LITTWIN: Stafford goes rogue over Obama
By Mike Littwin, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published November 22, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Before we begin, let me set the record straight. I have no problem with important people saying stupid things.
It's not just a First Amendment principle for me. My job basically depends on it.
That is not to say, however, that important people should say stupid things. Or that your faithful correspondent should risk whatever it is they do to heretics these days for pointing out the especially stupid ones.
You see, our topic for today is a land mine. A religious figure - a religious figure in that most establishment of churches - has gone, well, rogue.
If you missed the story, Cardinal J. Francis Stafford, the former Denver archbishop, has called Barack Obama's election "apocalyptic." In a speech at Catholic University, Stafford said he foresees an Obama-lead nation in anguish, and not because of stock market woes.
"For the next few years," Stafford said, "Gethsemane will not be marginal. We will know that garden."
For the biblically challenged, Stafford was referring to Jesus' anguish in the garden the night before his crucifixion, leading me to wonder: Has Stafford watched one too many Mel Gibson movies or was he trying out for some kind of end-days talk-radio show?
When cardinals talk about the apocalypse, it's safe to assume they're talking about the apocalypse. Stafford's unavoidable implication is that the president-elect could be the Antichrist. I'm guessing that's not the Pope's position.
Here's Stafford's take on Obama: "He appears to be a relaxed, smiling man. His rhetorical skills, as I mentioned, are very highly developed. But under all of that grace and charm, there is a tautness of will, a clenched jaw, a state of constant alertness, to attack and resist any external influence that might affect his will."
My God. Or as the secularists say, what the hell?
I'm not against religious figures speaking out on perceived societal injustices, whether I agree or not. But tautness of will? Clenching of jaw? Constancy of alert? What - no growing of horns? I couldn't tell if Stafford was talking about the next president of the United States or the latest villain in the new Bond movie.
I mean, there's demonizing the enemy and then there's demonizing the enemy. The issue for Stafford, as you might guess, is abortion. Stafford says Obama ran on "an extremist-anti-life platform," the same one that all recent Democratic presidential candidates have run on, a platform with which many or most Americans - depending on the poll - agree.
And, as a bonus, when making the point, Stafford (as pointed out by liberal watchdog Media Matters) took Obama's words out of context and had him saying the words in the wrong speech. I guess even cardinals assigned to Rome - as Stafford is - need bigger research staffs.
Stafford was referring to the oft-quoted Obama speech about his daughters being "punished" by becoming pregnant.
The speech was not about abortion. It was about sex education and how it really isn't a good idea for unmarried teens to get pregnant - and how if his daughters "make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD . . . so, it doesn't make sense to not give them information. You still want to teach them the morals and the values to make good decisions."
I watched the tape. His jaw wasn't clenched. His will might have been taut, but that could have been the lighting.
What I know is that we live in parallel universes. In one - where we spend most of our time - Obama is riding all that post-election good will. In the other, Rush Limbaugh calls Obama a "thug" and Dan Caplis calls him an "angry radical." There's nothing new in this, historically speaking. It just gets bigger ratings now.
It reminds me of the big story of the day - that Hillary Clinton will, in fact, be secretary of state. It's the latest remarkable twist in the story of the House of Clinton. I think of the full-on embrace Clinton is now receiving. It wasn't that long ago when she was the woman talk radio loved to hate - think Nancy Pelosi times 10 - a modern-day Medea whose supposed man-killing ambition trumped all, who stood accused of everything up to and including murder.
Somehow now, amazingly, all is forgiven. Hey, Cardinal Stafford, recognize that concept?
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
November 22, 2008
6:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
DakotaPlainsman writes:
My, my, how Mikey gets testy when someone voices their opinion in opposition to his man. You better get used to defending him. You helped create him.
November 22, 2008
10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
jbowen43 writes:
Stafford is a well regarded leader in a church that FOUGHT AGAINST laws that make institutions liable for the abuses of children that OCCURED ON THEIR PREMISES WITH THEIR KNOWLEDGE!
November 22, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
iggypuppet writes:
Stafford is right about Obama's election causing divisiveness... just look at how the right is already trashing him, and the man hasn't even taken the oath yet. After 8 years of their brand of politics taking our country down the road to ruin, they will now do everything they can to stand in the way of putting things back the way that they should be... with America as the greatest country in the world.
Stafford and Chaput have a right to have their personal beliefs, but unless the Bible or Jesus is the subject, they should keep their mouths shut in the media. Their extremist brand of Catholicism has run me right out of the Catholic church.
There is nothing more dangerous in this world than extremist religious fundamentalists, whether they be radical Muslims, bible-thumping rednecks or Opus Dei inspired Catholics. I often wonder what Jesus would say about Barack Obama, and I think that he would not approve of his pro-choice attitudes, but certainly would hold him in higher regard than those who invade other countries based upon lies, torture other human beings, display their hatred of their fellow humans routinely with their words and worship the gospel of greed in their lives (the people who have run this country for the past 8 years and their followers).
Not to mention the hypocrisy of trashing a man for allowing others to do what they will with their own bodies while implicitly sanctioning the evil pedophiles in their own organization.
There is more than 1 serious issue in this world, Catholic clergy... maybe you'd be best served (in God's name) by weighing all of the issues instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of one wedge issue.
As for Stafford and Chaput, they are irrelevant. As is their religion so long as it continues down the extremist road it now travels.
November 22, 2008
11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
hogarm writes:
If we could ask Stafford, what do you consider yourself?
Are you a Catholic first and an American second, or are you an American first and a Catholic second?
We don't know what he would say, but we know what he thinks in his heart.
Until his church pays its fair share of taxes, he should confine his remarks to talking snakes and virgins giving birth to gods.
November 22, 2008
11:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spivis writes:
Mike, I heard Stafford's comments yesterday but after eight years of listening to all the crap thrown at GWB I really didn't think much about it.
Thanks for your quick response in keeping us informed (this time around) about any negative or visceral comments directed toward the Prez.
November 22, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spivis writes:
Conservativeslayer -
Can you identify the point at which an "unnecessary war" becomes a "necessary war"? (and please use WWII as the model).
November 22, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
robertemmet writes:
Reading from his notes with all the flair of a tree slug, Cardinal Stafford splatters his audience at Catholic University with a sophomoric psycho-babble about Obama that has little aquaintance with objective reality. With inappropriate chronology, he sets the future Obama-inspired Gethsemane after the Bush-inspired Cavalry. Hopefully Stafford's little ad hominem obloquy isn't the prelude of unremitting Limbaugh-like calumny issuing country-wide from the pulpits.
November 22, 2008
12:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
BRM writes:
Another religious hypocrite I care nothing about. Next!
November 22, 2008
3:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
AmericanPatriot writes:
Cardinal Sins in Apocalyptic Proclamation
Cardinal Stafford seems to be a fine man who has an impeccable record of standing up for the downtrodden, a hero of the homeless, a strong advocate of the illegal alien, and an opponent to the death penalty. But, as with all men, sin is inevitable and Cardinal Stafford has committed the abdominal sin: “A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.” Proverbs 6:19.
As a man of his word, and a man of the cloth, I appeal to him to repent this sin and speak not from his heart but for his soul and denounce these statements. As he so eloquently once said, “. . . Christians are not to judge one another, for God calls us all to a deeper conversion and healing."
November 22, 2008
6:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
PostPaganBaby writes:
Good heavens. Did Mr. Littwin even bother to read the Cardinal's written remarks or did he merely rely on that three minutes of (selectively edited) YouTube audio with pictures?
Come on, Mike, don't nitpick about Stafford taking things out of context (a fact that he admits!) - you yourself deconstructed the Cardinal's words to a degree that the "deceased" Derrida would find a marvel to behold.
Littwin claims that because Stafford uses the term "apocalyptic" it likely means Obama is the Antichrist. When I read Littwin's interpretation, I thought to myself, "Stafford's become a fundamentalist? Wait a second..." Sure enough, it wasn't Stafford whose gone goofy, but Littwin. Had Littwin bothered to read Stafford to see in what sense he was using "apocalyptic", he would have read:
"I will be using the word 'apocalyptic' in the Christian sense of 'expressing the fundamental law of post-Christian world history: the more Christ's kingdom is manifested as the light of the world...the more it will meet determined opposition."
Hardly something out of the "Left Behind" series like you seem to imply, Mike.
Readers, if you are interested, Stafford's text is readily available on the Internet. Coming in at over ten pages (single spaced), it does not lend itself to spicy sound bites or randy caricatures. It is truly thought-provoking, though. Stafford takes on the Enlightenment, Jefferson, the Constitutional Convention, George Bush - to name a few.
Perhaps it's foolish of me to expect more from a newspaper columnist. Misunderstanding I can understand; distortions and deliberate misrepresentations? Intolerable. With respect to the characterization of Stafford as saying something "stupid," I can only suggest Mr. Littwin look in the mirror to see if there just might be a telephone pole in his eye, and a mere mote in the Cardinal's.
November 22, 2008
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spivis writes:
Consevativeslayer -
Thanks for the civics lesson but you missed the point. Most necessary wars were at some stage unnecessary wars. Germany invaded and re-claimed the Rhineland in 1936. Had France and England responded by invading Germany and crushing the Nazi an unnecessary war would have prevented the more horrific necessary war that was to follow.
By your definition, the U.S fought an unnecessary war against Germany from 1942 to 1945 because Germany never attacked us.
BTW: A legal war is when Congress says it is legal. Congress gave GWB the authority to invade Iraq.
November 22, 2008
8:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Don_Lopez writes:
“It wasn't that long ago when (Senator Hillary Clinton) was the woman talk radio loved to hate”
How quickly some people forget.
As the Democrat presidential primary and its media coverage clearly revealed, talk radio is hardly alone on the list of those who dislike Senator Clinton. In fact, talk radio probably isn’t even at the top of that list which includes some flaming-liberal columnists who accused her of using racist tactics against then Senator Barack Obama.
So, here are some additions to Mr. Littwin’s “Hate Hillary” list:
- New York Times columnist Frank Rich
- Denver Post columnist David Sirota
- All other Democrat presidential candidates
- Supporters of all other Democrat presidential candidates
- The magnificently misogynistic Mr. Littwin
These are in no particular order and can be manipulated to your liking.
November 22, 2008
8:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
JonBen writes:
Stafford is a blithering idiot in a red silk bathrobe.
November 23, 2008
7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Seawen writes:
Spivis-
get a dictionary. There is a difference between legal and unnecessary.
Also your statement
"Most necessary wars were at some stage unnecessary wars"
is patently false. I love how conservatives just toss out rediculous opions and claim they are facts.
If France and England had invaded Germany after they took the Rhineland that would have been a necessary war. No one (except you) would call that unnecessary. Just like when we came to Kuwait's aid.
This time around we were not attacked (by Iraq) and neither was anyone else. It was especially stupid in the wake of the fact that we needed all our resources to attack the country that actually attacked us. As evidenced by that fact that we still don't have Bin Laden. But that would have made too much sense.
So much for civics lessons.
November 23, 2008
6:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spivis writes:
Conservativeslayer -
Thanks for expanding your definition of necessary war to included pacts, alliances and agreements that commit nations to fight in a war in which they might not have been directly attacked. This humble fool does not disagree with your assertion that our war with Germany was necessary.
Now, back to the main topic which was my contention that if a county elects not to engage in an "unnecessary war" it may very well lead to a much larger "necessary war" down the road. I gave you an example of the failure of France and England to possibly head off a world war by taking action that at the time might have appeared to be unnecessary. In short: at some point in time an unnecessary war can transition into a necessary war. I was hoping to stimulate discussion on the "unnecessary war" thing.
You choose not to address the main point of my post.
November 23, 2008
11:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
WestminsterJ writes:
Spivis: By your definition, the U.S fought an unnecessary war against Germany from 1942 to 1945 because Germany never attacked us.
Germany was an ally of Japan, who did attack us, and also declared war on us first. That's a war of self-defense. Idiot.
November 24, 2008
8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
GunnyBob writes:
"Thug?" "Angry radical?"
These pejoratives are run-of-the-mill, much like Littwin's columns. Gunny Bob's "Manual of Retro Style" recommends terms that venture back into the proverbial good ol' days of duck-and-cover drills, detente, MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction, not my evil twin brother Alfred's magazine) and the Cold War.
For example, one might refer to the Obamessiah as a "commie rat bastard" or the classic "hairball" as "Hill Street Blues" Sgt. Mick Belker used to say about certain perps. "Bottom feeder" also works but seems to be comparatively new to our lexicon. Other goodies include "snake in the grass," "scoundrel," the rare "caitiff" and that marvelous Marine Corps classic, "maggot."
If we are going to deploy deprecatory idioms to describe the El Jefe Obamanista, let's expand our usage to the more artistic and indelible, shall we?
November 24, 2008
12:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Spivis writes:
WestminsterJ -
You should learn to read before your write. If you check Conservativeslayers 12:58 Sat. post you will see that he provided a very narrow definition of a "necessary war". In my 8:04 Sat post I turned the question back on him for clearification (the Germany thing) and went to bed. On Sun at 8:56 a.m. he broaded his definition (seeming a little fussy) and after the Broncos got their butts kicked I posted at 6:08 p.m. my agreement with his retooled explaination.
(Gosh, you lefties all seem to be so angry and prone to name calling...whaz going on?)
November 24, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
rjnova writes:
Littwin says stupid things weekly and his antagonists delight in pointing out each one. The extent of knowledge they have on each subject is impressive.
I expect to see more of Littwin's stupid sayings as he jumps to defend Obama as his stupid actions drag the economy into deeper distress with each passing transfer payment and tax increase. Anyone celebrity or commoner should get ready for a Littwin assault if they dare to criticize Obama.
November 24, 2008
10:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Iceman7 writes:
WHY ANY NEWSPAPER SEES FIT TO PAY A COLUMINST SUCH AS LITTWIN TO WRITE ABOUT ANYTHING IS BEYOND HUMAN REASONING. HE ADDS NOTHING OF VALUE..
NEWSPAPERS JUST DONT GET IT!
ICE
November 25, 2008
1:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
conniesz writes:
What a Cardinal in Rome thinks of the US President-Elect is pretty much meaningless. It will serve to drive people away from the Catholic Church - which, in my view, is a good thing.
No one should worry about any of this because Barack Obama is going to lead us for at least the next four years no matter what anyone thinks or says.
Get used to it.
November 27, 2008
1:03 p.m.
Suggest removal
PAGIFAL writes:
The writer in today's RMN is right about NitWitWinn defending the right to say stupid things. NitWitWinn does it all the time, and to think he gets PAID for doing it. I believe his columns are so pertinent that they should be moved about four pages further back in the paper. Of course, his columns are in the next to last pages or so which means they would end up on the cutting room floor. I say:
Good Idea."
November 27, 2008
9:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
Aquinas writes:
conniesz writes:
What a Cardinal in Rome thinks of the US President-Elect is pretty much meaningless. It will serve to drive people away from the Catholic Church - which, in my view, is a good thing.
No one should worry about any of this because Barack Obama is going to lead us for at least the next four years no matter what anyone thinks or says.
Get used to it.
Aquinas replies,
Just out of curiosity...why is it a "good thing" for people to be driven away from a faith that tells them to help others, and gives them a structure to better facilitate this happening???
And truth be told, as much as Obama wants to further widen the abortion license, he will be reminded that as much as some Americans are willing to allow those inclined to destroy human life, he will encounter ALOT of resistance to any attempt to make the taxpayer foot such a bill.
November 30, 2008
4:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
jbowen43
You seem to be ignoring q lot of reality.
The Church did not oppose laws to make prosecution of sexual child abuse possible. It opposed laws that deliberately shielded teachers in public schools while extending the statute of limitations to an unreasonable level.
Stafford spoke of the difficulty we would suffer as a people whose morality is so questionable as to permit it to be legal to kill children born alive from abortion. Obama voted several times against laws that would have set hard requirements on medical personnel and facilities to provide care to these children.
As for the statements by Chaput and other Bishops before the election about the abortion stances of candidates, the statements did not say to vote for anyone. They did say it was the obligation of all Catholics who wished to remain in good standing with the Church to withhold support of those who support abortion. It's a fact that no one is forced to vote for or against anyone. You take actions and take the consequences. No one is refused communion. The sin of a bad communion isn't dependent upon what you want the teaching to be but upon what it is.
Trouble with that is Pope Benedict's comments against the Iraq war that most here must have missed. You have to listen to what you don't want to agree with also.
Gethsemane means that we will also suffer. If, as I suspect, we are attacked by terrorists who hope to intimidate Obama (bad idea because it won't work (unless Obama changes from the man he has already shown himself to be) and believe that he will be pressured into non-action, many will suffer and die.
We live in a world where evil has the upper hand. Faith provides only a relief for most. In order for it to become a defense, a great deal of understanding must take place.
December 3, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
Will Obama be sworn in to office using a bible???
ORRRRRRR
a koran????
Let's wait and see Mr. Littwin!!
Nuff Said!