My frustration at Mass
posted at 7:46 am on October 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Yesterday evening, we attended Mass and for a moment thought we would hear actual instruction in the fundamentals of the Catholic faith. After hearing one of my favorite passages in the Gospels, the “Render unto Caesar” confrontation between Jesus as the Pharisees, our priest broached the subject of what belongs to secular government and what belongs to God in the context of elections and choices made by voters. Unfortunately, he wound up wasting a good opportunity to clarify the Catechism to those who ignore it.
The priest prefaced his remarks by noting that we have the freedom not to vote, as well as the freedom to vote. If we have the choice of two unacceptable candidates, he said, why vote for either one? This is a defensible argument, but one with which I disagree. No candidate is perfect, and some are worse than others. In his construction, we will wind up being governed or represented by one of the two candidates, and my vote would go to the one who will do less damage. To do otherwise pretends somehow that neither candidate will get elected thanks to my apathy, and that’s an irresponsible solution to a bad situation.
The homily took a better direction when he began discussing the nature of freedom. It comes from the Creator, as our founding documents recognize, and not from government, in the nature of our own individual creation. We are free from the moment of conception, and that cannot nor should not be rendered to Caesar — if we expect to remain free. That belongs to God and God alone. To vote for those who act otherwise threatens the freedom of all, but especially those who come after us. How can people vote for those who would render unto Caesar what belongs to God?
Unfortunately, even my description above is slightly more specific than the priest’s. When I mentioned abortion and the Catholic vote at the end of my NARN show on Saturday, complete with specific references to the Catechism, one caller who had planned on arguing with me over its place in doctrine changed his tune. Instead, he said that I seemed more interested in instructing Catholics on this point than the church itself — and apparently he was right. The priest didn’t need to endorse any specific candidates, but he failed to even mention the word “abortion” or take the teaching moment to instruct Catholics on what the church’s own documents calls a foundational doctrine.
Maybe that shouldn’t surprise me. The last time I heard a priest mention the Catechism during Mass, I was in short pants and people still wore “Sunday clothes” to church. It’s no wonder Catholics believe they can support abortion and still claim to vote as Catholics, or that politicians can protect abortion and run as Catholic candidates for office. Until the clergy stops trying to pander to their congregations and value inclusiveness over truth, those lessons will never be taught. I give last night’s homilist credit, though, for coming closer to that than any priest I’ve heard in decades, but he missed an opportunity to be a real leader of the flock.
Update: To answer one question from the comments, I’m not arguing to impose the Catholic Church on America as the arbiter of political candidates. I’m arguing that politicians who campaign on their membership in the Catholic Church and support abortion are stunningly ignorant of their faith at best, and hypocrites at worst — and Catholics who claim that they can support abortion and these politicians are as well. The Catholic priests in America could at least eliminate the first condition by honestly teaching their congregations what the church itself considers as doctrine on abortion, and until they do, American Catholics will continue to fall prey to pro-abortion hucksters.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
At a small meeting last week, our parish priest, a “seamless garment” pro-abortionist, presented the latest USCCB election-year statement by dutifully reading a summary of it. During a question-and-answer period, he proceeded to systematicaly contradict most of what he had just read, preaching to us that we should not expect the practice of abortion to be ended because we have not done enough socially to cause EVERY child to be a “wanted” child.
Yesterday, this same priest was assigned to celebrate the Mass that I attended. Knowing that this old fox was about to present the USCCB document to the entire henhouse with all the “escape clauses” emphasized, I stayed standing at the end of the Gospel and quietly exited to the vestibule of the church, where I read my catechism until I heard the people rise for the Creed. I know he noticed that I boycotted his sermon. I will continue to do so, and I don’t care how enraged he becomes over it.
jay12 on October 20, 2008 at 9:35 AM
You don’t understand Ed correctly, so the answer to both questions is no.
ManlyRash on October 20, 2008 at 9:40 AM
It doesn’t matter what Ed wants. He is simply frustrated that many priests and bishops fail in their duty to shepperd their flock. It is their responsibility to help form the conscience and understanding of the faithful, in this case, to help them make decisions that are morally consistent with their faith. The fact is that the church maintains that abortion is an intrinsic evil that can never be supported by a catholic.
In terms of excommunication, people who formally co-operate with an abortion excommunicate themselves, the bishop does not need to do anything for it to happen.
Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything, just stating the facts. People are free to do right or wrong at their own peril.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Christians belong to God through Christ. Everything they have his His, we are only its stewards. Our votes are therefore also His, and must be used to advance the Kingdom of God and to oppose evil.
Not that voting for McCain is particularly righteous in and of itself, but if it thwarts the worse candidate it serves a Christian purpose. Some mock voting for the lesser of two evil, but if one considers e.g. the evil of dying vs. the evil of removing a gangrenous limb to preserve life, the lesser of two evils doctrine is indeed a legitmate guide in difficult times.
No Christian worthy of the name could vote for a politician who is pro-abortion, nor for a socialist, thereby breaking the commandments against murder and theft. Hussein pprovides a target rich environment for this topic, but this is should be enough to warn away God’s people from his camp.
Akzed on October 20, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Ed-
Our priest yesterday at mass gave us a great homily. Especially over whose image was on the coin. The image is caesar’s, but that man, caesar, was created by God, in his image. So to render unto caesar what is caesar’s can in no way be seperate from God, since caesar was created by God himself.
Our priest said that we have an obligation to vote in a free society, for the very simple fact that we are all created by God to be free, and the only way to preserve freedom is to be active spiritually, as well as politically.
It does sound as if your priest is tip-toeing around abortion.
Living in the South, our priest does no such thing. Our priest is from India, and if you know anything about Indian priests, they are a very stern and point blank people. Our priest will tell you straight up what Church Teachings are, and he will let the chips fall where they may afterwards. Some have left our parish because of it, but I like it b/c alot of Americans need to know that their actions do have consequences.
In fact just yesterday, we were in town and saw a Catholic family vehicle with the name of the Catholic school on the back, with an Obama sticker right below it. And my wife and I both figured it was a “Convenient Catholic” mom and dad.
I still cant figure out why a Catholic would vote for someone who supports infanticide, or anybody for that matter, Catholic or not.
TheHat on October 20, 2008 at 9:45 AM
I had always thought that we were born into the Law of Nature, either God given or the scientific base state of coming into existence, and that we then came together as men to form social structures. Many animals do this, but humanity is unique in forming society, culture and internal differentiation based on those things. In forming State we create the structure that is given some of our negative liberties so as to protect us: the power to prosecute, the ability to declare war, and the accountability to protect us with those things. By being an artifact of man it must be seen as amenable to our outlooks and understandings and is, therefore, to be kept in line and understood. When we form the highest organized structure of the Nation, we seek to ensure commonality across all those in the Nation and to acknowledge that the derived structure falls under the Law of Nations. That understanding forms if we say it or not: long before Christianity and Judaism, you could find the operating principles of the Law of Nation at work as they are derived from the structure we create.
In the West we get the old Roman Laws that were utilized for trade and put into an understood international form in the Black Book of the Admiralty. We live with those understandings to this day: where a ship on the seas is an extension of its Nation and only passes into the governing of a foreing Nation once it passes the open access to the high seas, usually headlands at an inlet to a river. That is to keep our justice aboard vessels far from home, and not have them imposed by foreign dictators or tyrants. Beyond trade we learned through the drear death of 15% of Europe over the 30 years war that within the Nation men should be allowed to worship as they wish without the influence of the State. That was something that Rome would not countenance, but many Roman Catholic States finally saw as wise, as so many had died under the banners of the Prince of Peace. That did not end repression of those not covered under the three-way Peace of Westphalia, and those coming to this new land sought to extend that to cover all sects. To that end the agreement is that the highest test for making law must be social concurance of the majority and non-repression of the majority so that Justice can be done to bring us together in more perfect Unity.
Those words in the Preamble are not for government and has a definite speaker: We the People. That is you and me, not government. This is our agreement to each other on what we will do and government is one form, and one form only, of how we do this every day of our lives as citizens of the Nation. The laws of God are to have the civil test of common assent, agreement and when that cannot be done we will seek compromise for domestic Tranquility while we seek better ways to do those things we disagree about.
That has been absent in much of our politics in many venues, an abortion is the worst and most corrosive of these, as anyone who is not on ‘one side or the other’ gets vilified for their views as not being ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’. And there are other means to ensure domestic Tranquility is achieved, that our common understanding is upheld and that no side ‘wins’ permanently, but that we come to understand that we are NOT perfect and can only achieve a more perfect Union amongst ourselves. And when I, as a citizen, disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on R v W and on grounds not covered by the ‘two sides’, I do so using this high faculty known as ‘reason’ in which I try to navigate the dread waters of society, culture, religion, and needing to come to a common solution that gives us breathing space to find out what really *is* Just for all of them, excluding none, and keeping domestic Tranquility together. It is not a quest to be ‘right’ but to realize that I am imperfect and must try to bring my fellow citizens together so we can be in more perfect Unity. And I admit I can even reason it out improperly, but at least I am trying to put reason first to see if there is any way to still have Just laws and give all a chance to work at being more perfect together to achieve all of their ends. It is not a perfect solution: I leave that for dictators, tyrants and the angels.
Although even the latter had a falling out… go figure.
Such a solution would have achieved much in reducing abortion, increasing survival rate and helping us to understand how to care for those who are not born by investing our effort in doing so and not at screaming at each other endlessly for decades. I leave final solutions to those who want gas chambers, gulags and killing fields. But then I tend to read the Constitution differently than those who want a ‘living breathing’ document and see it as one put together by living, breathing people seeking the best ways to come together and leaving the good to be created by society not by government. It seems that is the way it was understood at the time of its writing, and I agree with it. And that reading puts the responsibility not on courts, not on legislatures and not on executives but on you and me as citizens. Because that is how we ensure that the greatest of the positive liberties gets free play and the negative ones are kept in check so we are not enslaved by our creation of Nation and Government.
As for my vote for President, I will follow JQA and vote for who I think is best and if I am in a minority of 1 then I will sleep well knowing that I voted for the best person to guide this Nation. Currently that is the only person with executive experience who is running as that needs less OJT than Congresscritters and way less to unlearn, too.
ajacksonian on October 20, 2008 at 9:47 AM
The Ultimate Hypocrisy#2–those who defend animal rights & are pro-choice.
Mr. Morrissey, I saw this video here…perhaps you should show it to your Priest. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/23/video-catholic-votes-new-pro-life-ad/
lobosan5 on October 20, 2008 at 9:52 AM
Complete nonsense. I’ve attended Mass all over this country and if I get there close to starting time, it’s hard to get a pew.
More to the point, I rarely hear Priests discuss abortion during the Homily, but to me, what would be the point?
Catholics who attend Mass overwhelmingly support pro-life candidates.
It’s the “catholics” who don’t attend Mass who are of the cafeteria variety and you aren’t going to reach them at Mass at any rate.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM
And why should he when the Catholic church itself seems unwilling to back up that foundational doctrine with real action?
I’m sorry but Nancy Pelosi, just for example, has a long record of voting contrary to the tenets of her supposed faith when it comes to creating legislation. Sure, she uses the the rationale that her personal faith has nothing to do with having to represent all the people of her Congressional district and, from the public policy standpoint she has a point. BUT…..at some point the Catholic church needs to tell “faithful” members like Pelosi that she is sinning against God when she co-sponsors legislation upholding partial birth abortion and other such affronts on Christianity. Until the Catholic church is willing to apply the discipline of the church to errant members in a position to make the world better, it really is a moot point as to what the Catholic church believes because they are not practicing it.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Priest only “directly represent Jesus on earth” or more precisely act in “persona Christi” when they are performing certain sacraments. The rest of the time they are flawed human beings like the rest of us. If they are faithful and strive to maintain a well formed conscience then their homilies will reflect the teachings of the church. If the don’t then they will inject their own prejudices and errors in their homilies. This is why it is the responsibility of every catholic to form their own consciences as well. The church provides many means to do that, including the Catechism, the teaching of bishops who are in union with the pope and thousands of documents and writings from the Popes, doctors and fathers of the church.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 9:58 AM
From your lips to the Almighty’s ears, Amen.
trainwife1962 you are correct, JPII”s words are a goldmine and a roadmap for the faithful. The brilliance of JPII and Pope Benedict will take years to filter out, but I have patience and faith.
That said, Catholic leaders are harder and harder to find, but for now I think the voting public has had enough talk of faith in the public square. Our time will come.
Angry Dumbo on October 20, 2008 at 9:59 AM
How much of that is due to fewer parishes in the first place? Catholicism and mainstream protestantism membership in the US is in decline (for the purpose of this discussion membership means those attending services regularly since the number of “Catholics” who haven’t darkened a church for years is a significant number).
Conversely, the evangelical Christian churches are experiencing growth as those seeking Bible-based faith are turning away from the hypocrisy of the mainstream denominations.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 10:04 AM
An important lesson can be learned from the Orthodox Church’s stance on the role of Church and state:
Elected officials should be Orthodox Laity and Orthodox Laity only. If no Orthodox Laity are available to vote for, the politicians you should vote for MUST be Christians at a minimum.
The Orthodox Christian model of Church and State is FAR superior to the complete separation of Church and State, because a complete separation of Church and State, in fact becomes a secular humanist Theocracy..which is a horrible thing that no one wants.
The Orthodox Church has clearly stated that it is clearly wrong to vote for Barrakca Hussein.
It is the Protestant churhes that need to get off their butts and say that it is 100% unChristian to vote for Barack Hussein Obama.
If Obama wins he will have a chance to nominate 3 supreme court justices.
We can say goodbye to any hopes of ending abortion for the next two or three decades and most likely kiss our sovereignty and freedoms goodbye also.
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 10:05 AM
I tried to call in to your this weekend but couldn’t hang on the line long enough to get to the top of your list of callers. My point was going to be that Catholics need to be aware that Obama’s stated plans include a new way for Catholics to be challenged morally. Vatican II introduced the idea of “institutional violence” and that institutions can sin. In other words, we are all part of the state and part of society. If evil happens by either one, unless we fight it we are all complicit. If we are evolving to a socialized heath care system where “catholic” (or Mormon, or Baptist) hospitals must practice abortions or lose their licenses, and Catholic Doctors as well as FOCA would do (And BO has said that he would sign it his first day in office) AND federal taxpayer money will go directly to fund abortions then how will Catholics not be complicit in this institutional violence?
I empathize with your parish situation. What I’ve found is that there are red parishes and blue parishes in the American Catholic Church and although I’d like to go to a parish made up of my neighbors who may hold diverse views, I found it so disheartening that I sought out a conservative parish across town.
MargaretMN on October 20, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Just out of interest. Does the 1st Admendment apply to all states? Not just the Federal institutions?
Crux Australis on October 20, 2008 at 10:16 AM
Unfortunately in most parishes peace and justice issues trumps abortion. That’s why many liberal “Catholics” boldly attend Mass with Obama bumper stickers on their cars.
Sensible Mom on October 20, 2008 at 10:19 AM
“How much of that is due to fewer parishes in the first place? Catholicism and mainstream protestantism membership in the US is in decline (for the purpose of this discussion membership means those attending services regularly since the number of “Catholics” who haven’t darkened a church for years is a significant number).”
This is from the Presbyterians (not a pro-Catholic organization):
http://www.pcusa.org/pcnews/2006/06198.htm
“Of the 25 largest churches in the United States, those showing the largest increases in membership were the Assemblies of God, a Pentecostal denomination, up by 1.81 percent, to 2.78 million; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, up by 1.74 percent, to 5.99 million; and the Roman Catholic Church, up by 0.83 percent, to 67.82 million.”
Yes, the evangelicals have a greater increase, but their Churches are tiny compared to the RCC. A .83% increase for the Catholics is great numerically than a 1.81% increase for the Assemblies of God.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 10:19 AM
“That’s why many liberal “Catholics” boldly attend Mass with Obama bumper stickers on their cars.”
I occasionally attend Mass at the Basilica in Washington DC, not 5 miles from the Capitol and I’ve not once seen a car with an Obama sticker in the parking lot.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Yes, it means you can’t be a good Catholic.
Read up on the works of John Paul II on marriage and birth control to get a good understanding of why artificial birth control is wrong.
If you really believe you can just blow off that issue and use artificial birth control, then frankly, I don’t understand why you would even consider getting an annulment.
You don’t need an annulment. Just be boyfriend/girlfriend, because that is what in effect your marriage will become.
I say this because I know you are probably a man and can get past the tone and search for the truth.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Originally, the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal government, with the 9th and 10th amendments delineating the permissible breadth and scope of federal authority.
In 1865 the 14th amendment was adopted and it incorporated the bill of rights, so that these restrictions on the power of government applied to the states as well as the federal government.
ManlyRash on October 20, 2008 at 10:22 AM
In that case, pack your bags and emigrate to Georgia.
ManlyRash on October 20, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Good thing I wasn’t there. The altar should not be used this way for politics. It just lowers the church to nothing but Reverend Wright’s level.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 10:26 AM
I understand your frustration. But I don’t think you are correct in stating that “the church” does not back up her teachings with action. In the cases of Pelosi and Biden, the bishops came out and very strongly condemned the statements that these “catholic” politicians made in the public square. They had to do so because they were misleading people with regards to the teachings of the faith.
When it comes “disciplining” or taking some kind of action against these politicians, it has to come from the local bishop, who is their pastor. Some bishops have correctly dealt with these situations buy saying that these politicians separate themselves from the church and should not present themselves to receive communion. For instance, the bishops in NC have told their priest not to give communion to politicians who support abortion. Unfortunately, not all bishops respond this way. But that doesn’t mean “the church” does not back up her teachings. Rome does not have absolute control or power over the bishops, who in many ways have autonomy by design.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 10:30 AM
Wow, so much to say.
I attended Mass at a church other than my regular one on Sunday. The homily was rather boring, no new insights, no real passion and certainly no message of life. I picked up a bulletin on the way out. Inside was a short essay on voting Catholic. Not one mention of abortion or other life issues. It was all about “social justice” and reading it one could only conclude the writer was an Obama supporter.
I had the privilege of hearing Dr. Alveda King, niece to MLK JR this past week. She made a comparison of abortion to the killing of the first born in the story of Moses’ and Jesus’ births, saying that not only were those already born killed, but midwives were instructed to kill those in the process of being born.
Her whole point was that there is nothing new in the sinfulness of this generation and these times. As Christians we must never lose hope. God makes all things right, we as his children must simply trust Him and follow his Son, Jesus.
Being Catholic and American do not contradict each other. That is a lie from the past. We Catholics can and do live as faithful Catholics and loyal Americans.
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Australian Constitution – Section 116
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.
Plagiarism?
Although in practice it is weaker because the Queen is technically still the Monarch of Australia and she is the leader of the Church of England.
Crux Australis on October 20, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Lol.
not necessarily.. the Roman Catholic Church in America, with all of it’s Father Pfleger’s and liberal priests, will eventually crumble and it’s members will become Orthodox Christians once they begin to study the history of the early church and realize that the Orthodox Church IS the REAL early Church that Christ established and that the RC changed it’s theology and separated from it.
Oh yeah. All of you Roman Catholics that disagree with the RC Church’s stance on birth control…the Orthodox Church allows certain forms of birth control. Of course abortifacients are not allowed but some forms of birth control are.
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Islam is growing as is Christianity throughout the world. Especially where they teach REAL convictions.
Where Christianity is watered down, people leave.
Christianity in America is in dire need of real leaders, MEN.
Belief will always win out over non-belief. Obama is winning in the polls because he and the MSM have made his campaign into a ‘crusade’ and a pseudo-religion. It will break up during his first term if McCain doesn’t get off his but and fight.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 10:35 AM
“the Roman Catholic Church in America, with all of it’s Father Pfleger’s and liberal priests, will eventually crumble”
Sure, with 67 million members and growing, the Roman Catholic Church in America will crumble.
Wait right there for it to happen.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Rubbish!
But I’m glad you are on our side and not the O-man’s.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 10:36 AM
ManlyRash on October 20, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I understand your point here, but remember, there was a time in this country when one could not hold office if one was not a Christian. And, many of the founding fathers strongly felt that only Christian men could be good leaders.
I think olaf’s point is that his particular church is not shy about saying that its adherents should vote first for those who are of the same religion and if that is not possible, one who is Christian. There are some doctrines about which all Christians agree.
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 10:38 AM
Your priest is correct. If you have a choice between unrepentant sinners (we are all sinners, but not all sinners are unrepentant), you are to vote for none of them. I know not of McCain’s salvation, but Obama is clearly an unrepentant liar, crook, and enabler of infanticide. He has shown no signs of Christian salvation.
Additionally, here’s a clear repudiation of those who enable evil men from Romans 1:28,32: “28 And just as they [fools] did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.” In other words, those who tolerate (and even laud) the wicked are just as much of an abonimation (in this case, an Obamination) in God’s eyes as the wicked.
crushliberalism on October 20, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Take your proselytizing elsewhere, Olaf. Your religious fanaticism – while amusing in a circus freak kind of way – ultimately irritating to the adults.
ManlyRash on October 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM
What’s sad about this is that the Dems social justice ideas don’t even lead to social justice, just more destruction.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Then it must have been BEFORE the ratification of the Constitution, which expressly forbids using religion as a qualification for holding office.
ManlyRash on October 20, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Our priest started his homily with “I have been your priest for many years, and I love each of you very much, but I am sorry, I am not willing to go to hell with you. As your pastor, God expects me to speak the truth to you”, then he proceeded to talk very frankly about the fact that we cannot be indifferent to the murder of millions of babies and that if we do, we will be judged for our failure to take action through our vote as well as any other means necessary. He explained that social justice issues are moot if the most fundamental right to life is not defended.
There was a lot of silence in the church after his homily, and I think there were some extra bodies at our silent anti-abortion protest downtown that Sunday.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Ed, my good man, I wrote this just for you:
http://manwithblackhat.blogspot.com/2008/10/mass-frustration.html
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Hey there’s a Hitchens thread ripe and ready for your comments..
Are you disappointed or excited about his Obama endorsement?
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 10:52 AM
Unless I am reading it wrong, they already are Excommunicated.
Dawnsblood on October 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM
I disagree with this view as well. In this situation we need to carefully analyze then options and then choose the candidate that will bring about the lesser evil, otherwise we might be implicitly consenting to the greater evil.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 10:53 AM
You say that as if Presbyterians are anti-Catholic.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 10:54 AM
It is NOT hypocrisy that has turned away people from these mainstream denominations. Hypocrisy is everywhere because we are fallen and sinful. It is lack of convictions, orthodoxy, and seeking of truth, and nobody truly picking up the Cross that leads to people leaving a faith. Also, our Christian churches in American cater more to feminine needs and needs of children and not men. When a church challenges men, it tends to retain members and grow.
The decline of christianity in America at least partly is due to churches being totally not interested in reaching out and ‘leading’ men to discipleship. It is one reason why men can go to a football game on Sunday and it is a religious type experience for them. Sports are about striving, combat, struggle, fighting, working as a team, suffering, accomplishing. Today’s Christianity is about feelings. Today’s church has nothing to offer men. Islam has lots to offer men.
How I have longed to be in a different era where it was OK to fight for your Faith as at Lepanto, Vienna, firing the heads of Turks back at the enemy on Malta.
Christ was a warrior, not a prissy effeminate girlyman. He spent most of his time during his ministry on earth firing salvo after salvo at the establishment. He didn’t care about your feelings when he asked you to drop everything and follow Him. He was a leader and without leaders, the church will die.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 10:56 AM
Dude, your problem IS WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. Your problem is not Christianity. Your problem is the power that you give to the man-made institution of the Catholic Church.
Seriously, unless this is a Catholic blog for Catholic doctrine, you really should give the whole Catholic dogma and your personal struggle with it a rest. Your problem is with what you expect people to respect concerning Catholic positions.
Most non-Catholic Christians understand that abortion is wrong without having to consult an ‘official cathecism’ (whatever that was made up to be – by man). I have rarely heard Protestants discuss and debate the practice of speaking in tongues, or handling snakes. . . yet you INSIST on espousing about your Catholic dogma relentlessly.
Again, it’s OK because anyone who disagrees with you must be a ‘bigot’ so talk about Catholicism whatever and however you want. I just wish it didn’t come across as SO WHINY. Christianity is about CHRIST – PERIOD. Anything that might be considered a sin is as bad as any other sin. Is abortion a sin? Sure, but so is lying, stealing, cheating – things I’m certain that Catholics receiving communion indulge in.
And SINS are supposed to be what you DO! I don’t commit the sin of abortion if I merely support someone’s right to do so. You seem to argue that if a politician supports a secular right, that is as bad as their committing that sin in the eyes of the Catholic Church – so they should be ‘kicked out of the he-man woman hater’s club Catholics’.
I totally wish you would give it a rest. Seriously with all the cat calls out here concerning Huckabee merely claiming to be a Christian and a leader, it seems the REAL issue with Huckabee was that he considered himself Christian without being Catholic.
Again, call me a bigot and that is fine. But you don’t hear me whine ON AND ON AND ON about my personal faith and how I wish it would conform to my way of thinking. If you put your faith in CHRIST and not Catholicism, you’ll find God and you’ll find peace.
ThackerAgency on October 20, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Hitchens supporting Obama is a given. He is an atheist, as is Obama.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 10:58 AM
I see your point about autonomy and also understand the whole love the sinner/hate the sin thing but….
At some point the Church needs to do more than “strongly condemn” Were Rome to excommunicate Pelsoi (as an example) for fostering a culture of death in America, it would send a strong signal- a Papal version of convicting hypocritical politicians for claiming to be devout while essentially commiting crimes against humanity.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 11:00 AM
I suppose it is safe to assume you think it was OK for people to support the right to have slaves as long as they themselves didn’t own any?
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 11:01 AM
“How I have longed to be in a different era where it was OK to fight for your Faith as at Lepanto, Vienna, firing the heads of Turks back at the enemy on Malta.”
Agree. I read “The Last Crusade” about how the Spanish nationalists under General Franco defeated communist scum in Spain.
The communists destroyed half of the churches in Spain and murdered 15,000 Catholic Priests and Nuns. Most died praying for their killers.
http://www.amazon.com/Last-Crusade-Warren-H-Carroll/dp/0931888670
General Franco is a hero and he showed how people of faith can fight to take back their country from the left.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 11:02 AM
AMEN!
I’d add that fostering faith in a family situation is also involved. I see whole generations of young people who have not come to know Christ through the efforts of their parents. When a young person sets out on his/her own as a twenty-something (or late teen), that’s already a selfish time in one’s life. In contemporary American society there is nothing to induce that person to find a church and build a relationship with God unless he/she has already had the foundation for such while growing up. It’s very discouraging.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 11:06 AM
That would be AWESOME!
It’s absolutely necessary…but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to happen though…
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Damn, can your parish post the video link?
LEADERSHIP!!!! Just like when Christ tossed the retailers out of the Temple. That’s a priest who understands what his calling is. He knows he will be held accountable in the end, and rightly fears God in a healthy way and not in a hopeless way.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 11:10 AM
BTW, the 2006 information you cite is not from the PC(USA) but from the National Council of Churches.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Ah, you beat me to the punch.
Sapwolf on October 20, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Thanks for that clarification highhopes, and I would add to that, the National Council of Churches (against churches) is not a big fan of the Catholic Church either.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 11:17 AM
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 11:22 AM
The Monsignor has never uttered the word “vote” in a homily, but he has made it very clear, week after week, that one cannot be a pro-choice Catholic, or that no other issues can outweigh life.
rightwingprof on October 20, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Yeah he’s an “atheist” or a “Christian” until about mid January 2009…when he announces his “unexpected” “conversion” to islam just like Keith Ellison’s “unexpected conversion” after winning public office..
I believe that Keith Ellison was one of the other guys that the Saudi’s would have ran for POTUS if somehow Obama screwed up..
If he wins..Barack Hussein will without a doubt “convert” to islam within a few months of taking office.
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 11:24 AM
“Barack Hussein will without a doubt “convert” to islam within a few months of taking office.”
I doubt that.
Obama’s first commandment is that there is no god other than Barack.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 11:27 AM
IMO, Politics should stay out of Religion, and Religion should stay OUT of Politics.
I am not talking the 10 Commandments, I think they should stay in and with those whom create laws and sentence those whom break the law. The 10 Commandments are not religion.
But any politician whom goes to church, mass, temple etc., should leave the political baggage outside as soon as they walk in the doors for their weekly worship.
As I said, this is my opinion.
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I went to mass yesterday at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in Manhattan. The priest used the readings to describe how Catholics have a loyalty to God as well as to Caesar. He then SLAMMED abortion, and said it was “deplorable, unspeakable crime.” And that we should remember that “thou shalt not kill” when we cast our votes in November. It was clear he was talking about Obama. He was unapologetic and unafraid to denounce abortion and the politicians, and voters, who support it.
While I’m aware that not every priest is as frank on this subject as he could be, it’s good to know that some do have courage.
Sydney Carton on October 20, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I encourage you to go to the NCC website to see exactly why people of faith are turned off of organized religion. This is nothing but an advocacy group pretending to be working in Christs name. It is the organizational equal of Huckabee and his faux-evangelical creds.
Check out the NCC voter’s principles.
http://www.ncccusa.org/votingprinciples/
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Ed,
You might be interested in my “Open Letter To Catholics Voting for Obama.” There are Bishops out there who are much more clear on our teachings and voting.
Rightwingsparkle on October 20, 2008 at 11:31 AM
“Religion should stay OUT of Politics”
I disagree.
Should it be overt? Probably not, but that’s only because it would doom one’s political career.
But should we exclude devout citizens from running for office? Why? Should only those who give lip service to their faith or those who are atheists be eligible for office?
Because if you are truly a believer, there is no way to separate your public life and your private life and to me, you shouldn’t be asked to. Politicians should say who they are and what drives them, rather than having to hide their faith or act like they’re ashamed of it.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Agreed, as far as it goes, that a politician shouldn’t play politics in Church but that is the non-controversal half of the equation. The part you ignore is that a politician who claims to be a good Christian, for example, is supposed to live a Godly life and be obedient to God 24/7/365. Politicians who claim to be Christian but sponsor or support legislation that is an affront to God are sinning.
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 11:35 AM
There are sins of omission as well as commision. Jesus (in Luke 16:19-31) told a parable about a rich man who did nothing about a beggar at his doorstep (did he attack him? Defraud him? Steal from him? No. Just did nothing) and went to hell for it.
And here’s Proverbs 24:10-12:
Forget to read those in the Bible, did you?
It’s always amusing when it never occurs to those who accuse Catholics of “not knowing their Bibles” that maybe, just perhaps, Catholics have read them – and understood them properly – indeed.
Well…since YOU brought it up, you asked for it:
We Catholics HAVE put our faith in Christ, Who founded Catholicism to protect the passing on of His Word and the truth from those who would distort it by supporting the worst of evils, among them the swholesale and legalized slaughter of innocent unborn children, truly “the least of these” as much as any other helpless group of people.
inviolet on October 20, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Just for the record, for others reading the previous post:
I love and respect other Christians, the great majority of whom are prolife and love the Lord and His Word. We are all Christians and God wants us all to be as unified as possible.
What I STRONGLY object to is being attacked for my Catholicism by someone who’s made clear that he or she thinks Catholics are not Christians, AND having passive support for abortion defended by someone who has a long history on these boards of distorting and misrepresenting actual Catholic teaching and who therefore is, in a word brought up by the poster him or herself, a bigot.
inviolet on October 20, 2008 at 11:44 AM
Thacker, of all people on this blog you are noted for whining on and on about your own personal faith and how it’s SO much better than Catholicism. This ain’t your blog, and if you don’t like the topics then you don’t have to read it. Most other Christians don’t have a problem with people discussing Catholicism here. The only person with that problem is you. Because, as you correctly noted, you’re a bigot. You’ve successfully beclowned yourself often enough that nobody takes you seriously on discussions about Catholicism. Congratulations on making yourself irrelevant.
Sydney Carton on October 20, 2008 at 11:46 AM
NoDonkey, I am very serious. I have grown up around people/politics/Catholic religon. It is a huge reason I do not attend Mass anymore. Not due to the religous aspect, but the politics the Priest’s up here spew. I don’t want to hear it from my Priest, I can do my own research.
True, I know a few Politicians whom are very Christian and good people. my Lt Gov, Parnell is one. But I know him personally as well as I have worked with him. He is a man of his word. BUT, I am talking in general…. many politicans don’t know how to push their personal agendas aside while worshipping. Can you think of any whom can?
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 11:47 AM
upinak,
That’s fine, I’m just saying that politicians shouldn’t be afraid to say what they believe. I often like politicians who believe in their religion and are passionate about it.
Rather than the phony baloney “catholics” like Pelosi and Biden, who claim to be Catholic only to curry favor with the faithful, yet who legislate no differently than atheists.
Why claim to be Catholic if while in office you govern no differently than an atheist? Might as well just elect an atheist, then.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Not only that, why do these people remain in the Catholic Church? I’ve never understood the concept of disagreeing with the teachings of a church and then, instead of leaving, either ignoring those teachings or attempting to change them. Why not just join a church whose tenets match your beliefs? It’s not like there aren’t any to choose from out there.
Deanna on October 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM
I’m not Catholic but I have never understood how you can vote for pro-abortion candidates if you are Catholic.
Although, if you google “45 goals” you’ll see that part of the communist strategy is to destroy the country and religions.
Goebbels would be proud of the success at propagandizing 60 million Catholics. Heck, I remember when Teddy Kennedy flipped from anti-abortion to pro-abortion …. talk about political expediency.
Let’s roll.
ex-Democrat on October 20, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Donkey you and I pretty much agree. Fake “Christians” crack me up.
Why not change YOUR Church and get back with us on how that is going. The Catholic Church has been doing this for years, decades, oh hell eons. I don’t see anyone else other then those whom are of the Judism faith do anything different.
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM
“Not only that, why do these people remain in the Catholic Church?”
Because no other church in America has 60 million adherents.
Democrats are all about identity politics.
If the Catholic Church only had a million or two members, “catholics” like Pelosi, Biden and Kennedy would have been out of there long ago.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Moral relativism. Unless lying, stealing and cheating directly result in the death of an innocent there is no comparison. While I would agree that the general sense of sinfulness has declined in recent times, to equate abortion to those other sins is disingenuous at best.
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 11:59 AM
Not being Catholic I have a question:
Is being Catholic like being in the mafia…once you’re in you cannot leave?
I mean seriously… The Catholic Church has been woefully neglectful of truth lately. I would want more from my church than an attempt to fill the pews and leaders who preach inclusiveness.
Note to Christian “leaders”:
>Islam is NOT equal to Christianity.
>There are NO gray areas when it comes to abortion.
>The world’s religions do not need to “unite” as this causes all kinds of gray areas and weakens the principles on which our country was founded.
>Homosexuality and all other deviancies to the proscribed “natural” (ordained by God)order are still sinful.
I mean no disrespect just my attempt at an honest opinion.
Goodeye_Closed on October 20, 2008 at 12:00 PM
How has it been woefully neglectful? You lost me on that one.
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 12:02 PM
For all the debate, it really comes down to this…
If you truly believe in the teachings of your religion/faith/church, then you live your life accordingly. And it means all apects of your life. You can’t leave your beliefs in the church or at home.
Take it or leave, but it’s that simple.
Deanna on October 20, 2008 at 12:06 PM
The priest at our Mass (the Wife is Catholic, I am not) made no bones about abortion and, while not not endorsing a candidate, definitely steered his flock away from anyone in elected office who would allow abortions.
He also spoke at great length at how it is our responsibility to take care of our community, not the governments.
c.u.shoeless on October 20, 2008 at 12:07 PM
Morals are not teachings of a Religon or Church.
If that is what you are speaking about.
Teachings of a Religon or Church are a deeper installment of they Morals you learn via your Parents.
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Well since I’m not Catholic, and your comment makes no sense whatsoever in relation to my comment…
Deanna on October 20, 2008 at 12:11 PM
[The Catholic Church is dying in the U.S. It’s becoming irrelevant.
Complete nonsense. I’ve attended Mass all over this country and if I get there close to starting time, it’s hard to get a pew.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008]
____________________________________________________________
Well there are LOTS of events hard to get a seat to. That doesn’t mean they’re relevant. The Catholic Church works hard to fill those seats mainly by not offending anyone to the expense of the TRUTH. They may hold certain views, but they feel the need to not over emphasize those views.
Look, when Pelosi, Biden, and others can go on national media and DEFINE the Catholic position completely opposite of the truth and the reponse from church leaders is muted at best, it’s time to take inventory.
Goodeye_Closed on October 20, 2008 at 12:12 PM
Oh, brother.
In any event, I still separate Religion and Politics. Religion for my soul, politics for my brain.
JetBoy on October 20, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Exactly, You ARE NOT Catholic! So you telling those whom are Catholic to “change” Churches is like having me tell you to go to a Lutheran Church, even though You are of the Jewish Faith. You won’t get it.
Thanks for playing though!
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 12:15 PM
Two thoughts come to mind…..
First, a truly devout Christian politician’s personal agenda will not be in conflict with the tenets of faith that they celebrate through worship. I can think of a few politicians that fit this category (too obscure to mention by name). Truly faithful Christians don’t bring their daily work into God’s house.
Second, and this doesn’t happen enough, far too many self-described Christians don’t take God out of the church and into the workplace. It’s all fine and good to be a Christian among a community of Christians on Sunday but where Christians are truly needed is out there among the unchurched, unfaithful, and lost. Out of fear of offending non-believers “Christians” are far too likely to stop short of sharing their faith openly by making it clear that they are being guided by Christ’s word (which isn’t close to the same thing as proselytizing though detractors claim as much). When it comes to Christian politicians, I’d like to see them spend more time explaining why they felt called by God to vote a certain way rather than downplaying their “personal faith” on matters like abortion in deference to the faithless heathens who apparently are critical for reelection. After all, God hasn’t placed any of term limit on the amount of time the unGodly will be spending in Hell (with or without positive polling numbers).
highhopes on October 20, 2008 at 12:19 PM
I like your analogy.
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Hmmm…I was talking about “faith/religion/church.” And apparently you missed the concept that “leaving them in church or at home” referred to “all aspects of your life.” To make it simple so you will understand. If you claim to believe in some faith or religion or church or whatever, then you should apply it to everything you do. Not just when it’s convenient or amongst family(home) or in church.
And you can reply or not, but I have to quit for today. Have a nice day.
Deanna on October 20, 2008 at 12:22 PM
…a position which is not reinforced, which is in fact refuted, by the writings of the very Church Fathers with whom the Orthodox claim continuity (and yes, abortion and contraception were issues dating to the Apostles).
I’m not preachin’, I’m just sayin’…
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Only the response wasn’t muted. It was loud and clear:
You’re making assumptions on facts that are not true.
Sydney Carton on October 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM
And you didn’t see past your own blindness by what you said. Either way…. you didn’t think.
Have a great one!
upinak on October 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM
[Yes, the evangelicals have a greater increase, but their Churches are tiny compared to the RCC. A .83% increase for the Catholics is great numerically than a 1.81% increase for the Assemblies of God.
NoDonkey on October 20, 2008]
____________________________________________________________
That’s not the point. If I wanted to start a church and fill seats/”win the ratings war”, I would serve free beer and have Hooters girls passing the plate!
OR…..I could stay true to the Word and hope to draw a strong, true believers congregation.
The Muslim Churches around the world are growing by leaps and bounds…and believe me, they ARE NOT watering down their message.
Goodeye_Closed on October 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM
Yes. The only way out is horizontally. The candidate swears an oath over the body of a non-Catholic he is required to kill as part of his initiation. Then the candidate and his sponsors drink the blood of the victim before ritually cremating the remains. Then the group plays bingo later in the evening. It’s all good, Ned./s
ManlyRash on October 20, 2008 at 12:24 PM
The early Chruch Fathers were not aware of various non abortifacient contraceptives that exist now.
That is why the position of the Orthodox church is that certain(non abortifacient)forms of contraceptives are ok.
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 12:27 PM
OK…I’ll go cling to my religion and shut-up….for now.
Goodeye_Closed on October 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM
The muslims are only growing by birth rates, not conversions.. that is until Baraacka Hussein wins and “converts” to islam and uses the bully pulpit and the example of his white mother converting to islam as a means to attract converts.
SaintOlaf on October 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM
1.) During parts of the 19th and 20th century Catholics were discriminated against as “Papists”. Having the Church give instruction on how to vote would rekindle some of that sentiment, depending on whether the issue were abortion, the death penalty or any other.
2.) U.S. Catholics in great numbers ignore the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control (considered intrinsically evil). Not all Church teaching is practiced by its members, who may make practical, rather than ideal, decision on contraception or selecting a politician.
3.) Many Catholics believe that U.S. law is made by Catholics and non-Catholics. Some will see the question of when life begins as a religious issue, one that other U.S. citizens will answer differently.
dedalus on October 20, 2008 at 12:30 PM
I have a question. Why is that it is only in regards to abortion that politicians are supposed to set aside their religious beliefs? Afterall, there seems to be no problem with invoking religion when talking about feeding the poor, educating children, universal health care, affordable housing and the death penalty.
Did anyone else see the interview on Bill O’Reilly with Kerry Kennedy, daughter of RFK? She has a new book out “Being Catholic Now” and in it of course she equates abortion to other sins and the issue of life to the other “social justice” issues of the left. Bill did a lousy job of following up her ridiculous assertions with true Catholic teaching. One of the things she said was why didn’t priests say that if you are practicing birth control you should not receive communion in the same way they are telling pro-abortion pols not to receive. By the way, mine has.
There is no such thing as a “communion police”. No one knows whether your soul is in a state of grace, except you and God. I have no idea what sins the other members of my parish may be guilty of, or whether or not they can receive worthily. I do not take communion because I am in a marriage not blessed by the church. If I went to communion, no one else there would be aware of my sin and sacrilege.
What idiots like Kerry Kennedy don’t get is that these Catholic pols create a public scandal when they take communion. That is why it is so important for bishops to openly address this.
Am I the only one who thinks that the worse thing to happen to American Catholics is the Kennedy family?
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 12:31 PM
LOLOL
*applauds*
inviolet on October 20, 2008 at 12:34 PM
I knew it! I knew it!!!! The Baptists were right then!!!
Be careful there’s some guy out there with a little neck collar thing just waiting to quote you as proof in his Sunday School class next week!
Anyway, as a non-Catholic your doctrine on abortion seems very straight forward. I have no trouble understanding it. I have been pretty much completely sheltered by my own faith to have ever seriously contemplated the necessity of abortion and therefore have a much more difficult time understanding the convoluted excuses proposed by Pelosi and Biden type Catholics. I truly don’t think they live in the reality of their faith and have some fantasy image of their faith that keeps them going back.
petunia on October 20, 2008 at 12:37 PM
Every Christian denomination has adherents who do not follow to the letter all of the doctrines and dogmas of their faith.
Communion in their church is a simple memorial of the Last Supper and is not of the same significance as the communion of the Catholic Church. For the Catholic, the Eucharist is the source and summit of faith. Just as Jesus is the alpha and omega so too His presence in the Eucharist is the beginning and end of our faith. By end, I mean that our ultimate goal is union with Him, through the Eucharist in this world and in Heaven in the next.
That is why these issues are so important to those who take seriously the admonition of St. Paul that to receive unworthily is to profane the very body and blood of Jesus.
Many inside and outside Catholicism do not understand. For faithful Catholics it is hard to witness the watering down of faith, for others it is license to sin. But, the Church has survived all these years, with the grace of God, and will continue just as Jesus promised.
Jvette on October 20, 2008 at 12:50 PM
They didn’t have to be. They were aware of the ones that existed then.
Up to the time of Christ, there was a plant that grew in and around the Nile River. It was worth its weight in silver, and harvested to the point of extinction. Ancient writings speak of it, and early apostolic and New Testament writings refer to it indirectly. The plant was the active ingredient for a spermicide. Such potions were, in fact, in wide use in the ancient world. A 1996 issue of Archeology magazine dealt with the subject at some length.
Whether one believes in the moral acceptability of contraception or not, it is erroneous to believe that such recourse did not exist in ancient times.
You might guess I’ve done some reading on the subject. You would be right.
manwithblackhat on October 20, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Of course people are free to do whatever they want, evil or not. It just doesn’t make it right. And in same of these cases, their substitution of their own judgment for the authentic and constant teaching of the faith separates them from the catholic church. Again, they are free to do so. People are free to pick and choose what teachings they accept but to claim that they can do it and maintain full union with the church is erroneous.
I am not sure how this changes the responsibility of a catholic to vote in a way that will minimize harm to the sanctity of life. This is not about imposing religious beliefs on government. It’s about individual catholics making a moral choice that is consistent with their faith when going to the polls. And the church has made it very clear that issues regarding the sanctity of life are non-negotiable and cannot be trampled by issues where personal conscience and prudence have a role, such as just war, implementation of social justice, etc.
neuquenguy on October 20, 2008 at 1:02 PM
Ed:
Remember that the deposit of faith is both rich and strong, but (sadly) it is administered on earth by men who are weak and sinful. Too many of our bishops–like the one in Chicago who should have defrocked Fr. Pfleger years ago–are more concerned with government grants and rubbing shoulders with the rich and famous big donors in their parishes. Why do you think no one has censored John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Barbara Mikulski or Nancy Pelosi?
But be not afraid. We may not have good shepherds in our own dioceses, but I have great faith that Pope Benedict may have a Come-to-Jesus discussion with some of the BINOs (Bishops in Name Only) in the US.
BitterClinger on October 20, 2008 at 1:06 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »