About Those Unthinking Backward, Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyc176
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
For those countries where women are severely oppressed by their culture, reproductive health is many things, including prenatal care. But I see you conveniently ignored all the other issues Clinton raised in her talk.
Yes, I did absolutely ignore them.

Just like when they try to tell people that the ‘safe schools’ program they are pushing in Australia is all about anti-bullying, and yes, some probably do try to deal with anti bullying, but it is by and large a radical gender theory program, masked as an anti bullying program, the founder themselves admitted such and it is masked in such a way as any objection is automatically taken as pro-bullying and therefore hatred, bigotry etc etc.

I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but either your being duped, or your doing the duping.

“For the sake of His sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.”

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
For those countries where women are severely oppressed by their culture, reproductive health is many things, including prenatal care. But I see you conveniently ignored all the other issues Clinton raised in her talk.
“Reproductive health includes access to abortion.” – Hillary Clinton

Here’s how African bishops view talk about “reproductive health”:
  1. We therefore implore you to end the filthy campaigns that promote a civilization of death on our continent. This has to do with a terrifying resurgence of a colonialist spirit under the guise of the appealing names of liberty, equality, rights, autonomy, democratization and development. Condoms, contraceptives, sex education programs fabricated elsewhere, purely technical and deprived of moral content, so-called “safe abortions”, have become commodities that are more accessible to Africans than the way of delivering integral development, of which we have such a vital need. It can no longer be denied that under the euphemism of “sexual and reproductive health and rights”, such programs are plainly imposed as a condition for development assistance. Such is also the case of the so-called “gender perspective,” according to which motherhood, the filial and nuptial identity of the human being and the family based on marriage between a man and a woman would be “discriminatory stereotypes.”
Cardinal Napier and Bishop Emmanuel Badejo have both criticized Hillary Clinton about ideological colonization. So it doesn’t seem to me that criticism of Clinton here is misplaced.
 
Original article is here
catholicphilly.com/2016/10/think-tank/archbishop-chaput-column/about-those-unthinking-backward-catholics/

By Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap. • Posted October 13, 2016

Back in 2008, in the weeks leading up to the Obama-McCain presidential election, two young men visited me in Denver. They were from Catholics United, a group describing itself as committed to social justice issues. They voiced great concern at the manipulative skill of Catholic agents for the Republican Party. And they hoped my brother bishops and I would resist identifying the Church with single-issue and partisan (read: abortion) politics.

It was an interesting experience. Both men were obvious flacks for the Obama campaign and the Democratic Party — creatures of a political machine, not men of the Church; less concerned with Catholic teaching than with its influence. And presumably (for them) bishops were dumb enough to be used as tools, or at least prevented from helping the other side.

Yet these two young men not only equaled but surpassed their Republican cousins in the talents of servile partisan hustling. Thanks to their work, and activists like them, American Catholics helped to elect an administration that has been the most stubbornly unfriendly to religious believers, institutions, concerns and liberty in generations.

I never saw either young man again. The cultural damage done by the current White House has — apparently — made courting America’s bishops unnecessary.

But bad can always get worse. I’m thinking, of course, of the contemptuously anti-Catholic emails exchanged among members of the Clinton Democratic presidential campaign team and released this week by WikiLeaks. A sample: Sandy Newman, president of Voices for Progress, emailed John Podesta, now the head of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, to ask about whether “the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage” could be the tinder for a revolution. “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages [sic] dictatorship,” Newman writes.

Of course, Newman added, “this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance.” Still, he wondered, how would one “plant the seeds of a revolution”? John Podesta replied that “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this . . . likewise Catholics United” (emphasis added).

Another Clinton-related email, from John Halpin of the Center for American Progress, mocks Catholics in the so-called conservative movement, especially converts: “They must be attracted to the systematic thought and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.” In a follow-up, he adds “They can throw around ‘Thomistic’ thought and ‘subsidiarity’ and sound sophisticated because no one knows what . . . they’re talking about.”

On the evening these WikiLeaks emails were released, I received the following angry email myself, this one from a nationally respected (non-Catholic) attorney experienced in Church-state affairs:

“I was deeply offended by the [Clinton team] emails, which are some of the worst bigotry by a political machine I have seen. [A] Church has an absolute right to protect itself when under attack as a faith and Church by civil political forces. That certainly applies here …

“Over the last eight years there has been strong evidence that the current administration, with which these people share values, has been very hostile to religious organizations. Now there is clear proof that this approach is deliberate and will accelerate if these actors have any continuing, let alone louder, say in government.

“These bigots are actively strategizing how to shape Catholicism not to be Catholic or consistent with Jesus’ teachings, but to be the ‘religion’ they want. They are, at the very core, trying to turn religion to their secular view of right and wrong consistent with their politics. This is fundamentally why the Founders left England and demanded that government not have any voice in religion. Look where we are now. We have political actors trying to orchestrate a coup to destroy Catholic values, and they even analogize their takeover to a coup in the Middle East, which amplifies their bigotry and hatred of the Church. I had hoped I would never see this day — a day like so many dark days in Eastern Europe that led to the death of my [Protestant minister] great grandfather at the hands of communists who also hated and wanted to destroy religion.”

Of course it would be wonderful for the Clinton campaign to repudiate the content of these ugly WikiLeaks emails. All of us backward-thinking Catholics who actually believe what Scripture and the Church teach would be so very grateful.

In the meantime, a friend describes the choice facing voters in November this way: A vulgar, boorish lout and disrespecter of women, with a serious impulse control problem; or a scheming, robotic liar with a lifelong appetite for power and an entourage riddled with anti-Catholic bigots.

In a nation where “choice” is now the unofficial state religion, the menu for dinner is remarkably small.
Given this, it makes me wonder if some of the posters on this board are at all who they claim to be.
Perhaps they are political operatives sent to spread lies.
 
Ultimately, what is it that the “anti-catholic” Clinton administration would do with us? Could it ever get so bad as being similar to what Christians are subject to in the Middle East, as in being slaughtered because we don’t believe the way “they” do? The possibilities of what this administration could do to U.S. Catholics frighten me. Or am I worrying too much over nothing?
They could start passing laws infringing on our religious freedom such as they are doing right now to The Little Sisters of the Poor
 
And it is not Christianity that fosters those twisted beliefs, so it is unreasonable to think Hillary was specifically targeting Christianity. Before you use this quote again, please remember to use it in its proper context so as not to be misleading.
Considering that she included ‘reproductive health’ among the list, it would seem that she was very much targeting Catholic beliefs as being among those that need to change. It is clear that the Church’s teachings are not the only ones that she requires change from, but it is certainly on the list.

So I do not see anything misleading about it.
 
Whenever I see this quote taken out of context I wish the entire context would be posted. If you read the entire context you will see that Hillary was speaking to an international gathering of women, and was addressing the plight of women and girls around the world, particularly in areas where there is the greatest discrimination. Here is a larger quote of the words you took out of context:

That first paragraph (which is always omitted when quoting her) forms the basis for the second paragraph. The laws and progress she refers to are laws that prohibit domestic violence, laws that make education available for girls as well as boys. The religious beliefs and structural biases she refers to are the religious beliefs and structural biases that oppose such laws. As I said, this was an** international **gathering of women. One does not have to think too long to think of countries where religious beliefs have severely oppressed women. And it is not Christianity that fosters those twisted beliefs, so it is unreasonable to think Hillary was specifically targeting Christianity. Before you use this quote again, please remember to use it in its proper context so as not to be misleading.
How is “unthinking, backwards Christians” taken out of context? What else could the context be? Is this a tern of endearment to this particular audience?
 
If you as a Catholic do not believe that there are forces at work, within the Church itself, to undermine, confuse, and ultimately destroy it, then you have either been asleep or simply not caring.
 
How is “unthinking, backwards Christians” taken out of context? What else could the context be? Is this a tern of endearment to this particular audience?
Different speech than the one I was addressing. Different person than the one I was talking about.
 
Given this, it makes me wonder if some of the posters on this board are at all who they claim to be.
Perhaps they are political operatives sent to spread lies.
I have wondered the same thing.The anonymity of the Internet allows one to be whatever the claim to be…:cool:
 
Given this, it makes me wonder if some of the posters on this board are at all who they claim to be.
Perhaps they are political operatives sent to spread lies.
Yes, i wonder about this also.
 
“Reproductive health includes access to abortion.” – Hillary Clinton

Here’s how African bishops view talk about “reproductive health”:
  1. We therefore implore you to end the filthy campaigns that promote a civilization of death on our continent. This has to do with a terrifying resurgence of a colonialist spirit under the guise of the appealing names of liberty, equality, rights, autonomy, democratization and development. Condoms, contraceptives, sex education programs fabricated elsewhere, purely technical and deprived of moral content, so-called “safe abortions”, have become commodities that are more accessible to Africans than the way of delivering integral development, of which we have such a vital need. It can no longer be denied that under the euphemism of “sexual and reproductive health and rights”, such programs are plainly imposed as a condition for development assistance. Such is also the case of the so-called “gender perspective,” according to which motherhood, the filial and nuptial identity of the human being and the family based on marriage between a man and a woman would be “discriminatory stereotypes.”
Cardinal Napier and Bishop Emmanuel Badejo have both criticized Hillary Clinton about ideological colonization. So it doesn’t seem to me that criticism of Clinton here is misplaced.
Thank you CrossofChrist

God Bless You

Josh
 
Given this, it makes me wonder if some of the posters on this board are at all who they claim to be.
Perhaps they are political operatives sent to spread lies.
👍 Clinton knows you cannot serve 2 masters.
 
Whenever I see this quote taken out of context I wish the entire context would be posted. If you read the entire context you will see that Hillary was speaking to an international gathering of women, and was addressing the plight of women and girls around the world, particularly in areas where there is the greatest discrimination. Here is a larger quote of the words you took out of context:

That first paragraph (which is always omitted when quoting her) forms the basis for the second paragraph. The laws and progress she refers to are laws that prohibit domestic violence, laws that make education available for girls as well as boys. The religious beliefs and structural biases she refers to are the religious beliefs and structural biases that oppose such laws. As I said, this was an** international **gathering of women. One does not have to think too long to think of countries where religious beliefs have severely oppressed women. And it is not Christianity that fosters those twisted beliefs, so it is unreasonable to think Hillary was specifically targeting Christianity. Before you use this quote again, please remember to use it in its proper context so as not to be misleading.
You might have added emphasis to “right here in the United States” before trying to write this off as a commentary on international religious repression.

Doesn’t matter anyway because she stands opposed to fundamental Church teachings on abortion and marriage. Her extreme support of abortion and Planned Parenthood is despicable. I cannot see how any serious Catholic can excuse that away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top