Catholic Priest: Backers of Obama Should Attend Confession

  • Thread starter Thread starter sertelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sertelt

Guest
Catholic Priest: Backers of Obama Should Attend Confession

Modesto, CA – A Catholic priest in California has drawn international headlines with his statement that Catholic voters who backed pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama should attend confession. The Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Modesto, says voting for Obama was sinful.

Full story: LifeNews.com/state3671.html
 
Modesto, CA – A Catholic priest in California has drawn international headlines with his statement that Catholic voters who backed pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama should attend confession. The Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Modesto, says voting for Obama was sinful

A Catholic priest in California has drawn international headlines with his statement. An opinion, now there is a surprise. So the gospel according to the Reverand, if you voted for Barack Obama you should attend confession. I didn’t know voting was a sin? :cool:
 
Modesto, CA – A Catholic priest in California has drawn international headlines with his statement that Catholic voters who backed pro-abortion presidential candidate Barack Obama should attend confession. The Rev. Joseph Illo, pastor of St. Joseph Catholic Church in Modesto, says voting for Obama was sinful

A Catholic priest in California has drawn international headlines with his statement. An opinion, now there is a surprise. So the gospel according to the Reverand, if you voted for Barack Obama you should attend confession. I didn’t know voting was a sin? :cool:
Voting isn’t.
Supporting murder IS.
 
I thought ALL Catholics should attend confession.
Who among you claims to be without sin?
 
Voting isn’t.
Supporting murder IS.
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.”
 
What the Modesto priest said is right. I would hope that if you are casting a vote for president, you know where your candidate stands on such an important issue. If after learning he is gung ho for abortion at all, never mind for partial birth or even beyond, and you still vote for him, than you have to realise what you supported is wrong and have to make things right.
Code:
You can't say that economics trump such a situation.  You can't straddle a fence either(personally opposed,but).  That is such a lie that comes from Satan himself.  You have to be Catholic ever day and hour, recognising that if we sinned, especially in a serious/mortal way, that we must make a good confession to amend and restore our relationship with God.   Remember that Christ told us that"if you love me, you will keep my commnandments."
In JMJ,

Joe
 
What the Modesto priest said is right. I would hope that if you are casting a vote for president, you know where your candidate stands on such an important issue. If after learning he is gung ho for abortion at all, never mind for partial birth or even beyond, and you still vote for him, than you have to realise what you supported is wrong and have to make things right.
Code:
You can't say that economics trump such a situation.  You can't straddle a fence either(personally opposed,but).  That is such a lie that comes from Satan himself.  You have to be Catholic ever day and hour, recognising that if we sinned, especially in a serious/mortal way, that we must make a good confession to amend and restore our relationship with God.   Remember that Christ told us that"if you love me, you will keep my commnandments."
In JMJ,

Joe
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.
 
I totally agree that what one says and does is at times two very different things. As for myself, I did not support either major candidate, knowing this is all a sham anyway. Chirst the King should have won. Sadly, no one was found even remotely worth to stand in as his “vicar.” McCain was just less pro-abortion than his rival; he, by his own words and stands, does not get to carry the label as pro-life. I have no doubt that Obama is 100% abortion. That is one thing I think he is truthful on. That is why to have voted for Barack is to be considered sinful. Many, though not all, Republicans are almost the same as their Democrat rival, perhaps not degree, but in kind. We can’t be calling ourselves Catholic and at the same time abbet someone getting into a public office who goes against the laws of God and nature. It sounds like we are thinking along the same lines, no?

Joe
 
Joe, if I tell you that I am definitely going to start a nuclear war with the UK, will you vote for me?
No?
Why not? How do you know what my positions “REALLY are?”

The United States Conference of Catholic bishops tells us that ,“all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions.” To a lesser degree, we also see the bishop of Scranton say, " Being “right” on taxes, education, health care, immigration, and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life." So his excelleny is in error if he believes that economic issues are adequate to justify choosing a pro-choice candidate.

However, we do not have the authority to tell people that it’s sinful to vote for whoever, and until the Vatican teaches differently, the priest was disobedient to Mother Church.
 
Politiicans and citizens who vote to tolerate abortion are no more guilty of abortion than Jesus is guilty of execution or suicide by choosing to tolerate his sentence and remaining silent and not offering a robust defense when questioned.

If you vote to legalize prostitution, that doesn’t mean you “support prostitution.” It means you believe it is better that it be legalized (on ideological grounds or on practical grounds). Abortion is no different. From a human point of view, it may seem as though a sin involving the loss of life is more grave than a sin involving no loss of life, but Catholic theologians have not agreed with that. St. Thomas Aquinas held the greatest sin was hatred of God.

Article I.—Is it possible for any one to hate God?

R. Hatred is a movement of the appetitive power, which is not moved except by some object apprehended. Now God may be apprehended by man in two ways: in one way in Himself, as He is seen in His Essence; in another way by the effects that He works: since “the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”1 God in His Essence is Goodness itself, which none can hate, because it is of the nature of good to be loved: and therefore it is impossible for any one seeing God in His Essence to hate Him. Even of the effects that He produces, some there are which can in no way be contrary to the human will: because to see, to live, and to understand, is something desirable and lovely to all; and these are some of the effects wrought by God. Hence God cannot be hated, inasmuch as He is apprehended as the author of these effects. But some effects wrought by God are repugnant to an inordinate will, as the infliction of punishment, and also the prohibition of sins by the divine law; and in consideration of such effects God may be hated by some persons, inasmuch as He is the prohibiter of sins and the inflicter of punishments.

Article II.—Is hatred of God the greatest of sins?

R. The guilt of sin consists in a voluntary turning away from God. In hatred of God this voluntary turning away is involved by the ordinary and essential nature of the act: but in other sins it is contained only derivatively and through the medium of something else. For as the will of itself cleaves to what it loves, so of itself it shrinks back from what it hates. Hence when any one hates God, his will of itself is turned away from Him: but in other sins, for instance, fornication, the will turns not away from God of itself, but by reason of something else, inasmuch as it seeks an inordinate delight, which has annexed to it a turning away from God. But that which is ordinarily and essentially, always goes beyond that which is derivatively. Hence hatred of God is of greater gravity than other sins.

§ 2. Unbelief is not culpable except in so far as it is voluntary. Its voluntariness arises from the unbeliever’s hatred of the truth proposed to him. Hence manifestly the sinfulness of unbelief comes of hatred of God, about whose truth faith is conversant. And therefore as the cause outdoes the effect, so hatred of God is a greater sin than unbelief.

oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1965&chapter=124125&layout=html&Itemid=27
 
You seem to be confused as to why certain actions are illegal. It is not because they are immoral, but because we need to be protected from crimes. A man can be an atheist, but he is only hurting himself, and nothing a government can do can stop him. Alternatively, if a man performs an abortion he hurts another human, something which a government can stop. By the way, Jesus giving himself up to be crucified for our salvation, is a bit different than remaining silent while 4.8 million children are murdered for no reason.
 
The article was good until a certain ‘bishop’ ruins it.

Why oh why was he chosen to lead his flock ??:crying: :bighanky:
 
The article was good until a certain ‘bishop’ ruins it.

Why oh why was he chosen to lead his flock ??:crying: :bighanky:
Personally, I have trouble with speaking ill of any clergy, priest or Bishop. Especially in light of the fact the Holy Father makes the final decision on Bishops.
 
Personally, I have trouble with speaking ill of any clergy, priest or Bishop. Especially in light of the fact the Holy Father makes the final decision on Bishops.
Right. But choosing a bishop does not warrant infallibility. After all, it’s impossible to know all priests personally.
 
Hello. I have asked this before, but couldn’t find/get an answer. Does anyone know what authority, if any, the Pope has over appointed Bishops? Can he correct them/ excommunicate them etc. if they fall into error? As I understand the relationship between the Vicar and his Bishops, the Pope is also a “Bishop”, but the “head” bishop? Therefore, does he have the authority to replace an obstinate Bishop?

Thanks.
 
Hello. I have asked this before, but couldn’t find/get an answer. Does anyone know what authority, if any, the Pope has over appointed Bishops? Can he correct them/ excommunicate them etc. if they fall into error? As I understand the relationship between the Vicar and his Bishops, the Pope is also a “Bishop”, but the “head” bishop? Therefore, does he have the authority to replace an obstinate Bishop?

Thanks.
The Pope can but it usually done in an extreme case.

Take, for example, the excommunication of Bishop Lefebvre, who started the SSPX
 
I totally agree that what one says and does is at times two very different things. As for myself, I did not support either major candidate, knowing this is all a sham anyway. Chirst the King should have won. Sadly, no one was found even remotely worth to stand in as his “vicar.” McCain was just less pro-abortion than his rival; he, by his own words and stands, does not get to carry the label as pro-life. I have no doubt that Obama is 100% abortion. That is one thing I think he is truthful on. That is why to have voted for Barack is to be considered sinful. Many, though not all, Republicans are almost the same as their Democrat rival, perhaps not degree, but in kind. We can’t be calling ourselves Catholic and at the same time abbet someone getting into a public office who goes against the laws of God and nature. It sounds like we are thinking along the same lines, no?

Joe
As I understand it, when conflicts arise in trying to determine the best of actions by an individual at any given time, we cannot use only our “subjective” conscience. This is when we turn to those of the hierarchy who are faithful deposits of the truth of Christ.

In this past election there was much confusion and obfuscation regarding the voting for the best/better candidate. We had one candidate who quite arrogantly and forcefully stated his support of abortion and other Intrinsic Evils. On the other hand, we had a candidate who stated he believed life began at conception, supported abortion only in drastic circumstances, and changed his mind on embryonic stem cell research. In both instances, we had only the “word” and “promise” of each candidate that he would carry out the measures he proposed. We could be 100% sure that if bo has the chance, his promise would be carried out. On the other hand, we had a candidate who, although not perfect, had a great record of fulfilling his Patriotic duy to his country. He had a good voting record in the senate, while bo had very little record of voting for ANYTHING other than giving the nod to abortion. The issue having the greatest weight that will effect the structure of the laws here in the U…S was the issue of Abortion rights. Roe vs. Wade had been on the books for 35 years, had not yet been overturned, but was within a hair’s breadth of the possiblity of that happening because of vacancies coming up in the Supreme Court. McCain stated he would not use the litmus test of whether a justice supported abortion, or not, but would take all factors into consideration. At one time, he did propose he would appoint pro life justices that could overturn Roe vs. Wade. bo stated he WOULD use the litmus test regarding abortion in filling the upcoming empty seats in the Supreme Court. bo and McCain were the only two viable candidates in this election. One for the spread of abortion rights , another for at least limiting the spread. The instructions given to Catholic voters by Bishops who clarified the USCCB postion stated, “If there are two candidates who are pro abortion, we must vote for the lesser of the two evils, the candidate who exhibited the chance of limiting the Intrinsic Evil of abortion”. Now which one do you think that was? Remember viable candidate, not a candidate that would soothe our conscience because s/he was the more perfect one regarding s/his pro life statement and voting records, but the most viable one who had a chance of limiting the spread of the Intrinsic Evil of abortion.

As to who should attend confession for backing bo and who should not, that would depend on the amount of scandal incurred by that person, and also, given the confusing directions we received from the body of the USCCB, how culpable they consider themselves to be. Did they make a mistake, yes. They helped elect the most pro abortion man in our history who was running for President. Did they sin? That is up to their priest and themselves, but they should at least have the decency to discuss it with someone in a position to be able to judge their morality objectively. Because of obstinancy and use of their own “superior” subjective conscience, I can’t see them admitting to anything.
 
I totally agree that what one says and does is at times two very different things. As for myself, I did not support either major candidate, knowing this is all a sham anyway. Chirst the King should have won. Sadly, no one was found even remotely worth to stand in as his “vicar.” McCain was just less pro-abortion than his rival; he, by his own words and stands, does not get to carry the label as pro-life. I have no doubt that Obama is 100% abortion. That is one thing I think he is truthful on. That is why to have voted for Barack is to be considered sinful. Many, though not all, Republicans are almost the same as their Democrat rival, perhaps not degree, but in kind. We can’t be calling ourselves Catholic and at the same time abbet someone getting into a public office who goes against the laws of God and nature. It sounds like we are thinking along the same lines, no?

Joe
The Pope can but it usually done in an extreme case.

Take, for example, the excommunication of Bishop Lefebvre, who started the SSPX
Thanks Cath.
 
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.
 
The lives of millions, the marginalized, voiceless, defenseless sector of our society is much, much more important than any economic issue man can ever face.

In the end, Jesus will not ask you if you were able to help the economy of your country…but rather…

“What have you done to the least of your brethren?”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top