Posted on 11/13/2012 10:30:37 AM PST by Arthur McGowan
On November 4, 2012, a debate was held at St. Joseph's Seminary in Dunwoodie, N.Y.
At the end of the debate, out of 52 seminarians, 19 voted for Romney.
Cardinal Dolan lectures his fellow bishops on the need for "conversion," while he is running a seminary in which a majority of the seminarians are pro-abortion.
What?!!! How do you know that?
If true , those who voted for abortion should be put out of the Seminary.
These seminarians reflect the average Cathholic voter rather well.
What’s the big deal here?
(Apart from the fact that many Catholics are liberals AND are going to Hell....)
Liberalism has infiltrated the church too.
Care to say which ones?
An eyewitness.
How is it that you have this information?
Who was debating? What was the debate about? Was the "scoring" based on who was the better debater or which candidate the seminarians supported regardless of the debate performance? Was abortion the primary topic? Or did the seminarians get swept up in the whole "social justice" ideology while holding their noses on Obama's abortion support?
The good Cardinal needs to replace those seminary students with some of the many good Catholics who are still out here and would be interested in Holy orders.
The Church doesn’t need any more “progressive anti-life” priests! Toss out the tares and plant us some good wheat, please!
And you know this because......
A. You were squished inside the ballot box
B. You were asked to pull the lever yourself, for theses seminarians
C. The seminarians were proud to report to you their full throated opposition to the Catholic Church, the Holy Father and thir Bishop.
Unsourced post. Hearsay. Reported to the mods, and will hopefully be deleted.
Sorry, I’m on my cell keyboard.
An eyewitness.
PING for an Arthur McGowan thread!
Did the others vote?
How do you know this?
Although I agree with you that if they didn't vote Romney, they are acting in favor of abortion.
A lot of the social justice Catholics are pure hypocrites. I know because I have them in my family.
I’ve already answered this. An eyewitness.
Note that the “source” at the top of the thread is an “eyewitness.” Since it is a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, obviously he does not want his name published.
Note that the “source” at the top of the thread is an “eyewitness.” Since he is a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, obviously he does not want his name published.
Note that the “source” at the top of the thread is an “eyewitness.” Since he is a priest of the Archdiocese of New York, obviously he does not want his name published.
So as a Catholic priest yourself, what’s your solution to this problem? SSPX, leaving the Church some other way, or something else?
I’ve already answered this. An eyewitness.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Answer it again! Answer it again!
Man, this is getting funny. As you keep getting “How do you kn ow this?” questions, you need to repeat the “debate” part again.
Hoo Boy. I see a lot of Catholics are getting mad at you here. Too bad. As I said earlier... this seems par for the course for the average Catholic voter.
Nothing I’ve said implies that leaving the Church is a rational option. Why would I leave the Church founded by Jesus Christ?
Thanks for posting this. Instead of calling for the censorship of this kind of information, Faithful Catholics should be calling for cleaning out the stables at seminaries responsible for this kind of woeful preparation of our future priests.
I talked to a very well connected Catholic in September who claimed a source in the USCCB bureaucracy told them half of the USCCB bishops were still planning on voting for Obama.
What good is it to stick our collective heads in the sand and refuse to address the elephant in the room?
The problems in the Catholic Church in the USA is the chancery and USCCB bureaucrats that run the Church in this country, a bunch of liberal/progressive “social justice” hacks.
Remember too the observation that, “All heresy starts below the waste.” And this is all too true among the Church bureaucracies in this country.
Still.
And here is more of that unified voice with which Rome speaks. Did this too come from the catechism?
I'm sure that at least some of the seminarians would say that they didn't vote for the anti-Christ because he favors an absolute and extreme abortion license, up to and including a little bit past the point of birth.
I'm sure that they would [lamely] make the case that they were voting for him because of his “commitment” to other “Catholic ideals,” such as feeding the poor, caring for the sick, etc., etc., etc. And against Gov. Romney because he's a fire-breathing, eat-poor-babies-and-drink-their-blood evil capitalist greedhead. Or something like that.
And the way that the Cardinal Dolan and the bishops have handled these questions, they'd be hard-pressed to make the case that these seminarians have done anything wrong.
However, we should also be careful not to denounce people for being evil when it's possible that they're merely stupid. Unrepentant evil people may often wind up in Hell, but there is no IQ requirement for getting into Heaven.
My own experience with young priests and seminarians (and not a few older priests, and even bishops) is that many of them are not necessarily the sharpest knives in the drawer. Thus, I'd chalk up part of this result that you cite as being the outcome of stupidity on the part of many.
sitetest
Even if they are “social justice types,” Catholic seminarians have a duty to be better informed than to believe the Republicans are a threat to the “social safety net.”
Christians need to go a lot further than abortion and same-sex marriage. The Obama/Dem agenda is institutionalized envy, jealousy, covetousness, bitterness and theft. Christians look at the lefts agenda of envy/jealousy/covetousness/bitterness and fall for the lie that it is all love and light. They weigh abortion against the “great charitable heart” of Democrats and come out for Dems. The Dems compound sin with sin, evil with evil. There is no trade off. Do Christians even bother to ask how is it even possible for politicians who are such ardent advocates of abortion and sodomy to be paragons of virtue on other issues.
Today’s Christians would rewrite Jesus’ parable of the golden talents and take away the talents from the man who had five and redistribute them to those with fewer or none.
The Catholic bishops are the biggest supporters of the destructive, larcenous welfare state from hell. And thus leftist politicians. Come election time they tell their flock not to vote for abortion. Too late, bishops. You’ve already sold folks on the party of death.
Envy is a sin. Jealousy is a sin. Demanding even more of other people’s money is greed. Looking to the government to meet your needs and solve your problems is idolatry, the worst of all.
All right.
Nineteen voted for Romney, did the others vote?
Are you inferring that unless you vote for Romney you are pro-abortion?
There is just plain stupidity, and there is the culpable stupidity that flows from intellectual sloth.
In the election of 2012, yes. The general election, unlike the primaries, offers only a binary choice.
In a group of 52 seminarians, I'd take a wag (wild-assed guess) that a third of them fall into the first group: just plain stupid. I've had pastors that fall into this category. Roughly a third are either intellectually slothful or just plain evil. I've also had some pastors like this. The other roughly a third voted for Gov. Romney. Fortunately, I've also had pastors like this.
The result doesn't surprise me much. I guess that's sad.
sitetest
Nonsense. The choice was between two pro-aborts, two lesser pro aborts and one prolifer.
Is it your opinion that voting for Romney is voting pro-life? Not everyone holds that opinion.
Is that what the article said? And, it's "...implying", not "inferring".
"Why would I leave the Church founded by Jesus Christ?"
I have no idea and have no idea why others I've seen in your position who make the same sort of point have already done so. But they have, and they've do so by the millions both to the self worship of Protestantism and the heresy of the SSPX crowd.
The Church does have a rational option, it's Jesus Christ and Him crucified preached with no further reference whatsoever to social doctrine both at every parish and in the seminaries. Social doctrine and true Christian social action will take care of itself when the focus is placed back on Christ and His Church rather than society.
Do that and Christ will do the heavy lifting of dragging the sheep back into the fold and separating the wheat from the chaff when the sheep refuse to return to the fold.
Good summation. Add stealing to the list.
I think that's the correct interpretation of the data which you've presented. Who knows what they think about abortion. It's a stretch to extrapolate candidate preference to a positive choice in favor of abortion which is what your headline says.
I'm fairly certain that if you asked them, they'd say they were not pro-abortion but were looking at the "bigger picture"; i.e. Cardinal Bernardin's flawed "seamless garment" theology.
IOW, they're clueless.
Hearsay + No source = BS.
“An eyewitness” somehow gathered all that information on 52 seminarians? Really?
Not buying.
A general election is a binary choice. In such a case, voting for the lesser of two evils is the morally correct choice.
Refusing to vote, or voting for someone who has no chance of winning is a narcissistic choice, for those who place self-centered preening about their own “purity” above voting for the best available real-world choice.
A debate is held. Then the audience votes. You are saying that it is impossible for an eyewitness to remember what the vote was?
In the election of 2012, Obama was the MOST pro-abortion, anti-Catholic candidate. Voting for the most pro-abortion candidate in an election is what I MEAN by the term “pro-abortion.”
Actually it’s infer.
Yes or no, Dutchboy?
All I know for sure is that my family and I, my fellow Latin Mass parishioners, our priests, bishop and pope are all aghast and opposed to every single abortion and any other atrocity that occurs against Jesus’ precious children, born or unborn.
I appreciate that you have offered a small ray of hope (if being “clueless” can offer hope!)to this dismal thread.
I am old, so you will have to excuse me for dating myself; but when I was young, many years ago, we called this kind of information “hanging our dirty linen out for the neighbors to see.”
I don’t say that we Catholics should ignore our problems. Far from it. I’ve done my share of confronting them in my lifetime.
But I do see a value in keeping a certain discretion and prudence in regard to opening it all up to those of an antagonistic or secular position.
The word should have been “implying.”
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.