Catholic bishops endorse Pelosi Plan with Stupak amendment?

posted at 12:15 pm on November 7, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

Consider this a pre-update on a post that I was writing about Catholic conscience exemptions.  The US Conference of Catholic Bishops had opposed the Pelosi plan because of its federal funding for abortions.  Now that Pelosi has allowed the Stupak amendment to come to a vote today, a rider that would more forcefully ban any federal funding for abortion coverage, the USCCB has announced that it will endorse the Pelosi plan, according to Politico:

House leaders have won the backing of the nation’s Catholic bishops for health reform, a critical last-minute boost that could give the bill enough momentum – and enough votes – for passage as early as Saturday. …

“Passing this amendment allows the House to meet our criteria of preserving the existing protections against abortion funding in the new legislation,” the bishops wrote in a letter to individual members. “Most importantly, it will ensure that no government funds will be used for abortion or health plans which include abortion.”

It’s another bitter pill for liberal Democrats but party leaders are gambling that the amendment will be just the breakthrough they need to secure a majority. And in fact, most Democratic advocates of abortion rights appear likely to swallow hard and vote for a health care overhaul anyway.

“I don’t believe any of us believe we can hold up what we’ve been fighting for … and that’s health care,” said Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.).

I’m not terribly surprised by that outcome.  The USCCB isn’t exactly a hotbed of libertarian thought.  The only surprise in this chapter of ObamaCare is that the bishops stood so strongly against the bill in the first place.  Most of them believe in a collective health-care approach rather than a free market, with a few notable exceptions.  That’s one reason to remember that their wisdom generally remains limited to the spiritual rather than the temporal in terms of political thought.

The big question is whether Stupak’s amendment will actually pass — and whether the bishops will go back to vocal opposition if it doesn’t.  Another big question will be whether Stupak’s language survives a conference process, which could also apply to conscience protections.

With so many new regulations and mandates contained in the Pelosi Plan of ObamaCare, small wonder that people have been confused over how far and wide they will reach. The group Freedom To Care sent out a video yesterday warning of the collapse of the present system of Catholic providers that currently care for 1/6th of the nation’s hospital patients, if conscience exemptions get repealed. This comes out at the moment when Nancy Pelosi has attempted to push a vote on her plan, but actually refers to a regulatory change announced months ago by the Obama administration:

The Pelosi Plan actually has language protecting conscience exemptions — but only those established in other areas of the law.  Sections 258 and 259, found on pages 147-149 of the bill, states that “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding (a) conscience protection,” and also has language protecting conscience exemptions in state laws as well.  It does not set into law any new conscience protections, however.

The Obama administration announced months ago its intention to erase a regulatory change made late in the Bush administration expanding conscience exemptions, which Freedom To Care says will put at risk Catholic providers.  This has been going on for eight months, and as I wrote at the time, the rule change won’t force doctors to perform abortions.  The exemption for that has been committed to federal law for years now, and a rule change can’t repeal that.  The rule change brings the exemption limits to where they were before December 2008, which doesn’t include abortion counseling and contraception services.

This is a good reminder that people have to have the freedom of their conscience in determining what services they themselves will and will not provide.  However, it’s really a separate issue from the Pelosi Plan, at least at the moment, unless the conscience protections get stripped out in a conference report further down the line — which could eventually happen.

Update: Judie Brown, president of the American Life League and also a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life that advises Pope Benedict on these issues, is not amused by this premature declaration:

“Our Catholic bishops should be fearlessly leading the way towards a culture of life. Fighting to maintain a status quo credited to the destruction of 51 million preborn children is wrong and confusing to 65 million Catholics united in the defense of life.

“What Cardinal Rigali has permitted by way of political maneuvering is to allow an amendment to be heard and watch it be defeated. While our Catholic bishops will scramble to define their opposition to abortion in the aftermath, Pelosi will wave Rigali’s support for health care reform as evidence that lay Catholics would somehow be wrong in opposing her bill.

“In endorsing Pelosicare, our Catholic bishops have risked making themselves political pawns in advancing a culture of death that treats human life as disposable.

“Once again, this incrementalist approach to abortion will serve to enshrine in law grave injustices condemned unequivocally by the Catholic Church. Among these are rationed health care, In vitro fertilization, embryonic stem cell research, human experimentation, euthanasia and birth control.

“Faithful Catholics have a responsibility to vigorously oppose abortion in healthcare, not negotiate the status quo.

“Our bishops, when they negotiate anything less than the full protection all human beings deserve, undermine the very principles of the Catholic Faith and destroy the confidence of faithful Catholics across America.

“Our Catholic bishops should point to the unchanging principles and doctrines of the Catholic Faith, not negotiate a status quo that ends human lives. Today’s letter abrogates those principles. Americans should know that a truly Catholic position on health care protects human life at all stages and at all times.

“Negotiation on truth is never a Catholic principle. Truth alone should inform the consciences of faithful Catholics, and truth demands the full protection of human life.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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

This Catholic will no longer attempt to apologize for the USCCB.

fourdeucer on November 7, 2009 at 12:20 PM

There’s plenty of other things about catholicism you can apologize for.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM

It is all just another Kabuki Dance. Even if the final bill does not provide for abortion funding, some judge, abusing the equal protection clause, will put it in after a law suit.

MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 3:43 PM

US Council of Catholic Bishops is a complete joke. These clowns pay lip service to supposed pro-life stances. If they were going to do anything other than talk, they’d excommunicate every Catholic Democrat in office. Instead they stand around for photo ops with low-lifes like the late great Teddy, and that demonic crone from hell, Pelosi.
Instead they invite baby killing scum like Obama to Notre Dame and come up with some half baked excuse.
I’m equally tired of hearing excuses for the Catholic Church from Catholics who can’t seem to come up with any, but continue to support these supporters of evil.
I’m totally ashamed I grew up a Catholic, and I’m glad to no longer be a member of that church.

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 3:45 PM

Life and dignity of the human person
Recognition of cultural diversity with a special emphasis on Hispanic ministry in the spirit of Encuentro 2000

fourdeucer on November 7, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Ethnic quotas and dignity of the human person are mutually exclusive.

MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM

So even if the rider doesn’t survive or is destined to later be overruled in court they are still A-OK with it? They are also A-OK with putting people in prison for 5 years if they disobey Her Royal Majesty.

MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Politico doesn’t represent the USCCB position very well. Of couse, the USCCB doesn’t represent their own positions very well, so it gets confusing. In my opinion, the only thing the USCCB has done well so far regarding Obamacare is hold firm against abortion and death panels. I believe they will continue to do so, at least on those issues, unless something is changed in the middle of the night and nobody has time to respond. As to the rest of the bill, I am clueless as to exactly where they stand.

Loxodonta on November 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Ethnic quotas and dignity of the human person are mutually exclusive.

MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 3:47 PM

That was taken directly from USCCB web site. Time for me to go to Mass, prayers to all Hot Air posters.

fourdeucer on November 7, 2009 at 3:52 PM

If republicans voted “present” on the abortion amendment, the amendment wouldn’t have a chance being added to the bill, correct? They need every republican vote……now that could be interesting.

deidre on November 7, 2009 at 3:54 PM

How in Hades does the USCCB reconcile their beliefs with the denial of treatment the elderly will receive with Pelosi/Obamacare? The elderly will die when the democrats decide many treatments for the elderly aren’t cost effective. These are some very ignorant Bishops.

ray on November 7, 2009 at 3:56 PM

How in Hades does the USCCB reconcile their beliefs with the denial of treatment the elderly will receive with Pelosi/Obamacare? The elderly will die when the democrats decide many treatments for the elderly aren’t cost effective. These are some very ignorant Bishops.

ray on November 7, 2009 at 3:56 PM

Most grew up as big a Commie as Obama. They don’t care.

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 3:58 PM

There’s plenty of other things about catholicism you can apologize for.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Care to list them? If you go down the abuse path, remember to include every other religion in your diatribe.

macummings on November 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Politico doesn’t represent the USCCB position very well. Of couse, the USCCB doesn’t represent their own positions very well, so it gets confusing.

Loxodonta on November 7, 2009 at 3:48 PM

Fortunately for the USCCB I am not the Pope or most of them would be excommunicated by now.

MB4 on November 7, 2009 at 4:16 PM

Why the hell is the catholic church sticking it’s nose in policy and why are the Liberals, of all people, embracing them?

I can understand Abortion because it is a question of life and how we view life but health care policy? WTF? They are even endorsing or unendorsing specific bills?

Who the hell can afford to give them their tithe under Obama care?

Daemonocracy on November 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM

Interesting how the religious left is as fundamentally opposed to liberty as the religious right.

RightOFLeft on November 7, 2009 at 4:28 PM

Keep these Catholic Bishops out of politics. What about saving souls instead. What, they can’t find enough other things to do since molesting little boys has gone out of style?

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM

My town has many illegals. I never see any at Mass.

diogenes on November 7, 2009 at 4:47 PM

My town has many illegals. I never see any at Mass.

diogenes on November 7, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Maybe that’s because they are Christians.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Care to list them? If you go down the abuse path, remember to include every other religion in your diatribe.

macummings on November 7, 2009 at 4:15 PM

Read Foxe’s book of Martyrs sometime for starters.

It’s a false religion, period. The atrocities the catholic church has regularly committed throughout history are just lagniappe.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM

There’s plenty of other things about catholicism you can apologize for.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM

Yeah, apology tours are so dignified and they they totally don’t degrade an institution and play right into the hands of the evil that wants them destroyed.

You sound like Obama.

Shame on you.

jeff_from_mpls on November 7, 2009 at 5:21 PM

It’s a false religion, period. The atrocities the catholic church has regularly committed throughout history are just lagniappe.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM

You have been lied to. But rather than hang out here throwing your feces, be a man and investigate what the Catholic Church actually teaches in response to the crap you’ve been taught.

Shame on you.

jeff_from_mpls on November 7, 2009 at 5:23 PM

I can understand Abortion because it is a question of life and how we view life but health care policy? WTF? They are even endorsing or unendorsing specific bills?

Who the hell can afford to give them their tithe under Obama care?

Daemonocracy on November 7, 2009 at 4:18 PM

I’ll take healthcare for $5000.

This Church has the largest healthcare system in the United States, with almost 700 hospitals and 400 extended care facilities.

What is….

unclesmrgol on November 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Keep these Catholic Bishops out of politics. What about saving souls instead. What, they can’t find enough other things to do since molesting little boys has gone out of style?

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM

They are saving souls. You just don’t agree with the message.

unclesmrgol on November 7, 2009 at 5:26 PM

The last encyclical letter, caritas in veritate is best translated — in my opinion — True Love.

It not love to throw money at people and promise them they won’t ever have to lift a finger to pull themselves out of the mess they make of their lives.

In fact, that’s about the cruelest thing you can do to another man. Turn him into an animal.

HOWEVER, neither is True Love abandoning your fellow man to the random fate of “free market capitalism” to let him fend for himself against fraud and deceit that goes unchecked. That’s what I learned last year in the financial meltdown: the pain of the masses is absolutely due to the malicious fraud of the few. That includes both Government malice AND a the despicable lies of fraudulent individuals in the banking industry. The system itself has a tremendous capacity for destruction. I am no free market capitalist.

jeff_from_mpls on November 7, 2009 at 5:33 PM

Read Foxe’s book of Martyrs sometime for starters.

It’s a false religion, period. The atrocities the catholic church has regularly committed throughout history are just lagniappe.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM

A “false religion” to which every other church can trace the content of their Bibles. If the Catholic Church is false, then everything that comes from it is suspect, including Scripture.

First Wolsey, Cramner, King Henry VIII, and the Catholic persecutions. Then Mary, Bonner, and the Protestant persecutions. Finally, Elizabeth, Foxe, and the Catholic persecutions, which took place right up until modern times.

The song “Faith of Our Fathers” references the trials Catholics endured in the free practice of their faith, just as Foxe’s book references those of the apostates whose sole justification was a kingly divorce and a national church rooted in Caesar.

TT, you do this over and over, and you get slammed over and over. Care to go another 40 or 50 rounds? I’m up to it.

unclesmrgol on November 7, 2009 at 5:41 PM

I find it wryly amusing that PP and NARAL should find that they have to oppose the public option if they expect to have insurance fund what the majority consider murder of the most innocent of us. No public option, status quo. Public option (driving out all private insurance), no 3rd party paid abortion.

aritai on November 7, 2009 at 6:11 PM

I left RCIA after Zero was elected because I couldn’t stomach the far-left bent I encountered in the Church after Zero was elected.
I returned to RCIA in September-but with the USCCB endorsing Pelosi care I’m beging to wonder if I should’ve left well enough alone.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM

I didn’t realize I put the “Zero was elected” line in twice.
Preview is my friend.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 7, 2009 at 6:35 PM

I left RCIA after Zero was elected because I couldn’t stomach the far-left bent I encountered in the Church after Zero was elected.
I returned to RCIA in September-but with the USCCB endorsing Pelosi care I’m beging to wonder if I should’ve left well enough alone.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM

The USCCB is not endorsing PelosiCare or ObamaCare. What they are endorsing is removal of abortion funding and provision requirements from any bill that gets passed.

They’ve also requested that freedom of conscience provisions be made part of any healthcare bill.

That they are in favor of healthcare for those who cannot afford it is obvious — we Catholics have been putting our money where our mouths are in that regard for generations.

I would suggest you read the November letter. There are several people linking it. I’ve also linked the October letter in a previous comment.

unclesmrgol on November 7, 2009 at 6:51 PM

jeff_from_mpls on November 7, 2009 at 5:33 PM

I consider myself an intelligent and educated person, and I can indeed afford my own healthcare plan (or, rather, the one provided by my company). That said, using said plan quickly makes me re-assess my intelligence and wonder “why am I doing business with these people?” whenever they deny an in-network service and make me prove that it was indeed 100% covered by their plan by citing the materials off their own website. Sometimes, for major procedures, they’ll deny it two or three times, as if they cannot remember anything about any previous interaction.

I can just imagine what people not quite so smart as I am are enduring with the same insurer — I’m betting that some of them will give up (which I think is the intent). I’m spending about 8 hours a month getting reimbursed for my expenses, and at any time there are several labs clamoring for overdue payments to the tune of several thousand dollars. [All labs are in network -- boy was I pissed when my in-network doctor contracted with an out-of-network lab to do the tests, and then had to fight with the insurer for even a tiny reimbursement -- no more out of network labs, no matter how good and fast they are].

Healthcare does need change, but I’m certainly not in agreement with trillions of dollars of change. And who knows what the Government version of “out of network” will be — maybe my local Catholic hospital?

unclesmrgol on November 7, 2009 at 7:06 PM

I left RCIA after Zero was elected because I couldn’t stomach the far-left bent I encountered in the Church after Zero was elected.
I returned to RCIA in September-but with the USCCB endorsing Pelosi care I’m beging to wonder if I should’ve left well enough alone.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 7, 2009 at 6:33 PM

Don’t let the politicians dictate your spiritual life. I would hazard a guess that you returned to the RCIA because your mind, your hart and your soul are telling the Catholic Church is home. Focus on the Eucharist, not on Obama or Pelosi (or even the USCCB), our Blessed Lord will not dissapoint you.

neuquenguy on November 7, 2009 at 7:20 PM

Don’t let the politicians dictate your spiritual life. I would hazard a guess that you returned to the RCIA because your mind, your hart and your soul are telling the Catholic Church is home. Focus on the Eucharist, not on Obama or Pelosi (or even the USCCB), our Blessed Lord will not dissapoint you.

neuquenguy on November 7, 2009 at 7:20 PM

I’m a Jewish-born Nazarene-and What happened this year is as you’ve described.
Thanks for the encouragement.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 7, 2009 at 7:26 PM

Jeff from WI on November 7, 2009 at 4:37 PM

Seeing as Jeff from WI can’t get molesting little boys has gone out of his life style, ED, AP or MM should ban his flame baiting login so reasonable thinking people can have a conversation.
 
Jeffiekins, if you have a charge to file, file it. Otherwise STFU.

Blacksmith8 on November 7, 2009 at 7:54 PM

The Catholic bishops are always in favor of laws that force U.S. taxpayers to provide more “free” (i.e., taxpayer funded) benefits to illegal aliens — the majority of whom are Mexican and Central American Catholics. The bishops’ support for this monstrosity of a “healthcare” bill is no exception.

AZCoyote on November 7, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Most of “them” are Catholics like Nancy Pelosi is “Catholic” — they like the cultural nametag of the Church but they then go about ignoring most of the Ten Commandments along with much of the Church theology otherwise.

I give up as to the USCCB. I just give up. I fail to recognize much of the Church so very often in many of their declarations, I just don’t understand how it is that these Bishops are so far afield from the Church so often in practice and position out of efforts (theirs) to seek political goals. The two areas of interests are oftentimes not at all compatible and in this case, it seems that the Bishops opt to seek the political expedient first and let the rest slide.

This is another Catholic who is not going to be apologizing for the Bishops, or even trying to. After the Notre Dame fiasco, and the illegal immigration complicity, I applaud those individual Bishops who seek to instruct and uphold Christian theology but denounce those who can’t figure out that Christ is not Marx, nor vice-versa.

Lourdes on November 7, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Don’t let the politicians dictate your spiritual life. I would hazard a guess that you returned to the RCIA because your mind, your hart and your soul are telling the Catholic Church is home. Focus on the Eucharist, not on Obama or Pelosi (or even the USCCB), our Blessed Lord will not dissapoint you.

neuquenguy on November 7, 2009 at 7:20 PM

I’m a Jewish-born Nazarene-and What happened this year is as you’ve described.
Thanks for the encouragement.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 7, 2009 at 7:26 PM

Thank you both for the encouragement.

Lourdes on November 7, 2009 at 8:43 PM

I’m Catholic.

Screw the USCCB. I’ve felt that for about 25 years now.

There are MANY socialists and statists amongst these guys. It will be some time before the worst of them die off.

Pray for them.

Sapwolf on November 7, 2009 at 8:58 PM

There’s plenty of other things about catholicism you can apologize for.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 3:36 PM

As a non-Catholic I can tell you they are more of a force for good in the world than you are.

scotash on November 7, 2009 at 9:28 PM

I’m a Jewish-born Nazarene-and What happened this year is as you’ve described.
Thanks for the encouragement.

annoyinglittletwerp on November 7, 2009 at 7:26 PM

God bless you!

neuquenguy on November 7, 2009 at 9:57 PM

Living Wage… national Debt Forgiveness… Open borders… etc… the RCC is a leftist menace… and for those who won’t follow the lead of your local bishop… you apparently haven’t read your requirement to do so when he speaks plainly on any issue of faith or morals (as health care will be couched).

I’m tired of the willful blindness on this topic.

mankai on November 7, 2009 at 10:07 PM

I listened to Arroyo from EWTN grill one of theses bishops. I was screaming at the radio. The bishop heemed and hawed over support for Pelosicare if abortion was excluded. Arroyo pushed him right into a corner. The bishop would not confirm or deny support. Typical liberal hogwash/doublespeak.

Fuquay Steve on November 7, 2009 at 10:15 PM

And why should any Catholic (I am one) be willing to follow the lead of the same bishops who hid molestation among its priests and supported Soetoro the Storyteller?

Ricohoc on November 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM

The Catholic organization is not fit to comment on one single moral issue. PERIOD.

leftnomore on November 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM

My town has many illegals. I never see any at Mass.

diogenes on November 7, 2009 at 4:47 PM

Maybe that’s because they are Christians.

TTheoLogan on November 7, 2009 at 4:57 PM

Whoa.

leftnomore on November 7, 2009 at 11:24 PM

If you are a Christian, is there a better church for you then the Catholic Church…a Church that actually does reflect our views better?
If Catholics are Christians, then the movement towards a church that represents your values, wouldn’t that be a better fit?
Wouldn’t it show the Catholic Church that they just can’t do whatever they want, and you will blindly follow them?
Isn’t that what the Bishops and Cardinals believed while protecting their child molesters…and isn’t that what they believe when the honor Obama, an abortion advocate…and isn’t that what the Church is hoping when it comes to this bill…that the people will follow Church blindly, no matter what they say or do.
The Church knows this amendment, the way it is written, won’t hold up in courts…
Isn’t it time a few Catholics begin to believe that they are Christians first…the time is now…

right2bright on November 7, 2009 at 11:31 PM

Catholic Church is home. Focus on the Eucharist, not on Obama or Pelosi (or even the USCCB), our Blessed Lord will not dissapoint you.

neuquenguy on November 7, 2009 at 7:20 PM

The Catholic Church is one of many thousands of churches that are Christian.
And you are right, our Blessed Lord won’t disappoint you, but the leaders of the Church will…that is why you judge your leaders, as Christ had commanded, and judge them harshly, as He commanded.
Christ never said worship in a Catholic Church…
The one thing Christ never wanted, was to you to follow blindly…

right2bright on November 7, 2009 at 11:38 PM

right2bright on November 7, 2009 at 11:31 PM

That’s like asking a Republican to turn Democrat. When you know you’re right, you stay right.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM

The Catholic organization is not fit to comment on one single moral issue. PERIOD.

leftnomore on November 7, 2009 at 11:20 PM

You are pro-abortion. Got it.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:54 AM

Isn’t that what the Bishops and Cardinals believed while protecting their child molesters…

No, they believed in seal of confession and tne AMA, which said pedophilia could be cured — the same AMA which defines homosexuality as normal. As for protection, it isn’t there if it ever was.

and isn’t that what they believe when the honor Obama, an abortion advocate…

The Bishops did not honor Obama. Notre Dame, damn them, went and did that on their own. In fact the local Bishop protested outside the gates.

and isn’t that what the Church is hoping when it comes to this bill…that the people will follow Church blindly, no matter what they say or do.

No, the Church makes its moral points, and we are duty bound to examine our informed consciences and either agree or disagree. That’s why Pelosi is still a Catholic, in spite of her opposition to at least one major moral dictate. But she can be saved…

The Church knows this amendment, the way it is written, won’t hold up in courts…

The Church knows no such thing.

Isn’t it time a few Catholics begin to believe that they are Christians first…the time is now…

right2bright on November 7, 2009 at 11:31 PM

We are Christians first. It’s why we strongly oppose laws counter to our morals. There’s a difference between immorality and stupidity — even though they strongly overlap. And the mission of the Catholic Church is outlined in the Bible. I suggest you read it — particularly the parable about the Good Samaritan, and pay close heed to Jesus’ final words to his questioner.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 1:07 AM

Ironic, I was lambashed here for saying that Catholic Clergy will support Socialism everytime as long as they aren’t killing babies doing it….

Tim Burton on November 8, 2009 at 1:22 AM

Since when has the catholic church been a voice of morality on anything?

TTheoLogan on November 8, 2009 at 3:43 AM

That’s like asking a Republican to turn Democrat. When you know you’re right, you stay right.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:52 AM

Well if you think that the Catholic Church is a Republican? I don’t think so…your analogy is way off.
And BTW, ask Tammy Bruce, or any other famous ex-Democrat how their lives are better since making the right decision.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 1:07 AM

My so much confusion in your post…

No, they believed in seal of confession and tne AMA, which said pedophilia could be cured — the same AMA which defines homosexuality as normal. As for protection, it isn’t there if it ever was.

You have to be kidding if you believed this…there were Bishops thrown in jail for supporting this behavior. They moved these animals from parish to parish to allow them to feed off the children…shame on you for defending pedophiles.

The Church knows no such thing.

Ha!, head in the sand…these are intelligent well schooled scholars and legal experts.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 9:48 AM

The Bishops did not honor Obama. Notre Dame, damn them, went and did that on their own. In fact the local Bishop protested outside the gates.
unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 1:07 AM

Better look at this:

Archbishop Michael J. Sheehan of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, NM, told the National Catholic Reporter (NCR) last month that he disagreed with what he called the “hysterical” reaction of U.S. bishops condemning the Notre Dame

Archbishop Emeritus John Quinn of San Francisco, who criticized the “often strident outcries” of opposing bishops. Auxiliary Bishop Thomas Curry of Los Angeles and Bishop Gerald Kicanas of Tucson also went on record with the National Catholic Reporter in June as critics of the backlash.

There were plenty of the Catholic leadership who thought this was a fine thing.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 9:55 AM

There were plenty of the Catholic leadership who thought this was a fine thing.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 9:55 AM

Four Cardinal Wolsey’s out of how many bishops, who defined the problem in political terms rather than spiritual?

And their opinions counted for nothing, as did Bishop d’Arcy’s, in whose diocese Notre Dame resides.

Again, Notre Dame did this on its own. None of the Bishops, pro or con, had anything to do with this.

And those speaking out in favor of an award certainly are not within the majority.


Archbishops Quinn and Sheehan hold that their 80 brothers in the American hierarchy who publicly criticized Notre Dame were flat-out wrong.

The “battle of the Bishops” is summed up in the above link, which certainly illustrates the position of the Church itself:

This exchange among bishops illustrates the old truth that he who gets to define the issue can be sure of winning the debate.

Archbishops Quinn and Sheehan define the Obama-Notre Dame affair — together with the separate but related question of communion for pro-choice Catholic politicians — in political terms: to withhold an honorary degree or refuse communion because politicians support abortion are, in Archbishop Quinn’s word, forms of “sanctioning” intended to coerce politicians into toeing the Church’s political line on abortion.

Bishop D’Arcy defines what’s at stake in religious terms: defending the integrity of the Church and its mandate from Christ to preach the gospel.

Archbishops Quinn and Sheehan make some interesting points, but Bishop D’Arcy is right. The fundamental issue here is religious and, specifically, ecclesiological. Keeping that fixed clearly in one’s mind doesn’t by itself settle the question of whether to honor pro-choice politicians or give them communion, but it does make it possible to discuss these things in the correct context.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 10:31 AM

Ha!, head in the sand…these are intelligent well schooled scholars and legal experts.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 9:48 AM

I’m an “intelligent well schooled scholar” — I have degrees in Mathematics (with a minor in Latin), and Computer Science. The work needed to earn my degrees gave me knowledge in quite a few areas — but certainly not those areas which would qualify me for admission to the Bar in my state, If I were to count myself as a “legal expert” I would be fooling only myself.

I suspect these bishops are more like me than like the kind of individual you posit them to be — they are well versed in a few areas, but I doubt the legal profession is universally amongst them.

As for absolute knowledge of the legislative reconciliation process, none of us who aren’t Senators or Representatives understand fully that process. We know that bills might be changed, that the abortion prohibition might be removed, but, from what I do know (and I suspect the Bishops know) is that in order for something to be considered for removal, it needs to be in there in the first place. If it’s not in there, it’s as if it has already been removed.

You mention sticking heads in sand — for the Bishops to ignore something which allows abortion funding and which also denies heathcare providers a morality exemption is the height of ignorance — in both senses of that word.

You have to be kidding if you believed this…there were Bishops thrown in jail for supporting this behavior. They moved these animals from parish to parish to allow them to feed off the children…shame on you for defending pedophiles.

I understand that this happened in a small number of cases — just about as small as the number of bishops who supported Notre Dame in its award to a stalwart abortion defender. We have had abused persons speak at Mass in my own parish about what happened to them. Since I live in Los Angeles, part of my offering goes to the settlements for the victims here. Part of what these clergy did was to abuse the process of forgiveness which is part and parcel of the Church’s viewpoint on what it has been charged by God to do.

We’ve all read in the news about clergy abuse, and it isn’t just Catholic priests — we’ve seen rabbis and ministers of nearly every major denomination (and even a selection of nondenominationals and wierd ones like “fundamental Mormons”) brought up on similar charges. If I were a bigot, I would proceed to tar all of the clergy and their follwers of Judaism, Protestantism, and Mormonism for the sins of the few.

Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Well if you think that the Catholic Church is a Republican? I don’t think so…your analogy is way off.
And BTW, ask Tammy Bruce, or any other famous ex-Democrat how their lives are better since making the right decision.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 9:45 AM

I believe the Republicans, for the most part, to be right.

I believe the Catholic Church to be right.

If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be a Catholic. I’m not a Republican only because I disagree with their position on immigration.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Since when has the catholic church been a voice of morality on anything?

TTheoLogan on November 8, 2009 at 3:43 AM

Since its founding two millenia ago.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 11:03 AM

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 10:31 AM

What I was pointing out it that the Catholic Church is not the standard for Christian beliefs…it’s history has born that out.
Many good things, many bad things…Popes who murdered, who had children, who were considered omnipotent, who abused their power, and now who are basically socialists.
Wonderful brilliant men, who have sided with socialists and dictators…and in the U.S., priests, and their leaders who for years hid the terrible truth of pedophile by moving these piranha’s around the country.
Yet with all that, you have a Church who has done great things, despite it’s leadership, and that is what you should focus on.
It isn’t the “leadership” of the Church that is it’s strength, it is the people of faith…that is what Luther tried to bring to the Catholics hundreds of years ago (and succeeded somewhat).
It is the faith in Christ, and His Grace that ensures your belief…not some set of arbitrary rules, but the Word of God that He entrusts to you.
You must realize that the hierarchy of the church is man made…thus is stated by Christ to be sinful.
He (Christ) has stated you must hold your leaders to the highest standard…yet you excuse them for their behavior. And you posts are full of excuses.
Let me ask you one question….if Catholics are Christians, then why don’t they allow other Christians to take the sacraments with them?
Think about that, not some pap from a Catholic website, but truly think…why do the Catholics exclude Christians…when being a Christian should be the overriding theme.
The exclusivity of the Catholic Church is exactly one of the reasons Christ came to us…to knock down those walls, and open his heart to everyone, EVERYONE that comes before Him.
Not before a Priest, or a Bishoop, or a Pharisee, Pastor, or any other, but to Him. Whether a Catholic Church, or a campfire in the wilderness.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM

If I didn’t, I wouldn’t be a Catholic. I’m not a Republican only because I disagree with their position on immigration.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 11:02 AM

Well that partially answers it…you believe in open borders. You do not believe in a sovereign state of the U.S. Yet you believe in a Church that is sovereign.
Having socialist leaders do not bother you, so you fit the new Catholic?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM

Oh, the “bigot” card, because I think the molestation of children, which were thousands, were not just a “few”.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – More than 10,600 children said they were molested by priests since 1950 in an epidemic of child sexual abuse involving at least 4 percent of U.S. Roman Catholic priests, two studies reported on Friday.

The two studies, which were commissioned by U.S. Catholic bishops in 2002, said the abuse peaked with the ordination class of 1970, from which one in 10 priests was eventually accused of abuse.

The abuse of children was a national health problem, said Robert Bennett of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops National Review Board.

“It’s always bad when a child gets abused but when the abuser wears a collar, it’s worse,” said Bennett, who described the scandals involving the Catholic church as a crisis of trust and faith.

The report revealed that 10,667 children were allegedly victimized by 4,392 priests from 1950 to 2002, but said the figures depend on self-reporting by American bishops and were probably an undercount.

Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot pedophile? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

See how that works?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Let me ask you one question….if Catholics are Christians, then why don’t they allow other Christians to take the sacraments with them?
Think about that, not some pap from a Catholic website, but truly think…why do the Catholics exclude Christians…when being a Christian should be the overriding theme.
The exclusivity of the Catholic Church is exactly one of the reasons Christ came to us…to knock down those walls, and open his heart to everyone, EVERYONE that comes before Him.

I think this qualifies as “pap”… that our Church was founded in sin by men, but your alterations were done by Christ…serially…overriding each other.

EVERYONE can be a Catholic and receive the sacraments, but not just by driving another 10 minutes. That may not suit you but YOU CHANGED A TRADITION. So as to why we still do it that way, get a history of the Church in the catacombs.

Chris_Balsz on November 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM

At Mass today they announced the bishops opposition to all current health reform bills as “deficient” for allowing abortion funding and excluding illegals and circulating a flyer to send emails to Senators and Representatives.

Looks like Nancy stole a march.

Chris_Balsz on November 8, 2009 at 12:02 PM

Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot pedophile? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

See how that works?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:12 AM

Ah, pedophilia by association with priests who weren’t pedophiles. I’m not defending the priests — but I am defending the Church’s original rules, which emphasized forgiveness. These priests took advantage of those rules.

The new rules (immediate removal from ministry upon accusation, requirement by all, from parishioners up to bishops, to report any observed irregularities to both the Church and to the civil authorities, and requirement that no adult ever be alone with a child) certainly go far in fixing the problem (abuse of power by the clergy and by other adults in a position of trust).

This realization of potential abuse of power by any adult now colors our entire society. My sister-in-law is a Baptist and the police screen all their Sunday School teachers in exactly the same way that our CCD teachers are now screened by the police before they can teach at my church. Until you are screened, you are not allowed contact with children.

I note from your latter post that you are citing materials associated with the USCCB. In other words, you are citing materials which indicate the extent to which the bishops are cleaning house. That should tell you something if you have to quote Catholic studies in your attempt to bash Catholics…

Well that partially answers it…you believe in open borders. You do not believe in a sovereign state of the U.S. Yet you believe in a Church that is sovereign.
Having socialist leaders do not bother you, so you fit the new Catholic?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Where have I said I do not believe in a sovereign state? My position on immigration matches that of Abraham Lincoln, and he certainly believed in the sovereignty of the United States — so much so that he went to war to enforce it. My line in the sand has already been drawn in a previous comment; you are welcome to re-read it to refresh your memory.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Jesus came partly to establish his Church here on earth. That Church is, in my mind, the Roman Catholic Church, which traces its roots through apostolic succession all the way back to Peter, the one Jesus chose (choice documented in Scripture) to lead his Church.

Luther is a relative newcomer in comparison to Peter — an anti-Semitic minor priest and monk whose Theses and suspect theology were used by a bunch of German princes to establish national churches. I equate Luther to Henry VIII — a schismatic on the wrong side of the schism.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Since when has the catholic church been a voice of morality on anything?

TTheoLogan on November 8, 2009 at 3:43 AM

A million Poles turned out to hear John Paul II say Mass because they liked his hat?

Chris_Balsz on November 8, 2009 at 12:08 PM

I think this qualifies as “pap”… that our Church was founded in sin by men, but your alterations were done by Christ…serially…overriding each other.

EVERYONE can be a Catholic and receive the sacraments, but not just by driving another 10 minutes. That may not suit you but YOU CHANGED A TRADITION. So as to why we still do it that way, get a history of the Church in the catacombs.

Chris_Balsz on November 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM

So you think you are the only legitimate Christian Church? If not then you would allow others to commune with you and Christ…the communion isn’t with the Church, it is with Christ and his followers….get it, Christ wants to commune with us, he didn’t ask for a membership card. He came to us specifically to remove that legalistic notion…sorry you can’t commune with the rest of the Christians.
How arrogant to say “you can commune with Christ, only if you are a Catholic”, that is why He came, to remove that arrogance and elitism.
One of the most obvious of all acts by Christ…humiliating the “church” leaders who demanded that they are the gatekeepers…you and the Catholic Church are not the gatekeepers…to bad you are too arrogant to recognize that.

YOU CHANGED A TRADITION.

Traditions are man made…thus possible of being sinful, and certainly not sinless. If you believe Christ, then traditions, doctrines, and church policies are of little import (organizational value, but little spiritual value)…if you believe the Church over Christ, then your Catholic Church is perfect…that is your choice.
Many people in history thought (and think) their “Church” was perfect, that it was blessed by God…

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 12:18 PM

The new rules
unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM

Says it all, the NEW RULES, after the fact.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 12:20 PM

why do the Catholics exclude Christians…when being a Christian should be the overriding theme.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:04 AM

Catholics do not exclude Christians — they exclude Christians who are not Catholic, as well as Catholics in a state of sin, from one Sacrament — that of Communion. Only Catholics may receive Holy Orders — and every denomination has that kind of exclusion (that only those who are knowledgeable about the Lord should minister). Only marriages in which at least one person is Catholic are ministered by the Church — and, when only one of the parties is Catholic, they must take classes to understand the religion of their prospective spouse. They don’t have to convert, but they do have to understand.

Confirmation is the adult rite of full initiation into the Catholic Church — and I can’t imagine you wanting to do that, so it’s moot.

No exclusion for Baptism or Anointing of the Sick, unlike some churches who will not baptise children. While the Church prefers that a priest perform these activities, any Catholic may perform them in an emergency.

The principle is probably far beyond your small mind to understand, but to a Catholic the Lord’s Supper is done with transsubstantiated bread and wine — that when Jesus said “This is my Body, and this is my Blood…Do this in memory of me”, that it is really his Body and his Blood which we are consuming. Furthermore, what about the “in memory of me” part? If we allow people with a wrong memory of Jesus to partake (demonstrably those who are not Catholic, or are Catholics in a state of sin), are we violating Jesus’ command? The answer for the Church is “yes”. I agree with that answer. If, after examining my conscience, I find that I am in a state of sin, and have not yet asked forgiveness and been given a penance to perform, I will not take Communion — I go up, stand before the Eucharistic Minister with my hands folded across my chest, and I receive the Blessing of the Lord.

By the way, anyone is welcome to come into a Mass and participate in everything but Communion (and, as I have mentioned, even partially participate by coming forward to be blessed).

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Says it all, the NEW RULES, after the fact.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 12:20 PM

For a conservative, you seem not too adverse to laws before the fact.

Laws are, at their best, a response to the acts of the unsavory. The worst laws are those enacted for no reason whatsoever.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:28 PM

Luther is a relative newcomer in comparison to Peter — an anti-Semitic minor priest and monk whose Theses and suspect theology were used by a bunch of German princes to establish national churches. I equate Luther to Henry VIII — a schismatic on the wrong side of the schism.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM

My, my, aren’t we the arrogant ones…I didn’t compare Luther to Peter, what a ridiculous argument. Luther was never in favor of slavery. And guess what, he was a man and fallible…kind of like who created your church. Of his 95 thesis what do you not agree with…you think the Pope should charge people to be saved? Like this:

47. Christians are to be taught that the buying of pardons is a matter of free will, and not of commandment.

Removing that power from the Priests would be troubling to a powerful church…but not a Christian Church.
Or this, where the Church was offended that Christ was place in a more dominant role.

79. To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

You think that working for the church will save you? Better re-read those 95 Thesis and realize that most of what he proposed, the Catholics have finally come to realize and instituted.
A man who brought the bible to the masses,out of the Catholic Church hands would be repulsive to you.
Christians have their foundation in Christ himself…not some doctrine.
I challenge you to read those 95, and then say that he was a fool…a brave man to go against a church that normally killed those opposed.
As far as you liberal views on immigration, Abraham Lincoln never faced what we are facing…how about rolling everything back..no taxes, no income tax, etc.
A red herring of an argument…we have laws to enforce our borders, and too keep out illegal immigration and allow a controlled access to the U.S.
What did Lincoln think about airline security, or terrorists?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 12:37 PM

For a conservative, you seem not too adverse to laws before the fact.

Laws are, at their best, a response to the acts of the unsavory. The worst laws are those enacted for no reason whatsoever.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:28 PM

I think a law imposing sanctions on pedophile would not have to come after the fact…don’t be so coy…
The U.S. is a rule of laws…to become a nation a list of laws were enacted…laws are best enacted before, then after.
After becomes emotional, reactionary.

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 12:41 PM

God will remember those who sold their souls for the Stupak amendment, knowing full well that the rest of the bill runs roughshod over the concept of respect for life from conception to natural death. At least the 40 pieces of silver Judas got were real. The Stupak amendment is an illusion that will disappear in the back rooms of the House-Senate conference.
And, yes, I am a Catholic. And the bishops are NOT the church.
They should have referred to the observations of Cardinal Wojtyla on his days in communist Poland in considering this carefully. For the uninformed, Cardinal Wojtyla became Pope John Paul II… one of the heroes, with Reagan and Thatcher, in the destruction of Soviet Communism.

either orr on November 8, 2009 at 12:59 PM

7. God remits guilt to no one whom He does not, at the same time, humble in all things and bring into subjection to His vicar, the priest.

Apparently you should reread the 95 Thesis yourself.

Christ did not bring about the Protestant Reformation. Men did.

How arrogant to say “you can commune with Christ, only if you are a Catholic”, that is why He came, to remove that arrogance and elitism.
One of the most obvious of all acts by Christ…humiliating the “church” leaders who demanded that they are the gatekeepers…you and the Catholic Church are not the gatekeepers…to bad you are too arrogant to recognize that.

It is because I lack the arrogance to renounce the heritage of the Church Fathers that I obeyed them. And because I found grace in the Church I remain Catholic. I think it a greater arrogance to say “yeah well maybe the persecuted Church had a two-year catechumenate, WE don’t need that”.

I notice some of the churches you consider more open and loving, teach with authority that Christ has reserved redemption for a miniscule Elect. The Catholic Church teaches with authority that those who pray for grace and forgiveness will be forgiven. “Truly, this day you will be with me in Paradise.” If I had to vote for a more “friendly” approach…

Chris_Balsz on November 8, 2009 at 1:43 PM

Oh yeah, the evil Catholic Church, the one with all the pedophiles. Sort of like the evil Protestant Churches (plural, since they apparently can’t get along with one another), with all the pedophiles who haven’t made the front page yet.

Get off your high horse, and admit that Protestants left the Catholic Church, probably less than 500 years after Christ founded His One, True, Holy and Catholic Church, and then we can talk. Until then, keep your crap about Catholics not being Christian to your bigoted self.

tcn on November 8, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Oh, the “bigot” card, because I think the molestation of children, which were thousands, were not just a “few”.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – More than 10,600 children said they were molested by priests since 1950 in an epidemic of child sexual abuse involving at least 4 percent of U.S. Roman Catholic priests, two studies reported on Friday.

The two studies, which were commissioned by U.S. Catholic bishops in 2002, said the abuse peaked with the ordination class of 1970, from which one in 10 priests was eventually accused of abuse.

The abuse of children was a national health problem, said Robert Bennett of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops National Review Board.

“It’s always bad when a child gets abused but when the abuser wears a collar, it’s worse,” said Bennett, who described the scandals involving the Catholic church as a crisis of trust and faith.

The report revealed that 10,667 children were allegedly victimized by 4,392 priests from 1950 to 2002, but said the figures depend on self-reporting by American bishops and were probably an undercount.
Ok, for extra credit, do I think you are a bigot pedophile? Your next response will either prove or disprove the thought rolling through my head right now.

See how that works?

right2bright on November 8, 2009 at 11:12 AM

–It wasn’t just the US in which priests abused children. It was also (at least) Canada and Ireland.

Jimbo3 on November 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM

My, my, aren’t we the arrogant ones…I didn’t compare Luther to Peter, what a ridiculous argument. Luther was never in favor of slavery. And guess what, he was a man and fallible…kind of like who created your church. Of his 95 thesis what do you not agree with…you think the Pope should charge people to be saved? Like this:

Jesus created my church. You are saying he is fallible?

With respect to indulgences, almsgiving was just one way in which an indulgence can be procured, and indulgences are, by their very nature, voluntary.

The Ninety-Five Theses not only denounced such transactions as worldly but denied the Pope’s right to grant pardons on God’s behalf in the first place: the only thing indulgences guaranteed, Luther said, was an increase in profit and greed, because the pardon of the Church was in God’s power alone.

Luther’s position goes straight to the issue of the pardoning power of the Church, and denies Jesus’ words in John 20:21-23. In addition to the Catholic Church, the various Orthodox churches also recognize this pardoning power — in their case, even after death.

To say that the cross, emblazoned with the papal arms, which is set up [by the preachers of indulgences], is of equal worth with the Cross of Christ, is blasphemy.

This is a repeat of Luther’s denunciation of John 20:21-23. His other point — the abuse of the selling of indulgences, was valid, but certainly should not have been a schismatic crisis, had not the German princes chosen to make it so. The practice, which was not sanctioned by the Pope, was addressed in the Council of Trent in 1562, in which punishments for the sale of false indulgences was addressed.

A man who brought the bible to the masses,out of the Catholic Church hands would be repulsive to you.

This point has been addressed over and over in other threads. Let me explain using small words:
a) Prior to the invention of the movable type printing press by Gutenberg, Bibles were written by hand.
b) Each Bible required thousands of hours of work to hand-write.
c) Each Bible had to be reviewed by the Church for correctness prior to its use, to assure that nothing was left out, rearranged, or added over what the Church deemed as Scripture.
d) (b) and (c) together meant that the Bible was so costly that only the Church and various kings could afford their own copies.

So, it wasn’t the Church denying the people their own Bibles, it was the technology of the day. That said, the Church did its best to assure that every church and university had at least one Bible.

e) Johannes Gutenberg’s first movable type Bible was published in 1454, almost thirty years before Luther was born. Even his Bible was quite expensive:

The Bible sold for 30 florins each, which was roughly three years’ wages for an average clerk. Nonetheless, it was significantly cheaper than a handwritten Bible that could take a single scribe over a year to prepare. After printing the text portions, each book was hand illustrated in the same elegant way as manuscript Bibles from the same period written by scribes.

f) All of the above were Latin editions — not “modern” vulgate editions.

h) The first true moveable type vulgate bible — the Douey-Rheims, enjoyed its first printing in 1610; its New Testament enjoyed its first printing in 1582, with translation of the Old and New Testaments begun in 1568.

i) The most commonly accepted ‘correct’ Protestant vulgate Bible did not appear until 1611; it is the King James Bible, promulgated by James due to the errant scholarship present in previous vernacular Bibles.

So Catholic scholarship in producing Bibles was at least equal, if not superior, to that of the Protestants against which they competed. And, given the timeline, it’s pretty obvious Luther had absolutely nothing to do with making the Bible available to the masses — that task was well underway over thirty years before he was born, and all that was needed was the scholarship necessary for a correct translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The intensity of that type of scholarship is obvious in the Douey-Rheims timeline — 28 years to finalize the correct translation of the Old Testament.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM

–It wasn’t just the US in which priests abused children. It was also (at least) Canada and Ireland.

Jimbo3 on November 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM

Your point? [One of the abused people who spoke to us during the homily at Mass a couple of years back was abused in Ireland, so, in my small area, we are aware that the problem is world-wide, and the solution must be world-wide as well. That, of course is a big issue for the Church, because not every accusation is true, and, in certain countries, such an accusation given to the civil authorities would be a death sentence, regardless of truth or falsity.]

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM

And, given the timeline, it’s pretty obvious Luther had absolutely nothing to do with making the Bible available to the masses — that task was well underway over thirty years before he was born, and all that was needed was the scholarship necessary for a correct translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The intensity of that type of scholarship is obvious in the Douey-Rheims timeline — 28 years to finalize the correct translation of the Old Testament.

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM

Is that what they teach you about history, to revise it?
What I stated is that Luther brought the book to the masses (notice I said “and others”). To the German’s in their own language. Few (except for Catholic “scholars”) recognize Luther as the father of the reformation, the movement that brought not only the Word to the masses, but also education to the masses. The reformation was the beginning of the end of what the dad did, the son did.
The bane of Catholics is the reformation, yet the reformation strengthened the Catholic Church as it begin to adopt many of the 95 thesis, and reject the old ways of the brutal Catholic doctrine.
Please, don’t insult anyone from thinking that Catholics did not want control. The Pope’s in that time were ruthless, surely you know that.
And funny how you skipped over the 95 thesis, had a hard time finding something you disagreed with?
Yes, sorry but paying for Indulgences, and paying to have your sin removed is not in the bible. Sorry to inform you, but only Jesus has the
For a few bucks, you could have all your sins removed…sweet.
The point Luther made, that irritated the Church, is that he stated it was God’s Grace, and not working for the Church that made you a “good” Christian. In other words, you didn’t have to be a Catholic to commune with God, it was a personal relationship.

By the way, anyone is welcome to come into a Mass and participate in everything but Communion (and, as I have mentioned, even partially participate by coming forward to be blessed).

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 12:26 PM

And only the priest and Catholics know who is a Christian? Imagine, you refused communion with Billy Graham because you think that he is not a Christina in your standings?
Yet your Cardinals considered him the most effective Christian leader in the world…strange ways you Catholics, praise a man for leading millions to Christ, but refuse to commune with him…ponder that for awhile, before a knee jerking “We are Catholics” response….maybe you are a Christian first, and bible defines you, not doctrine.
BTW, you are welcome, all are welcome, to come to the church I attend and commune with us…all are welcome at the Lord’s table, He doesn’t need reservations, and you don’t need a membership card…Jesus kept it simple, “Believe in Me”, I don’t remember him saying you must be a Catholic…

right2bright on November 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM

right2bright on November 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM

If a Hindu were to enter your service and partake of the Lord’s Supper while not believing (having an improper memory of Jesus), your minister would be violating the “do this in memory of Me” portion of Jesus’ charge if he or she knew that the Hindu was present and did nothing. If an atheist were to ask to be bathed by your minister, what kinds of questions would your minister ask before doing it?

If the minister asks any question before baptising the avowed atheist, he or she is “guilty” of the same “crime” of which you accuse my Church (that the recipient be aware of the full nature of the sacrament that they are about to receive).

Since I pay little attention to Billy Graham, other than the fact that he often visited the White House, I’m not aware of the incident to which you refer. As for Billy Graham, did he believe in transsubstantiation? If not, and he came forward for the Holy Eucharist, then the priest was obligated to refuse him — not to mention that Billy himself would be a rather churlish person were he to press the priest. The priest would not refuse an Orthodox person, because the Catholic Church views the Orthodox Churches to be “in Communion” — theologically similar enough to the Church to understand the nature of the Eucharist.

You can always “sneak in” if you feel so strongly about this. You are absolutely right about one thing — there’s no glowing neon on top of a person’s head to say “not ok to serve to this one”. Maybe for you there is — I can imagine how much you would gripe were you to enter a Catholic church.

Jesus did not keep it simple. Ever seen the size of the Bible? Is any word in the Old Testament nullified by Jesus? No, and, in fact, Jesus places further charges upon his followers, not fewer. You can take a few lines out of Scripture and craft anything you want. Not even Luther with “scriptura sola” went so far as you are reaching. It’s harder to comprehend and understand the Bible as a whole. The Church it self comprehends the entire Bible, and, from age to age, gathers a people to Him.

With your attitude, aren’t you glad you aren’t one of them?

unclesmrgol on November 9, 2009 at 10:02 AM

Dear Catholic Bishops,

Don’t make a deal with the devil…. he’s a liar.

roux on November 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM

What I stated is that Luther brought the book to the masses (notice I said “and others”). To the German’s in their own language. Few (except for Catholic “scholars”) recognize Luther as the father of the reformation, the movement that brought not only the Word to the masses, but also education to the masses. The reformation was the beginning of the end of what the dad did, the son did.

Can you name the German Bible which Luther had published?

Whose university system was present in the region long before Luther came onto the scene?

Again, you put the cart before the horse. “Education of the masses” could not universally occur until the invention of the movable type printing press, which made the creation of cheap books possible. That happened thirty years before Luther was born. I can see that small words didn’t work. Sad.

I will give credit to Luther for something — the entire NAZI era, which was fully in accord with Luther’s teachings, except that the Germans failed to burn down the synagogues (as was Luther’s charge) on the Kristallnicht. And they only got Six Million — Luther wanted them all!

unclesmrgol on November 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM

I will give credit to Luther for something — the entire NAZI era, which was fully in accord with Luther’s teachings, except that the Germans failed to burn down the synagogues (as was Luther’s charge) on the Kristallnicht. And they only got Six Million — Luther wanted them all!

unclesmrgol on November 9, 2009 at 10:12 AM

–Uncle, Luther was clearly anti-Semetic in his later life, but as it related to their religion, not their race. I haven’t seen anything where Luther explicitly called for the killing of most Jews (apart from rabbis who wouldn’t stop preaching), although he did want to burn down temples. And it doesn’t appear that many Germans relied on Luther’s statements during the 1700s and 1800s.

But it’s not just Luther who had anti-Semetic issues:

Pope Clement VIII (1536-1605). “All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then, as now, Jews have to be reminded intermittently that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.”

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2009 at 1:52 PM


It wasn’t just the US in which priests abused children. It was also (at least) Canada and Ireland.

Jimbo3 on November 8, 2009 at 4:49 PM
Your point? [One of the abused people who spoke to us during the homily at Mass a couple of years back was abused in Ireland, so, in my small area, we are aware that the problem is world-wide, and the solution must be world-wide as well. That, of course is a big issue for the Church, because not every accusation is true, and, in certain countries, such an accusation given to the civil authorities would be a death sentence, regardless of truth or falsity.]

unclesmrgol on November 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM

–My point was don’t just look at US studies about US priests.

Jimbo3 on November 9, 2009 at 1:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2