Posted on 07/03/2009 4:44:12 PM PDT by NYer
In response to Joe Feuerherd’s question about whether the president might “write off the bishops,” President Obama had this to say.
He said that he would not “write off the bishops,” and gave his reasons.
“Number one, one of the strengths of our democracy is that everybody is free to express their political opinions, and I take people’s opinions seriously. I’m the President of all Americans, not just the Americans who happen to agree with me,” said the president.
“The American bishops have a profound influence in their communities, in the church, and beyond,” he continued. “What I will say is that although there have been criticisms leveled at me from some of the bishops, there have been a number of bishops who have been extremely generous and supportive even if they don’t agree with me on every issue. So in that sense the American bishops represent a cross-section of opinion just like other groups do.”
He then gave the examples of Cardinal George and Cardinal Bernardin as bishops who he has worked with.
“Part of why establishing a relationship with the bishops is important to me is because I have very fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin, who was in Chicago when I first arrived to be a community organizer - funded in part by the Campaign for Human Development - and working with Catholic parishes on the south side of Chicago,” the president added. “And so I know the potention that the bishops have to speak out forcefully on issues of social justice. ...There are going to continue to be areas where we have profound agreements and there are going to be some areas where we disagree. That’s healthy.” " width="370" height="247" alt="" class="article-img" />
In response to Joe Feuerherd’s question about whether the president might “write off the bishops,” President Obama had this to say.
He said that he would not “write off the bishops,” and gave his reasons.
“Number one, one of the strengths of our democracy is that everybody is free to express their political opinions, and I take people’s opinions seriously. I’m the President of all Americans, not just the Americans who happen to agree with me,” said the president.
“The American bishops have a profound influence in their communities, in the church, and beyond,” he continued. “What I will say is that although there have been criticisms leveled at me from some of the bishops, there have been a number of bishops who have been extremely generous and supportive even if they don’t agree with me on every issue. So in that sense the American bishops represent a cross-section of opinion just like other groups do.”
He then gave the examples of Cardinal George and Cardinal Bernardin as bishops who he has worked with.
“Part of why establishing a relationship with the bishops is important to me is because I have very fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin, who was in Chicago when I first arrived to be a community organizer - funded in part by the Campaign for Human Development - and working with Catholic parishes on the south side of Chicago,” the president added. “And so I know the potention that the bishops have to speak out forcefully on issues of social justice. ...There are going to continue to be areas where we have profound agreements and there are going to be some areas where we disagree. That’s healthy.” " width="370" height="247" alt="" class="article-img" />
In response to Joe Feuerherd’s question about whether the president might “write off the bishops,” President Obama had this to say.
He said that he would not “write off the bishops,” and gave his reasons.
“Number one, one of the strengths of our democracy is that everybody is free to express their political opinions, and I take people’s opinions seriously. I’m the President of all Americans, not just the Americans who happen to agree with me,” said the president.
“The American bishops have a profound influence in their communities, in the church, and beyond,” he continued. “What I will say is that although there have been criticisms leveled at me from some of the bishops, there have been a number of bishops who have been extremely generous and supportive even if they don’t agree with me on every issue. So in that sense the American bishops represent a cross-section of opinion just like other groups do.”
He then gave the examples of Cardinal George and Cardinal Bernardin as bishops who he has worked with.
“Part of why establishing a relationship with the bishops is important to me is because I have very fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin, who was in Chicago when I first arrived to be a community organizer - funded in part by the Campaign for Human Development - and working with Catholic parishes on the south side of Chicago,” the president added. “And so I know the potention that the bishops have to speak out forcefully on issues of social justice. ...There are going to continue to be areas where we have profound agreements and there are going to be some areas where we disagree. That’s healthy.”
It seems Cardinal Bernardin made a lasting impression on Obama.
I am tired of reading and seeing all the “news” every time 0bama breaks wind. He is more overexposed than Michael Jackson now. At least Michael Jackson had some hits.
No mas!!!
No mas!!!
**On the Bishops **
Obviously no one asked Obortion Obama about all the Catholic bishops who came out against him in the election and for speaking at Notre Dame. Or what he thinks about the Bishop of Rome?? (Wonder if he even knows that the Bishop of Rome is the Pope — LOL???)
Sigh..........
Is this like when Hitler tried to ally himself with the Army Generals to soothe their fears over the Brownshirts?
What drivel. He is not to be trusted.
Of course Cardinal Bernardin was a favorite. He was wedded to his Seamless Garment idea that discounted abortion as just another social justice issue, and gave Democrats a pass on their support of it. Bernardin was one of those looking for 'common ground', and willing to let unborn children continue to die in order not to make the Democrats uncomfortable.
Divide and conquer:
“…there have been a number of bishops who have been extremely generous and supportive even if they don’t agree with me on every issue. So in that sense the American bishops represent a cross-section of opinion just like other groups do.”
* On a side note, and not meant to offend. I heard a couple callers identify themselves as Christians on the local radio station this week. For the sake of expedience I’ll say, from their sentiment they were planning to attend a Pity Party, as opposed to say a Tea Party. I put it that way to draw a contrast and not to advocate a Tea Party (though I otherwise would). The point being the observation: by its own members the church over the years is being portrayed more and more a place to sulk, less and less the message to “go forth and do the lords work.” Isn’t that how the sermon ends? Isn’t that the message? Again, just an observation.
Bambi's whole tactic is to make everything seem personal and just a matter of opinion. The Church has doctrine and teachings, and it is the responsibility of the bishops to be the teachers of their flocks and to teach only the truth. It's not a matter of whether they "agree or disagree" with OBAMA, who as usual puts himself first.
But this concept is beyond him. In fact, judging by his rambling, poorly expressed answers (all of which focus on himself), I'd say a lot of things are beyond him.
In his Pro Eligendo homily, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger underscored the great problems facing christianity today, amongst which are secularism and relativism. O has applied relativism to a achieve his true goal - divide and conquer. It is one of the oldest tactics in the world.
That's exactly what he's doing. I remember reading comments by Cdl George after a meeting with Obama in which he said Obama kept insisting that they believed the same thing about abortion, and he (George) had to keep insisting that they didn't. Obama's technique is to glide over everything, obfuscate, and then declare that everyone agrees with him (not even with a defined position, but with him, personally).
You’ve got Obama in a nutshell. Bravo!
A suggestion.
Maybe you could post the strategies of Gramsci and Alinsky that followed on infiltration and the destruction of the Catholic Church from within (and all churches), as in trading all truth for the ‘social gospel’. Ex. Big families, they couldn’t say birth control or abortion, but it should be a personal choice... you know, like the apple and Eve, regardless of scripture and those ‘horrid’ (according to them), dogmas. In other words, they knew more than the Lord in telling you how you should ‘help’ the people (obviously history has no place here).
Deeds not creeds, and not God’s will be done, your small g god will be done; At the same time they ask that the church not ‘offend’ by preaching the truth (after all we’re all God’s children and he wouldn’t judge but accept anything).
This is why he can find homosexuality in the scriptures (or as they say, nothing against it, which is a lie), re: ‘social gospel’ and leaps over to scripture is ridiculous and outdated as in stoning in the same breath... yet can’t tell you a child is a human being.
He is anti-Christ.
He wrote himself the reasons for joining a church period... it wasn’t to come to Jesus, but they didn’t trust him. Like his forerunners, it was to infiltrate, use and separate while watering down and twisting the gospel.
Also, as when he ‘first said it way back’, his examples say it all.
The church must be purged of socialists. No one focused on his chaos and separation within churches from the beginning of the election, even using the place he called his ‘church’ to do it... a means to an end.
Meanwhile you had the Rockefellers and others pushing millions to churches, seminaries, colleges, church aid agencies as a hook in the jaw to lay down those ‘dogmas’ and accept a one world view.
Oh he knows, like the fallen one knows (yet twists), the word of God.
Another look at his mentor:
“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism, Alinsky taught. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within. Alinsky viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties....
Rules for Radicals Opening page - Dedication
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history... the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
“An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth — truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations....” pp.10-11
Enough said.
We have a winner!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3_jh2dO78U
You get a year’s supply of Rice-a-Roni... the San Francisco treat
I think if you do a search for Gramsci this is already posted, unless it got lost when the big server went down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.