Catholic Priest: Backers of Obama Should Attend Confession

[elts1956]

That’s what his Bishop said in the article.

Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton diocese, responded to the letter in an interview with the Associated Press and said Illo is wrong to ask Catholics to divulge how they voted or to repent for supporting Obama.

“There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama," he said.

Blaire said confession would only be appropriate if a Catholic voter backed Obama specifically because of his pro-abortion position, pointing to documents saying voters could back Obama because of other political issues.

“Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues,” Blaire said. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I’m sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.”

Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton diocese, responded to the letter in an interview with the Associated Press and said Illo is wrong to ask Catholics to divulge how they voted or to repent for supporting Obama.

“There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama," he said.

Blaire said confession would only be appropriate if a Catholic voter backed Obama specifically because of his pro-abortion position, pointing to documents saying voters could back Obama because of other political issues.

“Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues,” Blaire said. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I’m sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.”

It seems several million people, including catholic clergy forgot one thing in this election. They forgot God’s promise and guidance. We think we are in control, but I think there is a surprise waiting for us.
24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. 25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, What shall we eat?' or What shall we drink?’ or `What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. 34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day. Matthew 6:24-34 (Luke 12:24-27)

And the Bishop said no one should be obliged to divulge how they voted? I thought there was such a thing as the seal of confession? Gee whiz, the Bishop doesn’t even know about that. No wonder he is giving wrong advice.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton diocese, responded to the letter in an interview with the Associated Press and said Illo is wrong to ask Catholics to divulge how they voted or to repent for supporting Obama.

“There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama," he said.

Blaire said confession would only be appropriate if a Catholic voter backed Obama specifically because of his pro-abortion position, pointing to documents saying voters could back Obama because of other political issues.

“Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues,” Blaire said. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I’m sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.”

Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton diocese, responded to the letter in an interview with the Associated Press and said Illo is wrong to ask Catholics to divulge how they voted or to repent for supporting Obama.

“There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama," he said.

Blaire said confession would only be appropriate if a Catholic voter backed Obama specifically because of his pro-abortion position, pointing to documents saying voters could back Obama because of other political issues.

“Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues,” Blaire said. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I’m sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.”

It seems several million people, including catholic clergy forgot one thing in this election. They forgot God’s promise and guidance. We think we are in control, but I think there is a surprise waiting for us.
24 "No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. 25 "Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? 26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? 27 And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? 28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; 29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. 30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? 31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, What shall we eat?' or What shall we drink?’ or `What shall we wear?’ 32 For the Gentiles seek all these things; and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all. 33 But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well. 34 "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day’s own trouble be sufficient for the day. Matthew 6:24-34 (Luke 12:24-27)

And the Bishop said no one should be obliged to divulge how they voted? I thought there was such a thing as the seal of confession? Gee whiz, the Bishop doesn’t even know about that. No wonder he is giving wrong advice.

What do you think it would mean if the Holy Father doesn’t speak out on this issue? In my opinion, his continued silence only supports the argument that each individual has a right to make moral decisions. I check several Catholic reports daily in hopes he speaks out, and as I’ve said, “I will comply with whatever he says.”

I apologize for my part in pitting clergy against clergy. It’s not right in my opinion. As laity we follow the clergy. In this instance that we find the clergy divided on an issue, we can only turn to Rome. One shepherd, one flock. The clergy are men, even though they’ve dedicated their lives to the Church and Christ, they do not speak infallibly. We the laity cannot speak as to which is right and which is wrong.

Peace,

 

[joe_clark]

In my own opinion…

I cannot reconcile the fact that one will say…

“I will protect baby Jesus with all my strength and do everything to keep him safe but I will vote for King Herod because of economic reasons”

You know very well that King Herod will slaughter the innocents.

This statement goes around and comes back on all. Take for example how pedophilia in the church is handled in this country. There is no blanket policy. Each church makes a statement or may choose not to, even if the flock is waiting for one. In my church in a Philadelphia suburb, there is absolutely no mention, out of sight out of mind. Like it never existed? Then there is my friends church in West Chester, Pa. I’m sure a few have seen the news. There, a priest stands in front of his congregation, holds a permit to carry a weapon in the air, and swears before God that he Will protect the children. The congregation got the drift, stood up and applauded. The local bishop contacted the priest and told him to shut his Jell-O hole on the subject. But why? Too harsh? Too realistic? Getting to the point? The lesson to learn is that King Herod can come in many forms.

 

[nilofc]

This statement goes around and comes back on all. Take for example how pedophilia in the church is handled in this country. There is no blanket policy. Each church makes a statement or may choose not to, even if the flock is waiting for one. In my church in a Philadelphia suburb, there is absolutely no mention, out of sight out of mind. Like it never existed? Then there is my friends church in West Chester, Pa. I’m sure a few have seen the news. There, a priest stands in front of his congregation, holds a permit to carry a weapon in the air, and swears before God that he Will protect the children. The congregation got the drift, stood up and applauded. The local bishop contacted the priest and told him to shut his Jell-O hole on the subject. But why? Too harsh? Too realistic? Getting to the point? The lesson to learn is that King Herod can come in many forms.

There is no gray area in the issue of abortion. Catechism says so.

 

[gmarie21]

In all fairness, you and I do not know REALLY what candidates positions are. They all shift in the sand. Just because someone tells you they are taking a pro-life approach, doesn’t mean they will carry that out. I’m just saying for all politicians, you must really look hard and take a grain of salt with the answers.

Joe, oh please Shame on you for NOT doing your research before you voted!!! If you solely look at the voting records (what each candidate ACTUALLY did) in regards to life issues you would know where each candidate’s loyalties were. There were MANY posts pointing to the non-partisan websites and search engines (thomas.loc.gov for example) where you could find the information. The fact that you didn’t make time to do your homework doesn’t make what is stated untrue. Look at the voting records of Obama and you’ll see where his loyalties are. Read the transcripts from the Illinois General Assembly and you’ll know his opinions pertaining to his votes (or lack thereof). I did my research, but unfortunately many did not, even when it was handed to them.

 

[Praline]

My parish priest was appalled at this article in our Clarion Herald.

clarionherald.org/pdfs/2008/11_22_08/page15.pdf

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

Joe, oh please Shame on you for NOT doing your research before you voted!!! If you solely look at the voting records (what each candidate ACTUALLY did) in regards to life issues you would know where each candidate’s loyalties were. There were MANY posts pointing to the non-partisan websites and search engines (thomas.loc.gov for example) where you could find the information. The fact that you didn’t make time to do your homework doesn’t make what is stated untrue. Look at the voting records of Obama and you’ll see where his loyalties are. Read the transcripts from the Illinois General Assembly and you’ll know his opinions pertaining to his votes (or lack thereof). I did my research, but unfortunately many did not, even when it was handed to them.

 

[wynnejj]

I can accept that a vote for Obama may have been made in good conscience by many Catholics for what they considered appropriate “proportionate reasons”. But, I am sadden by Bishop Blaire’s example of a proportionate reason when he says, “Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues,” Blaire said. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I’m sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.” “Economic issues” is exactly what the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” says is not a valid “proportionate reason” as I understood it.

 

[nilofc]

How would you answer Jesus if He asks you how you defended life during the time when it really mattered. Most of us do not have the opportunity to defend life except during elections.

“Ah I voted because of economic issues…”

So you think the economy is more important than the murder of 1.37 million people per year in this country alone.

How can you even consider the economy to be a viable reason in voting for a very pro-abortion candidate who doesn’t even have anything to show for it in terms of the economy except his promise of bigger spending during the campaign period.

But ok…let us talk about the economy…give me proof that Obama is good for the economy…because I don’t see anything from his very thin resume’ or his past experience that he dealt on these things that will merit him your trust the he is good with the economy.

Let me go even further… give me any accomplishment of Obama that improved society…I mean … anything… give me an accomplishment.

Getting elected as a senator is not an accomplishment that bettered society.

NOTHING…

 

[childofmary1143]

How would you answer Jesus if He asks you how you defended life during the time when it really mattered. Most of us do not have the opportunity to defend life except during elections.

“Ah I voted because of economic issues…”

So you think the economy is more important than the murder of 1.37 million people per year in this country alone.

How can you even consider the economy to be a viable reason in voting for a very pro-abortion candidate who doesn’t even have anything to show for it in terms of the economy except his promise of bigger spending during the campaign period.

But ok…let us talk about the economy…give me proof that Obama is good for the economy…because I don’t see anything from his very thin resume’ or his past experience that he dealt on these things that will merit him your trust the he is good with the economy.

Let me go even further… give me any accomplishment of Obama that improved society…I mean … anything… give me an accomplishment.

Getting elected as a senator is not an accomplishment that bettered society.

NOTHING…

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

Couldn’t have said it better myself!!

 

[wynnejj]

My parish priest was appalled at this article in our Clarion Herald.

clarionherald.org/pdfs/2008/11_22_08/page15.pdf

This is appalling. It is particularly appalling because the priest leaves you with the impression that he voted for Obama because he is black, despite the promise of death for the unborn. That it was an end to racism. One poster on another thread said that he grew up in segregationist South where names were collected off tombstones, ‘because everybody should vote’, and he said as a black man he would rather vote for a segregationist over an abortionist. I think this person had a better feel for an end to racism.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

All these arguments are getting increasingly sterile.
If you don’t like living in a secular state, then perhaps you might like to move on, and find a country which has a theocracy.
Maybe Vatican City,
Maybe Israel.
Maybe Saudi Arabia.
What you will find though, even in these theocracies, are ‘imperfections’.
You have a right to live in a theocracy, but you do not have t6he right to impose a theocracy on others.
You will find that a Caliphate is very unpopular among Christians, even a Christian ‘Caliphate’.
Ireland, whose government has a special relationship with the Church, still cannot impose the will of the Church upon her people.
Like your Oregon tourists, we have Switzerland tourists, and the Irish have UK tourists.
Until you accept a ‘reasonable’ position, not as the final outcome, but as a step on the way, your cause is hopeless and sterile.

 

[wynnejj]

You have a right to live in a theocracy, but you do not have the right to impose a theocracy on others.

A democracy has the right to do anything it wants at the will of the people. Imposition of ideologies through the democratic process is only about ‘rights’ as defined by consensus. Whether the will of the people is informed by God’s law or not is irrelevant to the process but, only relevant to the individuals who have to live under the rules of their own making. Your argument is moot & sterile.

 

[jfhh]

A democracy has the right to do anything it wants at the will of the people.

Fact check. The U.S. was not founded as a democracy. In fact institutions (such as election of Senators by state legislatures) were put in place to avoid the pitfalls of democracy. The U.S. was designed, wisely, to be an epistocracy with democratic features, not a pure representative democracy which is mob rule.

If abortion providers and seekers are met with kindness and gentleness, with unconditional support for their authentic humanity, then that would do more to reduce abortion and increase virtue than words of steel and laws of thunder.

Abortion is a problem of the heart.

It is a false materialism that envisions the greatest evil in abortion as being the physical death of a child. The greatest evil in abortion is the spiritual suffering of the woman, the woman who may be in spiritual need. Abortion should be approached with spiritual works of mercy, not misguided corporal works of mercy. Nothing the pro-life movement does seems to be in either category properly speaking when it comes to abortion.

Instead of protesting outside clinics, the energy should be spent reforming our own lives and converting our own souls to greater virtue. Virtue is contagious and it begins in the privacy of one’s heart.

 

[wynnejj]

Fact check. The U.S. was not founded as a democracy. In fact institutions (such as election of Senators by state legislatures) were put in place to avoid the pitfalls of democracy. The U.S. was designed, wisely, to be an epistocracy with democratic features, not a pure representative democracy which is mob rule.

This argument does not change the validity or relevance of my argument as it relates to what the people can and cannot do in terms of imposing ideologies on people in the USA. The whole set of laws is an imposition. Taxes, anyone?

If abortion providers and seekers are met with kindness and gentleness, with unconditional support for their authentic humanity, then that would do more to reduce abortion and increase virtue than words of steel and laws of thunder.

“Hi. How would you like your abortion provided today?”

Abortion is a problem of the heart.

Agreed. This country seems to have lost its heart due to our culture of death.

It is a false materialism that envisions the greatest evil in abortion as being the physical death of a child. The greatest evil in abortion is the spiritual suffering of the woman, the woman who may be in spiritual need. Abortion should be approached with spiritual works of mercy, not misguided corporal works of mercy. Nothing the pro-life movement does seems to be in either category properly speaking when it comes to abortion.

The Goblin said (first Spiderman movie): “This is why only fools are heros. Because there is always some lunatic who comes along with a sadistic choice: ‘Let die the woman you love’ or ‘Suffer the little children’.”

The Pro-Life hero who is thought a fool can save both the woman he loves and the little children from the lunatic with a sadistic choice. The woman I love seems hard to find today because society has decided that the product of love can be discarded as casually as the form of prostitution that conceived it. What is sex without responsibility anyway but, prostitution?

Instead of protesting outside clinics, the energy should be spent reforming our own lives and converting our own souls to greater virtue. Virtue is contagious and it begins in the privacy of one’s heart.

Both are complementary.

 

[Voco_proTatiano]

A democracy has the right to do anything it wants at the will of the people. Imposition of ideologies through the democratic process is only about ‘rights’ as defined by consensus. Whether the will of the people is informed by God’s law or not is irrelevant to the process but, only relevant to the individuals who have to live under the rules of their own making. Your argument is moot & sterile.

You have actually put it in a nutshell.
It is the ‘will of the people’
It is sterile railing at politicians.
No politician is going to present himself as a proponent of a policy which the people will not accept.
Indeed, they will lie to hide any such policies.
It is not the politicians you need to change, but the hearts of the people.
This can only be a slow and step-by-step process, of presenting reasonable, and acceptable alternatives.
If what you present, is seen by the people at large as unreasonable, then all your arguments are not only seen as sterile, they are in fact sterile.

 

[Eschato]

I have a question that stems from this whole idea that it was acceptable for a catholic to vote for Obama. There was another world leader who was democratically elected a few decades ago that didn’t mind killing mass quantities of people. There is a difference between the two, though, and so I ask this question: If Hitler had come out before his election and said that he wanted to kill all European Jews then would your voting for him have been sin-free if you voted for Hitler because his economy worked better?

I only ask this because that’s what we did. Some embodiment of evil stepped up to the podium and said, “I’m going to take your tax dollars and kill your women and children, but I’m not George Bush.” So we voted for killing babies because the other guy was McSame. I don’t understand how a rational human can even attempt to justify this idea.

 

[TexCatholic4JMJ]

I have a question that stems from this whole idea that it was acceptable for a catholic to vote for Obama. There was another world leader who was democratically elected a few decades ago that didn’t mind killing mass quantities of people. There is a difference between the two, though, and so I ask this question: If Hitler had come out before his election and said that he wanted to kill all European Jews then would your voting for him have been sin-free if you voted for Hitler because his economy worked better?

I only ask this because that’s what we did. Some embodiment of evil stepped up to the podium and said, “I’m going to take your tax dollars and kill your women and children, but I’m not George Bush.” So we voted for killing babies because the other guy was McSame. I don’t understand how a rational human can even attempt to justify this idea.

I don’t understand either. It’s baffling.

 

[Letchitsa1]

I can accept that a vote for Obama may have been made in good conscience by many Catholics for what they considered appropriate “proportionate reasons”. But, I am sadden by Bishop Blaire’s example of a proportionate reason when he says, “Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues,” Blaire said. “No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I’m sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.” “Economic issues” is exactly what the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship” says is not a valid “proportionate reason” as I understood it.

And don’t forget the large number of folks who made the racist choice of voting for/against him because he was black.

 

[Letchitsa1]

My original thought when I read the title of this article: So should the backers of every other political candidate out there. The reality is - we are all sinners, and as such, none of us are lacking in the need for frequent reception of the Sacrament of Reconciliation, even if we never commit a mortal sin.