[Cardinal] O'Malley draws line with Democrats

Boston Globe ^ | November 15, 2007 | Michael Paulson

[Quiet Man Jr.]

BALTIMORE - Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley of Boston, saying the Democratic Party has been persistently hostile to opponents of abortion rights, asserted yesterday that the support of many Catholics for Democratic candidates "borders on scandal."

In his sharpest comments about the political landscape since he was installed as archbishop of Boston four years ago, O'Malley made clear that, despite his differences with the Republican Party over immigration policy, capital punishment, economic issues, and the war in Iraq, he views abortion as the most important moral issue facing policymakers.

"I think the Democratic Party, which has been in many parts of the country traditionally the party which Catholics have supported, has been extremely insensitive to the church's position, on the gospel of life in particular, and on other moral issues," O'Malley said.

Acknowledging that Catholic voters in Massachusetts generally support Democratic candidates who are in favor of abortion rights, O'Malley said, "I think that, at times, it borders on scandal as far as I'm concerned."

"However, when I challenge people about this, they say, 'Well, bishop, we're not supporting [abortion rights],' " he said. "I think there's a need for people to very actively dissociate themselves from those unacceptable positions, and I think if they did that, then the party would have to change."

Link for full story...

[glide625]

My guess is that the DemoCommies will make every attempt to withdraw tax exempt status for the Church in an effort to bankrupt it, sieze it’s property for back taxes and otherwise push it underground.

I don’t much care; history shows we do a lot better underground anyway.

[livius]

I’m sure they probably will - particularly if the Dems get elected in 2008, I think we can expect an attack on the Church similar to that launched by the Socialists in Spain. But as you say, that sometimes clarifies the thinking of the faithful.

[Zionist Conspirator]

what you call total inerrancy is often used to conflat inspiration and revelation.

I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying that "total inerrancy" doesn't really mean "total inerrancy?"

When one is dealing with Holy Scripture, especially if one is a believer, one never must suppose even for a moment that one is looking at the Word of God.

I hope you mistyped that sentence, because if you didn't the sentiment expressed is deplorable.

[Patriotic1]

The next time the subject comes up, you may wish to remind her that life is short, eternity long.

[Patriotic1]

If you haven’t been where I’ve been STFU!

Not only did you not get a good Catholic understanding, it seems that your general Christian understand isn't that strong either. Leaving Peter because of Judas is never a good idea. Saying that you gave up church for lent is a bit of sarcasm that generally will draw negative replies.

[RobbyS]

Yes, I did leave out the” not the word ....”. but as for the first remark, but as for the first, what I mean is that revelation is not only by the spoken word. The fact that Our Lord Was crucified or that He planned for Joseph to provide a refuge for the children of Israel in Egypt, speaks as loudly as anything the prophets said.

[Zionist Conspirator]

Yes, I did leave out the” not the word ....”. but as for the first remark, but as for the first, what I mean is that revelation is not only by the spoken word. The fact that Our Lord Was crucified or that He planned for Joseph to provide a refuge for the children of Israel in Egypt, speaks as loudly as anything the prophets said.

So you're saying that Protestants conflate total inerrancy with total sufficiency. Yet what you fail to notice is that Catholics also tend to conflate the two and demonstrate their rejection of the latter by also rejecting the former.

There is no excuse for anyone of any religion to conflate the two. This is easily proven as follows: is Genesis totally inerrant? Yes it is. Is it totally sufficient? No it is not. Expand to include the entire Bible, and there you have it.

[RobbyS]

The Church has never rejected inerrancy. A lot turns on the meaning one places on “error,” though. Its use in baseball is instructive, however, The scorer sitting in the pressbox may judge something as a misplay, of assigning fault, where I sitting in the stands and having a better angle, would not. My problem with Biblical scholars is that they presume to judge what they cannot see at all and do not know that they do not see because they do not expect to see it. Emile Zola famously was shown x-rays of a leg bone miraculously healed at Lourdes. He continued to treat it as a hoax. It could not happen because it could not happen.