T
ThomasMore1535
Guest
In the latest New York Times editorial, the paper praises Cardinal Mahoney of L.A. for encouraging civil disobediance to a California resolution calling for more restrictions on illegal immigrants. They say that it is great that he is adding a “moral dimension” to what has up to now been a “political debate.” It is great, in other words, that His Eminence is encouraging devout lay Catholics to break the law.nytimes.com/2006/03/03/opinion/03fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
And yet, only a year ago, this same newspaper ridiculed those members of Congress who passed the bill granting federal jurisdiction over Terri Schaivo’s case. This same newspaper said that those members of Congress had no “respect for the law,” and that they were giving into “religious extremists” who were trying to impose their own “radical beliefs” on the rest of the country. Far from praising such “civil disobedience”–if it could even have been called that, since the entire time supporters of Ms. Schaivo worked through the legal system to meet their objectives–this same paper called those who supported Ms. Schaivo against the designs of her husband “fanatics,” “Bible thumping morons,” etc., who had no respect for the rule of law, and who were intolerant of other people’s beliefs.
This is also the same newspaper that never misses an opportunity to bash the Catholic Church–and orthodox Christians in general–over abortion. When Cardinal O’Connor of New York tried to discipline Catholic politicians who supported abortion, the Times immediately jumped on him and called him a “religious extremist,” and raised concerns that the Cardinal was trying to tear down the wall that separated Church and State. They bent over backwards to discredit him, and succeeded in a public campagin to portray him as an oppresive “papist” belonging to a church that had lost touch with modernity.
And yet there is no concern over the wall between Church and State being torn down in this Times editorial over Cardinal Mahoney’s call to civil disobediance. Apparantly, the Times thinks that there is nothing wrong with the Catholic Church encouraging civil disobediance, so long as it is the kind of civil disobediance that does not interfere with their secular humanist agenda.
I do not know whether Cardinal Mahoney’s call for civil disobediance in this case is right or wrong. I do not have enough info to decide that. But I do know that the New York Times has just further shown its hypocrisy in supporting and praising the Cardinal for this while at the same time bashing and attacking the Catholic Church anytime she stands up against abortion. The Times is blatantly anti-Catholic, and this is just further evidence of it. They will use the Church and other Christians pawns when it suits them, and then ridicule, libel, and attempt to ruin and discredit them whenever they challenge the Culture of Death. Anyone who cannot see this is either blind or lying to himself (or herself, for the sake of political correctness. I don’t want to offend anyone, after all.)
