Posted on 11/15/2007 4:41:56 PM PST by 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
ME? Angry? Why? Because I pointed out that you SAID you don’t give money to your church. the church was good enough while your child was in school, but it’s not now? Children learn a LOT from parents.
How true! I just wish they (CINOS) weren't employed by the Archdiocese (Peter Meade) or honored by Catholic Charities (Mayor Menino in 2005)
Ironically, rightwing neo-populists consider those the very people who were/are "secretly behind Communism," aka the Anglo-American Establishment. There's a whole literature devoted to proving they were the real power behind American radicalism.
And considering that today's political map is a photo-negative of that of the late nineteenth century (a Democrat South and Republican Northeast and West Coast), sometimes I wonder just what goes on at The Bohemian Grove.
As an old Republican who identifies with the tradition of Hamilton, Adams, Lincoln, and McKinley, I'm ashamed of those parts of the country today, and certainly appreciate the chance to blame their current political ideology on someone other than Boston Brahmins!
That seems to be the rule with all Democrat constituencies.
And ironically, they did this first with white Southerners!
Historically it seems the "Solid South" served as the model for how the Democrat party retains the loyalty of every one of its traditional constituencies.
It all started with the rejection of total Biblical inerrancy. No other issue--abortion, homosexuality, or anything else--will be resolved until the Catholic Church learns to stand up for total Biblical inerrancy.
Unfortunately, since total Biblical inerrancy is identified by most American Catholics (and maybe most Catholics in the world?) as a Protestant doctrine this isn't going to happen, and that fish is just going to keep on rotting.
"well,that may be true but the RAT Party gives me my social security checks".
Bless her heart! She can't help it, she's old. ;o)
I'm sure there are a lot of folks her age who think that. After all, it WAS FDR who got Social Security going.
It's heartbreaking to me that so many people of such an advanced age, who can remember a time of relative sanity in this country, are willing to give their blessing to the Revolution for a little money.
Don't get me wrong; I'm no social Darwinist or Smithian fundamentalist, and conservatives can be dense when it comes to putting moral issues ahead of economic ones--but to go along with everything liberalism stands for today because of money? Sad, sad, sad.
Why be a hypocrite? That’s not a very good lesson to teach my child either. He understands my struggles with my faith, we have lost seven family members over the last three years. Even Mother Theresa struggled with her faith.
We do have another parish to which we belong and very much enjoy, and we do attend Mass there in the summer months.
The parish here is a different beast, one that I don’t care to be a part of.
You just keep on judging me though, it seems to give you some satisfaction. Go for it.
We and our children now have the opportunity to start saving for ourselves without big tax dis-incentives, and we'll be in much better economic circumstances than our parents and grand-parents.
Like million term scuba diver Kennedy for instance???/sarc
That was pretty much the reason I left. The Pastor hated the evil Nun who ran the school like her own personal gestapo. They are two of the most Un Christian people I know. My brother is on the Parish Council and like all thngs Bostonian, it’s all political and all liberals.
Catholicism got lost in the sauce somewhere along the line, but narcissm abounds! I just couldn’t take it anymore, we are not talking about good Christians here.
So I do care what happens to the money, neither entity respects he other.
I can only speak for my diocese here but yes, almost everything is taxed at the rate of 9%. It goes to run the diocese.
There is also what most dioceses call the Bishop’s Appeal and it is assessed at about the 9% rate and if you don’t get enough pledges the parish has to pay it out of regular funds. So basically we lose 18-20% to the diocese and yes, it hurts and no it doesn’t help that we have a liberal bishop.
The one good thing about the Bishop’s Appeal is that any monies that go above your goal is returned to your parish tax-free. We have fund raisers and encourage people who want to do year-end giving for tax purposes to put it into the Bishop’s Appeal as long as we have already met our goal.
We’ve kicked around a few ideas for avoiding some of the tax but when it comes down to it the chancery has work to do and they need funds to do it.
I don’t think a lousy priest or even a lousy bishop is any excuse not to support your parish. As a former Protestant I was raised to really believe in the tithe and I also give many hours a week in volunteer duty.
I do go there for the “bread of life” and there isn’t enough money in the world to pay for what I receive through the love of Christ.
Not all Parishes are like the one you described, Thanks be to God!
finally, thank goodness.
I am not advocating that anyone die alone and bereft (including old people with nothing and whose children can't or won't take care of them). I'm not taking an economic position at all. I'm dealing strictly with moral issues here.
On the other hand, one part of the Hegelian/Marxist doctrine of "history" is that it is teleological, and that any step backward, no matter how minute, will inevitably result in the reinstitution of slavery, monarchy, serfdom, and every other evil of history. By this twisted logic if the American League ever gets rid of the designated hitter rule, the slave cabins are just a matter of time. But I can imagine that Blacks, even the most Fundamentalist, when they consider what the "good old days" were like for their ancestors, might prefer the moral anarchy we have today (brought to us by the "same people" who gave us Social Security, Medicare, whatever) rather than risk the rollback going a bit too far.
It's a mess.
what you call total inerrancy is often used to conflat inspiration and revelation. But I agree that Scripture ought to be taken as a given and not subject to methodical doubt and in general treated the same way as
Homer or the Babylonian myths. Ironically, most analyses of these classical tales are dubious. Why should I think they properly represent authors’ prespectives? It is hard enough to understand what a poet like Robert Frost means, and we are familiar with the culture in which he lived. 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.
Actually true. It was doctors (primarily), feminists (like fdirst woman doctor Elizabeth Blackwell, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton) --- plus Protesant clergy (the humanitarian reform types) who campaigned for protective legislation for unborn babies about 120-130 years ago: by 1880, most abortions were illegal in the U.S., except those ``necessary to save the life of the mother.''
That's why, while opposition to killing babies is definitely a Catholic priority, it's not what you'd call a Catholic "issue." It's Science (life is a continuum which starts at the formation of a zygote) plus Natural Law (the deliberate taking of the life of a guiltless individual is gravely morally wrong.)
That's true, I hadn't thought of that. It's definitely not going to be nice.
Yep, and not only that, but not enough chocolate - or Scotch!
Shaken down, pressed together, running over, better measure than we could imagine or hope for.
Yeah, my people in Southern Illinois are very conservative farm country type people. They hate the crap the rats are always pulling but if you dare mention a REPUBLICAN to them, they go ballistic. Basically they hate all politicians.
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.