R
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
As long as there IS an “American Catholic Church,” Obama wins. He doesn’t need to be the leader of it. As long as there are pro-abortion Catholics, Obama wins.
The net result is a de facto schism of the Church in America, and that’s fine with him.
And if he can get Catholic universities, academics, and media types to go along with it, so much the better. The wider the Obama schism in the Church in America becomes, the better for Obama.
F
fix
Guest
No, it is self evident. Intentionalyy killing innocents is always wrong. That is engraved on the human heart.
I am talking of murder, not self defense. Murder is never justified.
I did not say human nature is based on relativism. I said a man-centered view of reality is wrong. Man is not a god.
No, Christianity dose not lead to evil. Some people acting badly can lead to evil.
Relativism leads to tyranny as I said. You can see it right now in that so many accpet abortion as licit. More is coming.
T
ted1132
Guest
The wholesale killing of the innocent cannot continue unabated without “a natural” consequence. However, hope is eternal and by the numbers Abortion peaked in the 90’s and the CHURCH is more fortified(my term) now with vocations starting to actually rise world wide, the first since – Oh!-- When birth control became over the counter!
My hope is OBAMA is a bump in the road…
My hope is OBAMA is a bump in the road…
D
diggerdomer
Guest
May I ask where you ever got an idea like that? That President Obama encourages schism in the Catholic Church? Where/when did he say this, or what has he done that was directed specifically at that outcome?
I’ve honestly never heard that before. Thanks.
J
JimG
Guest
He hasn’t said it. He doesn’t need to. Actions speak louder than words. He promotes and encourages, and appoints to administration positions, pro-abortion Catholics. He doesn’t appoint pro-life Catholics. In fact, we are told that pro-lifers may be extremists and possibly violent. So Catholics who follow the Church are extremists; Catholics who follow Obama are rewarded. Catholics who disagree with the Church on a variety of issues, most assuredly abortion, feel free to support Obama. Catholics who agree with the Church—especially on abortion, are treated as near-terrorists. The schism is already occuring.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Thanks, that clears things up for me, I understand now.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
Most people believe that there may be some instances where killing innocent people might be justified. A lot of innocent people died in the Iraq War, and World War II. The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were guaranteed to kill innocent people, but most of the country supported that action anyway.
The Iraq War wasn’t self-defense.
Queen Mary of England wanted to make the country Catholic instead of Protestant, so she had hundreds of Protestant leaders burned at the stake. She believed she was doing the right thing, in the name of the Catholic Church.
Tyranny is defined as the abuse of authority. That is, a lack of freedom. Abortion is the opposite, which I guess would be anarchy. Anarchy is “political and social disorder due to the lack of government control.” The problem would appear to be that the government is not stepping in when it should, not that the government is interfering too much.
Obama is trying to get Catholics to cooperate with him on issues that aren’t abortion? That must mean he’s trying to destroy the Catholic Church! Pro-life Catholics are treated like terrorists? Seriously? You’re delusional.
J
JimG
Guest
Here are the Catholic bishops who have so far expressed disapproval of the Notre Dame action… I can’t think of any other president –ever—who generated this kind of a response from Catholic bishops, for speaking at a Catholic university:
- Bishop John D’Arcy - Fort Wayne-South Bend, IN
- Bishop Samuel Aquila - Fargo, ND
- Bishop Gregory Aymond - Austin, TX
- Bishop Robert Baker - Birmingham, AL
- Bishop Gerald Barbarito - Palm Beach, FL
- Bishop Leonard Blair - Toledo, OH
- Cardinal Anthony Bevilacqua (Archbishop Emeritus) - Philadelphia, PA
- Bishop Lawrence Brandt - Greensburg, PA
- Archbishop Daniel Buechlein - Indianapolis, IN
- Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz - Lincoln, NE
- Archbishop Eusebius Beltran - Oklahoma City, OK
- Auxiliary Bishop Oscar Cantú - San Antonio, TX
- Archbishop Charles Chaput - Denver, CO
- Bishop Paul Coakley - Salina, KS
- Bishop Edward Cullen - Allentown, PA
- Cardinal Daniel DiNardo - Houston, TX
- Archbishop Timothy Dolan - New York, NY
- Bishop Thomas Doran - Rockford, IL
- Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty - Scranton, PA
- Bishop Robert Finn - Kansas City-St. Joseph, MO
- Bishop Joseph Galante - Camden, NJ
- Bishop Victor Galeone - St. Augustine, FL
- Cardinal Francis George - Chicago, IL; President, USCCB
- Bishop Gerald Gettelfinger - Evansville, IN
- Archbishop José Gomez - San Antonio, TX
- Bishop Bernard Harrington - Winona, MN
- Bishop Robert Hermann - St. Louis, MO
- Bishop William Higi - Lafayette, IN
- Archbishop Alfred Hughes - New Orleans, LA
- Bishop Michael O. Jackels - Wichita, KS
- Bishop James V. Johnston - Springfield-Cape Girardeau, MO
- Bishop Peter Jugis - Charlotte, NC
- Bishop Joseph Latino - Jackson, MS
- Bishop John LeVoir - New Ulm, MN
- Bishop Jerome Listecki - La Crosse, WI
- Bishop William E. Lori - Bridgeport, CT
- Bishop Paul Loverde - Arlington, VA
- Bishop George Lucas - Springfield, IL
- Bishop Robert Lynch - St. Petersburg, FL
- Bishop Joseph Martino - Scranton, PA
- Bishop John McCormack - Manchester, NH
- Bishop Robert Morlino - Madison, WI
- Bishop William Murphy - Rockville Centre, NY
- Bishop George Murry - Youngstown, OH
- Archbishop John J. Myers - Newark, NJ
- Archbishop Joseph Naumann - Kansas City, KS
- Bishop R. Walker Nickless - Sioux City, IA
- Archbishop John C. Nienstedt - St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN
- Archbishop Edwin O’Brien - Baltimore, MD
- Bishop Thomas Olmsted - Phoenix, AZ
- Archbishop Daniel E. Pilarczyk - Cincinnati, OH
- Bishop Reymundo Pena - Brownsville, TX
- Bishop Glen Provost - Lake Charles, LA
- Bishop David Ricken - Green Bay, WI
- Cardinal Justin Rigali - Philadelphia, PA; Chairman, USCCB Pro-Life Committee
- Bishop Kevin Rhoades - Harrisburg, PA
- Bishop Alexander Sample - Marquette, MI
- Bishop Edward J. Slattery - Tulsa, OK
- Bishop Richard Stika - Knoxville, TN
- Bishop Anthony Taylor - Little Rock, AR
- Bishop George Thomas - Helena, MT
- Bishop Robert Vasa - Baker, OR
- Bishop Michael Warfel - Great Falls-Billings, MT
- Bishop Thomas Wenski - Orlando, FL
- Archbishop Donald Wuerl - Washington, D.C.
- Bishop David Zubick - Pittsburgh, PA
T
Trader
Guest
If it isn’t considered piling on, I heard Archbishop Ramond Leo Burke on the radio ths morning speaking in support of Bishop D’Arcy. Archbishop Burke was formerly Archbishop of Saint Louis and is now Prefect of the Apolstolic Signatura, the highest judicial authority in the Catholic Church, except for the Pope.
Father Jenkins has on his side an unnamed canon lawyer he consulted after most of the bishops on your list had spoken out against the decision to invite President Obama.
Father Jenkins has on his side an unnamed canon lawyer he consulted after most of the bishops on your list had spoken out against the decision to invite President Obama.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I’m sincerely sorry that this kind of response has not been forthcoming for other equally important issues. Why are these Bishops only speaking out about this one circumstance about ND’s graduation? Aren’t there a bazillion other opportunities to speak out in defense of life and against abortion? Aren’t there any other moral issues that deserve their prophetic statments?
Hello? Unjust war? Torture? Embryo destruction? Euthanasia? Poverty? Genocide? Racism (interestingly also identified as an intrinsic evil)? Hey, marriage is certainly undergoing some challenges these days…no problem from the Bishops I guess?
And of course what about the 75% or so of bishops who are not on this list? Does the 25% (or so) minority have a more important voice?
So…do we pick and choose what Bishops we listen to?
E
elts1956
Guest
I sincerely sense a level of sarcasm in your statement. Sincerely sorry? prophetic statements? I also sense a level of ignorance in asking why the issues of War (unjust, or not) Torture, Embryo destruction, Euthanasia, Poverty, Genocide, Racism and the Sanctity of Marriage had not been addressed by the Bishops. This leads me to very much suspect you have read none of the Encyclicals written by Pope John Paul II, nothing written by Pope Benedict XVI nor possibly the Catholic Catechism. Hello…
As far as only about 25% of our Bishops having addressed the issue of bo’s NDU’s commencement address, we can, with much certainty, equate these clergy with the number of Bishops who very strongly addressed the abortion issue during the past POTUS election. Were those Bishops not right about the issue? You seem not to realize the issue of LIFE itself is the basis of all other issues you mention.
Where are the other 75% of the Bishops on this? Perhaps their absence clarifies why you have questions in the first place along with all the catholics who voted for bo.??? …Hello…
Would we pick and choose the Bishops we listen to? I do, those who explicitly follow the Church’s teachings.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I did not at all intend to be sarcastic. Sorry if you interpreted that way.
I also of course did not intend to be ignorant. I may be of course, and if I am, I am grateful for your pointing that out to me.
Your last sentence was, I am sorry to say, incoherent to me, I apologize for my apparent ignorance but what are you saying? I listen to all Bishops, are you saying I should only listen to some? Again, I apologize for any ignorance (which you generously pointed out) if you can help me better understand your point I would appreciate it.
Thank you.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
I suspect that these bishops are speaking out because this issue has generated a lot of publicity, at least a lot more than those other issues. Pretty much everything to do with Barrack Obama is newsworthy, it seems. I saw a clip on the news the other day where he and Joe Biden went to Virginia to buy hamburgers. Love him or hate him, most people tend to pay attention whenever they hear something about him. Thus, all the people are talking about this, and thus the bishops feel they need to say something.
I guess it’s to be expected. He’s the first president of the US that isn’t a white guy, and he went from being a state legislator to a senator only five years ago, and even as recently as 2007 most Americans didn’t know who he was. Plus, he’s so different from our last president, that everyone is looking to see how he’ll do things differently. Right now, he’s practically the only popular politician in the world, since he took office after the financial crisis and most of the politicians in the world who didn’t are having to take some of the blame for it. And just the fact that he isn’t Bush makes many people love him.
If you can look past his pro-choice stance, there is a lot to admire about him. I was able to do that, but I guess I understand that some people can’t.
I’m not putting much weight on the fact that Mary Ann Glendon decided not to accept the award that day. She’s a Republican and a former Bush appointee, so I’m guessing that politics are coming into play here at least as much as morality. I couldn’t see pro-life Democrats doing that. And yes, they do exist. My senator, Bob Casey, who I voted for twice, is one. In fact, he endorsed Obama early in the primary election.
Oh, and diggerdomer - of course you listen to all the bishops. Except of course the ones that don’t follow the teachings of the Church as interpreted by elts1956. Those ones are corrupt and liberal and certainly not true Catholics.
E
elts1956
Guest
E
elts1956
Guest
I suspect that these bishops are speaking out because this issue has generated a lot of publicity, at least a lot more than those other issues. Pretty much everything to do with Barrack Obama is newsworthy, it seems. I saw a clip on the news the other day where he and Joe Biden went to Virginia to buy hamburgers. Love him or hate him, most people tend to pay attention whenever they hear something about him. Thus, all the people are talking about this, and thus the bishops feel they need to say something.
I guess it’s to be expected. He’s the first president of the US that isn’t a white guy, and he went from being a state legislator to a senator only five years ago, and even as recently as 2007 most Americans didn’t know who he was. Plus, he’s so different from our last president, that everyone is looking to see how he’ll do things differently. Right now, he’s practically the only popular politician in the world, since he took office after the financial crisis and most of the politicians in the world who didn’t are having to take some of the blame for it. And just the fact that he isn’t Bush makes many people love him.
If you can look past his pro-choice stance, there is a lot to admire about him. I was able to do that, but I guess I understand that some people can’t.
I’m not putting much weight on the fact that Mary Ann Glendon decided not to accept the award that day. She’s a Republican and a former Bush appointee, so I’m guessing that politics are coming into play here at least as much as morality. I couldn’t see pro-life Democrats doing that. And yes, they do exist. My senator, Bob Casey, who I voted for twice, is one. In fact, he endorsed Obama early in the primary election.
Oh, and diggerdomer - of course you listen to all the bishops. Except of course the ones that don’t follow the teachings of the Church as interpreted by elts1956. Those ones are corrupt and liberal and certainly not true Catholics.
You are very welcome. I am happy to be of help.
In some instances, not all Bishops say the same thing, or emphasize the same issue. Isn’t that a little confusing for you? I notice you don’t state you listen to/read anything else for knowledge and understanding.
F
fix
Guest
Intentionally killing innocent people is always wrong. That is not hard to discern, unless our consciences are deformed.
Relativism is a tyrrany.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
The whole article was about whether or not pharmacists are allowed to refuse to give people medication if it goes against their conscience. I do think there has to be a line drawn somewhere though. I mean, the last thing we need is Scientologist pharmacists refusing to prescribe psychiatric medication because it apparently contradicts Scientology. But the whole article just rails on some woman who wrote an article on the subject, then puts words in her mouth to make it seem like she’s taking a more extreme position than she is.
But if it’s a tyranny, then who is abusing their authority?
I don’t see everything in these terms, I’m just cynical enough to realize that among most politicians, party loyalty is more important than conscience, or religion, and faith. That’s why I like Bob Casey. He’s put his faith ahead of the party platform on the abortion issue, and succeeded despite it.
Well, he hasn’t refused to support some pro-choice politicians, which is apparently why the bishop of Scranton is considering withholding communion from him. Personally I think that’s a little much. But as far as pro-life legislation, he always supports it. I think he’s voted against some Republican bills that were nominally pro-life, but weren’t realistic and had more to do with cutting assistance to poor people than doing anything about abortion.
Oh goodness, no. Certainly no sarcasm here.
F
fix
Guest
Back to the correct view of reality. If you embrace relativism, and misperceive what is true, then you hold that all views are equal. That incorrect perception leads to the culture of death and support for pro abort pols.
Those who elect and support relativists. Those who support a culture of death.
L
Luis_Santiago
Guest
I don’t believe all views are equal. I don’t think anyone believes that all views are equal. But on the other hand, I don’t think the Catholic Church has a monopoly on the truth either. In fact, I’m pretty sure that even the Catholic Church doesn’t claim to have a monopoly on the truth. At least not since Vatican II, when they decided that maybe all Jews weren’t necessarily hell-bound.
So you’re saying people who are pro-choice shouldn’t be allowed to vote? I still don’t get the whole “tyranny” thing. I’m not familiar with Benedict’s equation of relativism with tyranny, but I think it must have been interpreted wrong. In a tyranny, someone is abusing their authority, and forcing their will on others. The best that the article can come up with is that apparently some people in authority don’t believe pharmacists should be protected from losing their jobs if they don’t fill certain prescriptions or name a pharmacy that will. That’s pretty weak though. Honestly, if a pharmacist is working for an employer that would fire him if they could for not filling prescriptions for emergency contraception, why would he want to work there? I mean, that’s like being in the service of evil or something.
But even if the woman who wants these laws repealed got her way, it would be a matter of less government control, not more, so I don’t see how that’s a tyranny. I mean, the only change would be that employers would now be allowed to fire their pharmacists who didn’t fill those prescriptions, but Catholic hospitals and clinics would be under no obligation to prescribe them or anything.
I’ve heard various Protestant theologians insist that being free to do bad things is in fact not freedom at all, but slavery. I remember I heard someone say that by imposing these moral laws on yourself, you would become free from all of these things, like sin and vice. But I had to laugh when he said you would be free from disobedience. Freedom from disobedience. That makes no sense at all. Why can’t he just admit that yes, by imposing these laws on yourself, you’re giving up some freedom, but that it’s worth it because of what you gain? Kind of like how it is with marriage. And that’s how it is with the United States. We’re free to do a lot of bad things, and indeed, many people are doing them. But that doesn’t make it tyranny. Nobody is forcing people to do all these bad things. They’re doing them because they have the freedom to.
- Status