Splitting the Roman Catholic Church

[SpiritMeadow]

Let’s not over-simplify things here. (Or over-complicate them, of course. )

Yes, I can agree with your description, that there’s a liberal majority, and a conservative minority.

Out of that conservative minority, a small sub-minority wants to kick out the liberal majority.

Nothing really surprising about that, when you think about it. And, I would say, not a very strong likelihood of their wish being granted. (Although I wouldn’t be too surprised if the RCC decided to “crack down” on some of the really hard-core liberals. Wouldn’t be the first time.)

You point is well taken.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The OP seemed to think that voting for someone who would open the borders, which is seen as a liberal position in the US, is against Catholic ideals. It’s not. That was the point raised and the point answered.

Many Christians churches are against (from the pulpit) opening the borders, closing quantanamo, and many other issue that are called “liberal” in the US. I think the OP wrongly guessed that the CC was one of those churches.

The CC doesn’t tell its members how to vote.

Oh the contrary Kalt. I included the vote for Obama strictly on the issue of abortion rights. The RCC has been the leader in open borders as far as I can see. At least where I live they have been in the forefront of protecting migrants historically and today. Much to the chagrin of some conservative members.

No I agree, the CC doesn’t tell its members how to vote. They leave that to CAF! (just a joke!) But technically, no church is allowed to tell its members how to vote. It is against the tax code.

kalt I understand you continue to think I know nothing about the RCC but I was a member for a long time, and was quite active as well as well trained. Your assumtions are mostly wrong here. The RCC socially is much more liberal I believe than many of her conservative minority will admit or agree to.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think the only real risk of a split in the catholic church comes from the dissenter wing. For most of my life, these folks have dominated the diocesan staff level, held a good number of episcopal sees, become entrenched in nominally catholic universities and organizations. Their heros are guys like Hans Kung, Fr. Richard McBrien, Prof. Doug Kmiec and they put out publications like Commonweal and US Catholic. They refuse to discuss abortion as a fundamental human right, dismiss church teaching on contraception out of hand, neglect the rich tradition of catholic devotions and practice, are generally inclined not to talk about sin/salvation, and often see the primary mission of the church to be the meeting of physical needs of the poor (instead of meeting their spiritual needs, which INCLUDES meeting their physical needs, but goes way beyond that). They mostly detested John Paul II (especially in his later years) and ground down their very teeth when they heard Ratzinger was elected pope.

They are fast losing their grip on the catholic church in North America. Their ‘feel good’ catechisms were forced to add at least some content when the USCCB reviewed all such programs for compliance with the CCC. Their limp vision of church attracts no seminarians while the John Paul II catholics are starting to fill seminaries - orthodox ones. Graduates from places like Franciscan University of Steubenville and Christendom College are becoming DREs and youth ministers and implementing robust CCD prgrams with actual content (like the Faith & Life series). Flaccid diocesan outreach programs are being aced out by lay organizations with ecclesial approval like Catholic Answers, FOCUS, NET Ministries, Relevant Radio, the Coming Home Network, etc. The entrenched have-beens have no power to stymie these semi-independent movements. New bishops are less likely to be of the “Land O Lakes” variety and more likely to be of the Bishops Carlson and Dolan variety.

The entrenched dissidents do NOT like what they see coming. If there is a threat of a split, it will come from them and any bishops sympathetic to them. I’m not sure how the diocesan legal structures work, but I wonder if a local bishop could essentially declare independence from Rome? Create a Church of Engl, err… America kind of thing?

This may be why you don’t see evidence of a conflict at the local lay level. That isn’t where the battle really lies. The battle is going on at the “professional” church level - diocesan employees, staffers, schools, universities, hospitals, etc.

There are dissidents on the far right of catholicism too. The kind that say Vatican 2 was invalid or the NO mass is invalid or that there hasn’t been a valid pope for decades. Ignore them, everybody else does. That kind of stuff never transfers generations - it’s sterile. They are no real risk of significant and lasting division in the church. (IMO, of course)

I think we know which side you are on! LOL…Thanks for all the information.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I guess the next question is how do you think the Vatican views all this?

I visit a number of Catholic sites and monitor some news sources. I am reading that some Vatican sources are “concerned” at the right wing of the American church and it’s over emphasis on only one issue, abortion, its increasing vilification of Obama, which they (the Vatican) believes is a moderate and man they can at least work with, and the increasing adherence to one political party that is being exhibited by some few bishops and members. I’m reading that they were thinking the Notre Dame thing was way over the top from their prospective.

Some here seem to suggest that the Church will crack down on dissidents as they call them. Others, what?

Do you hear these things about the Vatican’s concerns? Is the American Catholic right more right than the Pope and the Vatican?

I’m trying to understand the balance here.

 

[GodIsGracious]

You post in tandem with some others is interesting. If we exclude the hispanics, the people who aren’t really Catholic but think they are, the non-practicing Catholics who think they are but aren’t real Catholics, the Christmas-Easter Catholics, who think they are but aren’t, thennnnnnnn…we have a majority of real Catholics.

And I think your take on Obama is wrong. I suspect he spends less than 1/2 second per week thinking about Catholics.

It’s interesting how conservative Catholics like to challenge other Catholics on their “Catholicity”. Especially if a Catholic is liberal politically. As I have mentioned to you in another thread there are some Catholics on this forum that were I to listen to them in real life and not know they were Catholics I’d assume they were evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Coming back after 20 or so years, and from what I have learned growing up Catholic I have to admit that I am truly amazed at some of the politically “hard line” views and how nearly everything and nearly every conversation is turned back to the abortion issue. The “hard line” I grew up with was that salvation was through the Catholic church alone and that it is The One True Church. Period. Now I’m finding it is something different.

But then again, since I am hispanic, and my family is hispanic, all of whom are Catholics with a social bent, I guess our voices, as Catholics, don’t count according to the “true” Catholic who votes on one issue alone - the abortion issue.

This is a contention I have with politcal conservatives, but not with the Catholic church, and it wasn’t anything that I was taught. I’ve noticed tho, too, and I admit to a sweeping generalization here, that many politically conservative Catholics are white. (Not all, I’m dating what you would consider someone who is “white.” Him and his whole family.)

I grew up in a very Catholic family, hispanics, who were all democrats. That meant something. It meant that we were practicing our values as Catholics to care for the poor, administer to the sick, and have a social conscienceness to care for all, not just a select few.

I guess because I voted for Obama for all of these reasons I am now challenged as to how can I call myself a Catholic. Uhm, well, being Catholic is more than being anti-choice. (Oh boy, I’m about to be bashed for THAT statement. ) Many politically conservative Catholics (and I’d like to make that distinction) assume that politically liberal Catholics are pro-abortion (we’re not), and would rather kill than save a life. What they don’t get is that there many politically liberal Catholics who are trying to SAVE lives by caring for people who are here, not those who have yet to come into existence. (And I’m NOT talking about current pregnancies.) Honestly, I sometimes wonder if it is a class thing.

At first I thought that maybe my social views were due to being hispanic and from a relatively poor family. But I’m finding that’s not the case and so I have to admit I am rather relieved by it. My beau’s family votes the same, they are Byzantine, and for the same reasons.

BTW, it’s incredibly insulting to dismiss and disregard the Catholic hispanic vote (I know it wasn’t you, Spirit Meadow) for Obama only because it is thought that we want illegals storming the walls or free social programs. Or that we were misled by false advertising (I don’t believe that for one second.)

But then again, I guess my voice as a Catholic doesn’t count because I’m hispanic, and well, how can I be Catholic because I voted on issues for the greater good than on one political view point.

At anyrate, I don’t think the Catholic church in America will split. Many politically liberal Catholics are very faithful catholics and gasp many are actually conservative in their religious views. Some of whom the one political-issue-voting Catholics don’t seem to get or want to acknowledge. It’s that, “you’re either for me or against me” attitude. And man, I thought we got rid of that with Bush Jr.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You post in tandem with some others is interesting. If we exclude the hispanics, the people who aren’t really Catholic but think they are, the non-practicing Catholics who think they are but aren’t real Catholics, the Christmas-Easter Catholics, who think they are but aren’t, thennnnnnnn…we have a majority of real Catholics.

And I think your take on Obama is wrong. I suspect he spends less than 1/2 second per week thinking about Catholics.

Please do not attribute to me things others have said. I would not characterize Catholics in the same way others do. As one example, I do not characterize “Christmas/Easter” Catholics (and I’m not even sure who they are or how many, or who knows how often they really go to Mass) as not “real” Catholics. Nor do I have any idea what you mean by “the people who aren’t really Catholic but think they are”.

I think a great number of Catholics go through periods of more orthodoxy or less; more devotion or less; more faithfulness or less. People have changes in their lives.

I don’t know how much time Obama spends thinking about anthing at all, and neither does anyone else, except perhaps his wife. There are those who even think of him as a figurehead or puppet for others; who gives a pretty speech and is then put back in the box. I couldn’t say about that. However, I do note that he has appointed a substantial number of Catholics to posts of consequence, and every single one of them is an active abortion supporter, with perhaps two exceptions. And those two exceptions appear, by history and political activity, to be people who consider abortion on a par with all other typically Democrat issues, such as healthcare, welfare, etc.

The appointment of Daschle to preside over abortion funding, then the appointment of Sebelius when Daschle flamed, is highly suggestive. Maybe Obama didn’t spend 1/2 a second crafting his “seamless garment” Notre Dame speech, but someone sure did.

But, as I said, Obama (and one may include his “handlers” if that what he has) is unlikely to appoint anyone to anything other than people who supported him. That automatically excludes Catholics who are faithful to the Magesterium of the Church as regards abortion…at least at this point in their lives.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I guess the next question is how do you think the Vatican views all this?

I visit a number of Catholic sites and monitor some news sources. I am reading that some Vatican sources are “concerned” at the right wing of the American church and it’s over emphasis on only one issue, abortion, its increasing vilification of Obama, which they (the Vatican) believes is a moderate and man they can at least work with, and the increasing adherence to one political party that is being exhibited by some few bishops and members. I’m reading that they were thinking the Notre Dame thing was way over the top from their prospective.

Some here seem to suggest that the Church will crack down on dissidents as they call them. Others, what?

Do you hear these things about the Vatican’s concerns? Is the American Catholic right more right than the Pope and the Vatican?

I’m trying to understand the balance here.

I think there’s a thread somewhere here on this forum, and I took a peek but had to click away from it lest I get angry, that some Catholics were PISSED that the Vatican made a statement about Obama - what you said in your post here.

Like I said, there is a distinction in Catholics, politically conservative and politically liberal. Our motives, for the good of people, are the same, however, our targets are different. I do believe that the right wing political party is more “right wing” than the Pope. If we, as Catholics, are to submit to Church teachings we need to take into consideration what the Pope says.

I’m fed up with the villification of Obama. He’s doing the best he can with the mess he was left with by one of those right wing extremists who was dumber than Obama’s dog. And really, how will the Church crack down on politically liberal Catholics? Call for the American Inquisition?

At anyrate, I’m glad the Vatican has made a call for Catholics to quit villifying Obama. He is NOT anti-Catholic and is actually trying to do some good.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I think there’s a thread somewhere here on this forum, and I took a peek but had to click away from it lest I get angry, that some Catholics were PISSED that the Vatican made a statement about Obama - what you said in your post here.

Like I said, there is a distinction in Catholics, politically conservative and politically liberal. Our motives, for the good of people, are the same, however, our targets are different. I do believe that the right wing political party is more “right wing” than the Pope. If we, as Catholics, are to submit to Church teachings we need to take into consideration what the Pope says.

I’m fed up with the villification of Obama. He’s doing the best he can with the mess he was left with by one of those right wing extremists who was dumber than Obama’s dog. And really, how will the Church crack down on politically liberal Catholics? Call for the American Inquisition?

At anyrate, I’m glad the Vatican has made a call for Catholics to quit villifying Obama. He is NOT anti-Catholic and is actually trying to do some good.

I would be most grateful if you would provide the reference in which the Vatican has told Catholics to stop vilifying Obama. Somehow my diocesan paper missed that one. I’ll wait.

I am not terribly surprised that one who is an Obama supporter might see the opposition of many Catholics to Obama as only “political”. That, after all, is Obama’s approach to the issue of abortion, which is the reasons most Catholics who are faithful to the Magesterium, oppose him. He has been at least attempting to sell to Catholics the idea that, well, it’s only a political difference, like how much a welfare check should be, or what anyone ought to do about economic stimulus. The Church teaches that they are not the same at all, and that abortion is not a mere “political difference”. It’s a profound moral question, going to the very nature of the relationship of God and man, admitting of only one approach…resolute opposition.

And if you think that’s being “right wing”, you’re dead wrong. And if you think Americans who oppose abortion are more “right wing” in that regard than is the Pope, you’re twice as wrong.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I would be most grateful if you would provide the reference in which the Vatican has told Catholics to stop vilifying Obama. Somehow my diocesan paper missed that one. I’ll wait.

Good, because I’m at work. I read it somewhere and I’ll have to find it, but I’ll look later.

I am not terribly surprised that one who is an Obama supporter might see the opposition of many Catholics to Obama as only “political”. That, after all, is Obama’s approach to the issue of abortion, which is the reasons most Catholics who are faithful to the Magesterium, oppose him. He has been at least attempting to sell to Catholics the idea that, well, it’s only a political difference, like how much a welfare check should be, or what anyone ought to do about economic stimulus. The Church teaches that they are not the same at all, and that abortion is not a mere “political difference”. It’s a profound moral question, going to the very nature of the relationship of God and man, admitting of only one approach…resolute opposition.

And if you think that’s being “right wing”, you’re dead wrong. And if you think Americans who oppose abortion are more “right wing” in that regard than is the Pope, you’re twice as wrong.

Of course you’re not “terribly surprised.” And don’t even think that I’m being duped by Obama because I’ve thought that way before I even knew who Barak Obama is.

I was going to say more but it’s pointless. Most people who are stuck on the abortion issue can’t see anything else. That’s fine. And we’re not about to change each other’s minds on that.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

It’s interesting how conservative Catholics like to challenge other Catholics on their “Catholicity”. Especially if a Catholic is liberal politically. As I have mentioned to you in another thread there are some Catholics on this forum that were I to listen to them in real life and not know they were Catholics I’d assume they were evangelicals and fundamentalists.

Coming back after 20 or so years, and from what I have learned growing up Catholic I have to admit that I am truly amazed at some of the politically “hard line” views and how nearly everything and nearly every conversation is turned back to the abortion issue. The “hard line” I grew up with was that salvation was through the Catholic church alone and that it is The One True Church. Period. Now I’m finding it is something different.

But then again, since I am hispanic, and my family is hispanic, all of whom are Catholics with a social bent, I guess our voices, as Catholics, don’t count according to the “true” Catholic who votes on one issue alone - the abortion issue.

This is a contention I have with politcal conservatives, but not with the Catholic church, and it wasn’t anything that I was taught. I’ve noticed tho, too, and I admit to a sweeping generalization here, that many politically conservative Catholics are white. (Not all, I’m dating what you would consider someone who is “white.” Him and his whole family.)

I grew up in a very Catholic family, hispanics, who were all democrats. That meant something. It meant that we were practicing our values as Catholics to care for the poor, administer to the sick, and have a social conscienceness to care for all, not just a select few.

I guess because I voted for Obama for all of these reasons I am now challenged as to how can I call myself a Catholic. Uhm, well, being Catholic is more than being anti-choice. (Oh boy, I’m about to be bashed for THAT statement. ) Many politically conservative Catholics (and I’d like to make that distinction) assume that politically liberal Catholics are pro-abortion (we’re not), and would rather kill than save a life. What they don’t get is that there many politically liberal Catholics who are trying to SAVE lives by caring for people who are here, not those who have yet to come into existence. (And I’m NOT talking about current pregnancies.) Honestly, I sometimes wonder if it is a class thing.

At first I thought that maybe my social views were due to being hispanic and from a relatively poor family. But I’m finding that’s not the case and so I have to admit I am rather relieved by it. My beau’s family votes the same, they are Byzantine, and for the same reasons.

BTW, it’s incredibly insulting to dismiss and disregard the Catholic hispanic vote (I know it wasn’t you, Spirit Meadow) for Obama only because it is thought that we want illegals storming the walls or free social programs. Or that we were misled by false advertising (I don’t believe that for one second.)

But then again, I guess my voice as a Catholic doesn’t count because I’m hispanic, and well, how can I be Catholic because I voted on issues for the greater good than on one political view point.

At anyrate, I don’t think the Catholic church in America will split. Many politically liberal Catholics are very faithful catholics and gasp many are actually conservative in their religious views. Some of whom the one political-issue-voting Catholics don’t seem to get or want to acknowledge. It’s that, “you’re either for me or against me” attitude. And man, I thought we got rid of that with Bush Jr.

Thanks so much for reminding us that there are many voices in the RCC as there are in all faith traditions. It was my priviledge as a Catholic some years ago to choose as my home parish a “Hispanic” church. Our priest was Cuban, but most of the congregants were from Mexico originally, most at least second generation but a few first generation. Never was I made more welcome and part of a parish as there. I truly loved it.

I too think there is little likelihood of a split in the RCC. I know many many RC’s who have the same sense of intense “liberalism” regarding social issues, yet they are not pro-choice at all. They do recognize that sometimes many lives can be saved from a different prospective however. I see the purpose of all religion the caring of it’s weakest members until they can live lives that are dignified. Then we can talk about faith and doctrine. Until then, we must live faith and doctrine through our work.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I would be most grateful if you would provide the reference in which the Vatican has told Catholics to stop vilifying Obama. Somehow my diocesan paper missed that one. I’ll wait.

I’ve looked and I can’t find it. Oh well.

 

[elgar]

“crack down”?

When has the RCC done any meaningful crack down at any time you can remember in your lifetime?

If the scandals did not provoke any such crack down, why would liberal catholics suddenly provoke some kind of crack down? And, if your crack down did occur, who would be filling the envelopes with money?

My guess is that collections may actually go up as statistics have proven social-minded liberals give very little money to charity compared to religious conservatives.

I think a shake down may be coming, however subtle. Just look at the recent investigation by the Vatican into the American convents and how all that was perceived. I see two very polarized groups who call themselves “Catholic”. The smaller being loyal to the Magesterium expecting correction of the “pro-choice” kind of Catholics and they are very disappointed that in the end nothing happens to the dissenters. The average “Joe Catholic” pretty much says and does whatever he pleases and he is very self-assured about himself and what he says the church believes.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Please do not attribute to me things others have said. I would not characterize Catholics in the same way others do. As one example, I do not characterize “Christmas/Easter” Catholics (and I’m not even sure who they are or how many, or who knows how often they really go to Mass) as not “real” Catholics. Nor do I have any idea what you mean by “the people who aren’t really Catholic but think they are”.

I think a great number of Catholics go through periods of more orthodoxy or less; more devotion or less; more faithfulness or less. People have changes in their lives.

I don’t know how much time Obama spends thinking about anthing at all, and neither does anyone else, except perhaps his wife. There are those who even think of him as a figurehead or puppet for others; who gives a pretty speech and is then put back in the box. I couldn’t say about that. However, I do note that he has appointed a substantial number of Catholics to posts of consequence, and every single one of them is an active abortion supporter, with perhaps two exceptions. And those two exceptions appear, by history and political activity, to be people who consider abortion on a par with all other typically Democrat issues, such as healthcare, welfare, etc.

The appointment of Daschle to preside over abortion funding, then the appointment of Sebelius when Daschle flamed, is highly suggestive. Maybe Obama didn’t spend 1/2 a second crafting his “seamless garment” Notre Dame speech, but someone sure did.

But, as I said, Obama (and one may include his “handlers” if that what he has) is unlikely to appoint anyone to anything other than people who supported him. That automatically excludes Catholics who are faithful to the Magesterium of the Church as regards abortion…at least at this point in their lives.

I didn’t attribute to you what you did not say. I said “your post in tandem with others”. Look at page one and you will see the references to other Catholics not thought to be “real” . The term used to be something else, but Catholics are not allowed to use it here any more.

If you didn’t read the intervening posts then you may be confused. I suggest you do, and I’m sure you’ll get what is meant by “Catholics who aren’t but think they are.”

I think, and I may be wrong, that Obama generally appoints people who are pro choice because he is. It has nothing to do with Catholics as far as I can see.

I heard the Notre Dame speech, and I can see he took great care with it, as he does all his speeches. I don’t know why this is an issue. I’m thrilled to have a president who can actually string three sentences together that are intelligible.

I suspect Obama by and large does appoint people who agree with him. Most every single administration does. It certainly was the case for 8 very long years. But this thread is not about Obama in any case.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I would be most grateful if you would provide the reference in which the Vatican has told Catholics to stop vilifying Obama. Somehow my diocesan paper missed that one. I’ll wait.

I am not terribly surprised that one who is an Obama supporter might see the opposition of many Catholics to Obama as only “political”. That, after all, is Obama’s approach to the issue of abortion, which is the reasons most Catholics who are faithful to the Magesterium, oppose him. He has been at least attempting to sell to Catholics the idea that, well, it’s only a political difference, like how much a welfare check should be, or what anyone ought to do about economic stimulus. The Church teaches that they are not the same at all, and that abortion is not a mere “political difference”. It’s a profound moral question, going to the very nature of the relationship of God and man, admitting of only one approach…resolute opposition.

And if you think that’s being “right wing”, you’re dead wrong. And if you think Americans who oppose abortion are more “right wing” in that regard than is the Pope, you’re twice as wrong.

Well-stated, Ridge!

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I think there’s a thread somewhere here on this forum, and I took a peek but had to click away from it lest I get angry, that some Catholics were PISSED that the Vatican made a statement about Obama - what you said in your post here.

Like I said, there is a distinction in Catholics, politically conservative and politically liberal. Our motives, for the good of people, are the same, however, our targets are different. I do believe that the right wing political party is more “right wing” than the Pope. If we, as Catholics, are to submit to Church teachings we need to take into consideration what the Pope says.

I’m fed up with the villification of Obama. He’s doing the best he can with the mess he was left with by one of those right wing extremists who was dumber than Obama’s dog. And really, how will the Church crack down on politically liberal Catholics? Call for the American Inquisition?

At anyrate, I’m glad the Vatican has made a call for Catholics to quit villifying Obama. He is NOT anti-Catholic and is actually trying to do some good.

I think all political rhetoric that goes over the top into wild accusations is not helpful. It certainly doesn’t cause people to listen to you. It tends to write you off as another crack pot. In that sense, the crazy “Obama the Muslim lover” is actually helpful, because the Independents just shake their head and are more convinced than ever that they are better off on the left.

 

[Ignatius]

My question is how could this happen?

It seems to me that generally speaking when a minority is dissatisfied with the majority and the manner in which they operate, it is the minority which leaves. It certainly can’t force out the majority I wouldn’t think.

I can’t figure out how the minority can leave the church either.

It will happen the same way it has in the past. In the 4th century a majority (perhaps as much as 80%) were caught up in the Arian heresy.Jesus said he would protect the Church, and this would mean the Authentic Church and it’s leadership in communion with the Holy See.
Pope Benedict has even said, there may come a time when it is better to have The Church smaller and more faithful.

Besides, things don’t always work out the way it seems on the surface. Look at the Anglican Church. With all of the accommodations to ever wider inclusion for every kind of belief and life style, one would imagine the the Anglican church would have grown to include almost everyone by now. But it is the opposite. The Anglican churches are empty for the most part. And in England, for the first time since King Henry took England out of The Church so he could pursue his appetites unhindered, there are more Catholics in Church every Sunday than Anglicans. God will work with those who follow the Magisterium and the Authentic teaching office of The Church.

Yours in Christ.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Good, because I’m at work. I read it somewhere and I’ll have to find it, but I’ll look later.

Of course you’re not “terribly surprised.” And don’t even think that I’m being duped by Obama because I’ve thought that way before I even knew who Barak Obama is.

I was going to say more but it’s pointless. Most people who are stuck on the abortion issue can’t see anything else. That’s fine. And we’re not about to change each other’s minds on that.

Some Catholics, myself included, aren’t just “stuck” on the holocaust some choose to call a “choice,” abortion. I’m not thrilled with government take-overs of banks, the auto industry, and the tobacco industry. Some of us don’t like the threat to tax health benefits as income. Some don’t like big government running health care or declarations of a new gay, lesbian, transgender day on the gov’t calendar. Some of us don’t like trillions in debt that will be slapped down on our progeny, and some of us don’t like presidents to visit Catholic universities only to request that the IHS sign of Christ Almighty be covered up. I know I’m not crazy about an Administration that declares a crisis to be a great moment of opportunity to be seized politically nor do I like terrorists being shipped to vacation islands.

“Conservatives” don’t JUST vote on abortion. Usually someone foolish and heartless enough to be ok with the termination of an innocent life isn’t too intelligent or brainy in other departments either. The point I’ve heard in Catholic media many times, “how can a candidate that refuses to protect the life of an innocent little baby be competent enough to handle other responsibilities?” is a really valid point to me.

You don’t need to grow up in a hispanic, black, or white household to know these truths. This has nothing to do with color. It’s all about common sense and respect for life as well as the understanding that socialism doesn’t work. That’s the road we’re on…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The whole point of this thread is weak to me. Does anyone seriously think the Church in America is going to split? There will always be super-duper hardline Catholics, fairly conservative Catholics, middle-of-the-roaders, liberals, extreme liberals, and twice-a-year attendees. There will always be some who vote liberal, some conservative. Some Catholics rip down the folks they think who are not ‘Catholic enough’ and some could care less about most of it at all, just showing up on Sundays like it’s Rotary Club or something of that nature. There are many Catholics who disagree. I just don’t see any split, hint of a split, or the real point of this thread?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

The whole point of this thread is weak to me. Does anyone seriously think the Church in America is going to split? There will always be super-duper hardline Catholics, fairly conservative Catholics, middle-of-the-roaders, liberals, extreme liberals, and twice-a-year attendees. There will always be some who vote liberal, some conservative. Some Catholics rip down the folks they think who are not ‘Catholic enough’ and some could care less about most of it at all, just showing up on Sundays like it’s Rotary Club or something of that nature. There are many Catholics who disagree. I just don’t see any split, hint of a split, or the real point of this thread?

Well my dear Gurneyhalleck please don’t feel obligated to post comments then. Surely you can find others you find “have a point.” Since you personally revile me, I’m surprised you would even open the thread, but you are most welcome to comment as you like.

Let’s get back onto the thread now if we may. I don’t wish this to be an Obama/abortion debate. That is clearly not what was intended.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I didn’t attribute to you what you did not say. I said “your post in tandem with others”. Look at page one and you will see the references to other Catholics not thought to be “real” . The term used to be something else, but Catholics are not allowed to use it here any more. ** Just trying to be precise.**

If you didn’t read the intervening posts then you may be confused. I suggest you do, and I’m sure you’ll get what is meant by “Catholics who aren’t but think they are.” I’m not confused. It does happen,sometimes that people will conflate one statement with others if they are expressed in a way that could cause the impression that they are conjunctive rather than disjunctive.

I think, and I may be wrong, that Obama generally appoints people who are pro choice because he is. It has nothing to do with Catholics as far as I can see.

I heard the Notre Dame speech, and I can see he took great care with it, as he does all his speeches. I don’t know why this is an issue. I’m thrilled to have a president who can actually string three sentences together that are intelligible.

I suspect Obama by and large does appoint people who agree with him. Most every single administration does. It certainly was the case for 8 very long years. But this thread is not about Obama in any case.

No doubt Obama appoints pro abortion people because he is pro-abortion himself. It has a great deal to do with Catholics, however. First of all because he is packing the government with people who, if one follows Church teachings, support the murder of innocents. That’s not a small thing. From the genuinely Catholic perspective, it’s a very big thing. Secondly, because people appointed to high places are often thought by some to be models of what they, themselves, should aspire to. Obama appoints visibly dissident Catholics to very visible posts; posts that require of some of them, at least, that they dirty their hands by active involvement in abortion; e.g., Daschle, Sebelius, Alexis Kelley. He went to a (at least nominally) Catholic University and promoted abortion acceptance there. It goes on and on. If you don’t see any pattern, then okay, you don’t.

Every high school debater can string three sentences together; some quite well. While that might be more pleasant to listen to than Bush’s stumbling prose, it’s hardly unique and, of itself, not particularly noteworthy. Obama’s speech is every bit as stumbling as Bush’s unless he’s reading it. Bush seemed averse to simply reading a speech verbatim a great deal of the time, and wasn’t very good at it when he did. Likely, he wasn’t trained to do it. But none of that means anything, except inasmuch as a smooth style might more easily persuade.