Posted on 08/16/2006 5:00:49 PM PDT by wagglebee
ROCKFORD, August 16, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Abortion, buggery, contraception, divorce, euthanasia, radical feminism, genetic experimentation and mutilation, are the seven “sacraments” of “one” US political party says the Bishop of the Catholic diocese of Rockford Illinois.
While stopping short of telling his flock how to vote, and without naming the Democrats by name, Bishop Thomas George Doran wrote in a column in the local diocesan newspaper that these “unholy sacraments of our secular culture are the seeds of the destruction of our nation.” He said that the continuance in office of those espousing them represent a “clear and present danger” to the survival of the US as a nation.
Bishop Doran, leader of the Rockford diocese's 418,891 Catholics exhorts voters to “think for yourself” and ask, “what nation that kills its young, perverts marriage, prevents new life, and destroys the family, kills those deemed useless, makes the war of the sexes into a real war, and manipulates the genetic basis of human nature, can long endure?”
He writes that while looking “askance” at the German people for their historical role in the deaths of 50 million people during the Nazi period, we in North America have blinded ourselves to the deaths of 40 million of unborn citizens since 1973. “No doubt,” he says, “we shall soon outstrip the Nazis in doing human beings to death.”
He describes a slippery slope that begins with toleration of the killing of “the tiniest innocents among us,” and leads to habituation to violence in other forms. “we have allowed these barbaric practices to corrupt our laws, our medical practice, and even our ordinary lives.”
He lists toleration for sexual perversions, “widespread contraception, easy access to “no fault” divorce, the killing of the elderly, radical feminism, embryonic stem cell research” as things that “defile and debase our human nature and our human destiny.”
Read Bishop Doran’s column:
http://www.rockforddiocese.org/observer/observer.asp
To contact Bishop Doran:
555 Colman Center Drive
P.O. Box 7044
Rockford, IL 61125
Telephone: (815) 399-4300
FAX: (815) 399-5266
This was a newspaper column, not the Encyclopedia Brittanica...
Our jealousy is probably sinful.
But I'll confess to MY priest. Maybe he'll disagree about the sinfulness while slapping his knee...
It is extremely rare for the Signatura (or the Pope, for that matter) to 'act against' a sitting Bishop.
But they DO accept their resignations quickly--and there are other ways in which they make life uncomfortable for twits and bedwetters...
I think it was LBJ who rammed that through.
Surprise...
"The truth hardly can get its boots on before a lie is twice around the world"---or some such---Mark Twain.
Notably, that address was the last time Solz'n was invited ANYWHERE in this country.
You MoSynod folks are stalwarts!
One of these days, you might even think kindly of the Pope...
Bumping what needs to get bumped.
Well, when BXVI was elected we did pray for him.
It isn't that we think badly of the pope. We just don't hold him to be the head of the Church.
That, and we REALLY like potlucks, even in Lent /Lutheran joke!
Some of us keep alive the history of the tragic outcome of the late unpleasantness that ended in 1865 along with any coherent understanding of the republic previously known as "these United States."
If Seward had been nominated, he probably would have acted according to his advice to Lincoln and finagled war against European powers s necessary to unite the nation under the flag and postpone what Jackson warned Houston about on his final night in the White House: an unnecessary civil war to end slavery that would leave a bitter residue never to be resolved for at least a century. Seward was not an enthusiast for the wild-eyed lunatic abolitionists of Trancendentalist New England who actively rooted for carnage as abortion proponents do in our day. Such radicalism (while it had the virtue of recognizing the full humanity of the slaves) had nothing whatever to do with anything remotely conservative. Senator Charles Sumner was disciplined on the floor of the Senate by Representative Prescott Brooks for his slanders against Brooks' uncle, an absent senator from South Carolina. Brooks rsigned his seat and ran again to be enthusiastically re-elected by his constituents. Whether Ted the Swimmer or John the Traitor hold Sumner's seat today, Sumner is undoubtedly pleased.
As to your last paragraph, Sherman torched and devastated a thirty mile wide path of anti-civilian punishment through the Confederacy to the sea. Deny it if you will but, since you favor Lincoln and his efforts, I consider the source.
I will respond to your earlier opus when time allows.
Also, I am occupying part of the Northland to see to it that Lincolnian mytholigizers do not get away with posing as conservatives.
a) Provide a resume of your conservative activism and achievements;
b) Define conservatism.
c) Why do you suppose that you qualify as a conservative?
Spot on. I could not agree more.
Is that what buggery means? Never heard the term before.
Buggery: unnatural sexual intercourse; sodomy.
http://www.1913dictionary.com/dictionary/word/buggery/
Oh so you're falling back on that tired old bullsh*t that if I didn't support the southern rebellion then I just have to be a liberal? Sorry, I thought you were being serious here. I see now just how wrong I was.
Sure. We're supposed to believe that, living as you do in that bastion of conservatism known as Illinois.
Don't strain anything on my account.
...I will ask you what I have asked you in the past and which you understandably refused to answer...
Perhaps it's because I don't feel the need to get the BlackElk stamp of approval before I can consider myself a conservative. Approval which, given your worship of Jefferson Davis and his socialistic policies, I wouldn't place much stock in.
AND, as I have in the past, I have asked your "conservative" credentials which understandably you refuse to provide. This IS a conservative website. It is natural to demand of someone who is an enthusiast for a president whose radical leftism made FDR, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Jimmuh Peanut, and even the Arkansas Antichrist look somewhat conservative by comparison. Provide credentials or be judged accordingly. My part of Illinois is quite conservative, BTW. Sorry about Chicagoland.
My Yankees are spending the weekend beating the used bull food out of the Bosox so I will be taking my time giving your one substantive post its due. Your good news (Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1973 ed., Vol. 22, p. 858) will be that Vallandigham was no longer sitting in Congress when illegally exiled by Old Scratch (Lincoln). Instead, he was merely an American citizen arrested and expelled to the Confederacy for expressing his views who then voluntarily went north to Canada before returning to Ohio as a trial attorney. So, Lincoln massacred the First Amendment rights of Vallandigham. You must be sooooo proud.
Also, the Constitution says what it means and means what it says, SCOTUS fantasies and CJ John Marshall notwithstanding. IF SCOTUS rules that the constitution prohibits secession when there is not one word in the constitution so providing but there IS a Tenth Amendment saying in plain English what no Lincoln sycophant can ever quite understand: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively to the people." Secession is a power. It is a power not delegated to the federal government which unconstitutionally created West Virginia during Lincoln's tenure while denying a right to secession. It is a power NOT prohibited to the States. It is therefore reserved to the States respectively such as Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana and Texas. Florida included Fort Pickens. South Carolina included Fort Sumter.
Lincoln was governed by the Constitution of the United States as no Confederate officer was. Unless you have some Confederate constitutional provision prohibiting an income tax of a draft, there is no legal or moral equivalency. I don't like drafts or income taxes but they appear to have been legal for the Confederacy and were prohibited to the "union." The income tax was NEVER constitutional in the "union" as SCOTUS ruled in the 1890's in litigation brought out of New York. It was a power of direct taxation not granted to the feds at any time prior to the enactment of Amendment XVI on 2/25/1913. (Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah may take pride in never ratifying the infernal XVIth amendment).
More during or after the Boston Massacre being perpetrated by the New York Yankees or, if time permits, during the massacre.
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.