Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

[pnewton]

I’ve only perused this thread, and it seems to have gone off topic a while ago.

That bishop was wrong.

I think either you do not understand the role of the bishop or have not read the letter. The letter contained the Gospel and applied it specifically to a current moral issue. Bishops do this sort of thing regularly. It is their role. They are in fact the head of each parish as well as a diocese and this letter method is a standard way of delivering a standard message.

The text of the letter was aroung post 20 or so posted by Robert Bay. I recommend you at least read that in detail. The bishops actions were in perfect concert with his role as shepherd. It is not partisan politics to speak on the Gospel and on current issues with serious sin. His letter was spot on Catholic teaching.

I would say rather that no political party should attempt to be so entrenched in grave immorality. When such a thing occurs in society, it is the role of the bishop to oppose that particular immorality, not the people or the party.

 

[LisaA]

A tizzy? You actually said “a tizzy”? This is very condescending language. Clearly you didn’t read what I wrote.

There is only a summary of the letter in the article, and a very brief one at that. If you have the full text, please share it here.

No. I didn’t say that. I disagree with him forcing all the celebrants of his diocese to read a letter **DURING MASS **that names a political candidate.

According to this *summary *of the letter, Obama was clearly mentioned:
*"In the letter, Jenky cautions parishioners that **Obama ***and a majority of U.S. senators will not reconsider the mandate that would require employers, including religious groups, to provide free birth control coverage in their health care plans. “This assault upon our religious freedom is simply without precedent in the American political and legal system,” Jenky wrote.
“Today, Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord,” Jenky added. “They are objectively guilty of grave sin.”

Read more here: mcclatchydc.com/2012/10/31/173269/bishop-orders-priests-to-read.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy

I’m asking people to think about/pray about the truth of what I’ve said here. Partisan politics do not belong at Mass. You’re right though. Much of the US is prideful, and many certainly need to get over their “big bad selves” and realize that Mass should be a humbling time, a quiet time for mediation and receiving Christ in the Eucharist, rather than being a bull horn for partisan politics during the Holy hour reserved for God alone.

I believe the letter has been posted #16. I re-read it. I do not see Obama’s name. Further with respect to your emotional disturbance so great it would be hard to take the Eucharist, if this is like most such letters, it is read AFTER the Mass. Our Archbishop sent a similar letter regarding the HHS Mandate that our Priest read AFTER the Mass. So presumably you would already have taken the Eucharist.

Again, why would such a letter disturb you so? Please read it and state what was so controversial or where you disagreed.

Lisa

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I believe the letter has been posted #16. I re-read it. I do not see Obama’s name. Further with respect to your emotional disturbance so great it would be hard to take the Eucharist, if this is like most such letters, it is read AFTER the Mass. Our Archbishop sent a similar letter regarding the HHS Mandate that our Priest read AFTER the Mass. So presumably you would already have taken the Eucharist.

Again, why would such a letter disturb you so? Please read it and state what was so controversial or where you disagreed.

Lisa

We had a printout inserted into last Sunday’s bulletin. There was no specific endorsement of a candidate. The candidate’s position on ‘Church’ issues was laid out side by side and Catholics were instructed to vote their conscience in light of their Catholic faith. But if you examined the candidate’s positions closely, it becomes quite obvious that Romney is clearly the candidate of choice. Just like the Bishop’s letter.

 

[LisaA]

We had a printout inserted into last Sunday’s bulletin. There was no specific endorsement of a candidate. The candidate’s position on ‘Church’ issues was laid out side by side and Catholics were instructed to vote their conscience in light of their Catholic faith. But if you examined the candidate’s positions closely, it becomes quite obvious that Romney is clearly the candidate of choice. Just like the Bishop’s letter.

OR you could conclude that Obama is NOT a possible candidate and respond by voting for Romney who has been deemed acceptable, other acceptable candidates or not voting. I think the logical conclusion is that if you want Obama stopped the only possibility is Romney, but I suggest it’s more of an anti-Obama than pro-Romney position.

One might wonder why any practicing Catholic needs reminding but having spent two weeks with a group of what I believed were very devout, knowlegeable Catholics, hearing from one that she “didn’t understand why there was an objection to Obama because of his abortion position” made me realize that the message needs to be drilled home effectively.

It’s a wonder to me that after four years, a war on the Church, the slobbering support of Planned Parenthood and other baby killing organizations, still some Catholics think Obama’s administration is just fine…

Lisa

 

[Tampa_Dave]

U.S. Bishops Campaigning For Romney Accused Of Abusing Tax-Exempt Status
Posted: 11/02/2012 5:47 pm EDT Updated: 11/03/2012 12:48 pm EDT

WASHINGTON – Amid reports that some Roman Catholic clergy have been campaigning for Mitt Romney at the pulpit, the good-government non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on Friday, challenging its tax-exempt status.

The Conference of Catholic Bishops, as a 501(c)(3) group, is prohibited from campaigning for any candidate. In addition to being one of the most powerful anti-abortion lobbies in Washington, the bishops have been trying to persuade Catholics to vote for Romney by demanding that priests read pre-written letters at Sunday Masses, The Washington Post reports. The letters avoid naming Romney, arguing that President Barack Obama’s administration has waged a war on religious liberty, that the Democrats’ positions on contraception, abortion and gay marriage are causing the nation to “lose its soul by little steps,” and that Catholic voters cannot support Democratic candidates without betraying God and Catholicism.

Bishop Edward J. Burns of Juneau, Alaska, wrote a column in a local newspaper comparing Vice President Joe Biden’s support for abortion rights to tolerance of slavery in the antebellum South. "How much further behind would we be in civil rights and the understanding of human dignity if they were to have said that he personally was against the slavery of African Americans but did not want to impose their moral stance on slave-owners so that they and everyone else could have the ability to choose?” Burns wrote.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on Friday asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Conference of Catholic Bishops’ political activities and, if necessary, disqualify the religious group from the “tremendous” tax benefits it enjoys.

“This weekend, the Catholic bishops plan to use every tool in their arsenal, including warning parishioners that they may go to hell, to promote the candidacy of Governor Mitt Romney," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "While the bishops are free to hold their own opinions, tax law is clear that this sort of political activity is prohibited.”

The Conference of Catholic Bishops did not respond to The Huffington Post’s calls for comment.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/us-bishops-campaigning-romney_n_2067221.html

 

[LisaA]

U.S. Bishops Campaigning For Romney Accused Of Abusing Tax-Exempt Status
Posted: 11/02/2012 5:47 pm EDT Updated: 11/03/2012 12:48 pm EDT

WASHINGTON – Amid reports that some Roman Catholic clergy have been campaigning for Mitt Romney at the pulpit, the good-government non-profit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint against the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops on Friday, challenging its tax-exempt status.

The Conference of Catholic Bishops, as a 501(c)(3) group, is prohibited from campaigning for any candidate. In addition to being one of the most powerful anti-abortion lobbies in Washington, the bishops have been trying to persuade Catholics to vote for Romney by demanding that priests read pre-written letters at Sunday Masses, The Washington Post reports. The letters avoid naming Romney, arguing that President Barack Obama’s administration has waged a war on religious liberty, that the Democrats’ positions on contraception, abortion and gay marriage are causing the nation to “lose its soul by little steps,” and that Catholic voters cannot support Democratic candidates without betraying God and Catholicism.

Bishop Edward J. Burns of Juneau, Alaska, wrote a column in a local newspaper comparing Vice President Joe Biden’s support for abortion rights to tolerance of slavery in the antebellum South. "How much further behind would we be in civil rights and the understanding of human dignity if they were to have said that he personally was against the slavery of African Americans but did not want to impose their moral stance on slave-owners so that they and everyone else could have the ability to choose?” Burns wrote.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington on Friday asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate the Conference of Catholic Bishops’ political activities and, if necessary, disqualify the religious group from the “tremendous” tax benefits it enjoys.

“This weekend, the Catholic bishops plan to use every tool in their arsenal, including warning parishioners that they may go to hell, to promote the candidacy of Governor Mitt Romney," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "While the bishops are free to hold their own opinions, tax law is clear that this sort of political activity is prohibited.”

The Conference of Catholic Bishops did not respond to The Huffington Post’s calls for comment.

huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/02/us-bishops-campaigning-romney_n_2067221.html

Huffpo…wouldn’t you just expect it. Of course the article glosses over the truth, that no CANDIDATE was named. Note the organization was deemed a ‘good government’ organization. PUH-LEASE…do we detect a bit of bias?

Funny how these organizations ignored Obama and previously Hillary campaigning in black churches or their buddy James Wallis and his many statements against Republicans. I’ve met Wallis personally. He is a man of the Left, railing against former President Bush when appearing at our local Episcopal Cathedral for a workshop. Again crickets chirp

I’m not worried about the lawsuits. The Church has plenty of legal advice.

Lisa

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Huffpo…wouldn’t you just expect it. Of course the article glosses over the truth, that no CANDIDATE was named. Note the organization was deemed a ‘good government’ organization. PUH-LEASE…do we detect a bit of bias?

Funny how these organizations ignored Obama and previously Hillary campaigning in black churches or their buddy James Wallis and his many statements against Republicans. I’ve met Wallis personally. He is a man of the Left, railing against former President Bush when appearing at our local Episcopal Cathedral for a workshop. Again crickets chirp

I’m not worried about the lawsuits. The Church has plenty of legal advice.

Lisa

I posted the article without particularly caring about the source. I love what our Bishops are doing. State the Church’s position on issues of interest, align the candidates’ positions side by side, then urge them to vote in accordance with their Catholic faith. Bam! Romney should collect more votes.

 

[estesbob]

Huffpo…wouldn’t you just expect it. Of course the article glosses over the truth, that no CANDIDATE was named. Note the organization was deemed a ‘good government’ organization. PUH-LEASE…do we detect a bit of bias?

Funny how these organizations ignored Obama and previously Hillary campaigning in black churches or their buddy James Wallis and his many statements against Republicans. I’ve met Wallis personally. He is a man of the Left, railing against former President Bush when appearing at our local Episcopal Cathedral for a workshop. Again crickets chirp

I’m not worried about the lawsuits. The Church has plenty of legal advice.

Lisa

Where was Huffpo when Obama was speaking from he pulpits of African American Church’s?

 

[LisaA]

I posted the article without particularly caring about the source. I love what our Bishops are doing. State the Church’s position on issues of interest, align the candidates’ positions side by side, then urge them to vote in accordance with their Catholic faith. Bam! Romney should collect more votes.

Dave you misunderstand, my point was that HuffPo is very liberal and put the accusing organization in a positive light, the Bishops in a negative light. I am delighted they are speaking out and making it very clear that our faith should direct our voting.

I’m still amazed anyone is voting for Obama unless they have enjoyed the last four years of high misery index. That Catholics would consider voting for him is horrifying. I hope the message gets through this time.

Lisa

 

[Nimzovik]

Where was Huffpo when Obama was speaking from he pulpits of African American Church’s?

Yah. No kidding.

 

[LisaA]

Where was Huffpo when Obama was speaking from he pulpits of African American Church’s?

Or the Chicago Tribune for that matter. If one reads the HEADLINE it says “anti-Obama” and some of the posters have taken this as the text of the letter. If you read the letter it’s clear that the Bishops’ letter did not specifically name either candidate. Here’s the headline:

Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons
Manya A. Brachear | Chicago Tribune

Note Chicago Tribune, Obama’s hometown paper. But hey just a coincidence right? The media has behaved disgracefully in this election, even more so than the last. Remember the day when the word Journalist evoked a positive impression?

Lisa

 

[Swiss_Guy]

The reception of Caritas in Veritate comes to mind.

Probably too much support for unions and government (albeit subsidiarity involved). But properly understood, Caritas in Veritate fits perfectly with this conservative’s political spectrum. Neoliberalism (economics of many American fiscal conservatives) and anti(private sector)union is not conservative.

 

[rfournier103]

Wouldn’t it be better to have been positive? Rather than have the parish priests read an anti-Obama letter, it would be better IMO to have them read a pro-Romney letter.

Maybe not… Mitt Romney is not the nice guy he’d have you believe he is. Sometimes when the options aren’t good, you have to make your case, and not endorse anyone.

As a resident of Massacusetts during the Romney governorship of the Commonwealth, he was governor when gay ‘marriage’ was legalized in the Commonwealth in 2004. As far as I can remember, he didn’t make a peep about it… and he was GOVERNOR!!! Romney’s moral compass (in my mind) is convieniently set aside when politics, or profit, requires it.

He didn’t lift a finger when many towns in Massachusetts were fighting to have Nativities on town commons. He didn’t give a fig about religious liberty here in Mass., so how can you think he will as president??? You can hold Mittens up as some righteous, moral, do-gooder, but he doesn’t pass the smell test.

His Excellency was wise not to endorse Romney.

 

[LisaA]

Maybe not… Mitt Romney is not the nice guy he’d have you believe he is. Sometimes when the options aren’t good, you have to make your case, and not endorse anyone.

As a resident of Massacusetts during the Romney governorship of the Commonwealth, he was governor when gay ‘marriage’ was legalized in the Commonwealth in 2004. As far as I can remember, he didn’t make a peep about it… and he was GOVERNOR!!! Romney’s moral compass (in my mind) is convieniently set aside when politics, or profit, requires it.

He didn’t lift a finger when many towns in Massachusetts were fighting to have Nativities on town commons. He didn’t give a fig about religious liberty here in Mass., so how can you think he will as president??? You can hold Mittens up as some righteous, moral, do-gooder, but he doesn’t pass the smell test.

His Excellency was wise not to endorse Romney.

Oh yes far better to have Mr Abortion Himself Barack Obama. Makes perfect sense right? Some piddly complaint dating back a decade is far more a consideration than four years of assault on the Church…but hey who’s counting

Aside from that the Bishops cannot endorse a candidate. That is elementary sir.

Lisa

 

[ishii]

The reception of Caritas in Veritate comes to mind.

So on the one hand, we have the blatant flouting of Catholic moral teaching on the black and white issues such as abortion and gay rights by liberal Democrat catholics. On the other is a “critical reception of Caritas in Veritate” (presumably by some on the right). And you are making a moral equivalence between the two? On what issues is the right “callous to the poor and needy” ? Like I said, your analogy falls way short.

Ishii

 

[Tampa_Dave]

Maybe not… Mitt Romney is not the nice guy he’d have you believe he is. Sometimes when the options aren’t good, you have to make your case, and not endorse anyone.

As a resident of Massacusetts during the Romney governorship of the Commonwealth, he was governor when gay ‘marriage’ was legalized in the Commonwealth in 2004. As far as I can remember, he didn’t make a peep about it… and he was GOVERNOR!!! Romney’s moral compass (in my mind) is convieniently set aside when politics, or profit, requires it.

He didn’t lift a finger when many towns in Massachusetts were fighting to have Nativities on town commons. He didn’t give a fig about religious liberty here in Mass., so how can you think he will as president??? You can hold Mittens up as some righteous, moral, do-gooder, but he doesn’t pass the smell test.

His Excellency was wise not to endorse Romney.

The alternative is Obama, an avid anti-Catholic President. He put forth the infamous HHS mandate which directly attacks the Catholic Church in America.

 

[rfournier103]

Oh yes far better to have Mr Abortion Himself Barack Obama. Makes perfect sense right? Some piddly complaint dating back a decade is far more a consideration than four years of assault on the Church…but hey who’s counting

Aside from that the Bishops cannot endorse a candidate. That is elementary sir.

Lisa

The alternative is Obama, an avid anti-Catholic President. He put forth the infamous HHS mandate which directly attacks the Catholic Church in America.

I don’t think I made myself clear. I wasn’t implying that the bishop should endorse ANYONE.

I, in good conscience, can NOT vote for either one, as they are both unacceptable. And Lisa, as for your smart-alec remark about a piddly complaint… were you referring to the lack of support of Nativities in the public square, or the gay marriage debacle? Because BOTH are serious assaults on religion, and lack of a backbone on those issues could be considered a sin of omission by some.

I personally despise the politics of both men, and I will use my right as an American to vote my conscience. To anyone who says that I am throwing my vote away on a third candidate who has no chance of winning; I say it is far better than throwing away my vote on one of these men who should never have been nominated in the first place. I refuse to be even slightly accountable for getting either one elected. Thanks for listening.

 

[iloveangels]

It’s about time the Church stepped up and was clear on her basic teachings.

Abortion is a non-negotiable evil. Because it tries to force the Church to support abortion, the HHS mandate is a non-negotiable evil.

The poor will be helped by us either way. We have an obligation to help the poor, we do NOT have an obligation to do it through the federal government. Archbishop Chaput OFM made this crystal clear this last summer.

 

[seekerz]

Below is the evangelical message for Romney:
westernjournalism.com/pas…tial-election/

In his 30+ years as a Pastor, he has never talked about election, but he could not keep silent this time.

Pastor Jeremiah teamed with Billy Graham and raised 3.8 million dollars to put Graham’s advertisement on major newspapers across the nation urging people to vote for Christian value. If you watch this sermon, you will know for sure that Billy Graham and David Jeremiah are urging everyone to vote for Romney.

Pastor David Jeremiah’s Important Sermon On The Presidential Election:

westernjournalism.com/pas…tial-election/

Which Christian value exactly are they spending 3.8 million dollars to ask people to vote for? The one where one side claims moral superiority while doing whatever it takes to win (e.g. the Jeep ad which has been refuted by the companies in question)?

Do human beings consider themselves smarter than God? Maybe they should spend that money reminding people what has historically happened to those who’ve thought so…

 

[seekerz]

It’s about time the Church stepped up and was clear on her basic teachings.

Abortion is a non-negotiable evil. Because it tries to force the Church to support abortion, the HHS mandate is a non-negotiable evil.

The poor will be helped by us either way. We have an obligation to help the poor, we do NOT have an obligation to do it through the federal government. Archbishop Chaput OFM made this crystal clear this last summer.

By your reasoning: abortion will happen either way, so why make it an issue? And where is the mandate for making abortion a government matter at all? Can’t people choose to abort or not to abort the way they choose to help the poor or not help the poor? Not my argument, but if I read yours well, that’s what I come up with…

In reality, the government has an administrative role in BOTH.

As for the HHS, being a non-negotiable evil. If you show me where it makes people have abortions, I’d have to agree with you. On the contrary, it allows those opposed to abortion to not include it in their plans and it keeps premiums for abortion care separate. If I look at the actual mandate, it actually makes people help others get care when they are sick. Not sure in which holy book THAT is a non-negotiable evil.