Hillary Wears A Cross

[rlg94086]

I’m very discouraged that this thread has been allowed to go on past 150 comments, when at least half of them are “uncharitable” to say the least!

Actually, the charity improved considerably once the thread went completely off topic.

I agree - it should be shut down. IMNSHO, it was gossip to start with.

 

[estesbob]

of life.

I am curious though Bob, why hasn’t the Church officially ex-communicated Sen. Kerry? Also received him formally at the funeral of John Paul II. Personally I am not supporting Kerry’s positions and in many cases quite hypocritical however. I am curious about this.

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102001.html

It will be intersting to see how you and others will try and explain why it is wrong for Pro-abortion Politicians to recieve Communion but OK to vote for them…

 

[mary_bobo]

lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06102001.html

It will be intersting to see how you and others will try and explain why it is wrong for Pro-abortion Politicians to recieve Communion but OK to vote for them…

I will not try to explain it, but I have seen the Church do little about the pedophile priests for quite some time. But whether or not they say anything, wrong is still wrong. Just because this “slips by” the USCCB is no reason for faithful Catholics to throw aside the teaching of the Church on abortion. It is a cop-out.

What does this have to do with Hillary’s jewelry, anyway?

 

[estesbob]

What does this have to do with Hillary’s jewelry, anyway?

Beats me. Since she is not Catholic i doubt denying her communion will have much impact. I also dont doubt she will receive the eunthsiastic support of many Catholics despite her complicity in the slaughter of the innocents.

 

[Al_Masetti]

I’m very discouraged that this thread has been allowed to go on past 150 comments, when at least half of them are “uncharitable” to say the least!

I’ve seen edits and posts removed in other threads for much less.

So what gives? Is this an anything goes thread because of who it is about?

am I even allowed to question these things?

Here’s a thought: God works in mysterious ways. Anyone can be converted - anyone. Any life can be redeemed. Any life. There’s alot of folks here who are certain that they know God’s gameplan. I know alot of good people who were written off as hopeless by other human beings. And those who wrote them off were proven wrong.

Who knows how the holy spirit works? As for that cross, who knows why she wears it? I still don’t know why I felt compelled to secretly carry rosaries in my pocket for years before actually taking them out and using them. I can only look back in hindsight and say, maybe that was the holy spirit. I don’t know. Maybe someone else was praying for me. I don’t know.

Peace

I think … and this is just me speaking, … that some folks are concerned about pro-abortion people maybe giving scandal by “hiding behind” the cross. Or by “using” the cross … because nothing is merely cosmetic or merely jewelry when a prominent person appears in public.

 

[system]

I think … and this is just me speaking, … that some folks are concerned about pro-abortion people maybe giving scandal by “hiding behind” the cross. Or by “using” the cross … because nothing is merely cosmetic or merely jewelry when a prominent person appears in public.

well, there’s showing concern -
and then there’s being vicious.

It’s a shame, because people come here to find “Catholic Answers” . Some of what I’ve found on this board has made a real and positive impact on my heart and mind…but some of it is sheer nastiness.

 

[estesbob]

I think … and this is just me speaking, … that some folks are concerned about pro-abortion people maybe giving scandal by “hiding behind” the cross. Or by “using” the cross … because nothing is merely cosmetic or merely jewelry when a prominent person appears in public.

Personally I could not care less if she wears a cross or even dresses up like a Nun. people will not be fooled. Hillary Clinton stands in direct oppostion to the moral teachings of our Church. no amount of posturing can get her around that.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

The clear teachings of the Church have been presented to you numerous times. Rather than accept them you keep looking for Priests or web sites to help your rationalize your support of the abortionists. I figure you are a lost cause-so consumed with politics that that you consider 40 million dead children as merely collateral damage, necessary to promote the greater ‘good’ of pushing the Liberal agenda. BUT I am must to reply lest others reading these threads take you false assertions about Catholic teaching as the Truth. If you want to continue to empower the abortionists that is your business but please stop trying convince others that you are following Church techings.

I find it interesting that you refuse to answer this question directly:

If there was a Democrat who was for aboloshing abortion but also for Catholic Social Justice would you vote for him/her?

You wouldn’t, would you? You’re a loyalist Republican partisan, so it doesn’t matter if a Democrat is pro-life. If they’re not Republican, they’re not getting your vote.

 

[mary_bobo]

I find it interesting that you refuse to answer this question directly:

You wouldn’t, would you? You’re a loyalist Republican partisan, so it doesn’t matter if a Democrat is pro-life. If they’re not Republican, they’re not getting your vote.

I’ll be happy to answer the question. If there was a Dem who was pro-life and all the rest AND WHO’S PARTY WAS THE SAME AND WHO’S PLATFORM WAS THE SAME, I would be happy to vote for a Dem. But until that happens, all these shadings, and excuses and moral equivalency posts are not going to change the minds of those of us who adhere to Church teaching.

 

[Bella3502]

Please elaborate.

I don’t like people who lie. Bush lies. He is PLINO.
PLINO is the same as being pro-choice. Bush has fooled a lot of people.

If Bush were running against Hillary, I would vote for her, because you know exactly where she stands on the issue of abortion. Bush lies about this issue and many others. He can’t be trusted.

Bush knows that he will never be able to ban abortion, so he has just panders to anyone who listens.

Birth control as an issue, puts voting Catholics at a disadvantage. We are not taken seriously as a voting block. In the long run, any politician who runs for office claiming to be be Pro-Life is doomed early on in the election. Many elite Catholics want contraception banned as well. The majority of women on birth control need birth control and they do not want access denied. They see that pro life person as some one taking their rights away, and even the Catholic ones are not going to let that happen.

We must come up with a better way to deal with why women need abortion. An outright ban solves nothing, and it will never happen.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I’ll be happy to answer the question. If there was a Dem who was pro-life and all the rest AND WHO’S PARTY WAS THE SAME AND WHO’S PLATFORM WAS THE SAME, I would be happy to vote for a Dem. But until that happens, all these shadings, and excuses and moral equivalency posts are not going to change the minds of those of us who adhere to Church teaching.

The same as what? You mean a Democrat who was not only pro-life but also adhered to a Republican ideology or a Pro-life Democrat who also held to a Democrat ideology?

I really think RepublicanISM is far more of a priority among the “pro-life” movement than actually being pro-life. Forget the fact that the Republican party doesn’t really care about Christians and only uses us for votes. They’ve led us all by the nose for 20 plus years with their talk about being “pro-life.” I don’t buy it anymore.

Here in California, we have a really good choice for Governor: two “pro-choice,” pro-gay “marriage,” pro-embryonic stem cell research candidates. The difference is one is closer to the Church on other social teachings than the other…and it’s NOT the Republican.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I don’t like people who lie. Bush lies. He is PLINO.
PLINO is the same as being pro-choice. Bush has fooled a lot of people.

If Bush were running against Hillary, I would vote for her, because you know exactly where she stands on the issue of abortion. Bush lies about this issue and many others. He can’t be trusted.

Bush knows that he will never be able to ban abortion, so he has just panders to anyone who listens.

Birth control as an issue, puts voting Catholics at a disadvantage. We are not taken seriously as a voting block. In the long run, any politician who runs for office claiming to be be Pro-Life is doomed early on in the election. Many elite Catholics want contraception banned as well. The majority of women on birth control need birth control and they do not want access denied. They see that pro life person as some one taking their rights away, and even the Catholic ones are not going to let that happen.

We must come up with a better way to deal with why women need abortion. An outright ban solves nothing, and it will never happen.

Very well said.

 

[estesbob]

I find it interesting that you refuse to answer this question directly:

You wouldn’t, would you? You’re a loyalist Republican partisan, so it doesn’t matter if a Democrat is pro-life. If they’re not Republican, they’re not getting your vote.

I’ve answerd this question many many times(you might try a search befor throwing accusations at me.

The answer is an Empahtic No I wouldnt vote for them BECAUSE I know how congress works. If Democrats take control of congress every single committee will be headed by a pro-abortion Democrat-regadless of how pro-life a Demcorat professes to be… We simply can not take that chance-not with the overturn of Roe V Wade so close.

I also, BTW, will NOT vote for a pro-choice Republican which kinda blows your partisan republican charge out of the water. i have refused to vote for kay Bailey Hutchison even though I agree with her on most issues. But she is pro-abortion and thus does not get my vote. And even if a person is pro-life and a republican it is not a guarantee fthey will getmy vote-some canidates are just to distasteful for me-Phil Gramm being an example.

I really wish the demcorat party would make it possble for me to vote for them again. but I dont see that happening anytime soon. I have been working in the pro-life movement for close to 30 years. I am not about to vote to empower the Demcrat party when victory is so close.

 

[estesbob]

Very well said.

But in direct contradiction of Church teaching. If you put your politics before your Faith thats fine-just dont try and tell the rest of us that you do so with Church approval.

 

[Bella3502]

But in direct contradiction of Church teaching. If you put your politics before your Faith thats fine-just dont try and tell the rest of us that you do so with Church approval.

Birth control is also a direct contradiction. The Church looks the other way on that one too. It appears that Priests put politics before faith as well. They don’t even talk about it.

And who mentioned Church approval anyway? Faith does not mean, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

 

[Indyann]

But in direct contradiction of Church teaching. If you put your politics before your Faith thats fine-just dont try and tell the rest of us that you do so with Church approval.

Was the “church teaching” proclaimed before or after Bush signed the Plan B? And could someone please tell me how Hillary’s complicity in the “slaughter of the innocents” is so much greater than GWB"s? As it will be much easier to take a pill than go through an abortion, I would think that many more babies will be “slaughtered”.
I was very happy about the partial birth banning but then GWB turned right around and signed the Plan B.

As was posted above, at least we know where Hillary stands. I totally disagree with her pro-choice stance but at least we know what she is about. Now WE know that abortion is objectively evil, but we can not read anyones mind or heart. Therefore I think Hillary has as much right to wear a cross as anyone else.

The hateful name-calling on this thread are certainly about as unchristian as we can get!

 

[Jerome42]

Was the “church teaching” proclaimed before or after Bush signed the Plan B? And could someone please tell me how Hillary’s complicity in the “slaughter of the innocents” is so much greater than GWB"s? As it will be much easier to take a pill than go through an abortion, I would think that many more babies will be “slaughtered”. GWB’s Plan B decision was indeed disappoinging however 47 million slaughtered infants cannot be ignored. Plan B needs to be blocked.
I was very happy about the partial birth banning but then GWB turned right around and signed the Plan B.

As was posted above, at least we know where Hillary stands. I totally disagree with her pro-choice stance but at least we know what she is about. Now WE know that abortion is objectively evil, but we can not read anyones mind or heart. Therefore I think Hillary has as much right to wear a cross as anyone else. ***Hillary can wear any sort of jewely she likes. ***

The hateful name-calling on this thread are certainly about as unchristian as we can get!

 

[estesbob]

Birth control is also a direct contradiction. The Church looks the other way on that one too. It appears that Priests put politics before faith as well. They don’t even talk about it.

And who mentioned Church approval anyway? Faith does not mean, “Do as I say, not as I do.”

They most certainly dont look the other way in my diocese. But even if what you say is true how does that extrapolate into it being moral for one to vote for abortionists?

 

[estesbob]

Was the “church teaching” proclaimed before or after Bush signed the Plan B? And could someone please tell me how Hillary’s complicity in the “slaughter of the innocents” is so much greater than GWB"s? As it will be much easier to take a pill than go through an abortion, I would think that many more babies will be “slaughtered”.
I was very happy about the partial birth banning but then GWB turned right around and signed the Plan B.

As was posted above, at least we know where Hillary stands. I totally disagree with her pro-choice stance but at least we know what she is about. Now WE know that abortion is objectively evil, but we can not read anyones mind or heart. Therefore I think Hillary has as much right to wear a cross as anyone else.

The hateful name-calling on this thread are certainly about as unchristian as we can get!

So lets get this straight -George Bush supports contraception and abortion in case of rape and incest. hillary Clinton supports both of these plus supports taxpayer funded abortions for any reason whatsoever up unitl the childs head fuly exits the womb, supports fetal stem cell research, opposes parental notification, supports euthanasia and cloning BUT its Ok to vote for her becuase

A. Other than her complicity in the deaths of 1.2 million children a year you like her political views

B. George Bush is just as bad as her on life issues.

I tell you the mental mastrubation one must go through to justify voting for those who enable the slaughter of the innocents is scary thing to behold.

 

[mary_bobo]

The same as what? You mean a Democrat who was not only pro-life but also adhered to a Republican ideology or a Pro-life Democrat who also held to a Democrat ideology?

Sorry I was so difficult to understand. I mean a Democrat who is pro-life and whose party does not have a pro-abortion plank and does not support every kind of abortion on the planet including partial birth. Hope that clears it up for you. And as far as the GOP not caring about Christians, it was not the GOP who passed Roe v Wade, or some of the other things like partial birth. It was not the GOP that nominated and elected judges who FOUND something in the Constitution that was not there to justify abortion.I really think RepublicanISM is far more of a priority among the “pro-life” movement than actually being pro-life. Forget the fact that the Republican party doesn’t really care about Christians and only uses us for votes. They’ve led us all by the nose for 20 plus years with their talk about being “pro-life.” I don’t buy it anymore.

Here in California, we have a really good choice for Governor: two “pro-choice,” pro-gay “marriage,” pro-embryonic stem cell research candidates. The difference is one is closer to the Church on other social teachings than the other…and it’s NOT the Republican.