NY Gov. David Paterson Wields His Political Power

Gee, that's funny. He, a "devout" Catholic, didn't bring up the whole same-sex marriage issue to the Holy Father. There's a word for someone like that: hypocrite.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 3:25 PM | 5-29-2008

Like I said two months ago in a previous blog: http://afro-americawriter.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!2D30651C10302D91!330.entry I LOVE this guy. He is a breath of fresh air in a world where politicians are so cagey about their past mistakes.

Also, to Matthew Scallion: I guess our definition of hypocrites are very different. Being a hypocrite is someone like former NY Governor Eliot Spitzer, who busted prostitution rings but afterwards, was the prostitution's business major client.

Using someone's religion "catholism" doesn't make one an advocate for all its teachings. Gee . . . what do you say for the few of the "Holy Fathers" abuse of boys?

Sent by Moji | 4:31 PM | 5-29-2008

He's growing on me. I heard his well reasoned position on recognizing same sex marriage in the state NY. Hearing him explain it was just so...adult.

Sent by Miss T | 9:22 PM | 5-29-2008

Perhaps Gov. Paterson sees his sudden rise to power as a opportunity to make a difference for the disenfranchised. As far as being a Catholic is concerned, last time I checked that was no barrier to making mistakes.

Sent by Suanne T. Martin | 11:15 PM | 5-29-2008

@Moji, I guess you haven't read my earlier posts about Eliot Spitzer (not your fault). I called him a hypocrite too, not only for using the same prostitution rings he busted but also for targeting crisis pregnancy centers for misrepresentation of services while letting abortion shops --shops which were his political supporters-- misrepresent themselves as "abortion alternative providers." So, no, Moji, we do not have a different definition of hypocrites.

Now, to your callous questioning regarding the sex abuse by Catholic priests. As one who was sexually abused as young man myself, I not only empathisize with fellow survivors, I also sympathize with those in the Church, those like the Pope during his visit to this country, who are trying to be the solution to the problem rather than a perpetuator of the problem. When you have a religion whose Founder told His disciples to forgive "seventy times seven times," that can be more challenging than at first blush.

Back in Middle Ages, priests who abused children would be sent off to remote monasteries to live off of bread and water. IMHO, the Church had the right idea back then, before psychologists and therapists convinced bishops that these men could be cured.

Now, if you are really concerned about the sex abuse of children and not just out to fashion the biggest club to beat up the big bad Catholic Church, perhaps you should consider targeting far worse offenders than even the Catholic Church. Might I recommend the public schools, since, according to an October 2007 report from the AP, the sex abuse of children, all funded by our tax dollars, is 100 times worse than the Catholic Church?

Last thing: it's "Scallon," not "Scallion." It's a common mistake, and, as one whose partially dyslexic, I don't take off for spelling. I recommend using the old cut-and-paste method just to be on the safe side.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 2:29 PM | 5-30-2008

@Suanne T. Martin, it's one thing to know that something's wrong and doing it anyway and another to know that something's wrong and claim that it's not. The former makes you a sinner, along with everyone else in the Catholic Church. The latter makes you a hypocrite, and we have far too many of them, especially those politicians who call themselves "Catholic."

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 2:32 PM | 5-30-2008

Matthew Scallon:

Misspelling your name was not intentional as the speed of my keystrokes and my eyes didn't catch the oversight. So I apologize.

However, I stand by my comments not to judge a person for his church's teachings. I believe I disagreed with you on a certain Senator from Illinois' character about his Pastor's antics on another blog.

Just because Gov. Paterson's is a "devout Catholic" as you said doesn't mean he should let his Church's teachings affect how he governs. Heard anything about a former president JFK?

It is not only about this issue of same-sex marriage? What about abortion, or birth control? These issues were frowned upon by the Catholic church. So is Gov. Paterson a hypocrite for allowing women's rights too?

By the way, my reasoning was not "callous;" it's a fact and obviously you didn't see my specification of the "few" Fathers.

Also, as a former Catholic who spent Saturdays in Cathocism classes as a kid with many family members still in the religion not to talk of two relatives who have studied in the Convent, my questioning does not come from a "callous" place.

So please don't assume about my reasonings; I don't comment on what I don't know and you don't need to resort to unjustified name calling.

By the way, I empathize with what you and other survivors have gone through.

Sent by Moji | 3:40 PM | 5-30-2008

@Moji, no apology needed for the misspelling. This is the Internet, and I saw a couple of grammatical errors on my post. My high school English teacher, Br. Ruhl, would be mad at me were he still with us, God rest his soul.

I don't remember the particular disagreement regarding Obama (if that's the Senator you're referring to), but, in any case, I don't remember associating him with the Pastor's antics. If that's how you understood it, I'm sorry for the mix-up.

Now, you say, "Just because Gov. Paterson's is a 'devout Catholic' as you said doesn't mean he should let his Church's teachings affect how he governs. Heard anything about a former president JFK?" In other words Catholic politicians can be Catholics on Sunday but must be atheists the rest of the week. As far as JFK is concerned, his speech denouncing his own religion is exactly the problem with Catholic politicians. No one, for example, besmerches a Jewish politician like Joseph Lieberman for his support of Israel, nor is he required to couch such support in secular terms. He is, after all, a Jew, and such support of Israel is inherent to his faith.

A Catholic politician, however, cannot support a moral issue that, while part of the Church's moral theology is not Her exclusive property, even if they couch it in secular terms, according to your rule of governance by Catholic politicians. In other words, according to you, a Catholic politician who supports the right to life is equivalent to a Catholic politician who requires everyone to believe in Transubstantiation, since both doctrines are taught by the same Church. Abortion, like same-sex marriage, are moral issues that people of many faiths, including atheism, can agree, and a Catholic politician should no more fear taking those moral stances than any other, not to do so is hypocritical.

And, since you asked, a Catholic politician who supports baby killing is a hypocrite. So far as "birth control" is concerned, that term includes everything from Creighton Model Natural Family Planning to partial-birth abortion, so you'll have to narrow down your field before I respond. As to women's rights, I recommend you read what Feminists for Life have to say about that subject before you include any of the aforementioned into that category.

As to your alleged callousness, let me quote you, "Gee . . . what do you say for the few of the 'Holy Fathers' abuse of boys?" That doesn't sound callous to you? Maybe this strikes as a kind of gallow's humor, but, as one who survived my own abuse, callous is exactly how I'd describe it, namely in juxtoposing the address I gave for the Pope with the sexual abuse. Possibly because of your ignorance of my background, I thought it clever; it wasn't.

And I can never get enough of apostates who claim as credibility for their positions the fact that they used to be Catholic and that so many of their family are still Catholic (as if membership is equivalent to knowledge) and that they used to go to CCD every Saturday. You join a very storied list of knowledgeable former Catholics: Hitler, Senger, Ho Chi Minh. It reminds me of marathoners who quit the race after 1 mile but still want to get credit for finishing.

I didn't "assume" anything about your reasoning. I infer a whole lot, though. And, as Br. Ruhl once said, assumption and inference lives world's apart. As to your comment, "I don't comment on what I don't know and you don't need to resort to unjustified name calling," I'll just leave that alone out of Christian charity.

So, since you didn't repeat anything about Eliot Spitzer, I take it then that we have a meeting of the minds on that subject, yes?

Finally, though we disagree on this topic, I thank you for empathy.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 7:59 PM | 5-30-2008

Getting back to the subject: Can I just say it one more time that I HEART Gov. David Paterson?

I'm a huge proponent of the theory "him without sin let him cast the first stone." And in a sea of folks who choose to revel in their self-righteousness, I'm floored to see a person (i.e. Paterson) who shows that great things could be accomplished through broken vessels.

Sent by Moji | 5:07 PM | 5-31-2008

Some questions: Is Gov Paterson the elected Catholic Proconsul of New York or the elected Governor? When issues of sex [same or otherwise] come up in politics they are invariably followed by discussions of religion and its various precepts and prohibitions, however old or unchallenged they might be. Rarely does the discussion revolve around the laws of the particular state, or the history surrounding those laws, or the latest ideas from science, medicine or culture, as they relates to the jurisdiction in question.

Why is it that the people that seem to be the most exercised by actions similar to those of Gov Paterson, as they relate to the civil rights of the citizens of New York, are those steeped in their personal religious ideas? As if their personal perception of the vast world they live in is the one TRUE perception. What do they think of the rest of us and our beliefs and ideas? Is the concept of social compromise one they entertain?

By now I'm sure it's obvious that I think political issues should primarily be couched in political, historic and ethical terms. And while one's ethics may be informed by one's religious beliefs, in terms of questions about politics it should be clear that one's particular religious beliefs in NO WAY encompass the entirety of an issue - usually, not even close!

Wouldn't it illuminating [and nice] to conduct political discussions using our broad palette of ideas? We shouldn't confine ourselves to the narrow margins of our religious particularities.

Sent by zoran | 9:33 AM | 6-1-2008

@Moji, Jesus was talking of a person who had repented her sin being judged by those who had repented of theirs, so, in this case, your theory doesn't apply.

As to the "self-righteousness," what do you say earlier about name-calling? Do as you say, not as you do, for you practice not what you preach.

Please note that I said nothing about "broken" behavior, and I'm not saying about it now. Those events in his life were things he repented of, so much for the self-righteousness moniker.

@zoran, if a Catholic politician, or a politician of any faith for that matter, acts in a way that is contrary to the tenets of the faiths he claims to hold, he is a hypocrite, pure and simple. And, to show how consistent I am on this point, a anti-life Catholic politician is just hypocritical as a pro-life Unitarian politician, and I'm saying that as someone who's pro-life. A same-sex marriage supporter who's Catholic is just as hypocritical as same-sex marriage opponent who's Unitarian. Of course, Unitarian politicians don't have their religion scrutinized as much as Catholic politicians, but that's a topic for another day.

Sent by Matthew Scallon | 12:17 PM | 6-2-2008