds herself pregnant and has an abortion ( because a child having a child is extremely unhealthy) is not evil. The abortion is, but the act is not‚Äìfollow ??The CIA agent who waterboards a suspected terrorist is much more culpable of the evil enacted than the 12 year old.”

    Actually this is wrong, you don’t understand the difference between an evil and an intrinsic evil. Torture is always wrong, but whether or not inflicting pain to elicit information from a terrorist under certain limited circumstances (in the case of a ticking time bomb scenerio wherein the information can be used to stop a bomb from going off an killing the innocent) may not even constitute torture. Much like “stealing” from a grocery store to feed one’s starving family is not stealing in the eyes of the Church, in its technical usage, torture may or may not be torture, depending on the circumstances. Abortion, on the other hand, is always OBJECTIVELY and INSTRINSICALLY evil, in that it always results in the murder of an unborn child. It can never be justified. In your example, the poor victim ought to give the child up for adoption, if the burden would be too great on the family, they don’t suddenly have the right to right an evil with an even greater evil (murder). One’s health, in this case mental I assume, is not a reason at all to justify murder, as I said, this is intrinsically evil. I’d really suggest you take a look at what the Church teaches on these issues, and examples, that you are using, from actual Church authorities, not lay opinion pieces.

    It’s intersting that the left throws out labels like pharisee, rigid I assume you mean, when the left is so rigid in its own unorthodoxy. It’s that intolerance of tolerance, as it were.

    I wouldn’t be so quick to assert that Obama’s policies, economic, social, etc. are reflective of Catholic social teaching. There is a diversity of opinion on this, and it could be well argued that his ideas actually lead to a slavery to the State. I’d recommend reading some of the writings of GK Chesterton or Hillare Belloc on Distributism, an alternative to both Socialism and Capitalism.

    You should seriously spend time diving into what the Church actually teaches, the Catechism, the Fathers, the Popes and the encyclicals, and then after that consider whether one’s own beliefs match these. Then, after that, one should be willing to humble oneself before the Church and accept her teachings, while changing your own. This is what every Catholic does, what I do myself, we must submit to Christ and his body the Church. It’s called conversion.

  • judy

    One more thing to all the Pharisees out there : Receiving Jesus in Holy Communion is not a reward for a job well done–it is food for the journey. Remember the very flawed disciples at the Last Supper ? Jesus didn’t give them a litmus test–and neither should we.

  • judy

    Oh and by the way, CJ…My conscience has served me very well for 50 some odd years. Take care of your own. I am at peace with a God who loves me and you.

  • judy

    Your comments are well thought-out. But I will say it again. Outlawing abortions will not end the act of abortion. Offering support–both monetarily and spiritually will do much to cut down on abortions. When abortion was illegal in all 50 states, the rich took their daughters overseas and the poor found other methods ( my grandmother in the late 1920’s was offered an abortion by a midwife–it was my grandmother’s 8th child and she was 40 years old. My grandmother roundly refused–but it was available none the less. ) What Catholics everywhere must work for is to create a climate in which abortion will be unnecessary–proper sex education , for one; making it easier to adopt children, for another.
    A twelve year old who is raped by a relative ( or stranger) and finds herself pregnant and has an abortion ( because a child having a child is extremely unhealthy) is not evil. The abortion is, but the act is not–follow ??The CIA agent who waterboards a suspected terrorist is much more culpable of the evil enacted than the 12 year old.
    Making abortion illegal is a matter for the courts, not a presidential administration. The Supreme Court ( which clearly leans conservative) and the past three Republican presidents have done NOTHING to overturn Roe v. Wade–so no party is really the Party of Life. the Republicans just talk big.
    Pres. Obama’s policies still embody more of the Catholic teachings than did Bush’s.

  • CJ

    Just to add, these articles make the argument that I unfortunately don’t have the time (or likely space) to flesh out in the comment boards. Please take a look at them, they make some key points that I’ll include with the links:

    “Both John McCain and Barack Obama support the culture of death. John McCain supported the Iraq invasion and continues to support further military intervention in the middle east. John McCain also supports the death penalty. But on a much larger issue, far more serious than the above two, John McCain also supports fetal stem-cell research, which the Church considers tantamount to abortion and the U.S. Bishops have just voted to universally condemn in this year’s bishops conference. In addition to that, John McCain’s supposed “opposition” to regular abortion is weak and dispassionate at best. In short, John McCain is a very weak candidate on the issue of life. He likes to call himself “pro-life” but he has not earned that designation by any stretch of the imagination. As weak as McCain is on the issue of life, Barack Hussein Obama is far worse.”



    “The Cardinal added: “When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.”

    The key is that in order to vote for a pro-abortion politician and remain in good enough standing with Our Lord to be worthy to receive Him in Holy Communion, one must have “proportionate reasons”. But what can be considered proportionate?

    Could it be, as is often said, that because one candidate supports abortion and another, while being against abortion, supports a war effort or the death penalty, that that would be a “proportionate reason” to vote for the pro-abortion candidate over the anti-abortion one? Cardinal Ratzinger answers the question in his document.

    “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia,” explained the document. “For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”




    Hope that helps. I won’t be responding further.

    God Bless

  • CJ

    It’s been some time since you last posted so I don’t know if you’ll ever read this. It’s distressing to me to see that you and some others have justified your vote for Obama, in your minds, based on the anti-war pro peace argument. As if the tragic deaths of so many in a costly and perhaps even unjust war could somehow outweigh the over 50 million souls lost to abortion. The argument that a vote for Obama is a vote to somehow decrease abortions overall, attempting to aid the less fortunate and thereby reduce the reasons why individuals seek abortion in the first place is flawed at best. Now I hope you don’t take offense to this, and i hope you approach it with an open mind. I have done the same for the arguments that you have made, and I find them all lacking. I hope you have also taken the time to reflect on the document promulgated by the USCCB, Faithful Citizenship. http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/ This is not an issue of individual conscience or private interpretation, and this is certainly not an issue of weighing the lesser of two evils, I’m afraid. The Pope as well as the Bishops have made it clear time and again that the issue of abortion is such that it takes precedence over all others, it deals with the most fundamental right to life after all. The Republican party may have failed in other respects, but it is incumbent upon everyone to work with such a party to right the wrongs of the so called “Neo-cons.” The Democratic party, on the other hand, has aligned itself entirely with the pro-abortion movement, and for that reason it cannot be supported.

    My fear is that you may have a flawed and malformed conscience. In that case I doubt recourse to the authority of the Magisterium, the Pope, or the Bishops will be of much use. It’s sad to see so many nominal Catholics touting their faith, while not actually being a real member of the Body of Christ, can apparently go on indefinitely without self-examination. If one is going to simply deny the most central tenets of the Roman Catholic faith why be Catholic at all? I’ll offer up a prayer for you that you might discern this matter more clearly, and that any that stumble across this post that are in the same boat as you might do the same.

    I hope you’ll read Faithful Citizenship, as well as the numerous other documents that have made this point clear.

  • judy

    Fox News ??? They have dedicated themselves to pushing the neo-con agenda for years. Just look at Hannity…O’Reilly…Fair and Balanced they hardly are.

  • cantbelive it

    lets add this to the mix –found this on foxnews:
    Groups Declare Obama’s Stimulus Bill a War on Prayer
    A provision in the House-passed stimulus bill — banning money to be used to renovate schools from being spent on facilities that allow “religious worship” — has ignited fury among those who claim it discriminates on the basis of faith and violates the right to free speech.

  • Someoneelse

    Just something else to add to the mix — read “Mexico City is Just the beginning” on http://www.catholicthing.com/.

  • AReader

    “The recent USA Today/Gallup poll shows that only 35 percent of those surveyed approve of the President’s controversial move ‘allowing funding to overseas family planning groups that provide abortions.’ Fifty-eight percent disapproved of this executive order.”

powered by the Paulists