Sad. Bitter, miserable apostates and heretics.
Unhappy baby-killing Democrats.
Posted on 04/29/2009 7:34:19 PM PDT by markomalley
I am all for an identifiable Catholic presence in the public square.
Who Support the President’s Social Justice Policies
That said, this group is becoming more and more divisive: Catholic Democrats.
Here is their latest defense of Notre Shame, which involves the denigration of Amb. Mary Ann Glendon.
My emphases and comments.
Catholic Democrats Deplores
Ambassador Glendon’s Undiplomatic Withdrawal from Notre Dame Commencement
Decision Not in Step with Majority of Catholics [This group is more interested in polling data than Catholic teaching. For them the "majority" gets to decide what is right when it come to Catholic identity.]
Boston, MA - Catholic Democrats is expressing its disappointment in the decision by Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon to withdraw her acceptance of the prestigious Laetare Medal from the University of Notre Dame. Ambassador Glendon sent a letter to Fr. John Jenkins, president of the University of Notre Dame, saying that she had reconsidered her acceptance because of the university’s decision to honor the President of the United States. [Hang on. It wasn’t because ND... NS was going to honor the President of the United States. It was because NS was going to honor this President, who is without question the most pro-abortion President there has ever been. The phrase used it an attempt to plant in your mind that Amb. Glendon does not respect the office of the President, probably because he is a Democrat.]
Ambassador Glendon, a professor at Harvard Law School and a listed advisor to the Right wing Catholic League, [Thus trying to damn her by association. I wonder what other organizations Dr. Whelan belongs to? Could any of them be an left wing organization? No… wait! How about Catholic Democrats?] said that she could not accept the award because she did not want to engage [WOAH! Read the text of Amb Glendon’s letter to Fr. Jenkins. She did not say she didn’t want to engage about serious topics. She said that that event wasn’t the right moment, that in a short acceptance speech wasn’t the right way to engage. This is too serious. So, effectively, this note from Catholic Democrats twists the facts so as to lie about Amb. Glendon. They try to make her appear as unwilling to engage in dialogue. I suspect she would be more than ready and willing to engage in the proper venue.] with the university on the "very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision … to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice."
"It is unfortunate that Professor Glendon would repeat the Republican talking points to justify her decision," said Dr. Patrick Whelan, president of Catholic Democrats. [When you encounter people who argue this way, you must immediately refuse their premise. They seek to polticize what is really a matter of Catholic faith. Amb. Glendon did not decline the Laetare medal because of partisan politics. Were that the case, she wouldn’t have considered taking it in the first place. What has in the meantime become clear is that Notre Dame has compromised its Catholic identity by choosing to honor a pro-abortion extremist who happens coincidentally to be the President of the United States. So, what Whelan said is really a misrepresentation of what Glendon wrote.] "Like many conservative critics, she conveniently sidesteps any acknowledgement of President Obama’s pledge to reduce the number of abortions. [What this conveniently sidesteps is Pres. Obama’s actual record.] Ambassador Glendon’s statement knowingly ignores the President’s leadership in moving the nation past the deep wounds of racial prejudice [Is Whelan now insinuating that Glendon has a racial problem?] and advancing a spectrum of social and economic justice issues at the heart of our faith – including a new focus on strategies to reduce abortion." [This is the Kmiec Koolaid recipe. The idea is that these other issues, such as racial equality, "justice", etc., are not just on a par with defense of the unborn, they actually take precedence.]
President Obama is the first president to run for office on a platform that promotes strategies to reduce the number of abortions in our country. [Huh? I wonder if that is true. Wasn’t President Bush pro-life?] Last week, Cardinal Rigali, chair of the Committee on Pro-Life Activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) praised the re-introduction of the "Pregnant Women’s Support Act" saying that it "offers an authentic common ground, an approach that people can embrace regardless of their position on other issues." [This is simple misdirection. So what if Card. Rigali wrote in support of that bill? The bill aims at helping women when they are pregnant. Help them so they don’t feel so backed into a corner that they choose abortion. That bill was intorduced by Rep. Davis of Tennessee, not Pres. Obama. Also, no one has suggested that helping people is not a good strategy in reducing the number of abortions. The fact that Card. Rigali wrote in support of that bill does not therefore mean that President Obama’s record on abortion is acceptable to Catholics.]
Catholic Democrats has launched an online statement of support for the University of Notre Dame and its president, as well as in defense of Catholic education. The statement has been signed by thousands of Catholics from across the country. Catholic Democrats believes that the national debate on this controversy epitomizes the divisiveness in our Church and in the public square and is calling on all Catholics to engage in respectful dialogue on all the moral issues of our time. [I don’t think it is respectful to guide your decisions based on polling rather than by Catholic teaching. I don’t think it is respectful to accuse people of partisan politics when the issues really concern Catholic identity.]
"While we are disappointed in Ambassador Glendon’s decision, we know that the majority of Catholics in the United States support the President because they feel he represents Catholic values across the spectrum of moral issues," [Again… they go by numbers rather than by Catholic teaching. And did I really read that Pres. Obama represents Catholic values?] said Steve Krueger, national director of Catholic Democrats. "The Catholic Right is caught in a web of the political Right [See how they politicize this?] and is out of step with Church teaching on matters of political culture. [HUH? Has this fellow read what the Church teaches about the sanctity of life? Abortion is not negotiable.] Even the Pope has honored political figures who are not in agreement with Church teaching such as President Sarkozy of France. Their actions and rhetoric are exacting an undisclosed cost on the Church and society that does not serve the best interest of either." [On the surface, this point seems compelling. The writer uses it in the strong closing position. However, the analogy isn’t good enough to support the position that Pres. Obama should therefore be honored at Notre Dame. The President of France has, ex officio, the right to be a canon of the Lateran, no matter what his stance on abortion may be. He takes that place as a matter of course. The Holy Father could, of course, rescind that, but there would be diplomatic repercussions between states: this has been the right for the French head of state since the time of King Henry IV (+1610). Henry in 1604 gave to the Lateran chapter the ownership of the Benedictine Abbey of Clariac. The Pope therefore made the French head of state ex officio an honorary canon of the Lateran. Thus, this "honor" comes automatically. It does not come after a decision of the Pope or the Lateran chapter. Though I remember reading that Notre Dame has a standing invitation to Presidents to speak at their commencement, Pres. Obama does not have an ex officio right to do so. Pres. Obama does not have a right because he is POTUS to be honored with an honorary doctorate. Notre Dame made a decision to give an honor to Pres. Obama. Moreover, even though Pres. Sarkozy is known to be pro-abortion, I doubt very much that he would have twice voted in a provincial assembly against a law that would require life-saving measures to be applied to a baby who had survived attempts to abort it. There is the issue of Pres. Obama’s extreme position. There is also the policy of the USCCB for Catholic institutions. The Sarkozy/Lateran = Obama/Notre Dama parallel only seems to be a parallel. When you pry it open, it isn’t a good argument.]
Unless a Democrat is pro-life, they are not Catholic.
Catholic democrats also reject the 10th Commandment. Since they are democrats and become violently angered whenever they find out somebody else has more, they set about coveting all of that neighbor’s property. They even hired a president who has promised to take if from those folks on behalf of his voters.
Um....what?
I guess that the fact that dozens of Bishops agree with Amb. Glendon doesn’t matter.
I certainly understand the good Fathers points — I think he is right. When, however, will the Church put teeth in their words?
What I mean is, when will the Bishops sanction parishoners who support Pro-abortion candidates and policies? When will they deny communion to those who blatantly disregard Church teaching and the ruling of their Bishops? When will the Pope (or the Bishops) threaten excommunication — and really mean it?
As a Protestant, I am familiar with Church History, and in times past, Roman Catholicism has often been more than ready to weild such authority (some of us would say TOO ready at given moments in time)!
It appears the Roman Catholic Church must fight this battle — or succumb to the pressures of culture as have far too many other Christian bodies... I hope they’ll take up their battle gear — because it’s certain that the forces on the OTHER SIDE of this cultural and moral conflict WILL fight, to the death.
Pope Leo XIII agrees with you
For the soil which is tilled and cultivated with toil and skill utterly changes its condition; it was wild before, now it is fruitful; was barren, but now brings forth in abundance. That which has thus altered and improved the land becomes so truly part of itself as to be in great measure indistinguishable and inseparable from it. Is it just that the fruit of a man's own sweat and labor should be possessed and enjoyed by any one else? As effects follow their cause, so is it just and right that the results of labor should belong to those who have bestowed their labor.
With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. The same principle is confirmed and enforced by the civil laws-laws which, so long as they are just, derive from the law of nature their binding force. The authority of the divine law adds its sanction, forbidding us in severest terms even to covet that which is another's: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife; nor his house, nor his field, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is his."(2)
Given at St. Peter's in Rome, the fifteenth day of May, 1891, the fourteenth year of Our pontificate.
This social justice nonsense is NOT catholic doctrine.
For an authentic Catholic voice in the public square, check www.catholicfamilycaucus.org. They’ll wipe the floor with the Catholic Democrats soon.
Actually, I think we saw a watershed moment last Fall, when the Chief Theologian of the House, Nancy "Stretch" Pelosi, discussed the fact that opposition to abortion is not a settled issue in the Church and then decided to (mis)quote St. Augustine to support her position.
It's a slow process, sometimes agonizingly slow, but I think there is change coming.
I saw more open opposition to the Øbama campaign from leaders in the Church than I ever have in the past (granted, it wasn't as much as any of us would have wanted to see, but it was there).
The fact that conversations between Niederauer (the SF Archbishop) and Nancy have taken place and have been acknowledged on both sides is a big deal.
The fact that Raymond Burke is now the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and is opening his mouth wide about the subject is a big deal.
The fact that the Archbishop of KC has publicly said that Sebelius may not receive communion...and that a "moderate" like Wuerl has acknowledged this and says he will support this within the Washington DC Archdiocese is a HUGE deal.
The fact that 50+ bishops have come out and criticized (some, very strongly) Fr. Jenkins of Notre Dame is a HUGE deal. (Yes, the other 150 or so should open their mouths, but the fact that 50 have spoken is significant).
None of this type of stuff happened before Madame Pelosi opened her mouth about theology. Think about it.
As to the subject of excommunications, I agree with you on the public officials. As for the parishoners, what do you propose? Having a Church Official enter the voting booth with them?
Excommunication is a very complex subject (and not something I am going to go into the nuance of at 11:25 PM just before I go to bed). But remember that the mission of the Church is the salvation of souls and the reconciliation of sinners with God. Excommunication is intended as a medicinal measure, believe it or not. In other words, it is a very harsh measure intended to help the sinner repent of his sins and come back home. Is that going to be the effect for a layperson who likely was poorly or incorrectly taught, particularly one who was poorly/incorrectly taught in the 60s through the 80s (when liberalism was at its height?)
Whenever you think about a spineless bishop, you have to remember that his job, first and foremost, is ministering reconciliation to that politician (sinner). You need to put anything you see that he does in that context.
This social justice nonsense is NOT catholic doctrine.
Actually, when you include subsidiarity, social justice is Catholic Doctrine. Please see the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
Subsidiarity (paragraphs 185-188) is a vital part of that doctrine. Like the 10th Amendment is to our constitution. It is also reflected in many of the social encyclicals written from Leo XIII on. The social encyclical that Benedict XVI is going to be publishing in June will likely highlight this point (much to the chagrin of the liberals). One quote from the document I linked above:
Therefore, neither society nor the State may absorb, substitute or reduce the social dimension of the family; rather, they must honour it, recognize it, respect it and promote it according to the principle of subsidiarity
It's late, otherwise, I could pull up some other points from JPII that are really appropriate as well...
Unless a Democrat is pro-life, they are not Catholic.
AMEN.
I must say I have been greatly disappointed in Archbishop Niederauer’s handling of Nancy Pelosi.I must conclude that he like most of the New England Bishops “goes along to get along”.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
As always, spot-on analysis from Fr. Z.
Sad. Bitter, miserable apostates and heretics.
Unhappy baby-killing Democrats.
Dear Fr. Z;
Last time I checked, we Catholics still counted “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” as the Eighth Commandment. Perhaps these self-so-called ‘Catholic Democrats’ need a reminder.
Sincerely,
A. Bustard
I’m inclined to agree with you.
A good metaphor might be that the Catholic Church is like a huge ocean liner. It can’t turn on a dime. But there’s no question that it is starting to turn on these issues, and I think Obama in the White House will probably increase the urgency.
The Pope can’t do it all himself. The Catholic Church has a tiny leadership bureaucracy in comparison with any country or nation or institution on earth. More than a billion members, and the hierarchy is really tiny when you consider that number.
Also, of course, they would rather persuade than force the issue, if it’s at all possible. For better or worse, the Church has been trying to live down its reputation as too authoritarian.
Good. The right people are angry.
Thank you. Saved me the trouble of trying to get those points across coherently. I too am on my way to bed but caught this before turning off the computer.
I believe the Church is reaching a period it cannot gloss over. Similar to the Protestant Revolt being followed by the council of Trent and when Henry divorced and cause the split with England.
A stand is needed. The Church will do it, if it is God’s will.
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.