Posted on 11/08/2012 12:39:43 PM PST by NYer
CHICAGO, November 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – President Obama’s re-election sets up a looming clash with people of faith over abortion, marriage, and the implementation of government-controlled health care –a fight the pro-life movement has vowed to carry out by defying the president, reforming an increasingly unfriendly Republican Party, and building a culture of life that transcends the boundaries of politics.
A second Obama term means “the collision course of the Obama administration with the Catholic Church…is assured,” said Fr. Frank Pavone of Priests for Life after the election.
He was outraged by the fact that a majority of his fellow Catholics voted for Obama, the most pro-abortion president in history.
“Many in Church leadership failed to connect the dots between personnel and policy,” he explained. “They prayed and preached against the HHS mandate, but then were silent about the election – and called the police to remove citizens who leafleted the Church parking lot trying to inform voters about where the candidates stood on this issue.”
Such rebuffs from faithless laity and fainthearted leaders would not deter the faithful.
“The pro-life cause will prevail in America,” Fr. Pavone said. “In the elections of 2014, we will work for a pro-life Senate majority to further blunt the ability of President Obama to damage the cause of life.”
To do so, they may have to reclaim the Republican Party, which most pro-life voters call home.
“We all need to stand guard now. They will try to kick pro-life values out of the Republican Party and blame the abortion/rape question for the loss,” Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life of America wrote on her Facebook page. “Please stand ready to respond.”
Soon forces inside the party proved her right. Greg Valliere of the Potomac Research Group went on Fox Business to urge Republicans to be “much more conciliatory on things like immigration and social issues,” particularly abortion.
The political movement will be met with a cultural and social effort to educate Americans about life and change hearts about the horrors of abortion.
The Obama administration has attempted to chill this speech, with Attorney General Eric Holder filing frivolous lawsuits against sidewalk counselors like Mary Susan Pine and churning out reports branding pro-life Christians potential domestic terrorists.
Fr. Pavone called on pro-lifers to “an unwavering commitment to civil disobedience.”
Kelly Clinger wrote, “I will go save babies as long as I still have the right to do so!” In what may have been a tweak at the president’s re-election slogan, she sent the message under the hashtag “Forward.”
One of the longtime leaders of the pro-life movement, Joe Scheidler of the Pro-Life Action League, said his “mission continues: Confront society with the ugliness of abortion, save babies and women from the tragedy of abortion, and build the Culture of Life.”
They put their tribe in front of Christ. As did (by the numbers) many Catholics.
The difference is IMHO is that no one really expect the black churches to have any courage in their convictions.
What “collision”? Obama won the Catholic vote...
We will see just how many of the 25% of the population will support the church. I say basically nobody. Again, these commies have won - by hook & by crook. They own the schools, the media and will continue to infect the sheeple with their agenda. They will now fill the SCOTUS with their types.
It's like Gideon (I think it was) when the Lord kept reducing the number of troops to the point that no one be able to pretend the victory is due to anything except intervention by God.
They are the ONLY reason we have a second King Barry term. They run around beating their chests like gorillas to show how tough they are but when push comes to shove care more about their own pride than the country.
The USCCB has been very vocal, and surprisingly united over the HHS mandate. Even the liberal bishops saw the light and every single bishop came out loudly against the mandate.,
As a Catholic I have to say I think you are wrong here, or at least are misinterpreting what the facts imply. Yes, bishops have fairly roundly condemned the mandate, but we have to ask why. They are perfectly comfortable when the parishioner is forced to pay for immoral things, and they usually support the party and politicians who do just that. What changed here was not the morality, but who got the bill. This mandate required that the bishops themselves pay for these things, and they resent that, not what is being payed for. They talk about doctrine only because it is a convenient way to get the faithful to side with them.
We as Catholics in the pews have to wise up and stop trusting people with fancy clothes. Most priests and bishops have no concern for the Gospel or morality at all. Bishops are CEOs and politicians for whom Christ is usually nothing more than a marketing tool serving to increase profit margins. In the American Church at least, sadly, our Lord has become nothing more than Ronald McDonald. I wouldn't trust these sacrilegious vipers who can't be bothered to protect the liturgy or treasury of faith under their care and only take action when something affects their earthly riches. It is time to be wise as serpents.
Thank you for this post.
I think this is a very broad-brushed view of the situation.
Especially the indictment in your last paragraph.
I would rather take a more optimistic view of all that is happening. We are being sifted like wheat, that is sure, and when that happens, good things can rise up as a result. We need to be encouraged...and encouraging...if we want to contribute our share of building up the church.
I don’t think harsh and pessimistic attitudes are helpful.
Nor do I think it is helpful to paint such a picture: “fancy clothes”; “no concern for the gospel or morality at all”; “serving to increase profit margins”; “sacrilegious vipers” (!!!).
Philippians 4:1-8
I, too, have had the privilege of knowing great priests, and a great archbishop. I’m grateful for that. My own pastor is a treasure.
And there is the good Cardinal DiNardi, good Archbishop William Lori, good Archbishop Charles Chaput......
Nor do I think it is helpful to paint such a picture: “fancy clothes”; “no concern for the gospel or morality at all”; “serving to increase profit margins”; “sacrilegious vipers” (!!!).
Would you have taken that view of such language as "whited sepulchers" when it was used a couple millenia ago? The fact is we should, no must, be more honest in our assessments of these people who have been so consistently unreliable. As it is now we are being led down the primrose path by a bunch of bureaucrats and politicians. It is time to wake up and see the situation for what it is.
The great mass of bishops in this nation have demonstrated over and over their lack of concern with morality and doctrinal integrity, and have consistently sided with political and monetary expediency. And now we are supposed to be convinced that they are all converted and instantly learned how wrong they were just in time for this one issue which just happens to place costs on them rather than those in their congregations? That would be convenient. I am sorry but I won't buy that until they take a position in which they don't have a monetary stake in the outcome.
Jesus had a right to call the pharisees “whited sepulchers”, because he is God and knew their hearts.
I don’t have that right-—or that divine knowledge.
As for the conversion you speak of (”And now we are supposed to be convinced that they are all converted”)....we are all in need of conversion every day of our lives. Each one of us could see our names written in the sand by the Lord. And if such needed conversions DO take place, our Lord said that it would be cause for rejoicing....not derision.
This isn’t a time to throw stones. It’s time to re-build with the “living stones” our Lord spoke of.
I don’t want negativity to be my “mission statement”.
I think you are being overly cynical here. I have had the privilege to have an audience with some great priests and a certain current archbishop in small group settings and they were just as strong when speaking about the election, the HHS mandate, etc. as they have been during thier homilies.
Cynical, I don't think so. I will admit that I am generalising, though I would point out that your own post did generalise as well, to the point of including every single bishop. And I don't disagree that bishops did as they did, but rather that their consistent past behaviour, as a body, makes their motives in this very suspect.
As a Catholic I have been witness to the indifference of bishops when abuses are committed. I have heard the silence when scandalous politicians lead souls to hell. I have seen and heard our priests and bishops rationalise immoral laws and actions if they were politically expedient. But now, when the bishops are the ones paying we are to believe that they all, 100%, including those who are guilty of the worst excesses and most egregious slanders on the faith and Holy Mother Church, that all of them turned back and accepted their error? No, that seems very unlikely, and extremely convenient.
Yes, there are good and holy priests and even good bishops, but they do not represent the majority. It is sad but true, and it has shown to be so over and over. That doesn't mean the Church is evil or anything, but just accepts the truth that we should not accept bishops, or anyone claiming to teach and lead, at face value.
I don’t want negativity to be my “mission statement”.
Negativity, as you label it, is entirely appropriate in certain situations. When looking to the next four years with Obama my viewpoint might be called one of negativity. However, intentional positivity in spite of overwhelming evidence is nothing more than naiveté. We are not called by the Gospel to be a naive people. Over and over we are encouraged and exhorted to be wise, aware and watchful of threats, both from within and without. Bishops are not impeccable or infallible, and it would behove all of us to judge the trees by the fruit.
These bishops, as a collective body, have been massively derelict, at best, in defending and spreading the faith. They have taken position after position which fails any possible smell test a person of faith could apply. Are there good ones? Sure, but that doesn't speak to the collective which was referred to in the earlier post and whose motives were implied to be so virtuous. We cannot ignore that the one time the bishops decided to break their consistent pro-democrat and liberal political position was when it actually affected them directly rather than their congregations. One would have to be very naive indeed to think they all just suddenly turned away from their errors over this one issue. The truth is they just don't have any moral authority anymore in these things, and until they take an unpopular stand in defense of the true faith which actually costs them money or people in their pews I will continue to be very skeptical.
I fear you are probably right.
I never said bishops were in fallible.
Admit failure in leadership-—yes, I can do that about some bishops.
Come to terms with the fact that a certain number of priests have been “liberal”. Yes, I can acknowledge that.
But I also don’t believe that we need to be...or should be ...at war with our own Church.
On this forum, I have read, over the years, many posts made by FReepers who were openly antagonist towards the Catholic Church. In keeping with their approach, they often referred to all priests as if all of them were child-predators. That is the kind of broad brush method I see as wrong and unjust.
It’s what it’s like when broad brushes are used. The position is one of accusation.
The Gospel tells us many things. The admonition to be wise and aware and watchful are FIRST meant to be applied to our own actions-—not those of others; and it is the fruit of our own lives that should come under our inspection first.
I don’t think it is any use for me to say any more. You “continue to be skeptical” and I’ll continue to do my best-—with God’s grace—to be filled with the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Love...(the first 3 beads after the Our Father on my rosary).
8 out of 10 white Protestants voted for Romney...95% of black Protestants voted for Obama...
6 out of 10 White Catholics voted for Romney...75% of Mexican Catholics voted for Obama...
Don’t misquote me, and misuse my quote.
My actual statement was “”Too little, too late, the issue is the Catholic vote.”” when someone tried to use immigration as a reason for the Catholic vote, on this thread about Catholics and the election.
In reality the Catholic vote has always been for the democrats, with only 5 or 6 exceptions in our history, and only one of those was against an incumbent democrat, and that was Jimmy Carter.
We cannot escape the reality that people of the Catholic denomination, are influenced in some way that has made them a close to permanent, anti-republican voting block.
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.