He might want to check in with the socialist governor of MD, Martin O’Malley. Raising taxes, spending growing at 7%, supporting gay marriages, and drivers licenses are already flowing to illegals.
Maybe think about the Pallotine brothers who controlled real estate for their own benefit in East Baltimore back in the ‘70s?
Turn over all the rocks, not just one. Like the queer priests and what’s the total settlement so far?
Remember, abortion was made illegal when the AMA made it a cause, not the Catholic church.
And BTW, I was a Catholic, gave up going to church for lent.
So the Cardinal is wrong to point out that the Democrats are a pro-abortion party? I suppose any occasion is good enough to hurl bile at the hated Church for one of the bitter lapsed, eh? Obviously you must not have absorbed the actual teachings of the faith handed down from Christ and the apostles if you allow the sins of the Church's members drive you away from the channels of grace in the sacraments.
**He might want to check in with the socialist governor of MD, Martin O’Malley. **
No, the only one that Cardinal O’Malley needs to check in with is the Pope.
**I was a Catholic, gave up going to church for lent.**
Unless you did a whole bunch of paper work and hearings, you still are a Catholic.
Find a priest you can sit down with and talk to. Find out the answers to your questions. You may be surprised!
I'm not saying it's wrong -- bishops and bureaucrats have to eat too, and tribunals don't run on air (and ours don't charge the petitioners for things like annulments) -- but I was wondering if in other dioceses it was true that every penny put in the plate remained local.
Having said that, though, I want to ask why a lousy priest or parish is a stronger argument against taking up the duties (and privileges) of the Catholic laity than an great priest (or, on our case, bunch o' priests), parish, or bishop is FOR taking up those duties.
As a former Protestant clergyman, one thing I expect of clergy is that they be manifestly sinful, emotionally precarious, and not remarkably competent. The excellence of the priesthood is not theirs, but Christ's. The responsibilities of the job will make you crazy if you weren't crazy when you started.
One benefit of this attitude to the clergy is that when you have a cool bishop and cool priests, you're astonished and grateful, while when you don't you just say, "Yeah, yeah, thank you father, have a nice day, now excuse me, I'm talkin' to God here ...." The drone of a lousy sermon is a very restful backdrop to the practice of mental prayer ....
Don't confuse the salesman with the product, sez me. One argument for the truth of the Calflick religion is that despite the apparent preponderance of bozos, some of whom are lustful or larcenous felons, the Church endures, and still in the third millennium still bears the love of God to grateful sinners who are hungry enough that they don't care that the waiter's a jerk, because the food is nourishing.
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.)