Hot Air Mobile
Home The Vault Gear About
Hot Air -- get your fill


Catholic bishops’ guide on how to vote now available online

posted at 2:40 pm on November 16, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Universal health care, opposition to the death penalty, moral objections to preventive war: it’s all here, reinforcing a point I’ve made before in our comment battles about how Christianity has always seemed more liberal to me in substance than conservative. I’ve been derided for my supposed ignorance in taking that position but tell it to the bishops.

May I offer you paragraph 83?

bishop.jpg

As No More Spin says, good luck squaring that last sentence with what precedes it. Before the left celebrates divine victory, though, I’d urge our readers one and all to follow the link to the document and read the following five paragraphs: 22-23 and 34-36 (especially 35). If Catholic voters took this to heart, there’d be nary a Democrat elected throughout the land.


Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

gearing up for another rousing thread of anti-Catholicism

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 2:47 PM

gearing up for another rousing thread of anti-Catholicism

I’ve got a feeling the Protestants are going to show a lot of Christian love towards Rome in this one. It’s got to happen someday.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 2:49 PM

Universal health care, opposition to the death penalty, moral objections to preventive war: it’s all here, reinforcing a point I’ve made before in our comment battles about how Christianity has always seemed more liberal to me in substance than conservative.

You should replace “Christianity” with “Catholocism”, and you’d be completely right.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM

gearing up for another rousing thread of anti-Catholicism

this is a little diff. It’s responding to a document put out by the USCCB.

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 2:51 PM

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 2:49 PM

hey, who are we to judge? we have to vote for whoever james dobson tells us to vote for. apparently.

its vintage duh on November 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Well, it’s actually pretty easy to square that last sentence with what precedes it.

It means that Catholics should respect, follow, and abide by the law, but it doesn’t matter if a person is here legally or illegally, it is still an obligation as a Catholic to care for their wellbeing.

We already have a “path to permanent residency,” it’s called a green card. We also have a “temporary worker program,” It’s called a “work visa.”

And the system does need comprehensive reform: it’s horribly broken right now. We need to comprensively keep our border enforced, keep immigrants from being exploited by businesses, and make sure the path to legal immigration is emphasized.

I do grant you though, that a lot of the phrases in that paragraph have been co-opted by the left as euphemisms. However, were it a liberal document, that last sentence would not even be there in the first place.

BKennedy on November 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

You should replace “Christianity” with “Catholocism”, and you’d be completely right.

Now I’m really showing my ignorance. I was under the impression Catholics and Protestants were all working off of the same book.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Our nation’s
tradition of pluralism is enhanced, not threatened, when religious groups and people of faith
bring their convictions and concerns into public life.

Just don’t try to put a nativity scene on public land, mention Christ during a commencement speech, or seek to form a bible study group in a public school.

highhopes on November 16, 2007 at 2:53 PM

The present day Catholic Church seems to have lost it’s way in some respects. I prefer the good old days.
*
I, or rather the Lord, beseech you as Christ’s heralds to publish this everywhere and to persuade all people of whatever rank, foot-soldiers and knights, poor and rich, to carry aid promptly to those Christians and to destroy that vile race from the lands of our friends. I say this to those who are present, it is meant also for those who are absent. Moreover, Christ commands it.
- Pope Urban II

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 2:54 PM

You ask how the right to control the border and maintain the rule of law can be sqaured with all that came before in the paragraph. Firstly, it says “Catholics” (read: not the government of the United States) are to care for and stand with the immigrant. Secondly, reform of the current system, by the government, is needed (most agree with that). This reform includes (1) a temporary work program with worker protections (the current system a seemingly permanant work program with no protections for the worker) . . . (2) This would include a path to citenship (presumably for those who *want* it and will walk the path set by the government – not everyone will want it or will do the things the government requires). (3) Family reunification policies – this is a natural response from a Christian perspective. (4) Broad and fair legalization – again, the details are determined by the Bishops. (5) Legal protections – exploitation does happen, etc. etc.

We are a nation who “lets” millions of people come in, work jobs, build lives and homes – and we should be take responsibility for the mess we’re now complaining about.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 2:57 PM

Man, and I used to love me some Catholics, too. Well, if they go whole-hog and throw me some free love in there as well I think I can forgive them.

RW Wacko on November 16, 2007 at 2:57 PM

What so many people fail to realize when Christianity and politics start to mix is this: there’s a difference between how to run a good government, and how to live a good life. As a matter of fact, they’re practically opposites.

The meek person may inherit the earth, but a meek America will fall and bring much suffering.

pifactorial on November 16, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Now I’m really showing my ignorance. I was under the impression Catholics and Protestants were all working off of the same book.

puhlease . . . do you not read your own comment sections? HotAir loves nothing more than to instigate a school-yard fight between Catholics and Protestants. I thought that was part of your mission statement.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:00 PM

We are a nation who “lets” millions of people come in, work jobs, build lives and homes – and we should be take responsibility for the mess we’re now complaining about.

Please do explain how “maintaining the rule of law” requires a path to citizenship for 12-20 million who flouted that law. Also, while the bishops conveniently decline to elaborate on what they’d do about the border, what do you surmise is their position given the desire of poor, suffering workers to come to the United States? You think they’re taking the Tancredo line on enforcement?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:01 PM

What so many people fail to realize when Christianity and politics start to mix ..

Then how do Christians participate in govt, as officials, or voters?

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:03 PM

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:00 PM

I was for driver’s licenses before I was against them.

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Does this look liberal to you AP? Paragraph 17. (emphasis mine)

A Well-Formed Conscience
17. The Church equips her members to address political and social questions by helping
them to develop a well-formed conscience. Catholics have a serious and lifelong obligation to
form their consciences in accord with human reason and the teaching of the Church. Conscience
is not something that allows us to justify doing whatever we want, nor is it a mere “feeling”
about what we should or should not do.
Rather, conscience is the voice of God resounding in the
human heart, revealing the truth to us and calling us to do what is good while shunning what is
evil. Conscience always requires serious attempts to make sound moral judgments based on the
truths of our faith. As stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “Conscience is a judgment
of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is
going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and
does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right” (no. 1778).

Do it cause it feels good ain’t in our book. The Bible or the Catechism.

BKennedy on November 16, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Allahpundit -

As an atheist, I know you are unclear about some issues regarding Christianity. Let me clarify. Catholicism is not a synonym for Christianity.

Most Christian churches (especially in the US) – Protestants, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Mormons – are strongly opposed to Catholicism, and the Pope.

Do you know why?

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Most Christian churches (especially in the US) – Protestants, Lutherans, Evangelicals, Mormons – are strongly opposed to Catholicism, and the Pope.

Do you know why?

Because he thinks the Bible can’t be read any which way to justify one’s own political ideology?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Please do explain how “maintaining the rule of law” requires a path to citizenship for 12-20 million who flouted that law.

Let’s not pretend that America hasn’t done much to enforce her own laws over the past twenty or so years. Businesses, communities, individuals . . . all have benefited from “illegal” immmigration, with the government only lifting its hand in response to a growing movement to make them do something. We’ve got the strongest economy in the Western world, and much of it has to do with our laxity in doing something about those “damned illegals”. Sure, they flouted our laws. But I attend a parish with a strong and vibrant immigrant population, and these people for the most part are not here to flout our laws. They are here to work. To live. To provide for their families. I often wonder what I would do if I were in a similar situation. If these people are given the opportunity to become citizens, we’d be a better country for it.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:07 PM

Were it not for the rising tide of the pro America movement last year would the last sentence even have been tagged on?

Tell me Father, tell me that Latin America isn’t the womb of Catholics for a scandalous and failing American church?

I’m not so generous in the face of avaricious, political and expedient religious organizations, that have no business dictating anything outside the realm of their own religion.

Speakup on November 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Does this look liberal to you AP?

Nope. Neither does their position on abortion. But read through the rest, including the parts about social justice. Which way does the scale tip?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Opposition to the death penalty: I think Rome has this one wrong.
Moral objections to Preventative War: well-intentioned Christians can disagree on this one; it’s an issue of prudential judgement.
Universal Health Care: you’ll search in vain through the whole of scripture for any passage that says the government is responsible for providing health care to all. When it comes to caring for the poor and the sick, it’s always a responsibility given to the church and to individuals.

I’m a protestant, so my knowledge of the US bishops’ conference is somewhat limited; however, I believe that there are a lot of times where they’re seen to be somewhat to the left of the Vatican on some social issues…

marc@hubsandspokes on November 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

They need to breed another cropped of sex toys to abuse.

That drive to meet their perverted sexual desire is so great it even preempts their supposed anti-abortion stance..

That’s why their leader wears a hat shaped like a ….

TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Universal health care, opposition to the death penalty, moral objections to preventive war: it’s all here, reinforcing a point I’ve made before in our comment battles about how Christianity has always seemed more liberal to me in substance than conservative. I’ve been derided for my supposed ignorance in taking that position but tell it to the bishops.

Thus the reason I’m not a very good Christian…of the Catholic variety.

Its stupid, I can see the opposition to the death penalty, give whoever enough time to pray some rosaries before they get judged in the next round.

Amnesty and Universal Health Care make Zero sense to me. From a Catholic perspective. Amnesty might make sense because most of illegals here and coming here are from Latin America, and mostly Catholic, numbers game is in their favor, but by pushing the wealth generating US hard left, they’re hurting themselves more than they;’re helping.

Universal Health Care is dumb as hell. The Catholic Church in particular stands to gain the most in a free market system with weak entitlements, more money means more reliance on religious and charitable institutions for welfare services, and the Catholic Church is the second largest charitable organization next to the Red Cross.

The more power they give a secular goverment to take the roles they traditionally performed, the less funds they receive, the less services they provide, because taxes are too high and there’s no more disposable income to donate, the weaker they get. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

But I attend a parish with a strong and vibrant immigrant population, and these people for the most part are not here to flout our laws. They are here to work. To live. To provide for their families.

No one, and I mean no one, is suggesting that they’ve come here for the purpose of breaking U.S. law. That’s inane. The fact is, they have broken U.S. law, whether it’s enforced or not. And since you’re plainly apologizing for the bishops now, I’ll put the question to you again: how does their stirring statement about national sovereignty square with the idea of legalizing 20 million people who willfully violated that concept?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:10 PM

But I attend a parish with a strong and vibrant ILLEGAL immigrant population

There are plenty of strong and vibrant people waiting in line, from all over the world.

Liberals say undocumented, and confuse immigrants with illegal aliens.

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Now I’m really showing my ignorance. I was under the impression Catholics and Protestants were all working off of the same book.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Actually, we aren’t, not completely. Catholics have an extra section, but that’s not really relevant to the discussion.

We do work off of the same basic principles, but clearly we’ve come to different conclusions. That’s what the whole reformation was about.

We’re all Christians, but that doesn’t mean we agree on what that means exactly.

The truth is, all Christians agree with those basic ideas of helping the poor and helping strangers. We just disagree on who should be doing the helping. Liberals believe it’s the governments problem. Conservatives (religious or not) believe it’s the individual’s problem.

Maybe Catholics stress using the government as a tool. I don’t know. I’ve just never known a Protestant church to ask it’s members to petition the government to do something instead of just telling it’s members to do it.

Esthier on November 16, 2007 at 3:12 PM

</catholics_vs_protestants> (worth a shot)

good luck squaring that last sentence with what precedes it

I’ll take a stab.

The first sentence isn’t a political calling, it is a personal calling.

The rest is a package deal for governments: fair immigration policies, protect your borders. Right now we have neither.

Mark Jaquith on November 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM

TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Are you f’ing nuts????

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Tizzidale, that’s mostly Allah’s MO. As far as I know, Ms. Malkin is a Catholic.

It can’t be denied, however, that Catholics are generally more “liberal” when it comes to immigration. Allah does raise an interesting point about Christianity vis-a-vis liberalism…Personally, I think it’s a mistake to reduce Christianity to any particular political ideology. I think one could find elements of both conservatism and liberalism. I happen to lean right, but I try not to be dogmatic about it.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM

Religion bashing … Day 2
it’s just starting .

redrock on November 16, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Allah, I asked you to ban this douche-bag theSitRep in another thread, and you did nothing. He should not be able to spread this bile. At least not behind an anonymous internet account.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Think of how heavy the collection plates will be with all that Hispanic gold, the Bishops sure are. (they will have that pedophile unpleasantness paid off in no time)

BL@KBIRD on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM

And since you’re plainly apologizing for the bishops now, I’ll put the question to you again: how does their stirring statement about national sovereignty square with the idea of legalizing 20 million people who willfully violated that concept?

Firstly, you should ban TheSitRep.

Now, to answer you. Obviously there is no “squaring it”. The facts are the guilt lies in a broken system that virtually encouraged these millions of people to come, and now that they’re here and have been here for decades in some cases wants to shake the Etch-a-Sketch and pretend it never happened. It has happened.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Now I’m really showing my ignorance. I was under the impression Catholics and Protestants were all working off of the same book.

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 2:52 PM

Actually, that’s factually wrong, not just based on “the teachings”. The Catholic Bible can in fact have more books. But more importantly, Catholics aren’t going on any book, they’re going on what “The Church” says.

That said, my point is completely accurate. Go poll some catholics on political ideology, then poll some Christians. Also, it ain’t a coincidence that the northeastern US is the most catholic, yet also one of the most liberal in the nation. There are always exceptions to the rule, but Catholicism is an insurance policy. It’s a “religion”, not something to actually be believed and thought about in daily life. It’s something you keep locked up in a fancy building and a guy in a robe tells you “this is how it is, don’t bother trying to figure it out for yourself!”

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Sure, they flouted our laws. But I attend a parish with a strong and vibrant immigrant population, and these people for the most part are not here to flout our laws. They are here to work. To live. To provide for their families. I often wonder what I would do if I were in a similar situation. If these people are given the opportunity to become citizens, we’d be a better country for it.

Then, encourage the illegals among them to go home and do it the right way. Why should these people be given the opportunity of citizenship over those that have followed the rules? And, BTW, as much as these people may be “deserving” you can’t separate the wheat from the chaff here and too many illegals are here to sell drugs and otherwise undermine society.

It’s not Catholic-bashing to point out that the RC Church has blatantly harbored illegals- despite the more temperate language of the voting guide. Then again, the very Bishops that published that guide didn’t seem to be following their own guidance when they systematically covered up all that priest pedophilia for generations. Why should heed their advice at all?

highhopes on November 16, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Allahpundit -

Jog your memory, or do a little research, or at least watch a movie or two. Some hints…

Ireland – Protestants vs ???
Queen Elizabeth I of England
Church of England
Martin Luther (Germany)
King James Bible
John Wycliffe
William Tyndale

Damn Allahpundit – are you American or what?! Don’t give me that atheist crap. This is basic US/World history.

Not that you would be in bad company. The other day I think O’Reily said the US foundation was about “no taxation without representation”. Which is true, but the topic was about why folks came here in the first place – to escape Catholic despotism, and religious freedom.

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Because he thinks the Bible can’t be read any which way to justify one’s own political ideology?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Boom! But hey, this is fun! Knock the Catholics for following the Bible! Knock the Protestants for shamelessly not following the Bible in pursuit of some sort of political agenda!

RW Wacko on November 16, 2007 at 3:19 PM

The leadership of all denominations tends to have a bed-wetting liberal outlook.

The members vote conservatively because they live in the real world and have actually read the Bible.

Valiant on November 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Allah, I asked you to ban this douche-bag theSitRep in another thread, and you did nothing. He should not be able to spread this bile. At least not behind an anonymous internet account.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Yeah, I can be bad, buy he is really over the top.

RW Wacko on November 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM

to escape Catholic despotism?

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Allahpundit -

Catholics “do not follow the bible”. It is their doctrine that (wait for it) the Pope has authority over the bible.

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Wonder if these bishops understand that the party they support now aims to cleanse America of Catholic expression and influence.

petefrt on November 16, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Christianity has always seemed more liberal to me in substance than conservative.

For me too. If only the Left would stop that anti-Christian crusade they’ve got going, I bet the Evangelicals would re-examine their support for the Republicans.

AlexB on November 16, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Like the Catholic church some traditional Conservatives (e.g., Novak, Buchanan) were against the Iraq invasion. You can square the church’s position with a Conservative view that America shouldn’t be so extended militarily.

dedalus on November 16, 2007 at 3:24 PM

I’m not a Roman Catholic, but this is why I really love them. And what they have provided in terms of how to vote is something that I wish we Protestants would do. I’m not saying all their conclusions are correct, but this shows a real desire by the Catholic Church to provide official answers to those who are Roman catholic. They don’t do it lightly, and they are really trying (though they fail at times like all of us) to be as consistent as they can.

Weight of Glory on November 16, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Opposition to the death penalty: I think Rome has this one wrong.

So did Pope Urban II

Moral objections to Preventative War: well-intentioned Christians can disagree on this one; it’s an issue of prudential judgement.

marc@hubsandspokes on November 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Now there was a certain Presbyterian who agreed with them on that.

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing. When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, 5 star General and 34th President of the United States of America.

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:24 PM

Wonder if these bishops understand that the party they support now aims to cleanse America of Catholic expression and influence.

Didn’t same thing happen in second half 20thC in Europe?

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:25 PM

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 3:18 PM

I’ll borrow a line from D’Souza’s debate with Hitchens: I feel kind of like a mosquito in a nudist colony…I don’t know where to begin.

But more importantly, Catholics aren’t going on any book, they’re going on what “The Church” says.

The Bible remains the fundamental authority in the Church, as are those pronouncements given by the Pope ex cathedra. The “authority” you Protestants constantly whine about regards the correct interpretation of the Bible. But to suggest that the Church just ignores the Bible is just idiotic (but not suprising, given the source of the criticism).

That said, my point is completely accurate. Go poll some catholics on political ideology, then poll some Christians. Also, it ain’t a coincidence that the northeastern US is the most catholic, yet also one of the most liberal in the nation. There are always exceptions to the rule, but Catholicism is an insurance policy. It’s a “religion”, not something to actually be believed and thought about in daily life. It’s something you keep locked up in a fancy building and a guy in a robe tells you “this is how it is, don’t bother trying to figure it out for yourself!”

This is idiotic. Where is your proof that most Catholics are not true believers? Have you polled them all RightWinged? Of course not, you are talking out of your ass. As far as the northeast…Ever hear of correlation does not mean causation? Just because a lot of people in the Northeast are Catholic, and a lot of people in the Northeast are liberal, it does not follow that they are liberal because they are Catholic. I could point to, say, urbanization (urban environments tend to be more liberal). But the fact remains that some of the most brilliant minds in the conservative movement have been Catholic. William F. Buckley, Jr. Ramesh Ponnuru is Catholic. Scalia, Thomas, Laura Ingraham, Malkin…Does your anti-Catholic idiocy apply to those people as well?

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:27 PM

the only man in a dress who will influence my vote is rudy giuliani.

zane on November 16, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Allahpundit -

As for the immigration thing – of course they have the wrong position on our border. Most of South America is Catholic.

Now I don’t have a problem with Catholics from south of the border. There is more than enough proof, that most people from any religion (including the religion of peace) don’t have much of an idea about their “faith”.

What I object to is the corruption and vile nature of the “papacy” (all those dudes in robes). Political hacks.

After the bashing they got over abortion, and the slip-ups with birth control, and child abuse – they have a few issues they can get behind that don’t don’t mean much to them.

Let’s face it – they won’t be calling for any more crusades.

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:28 PM

It is their doctrine that (wait for it) the Pope has authority over the bible.

BS

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:30 PM

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:06 PM

I haven’t gotten all the way through the comments yet, but – no, I don’t think so.

As a Protestant, I would strongly deny the notion that one may/should read the Biblical text in any which way to justify his or her own political, or any other, ideology.

I view my Catholic brothers and sisters as very similar, with some doctrinal and practical differences. Different branches of the same tree, if you will.

nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Dude, read a fracking history book. Elizabeth I was a tyrant who tortured her enemies. The Puritans came to America to escape persecution from OTHER PROTESTANTS. You are right to suggest that America was founded to escape religious wars…but it was not simply Catholic persecution. The Protestants back then did there fair share of evil deeds as well.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:31 PM

how does their stirring statement about national sovereignty square with the idea of legalizing 20 million people who willfully violated that concept?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:10 PM

Square peg into round hole?

If all else fails, hit it with a big hammer.
- Murphy

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Nope. Neither does their position on abortion. But read through the rest, including the parts about social justice. Which way does the scale tip?

Allahpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:08 PM

The long and short of it is they want programs that respect human dignity. When they talk about rights they do not mean that the government is required to have an entitlement program, they mean that society as a whole, private and public has a moral obligation to provide for the poor, the immigrant, the downtrodden etc.

Universal health care? I don’t know where you pulled that one from. Nowhere does it say “the state is obligated to take taxpayer funds and redistribute them,” what it does say is that health care reform needs to be rooted in values that respect human dignity, protect human life, and meets the needs of the poor. If a free market-based plan does all of these things the best, then the Church would be in support of it.

Now I grant you strengthening medicare and medicaid might be a boondoggle, but that sentence is incredibly vague.

Positions against the death penalty are not solely held by liberals, and the idea that prison is for rehabilitation is a staple of Catholic teaching because we believe, perhaps naively some might say, that sinners can repent and make straight their ways.

Same with combating discrimination. They mean legitimate cases should still be fought against, not that we should become a victim class crying “race! gender! sexual orientation!” at every turn.

The global climate change thing is troubling though, if only because they phrased it that way, but a deeper look, and in fact a recent article (I work for a Catholic newspaper) said an “inconvenient truth” about global climate change is that it is the poorest who get shortchanged by ridiculous environmental strictures.

Parental choice in education? Tell that to liberal public school bureacrats.

On housing they specifically reference public and private joint operations. Liberals would say leave it all up to Big Brother.

The bishops put a lot of thought into everything they publish, and they focus more on what moral principles Catholics should be considering when they vote rather than saying “support expanding government influence over Catholic moral obligations.”

BKennedy on November 16, 2007 at 3:32 PM

BKennedy on November 16, 2007 at 3:32 PM

Immigration, which is a core issue in 08?

amerpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:35 PM

BKennedy had it right in his first post. Anyone who doesn’t accept the politically loaded terms like “path to permanent residency” to mean “amnesty” and instead thinks “green card”, can find everything in that section compatible with standard conservative idelogy.

The bishops are to be faulted for using that kind of language.

Sydney Carton on November 16, 2007 at 3:35 PM

BKennedy, you rock. Just had to say it.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:35 PM

This is idiotic. Where is your proof that most Catholics are not true believers?
WillBarrett

No one is saying that “Catholics” (people) are not true believers. They tend to keep it simple. Jesus!

Rome is the problem (and there is all that Mary worship too).

“Roman Catholic doctrine teaches that only the Pope has the final authority to interpret the Holy Bible”

If it was up to them there would be no King James Bible. They burn a lot of folks to prevent it.

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Horse’s Mouth

Scroll down and pay close attention to #1 and #2. Note that they are FIRST on the list, unlike the U.S.C.C.B. document.

Connie on November 16, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Does Michelle approve of these kinds of posts AP? (Just wanted to be the first to say it)

SouthernDem on November 16, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Allah, I asked you to ban this douche-bag theSitRep in another thread, and you did nothing.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Firstly, you should ban TheSitRep.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM

Let he who hath never offended cast the first ban.
- Somebody or other

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:39 PM

SouthernDem on November 16, 2007 at 3:38 PM

Shall we not debate? Instead, just ignore it?

amerpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:40 PM

BKennedy had it right in his first post. Anyone who doesn’t accept the politically loaded terms like “path to permanent residency” to mean “amnesty” and instead thinks “green card”, can find everything in that section compatible with standard conservative idelogy.

The bishops are to be faulted for using that kind of language.

Sydney Carton on November 16, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Yeah. God love the bishops, but the vocabulary of the Church assumes things are what they are, and doesn’t pay that much attention to what the political class has loaded them with.

For instance, when a bishop says comprehensive, he means thorough, complete, considered in good conscience, and exhaustive, not “complete and immediate amnesty.”

BKennedy on November 16, 2007 at 3:41 PM

If it was up to them there would be no King James Bible. They burn a lot of folks to prevent it.

King James was a Protestant king in a Protestant kingdom, who had a Protestant Bible (although it did include the deuterocanonicals – where’d they go?) printed. Catholics couldn’t have burned anyone to prevent it, as they were being hounded and hid in holes in Catholic homes to save their own damn lives.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:41 PM

Elizabeth I was a tyrant who tortured her enemies.
WillBarrett

Irrelevant. The point was that there are different churches. Allahpundit does not seem to recognize the divisions that exist, how far back they go, and their influence to this day.

As for Elizabeth I’s harsh hand….

THE INQUISITION. Need I say more.

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:42 PM

You are right to suggest that America was founded to escape religious wars…but it was not simply Catholic persecution. The Protestants back then did there fair share of evil deeds as well.

Maryland was settled as a refuge for Catholics.

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:36 PM

Could you be anymore of a fundamentalist stereotype? We don’t worship Mary. Rome is not the problem. Careful or I’ll start calling you a snake-handler.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:43 PM

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:39 PM

Hey, MB4, I know putting quotes in your comments is your little schtick…but am I the only one who finds it tiresome?

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM

Could you be anymore of a fundamentalist stereotype? We don’t worship Mary. Rome is not the problem. Careful or I’ll start calling you a snake-handler.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:43 PM

He’s just upset because he found out his minister was actually a gay woman who lives as a man :-D

BKennedy on November 16, 2007 at 3:47 PM

tizzidale

King James didn’t like much of anybody. It took a long time for him to decide to oppose Rome. He burned William Tyndale out of prudence, and authorized his translation after Tyndale was dead.

Something about how folks should obey their King and not Rome appealed to him. Too late for William Tyndale though.

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:47 PM

amerpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:40 PM

Sorry, forgot my sarc tag. It seems to pop up every once and a while.

SouthernDem on November 16, 2007 at 3:48 PM

He’s just upset because he found out his minister was actually a gay woman who lives as a man :-D

Haha. Reminds me of my sister-in-laws female lez rabbi.

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM

And, I should add, the religious threads are extremely informational (and usually highly entertaining) despite the fact I never, ever join in on one.

SouthernDem on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM

I also think BKennedy’s take on this above is a good one.

I think that we need to fix what is wrong with our immigration system, enforce laws that we are not currently – an all the while treat human beings like they are human beings.

But, what interests me most about all of this, is that a person’s, or organization’s, or church’s political stance might be formed by something other than the standard party line – it might be formed by core convictions/constitutive texts. In which case, I’m not sure the Catholic church, or Christians in general, should really care all that much if someone thinks we are really more liberal or conservative. The church aims to be neither liberal nor conservative – it aims to be Christian.

nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM

SouthernDem on November 16, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Oh, ok. Sorry. :)

amerpundit on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM

This is idiotic. Where is your proof that most Catholics are not true believers? Have you polled them all RightWinged? Of course not, you are talking out of your ass. As far as the northeast…Ever hear of correlation does not mean causation? Just because a lot of people in the Northeast are Catholic, and a lot of people in the Northeast are liberal, it does not follow that they are liberal because they are Catholic. I could point to, say, urbanization (urban environments tend to be more liberal). But the fact remains that some of the most brilliant minds in the conservative movement have been Catholic. William F. Buckley, Jr. Ramesh Ponnuru is Catholic. Scalia, Thomas, Laura Ingraham, Malkin…Does your anti-Catholic idiocy apply to those people as well?

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:27 PM

No, but I grew up here in the northeast and most people are “Catholics” if you ask them, but you’d otherwise not know it… this is mainly because most of them are Catholic mainly because it was passed down from their family, and at most show up to church for Christmas and Easter. I’m not saying “going to Church” is necessary to believe something, my point is, that simple act, despite not having any place for God in their lives, is what keeps most of them “Catholic”. Still others do their thing (pay their insurance premiums) and show up every Sunday to go through the same motions they’ve been going through for years.

Being Catholic, more often than not, is like “Being Jewish” in the non-religious sense. Catholicism is the secularized/acceptable form of Christianity. It’s those damn fundies who are the kooks, right? Again, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but saying “I’m Catholic” is like saying “I’m Jewish”, it doesn’t mean you truly believe anything or practice anything. I’m sorry, but this is just the case.

As for polls, Catholics may have been more split down the middle in the past, giving a slight edge to the GOP candidates.. .but they did elect Jimmy Carter. And since supporting Bush in 1988, they’ve been Democrats all the way (with the exception of a split on Kerry)

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM

It took a long time for him to decide to oppose Rome. He burned William Tyndale out of prudence, and authorized his translation after Tyndale was dead.

Tyndale died in 1536. James was born in 1566. A little hard for the chap to burn someone in the past.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:51 PM

Careful or I’ll start calling you a snake-handler.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:43 PM

To paraphrase Moe – “I’m sorry Homer. I was born a snake handler, and I’ll die a snake handler.”

nailinmyeye on November 16, 2007 at 3:52 PM

Oh, and specifically on “correlation does not mean causation”, WillBarnnett, I meant to add… I never claimed it does. The point is that Catholicism thrives here in the northeast because it’s acceptable in liberal society.

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Hey, MB4, I know putting quotes in your comments is your little schtick…but am I the only one who finds it tiresome?

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it
from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye,rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.
- Matthew 18:9

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 3:53 PM

All of the things that the CC wants is already in place in this country. What they don’t seem to get, is that these people that are causing the issue are coming into this country as criminals and make it harder for the people willing to follow the law to get here.

Christ and His apostles all pointed towards their Faithful following the law. To try and infer that the USA is not the most generous nation to ever exist, and that this country helps more people on the planet than any other that ever existed, within Christian framework, will fall flat.

Hening on November 16, 2007 at 3:55 PM

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM

RightWinged, I am in awe of your stringent research methodology in determing that Catholicism is the “secularized” form of Christianity. I am truly truly overwhelmed by your data and evidence to support your assertions. Please, continue to shower us with your brilliant arguments. I know I am a better man because of it.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:56 PM

Christianity has always seemed more liberal

AP,AP,Ap, whatta we goin do?

You are saying that Catholics, and specifically the Pope represents all of Christianity.

right2bright on November 16, 2007 at 3:56 PM

WillBarrett

Dude. You better lighten up. If you can’t take a little criticism about your faith, C won’t respect you.

The Catholic Church is REALLY into Mary, and they like the little boys. So what?

Episcopals have female, gay pastors that pray to Allah. Huh?

Stop giggling Allahpundit…

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:57 PM

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 3:53 PM

Yea, anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-BIRTH CONTROL. Yea, those are really liberal positions. Man oh man.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:57 PM

am I the only one who finds it tiresome?

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:46 PM

No, but as you said, it’s MB4’s thing.

Esthier on November 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM

I meant to add…If Catholicism is so comfortable in liberal atmospheres, why is that Hollywoods spends so much time mocking the Catholic faith. Oh here’s an idea! Becuase of it’s positions on sexual ethics!

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM

The point is that Catholicism thrives here in the northeast because it’s acceptable in liberal society.

I don’t doubt that nominal Catholics don’t live their faith. I live in Southern Baptist heaven down here in Mississippi, and do you want me to recount the number of Protestants that are just that in name only? It’s inane to use such examples as indicators of what the faith teaches itself. Catholicism is hardly acceptable in “liberal” society. A blogger I read regularly found this out when he stood up in front of a student group of gays and lesbians and explained to them the Church’s stance.

tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:59 PM

I love the theological debates on this blog.

Hening on November 16, 2007 at 4:00 PM

RightWinged, I am in awe of your stringent research methodology in determing that Catholicism is the “secularized” form of Christianity. I am truly truly overwhelmed by your data and evidence to support your assertions. Please, continue to shower us with your brilliant arguments. I know I am a better man because of it.

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:56 PM

You can’t handle the truth!
- Nathan R. Jessep

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:01 PM

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 3:57 PM

Yea yea yea….I got it. You’re an intellectual lighweight. Otherwise known as an “idjit.”

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 4:01 PM

RightWinged on November 16, 2007 at 3:50 PM

In some cases that’s true, there are a lot that are just going through the motions. A lot of it has to do with competing ideology. People who are inclined to be religious are not in synch with the establishment in the church, particularly in the NE.

S’why I largely quit going to mass and why you experiance the lack of enthusiasm amongst Catholics particularly in New England, once you get into PA where real people live, it gets a little better, ’specially in smaller cities and towns.

I quit going because the priest kept giving squishy leftist platitudes, and I left(need to start going again, but somewhere else).

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Bad Candy on November 16, 2007 at 4:03 PM

Don’t throw this guy a bone. Having lived in both the Deep South and the Northeast, I have experienced both Protestants and Catholics who are merely “going through the motions.” But to suggest somehow that is just a particularly “Catholic” phenomenon is just idiotic.

Uh, I should’ve known better than to drink a cup of coffee this late in the day…

WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 4:05 PM

No, but as you said, it’s MB4’s thing.

Esthier on November 16, 2007 at 3:58 PM

It’s your thing
Quote what you want to
I can’t tell you
Who to sock it to

It’s your thing
Quote what you want to now
I can’t tell you
Who to sock it to
- Isley Brothers

MB4 on November 16, 2007 at 4:05 PM

once you get into PA where real people live

that’s so funny. that’s what I think too. But there aren’t any real ones in Philly.

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 4:06 PM

tizzidale

Did I get the King wrong? Same difference.

Tyndale did not “die”. He was strangled and burned to death – on purpose, by the King Henry VIII.

Don’t know which killed him. But you gotta be in hot water to be strangled and then burned.

Agrippa2k on November 16, 2007 at 4:06 PM

JiangxiDad on November 16, 2007 at 3:15 PM
WillBarrett on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM
tizzidale on November 16, 2007 at 3:17 PM
RW Wacko on November 16, 2007 at 3:20 PM

What I said was not meant to offend. But when you read things like this it makes you think

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/16/church.abuse/

Also, I had a Catholic Priest friend, or so I thought.
We’d frequently have dinner together. We would have great theological discussions until one night I got drunk and slept over in his spare room. I woke up to his rubbing my leg. (Hint He was not try to absolve my sins)

So if you are offended, be not offended by the messenger.

TheSitRep on November 16, 2007 at 4:07 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3


You must be logged in to post a comment.