One of the 18 congressmen mentioned in the article is Bill Pascrell, D-8, who is registered in the Diocese of Paterson. His predecessor, Robert A. Roe a catholic democrat congressman voted pro life.
1 posted on
06/19/2007 9:51:35 PM PDT by
Coleus
To: 2ndMostConservativeBrdMember; afraidfortherepublic; Alas; al_c; american colleen; annalex; ...
2 posted on
06/19/2007 9:52:09 PM PDT by
Coleus
(Roe v. Wade and Endangered Species Act both passed in 1973, Murder Babies/save trees, birds, insects)
To: wagglebee; NYer; monkapotamus; All
got give props to this Bishop
3 posted on
06/19/2007 9:55:55 PM PDT by
SevenofNine
("We are Freepers, all your media belong to us, resistence is futile")
To: Coleus
I’m sorry, I’m a pro-life Catholic but I disagree with this selective meddling into politics. Why don’t they go ahead deny communion to those who support gay marriage, unjust wars, Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception) and so on.
To: Coleus
Does anyone know if 'sanctity of human life' is an actual dogma of the Church and thus covered by Papal Infallibility (Referencing Pius IX)?
If so, then God has spoken, if not then it should be.
I do not see how a person can separate the Catholic faith, which includes all of its teachings, and politics. If you are Catholic, then you MUST agree with the Church, otherwise, why be Catholic?
Also, the whole point of being "in Communion" is being in agreement.
11 posted on
06/19/2007 10:28:42 PM PDT by
reaganaut
( ex-mormon, now Christian. "I once was lost but now am found, was blind but now I see")
To: Coleus
I am all about this, but what about the general public Catholics? If we do this for one we must do it for all.
To: Coleus
Right now two Catholic archbishops in Australia, George Pell of Sydney and Hickey of Perth, face investigations into whether their telling Catholic parliamentarians that support for the destruction of human life in stem-cell research is incompatible with receiving communion amounted to "contempt of parliament." It is only a matter of time when the freedom of religion clause in the American Constitution be de-facto overturned under some such pretext.
18 posted on
06/20/2007 12:14:59 AM PDT by
annalex
To: Coleus
"Certainly, a politician has the freedom to reject Church's teaching," he stated. "But let's be honest. To choose to be pro-choice is to reject the Gospel of life. It is to be not faithful to Church teaching." Serratelli noted that guidelines for Catholics receiving Communion prepared by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops also teach that Catholics "should refrain" from receiving Communion if they were to "knowingly and obstinately to repudiate [the Church's] definitive teaching on moral issues," either in their personal or professional life.
There, now that wasn't so difficult, was it? The sky hasn't fallen, has it?
Now if only the other bishops could muster the courage to do the same.
29 posted on
06/20/2007 5:34:08 AM PDT by
Aquinasfan
(When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
To: Coleus
Good. They are using their membership in the Catholic church for their own political goals.
To: Coleus
God bless you, your Excellency. Keep up the good work!
36 posted on
06/20/2007 7:25:19 AM PDT by
Antoninus
(P!ss off an environmentalist wacko . . . have more kids.)
To: Coleus
Yeah, I’m going to hold my breath until Catholics like Ted Kennedy are excommunicated.
47 posted on
06/20/2007 11:51:15 AM PDT by
Heartland Mom
(Build the fence, secure our borders, deport illegals - Protect our sovereignty!)
To: Coleus
So how they going to identify pro-choice Catholics and keep them from sneaking communion on the sly?
67 posted on
06/21/2007 5:54:35 AM PDT by
Non-Sequitur
(Save Fredericksburg. Support CVBT.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson