The Difference In the US Bishops from 2004 to 2008
Over at a fairly new website, The Catholic Thing, there is an article by Austin Ruse, the president of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) that looks at the difference between how the US Bishops dealt with John Kerry in the 2004 election & how they are dealing with Joe Biden in this year's election.
How the Bishops Found Their Voice shows what a difference 4 years & some changes in leadership at the US Conference of Catholic Bishops can make. He talks a bit about Cardinal McCarrick's actions, including misquoting then Cardinal Ratzinger's memorandum.
As the author says: "And here we are four years later. McCarrick is largely quiet. The timid and the partisan, some of them anyway, are gone. A pro-abortion Catholic is running for Vice-President and the bishops have found their voice. Isn't it glorious!" YES, it is!
_________________
I have often wondered what Cardinal McCarrick's motives were. We may never fully know the answer this side of eternity. But, it does strike me that the Cardinal's actions (esp relative to the memo) could charitably be defined as an act of sabotage.
H/T: American Papist
posted by Al @ 12:06 AM
2 Comments:
At 12/10/08 10:31 AM ,
Joe said...
The Catholic bishops need to do more than just correct Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, urge Catholic voters to follow Catholic moral teaching and call abortion violence a "grave moral evil".
I believe that to really have a hope of ending violence against unborn children, the Catholic Church and all other pro-life churches must get together and put their tax exemptions at risk by strongly condemning the Democratic Party's anti-life platform and declaring that Democratic politicians should not be supported until they and their party repudiate their support for abortion violence.
They should then issue a strong statement, calling on all Christian and pro-life voters to vote only for John McCain for President and vote only for Republican candidates for House, Senate and all state and local offices (except when a pro-life Democrat is running against an anti-life Republican - very rare). They should do this because it is often difficult for many voters to know who the pro-life candidate is and if everyone voted Republican, we would have large Republican majorities in the House and Senate and a Republican President and we could probably go a long way toward stopping or reducing the killing of unborn children.
Risking tax exemptions is a big step, but it is something I believe must be done, because it may be the only way we can ever hope to stop the killing of unborn children.
The lives of millions of children hang in the balance and their lives are far more important than any tax exemption. It is time for the Catholic bishops and other Christian leaders to take the strongest possible moral stand.
At 12/10/08 11:45 PM ,
Al said...
While I don't think the pulpit is the place to endorse a candidate, there is a lot more that can be done frome most pulpits.
I know of some priests that make it very clear you can't vote for Obama without actually mentioning him.
On the other hand, there is also a lot more that can be done outside the pulpit as well. I know of a lot of priests who actively work for Democratic candidates &/or the party. & they are not criticized. Yet, arround here, if the opposite happens, they are often condemned, from the chancery.
& as I have said before on the tax exempt status, get rid of it completely. With it, we give the government control over what can be said from the pulpit they should never have. If we don't soon we will be told we can speak out about homosexuality, abortion, & maybe eventually any sin in order to keep the status. If the churches willingly give it up now, they can prevent that.
I can here the arguement, taking away the status will reduce contributions. If people are giving to the church merely for a deduction they are giving for the wromg reason.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home