Archbishop laments reporting on religion

Why in the name of any god would Sally Quinn, "a non-Catholic", take Communion at Tim Russert's funeral? It is one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard...it is either incredibly disrespectful (I'm not a Catholic), or amazingly stupid. Please follow up on this as I very much want to know why SHE says she did it.

Curiously, the statements of the archbishop are contrary to parochial school religious teaching.
Item 1.) Taking the Eucharist in a state of sin (there is some absolution if you pay attention to the service, a lot of liturgical magic there) doesn't really constitute a sin of it itself . But what you do not get is the spiritual benefit, and or grace. That won't happen until confession. And more or less gets delivered as a back payment.
I exclude the wacko fringe satanists and such like from this example.
Item 2.) penalizing politicians is inherently unfair as they are being targeted as being celebrities. If you had a bind priest, ther would be no problem at all. There lies the hypocrasy of the situation. And its' inherent silliness.

I wish Archbishop Chaput had been named Archbishop of New York. Archbishop (soon to be Cardinal) Dolan is good, very orthodox, but Chaput comes across as smarter, more pugnacious, but also with a sense of humor.

I remember when the Archbishop Chaput was installed after John Paul II crowned J. Francis Stafford a Cardinal.
His statements are clear-cut and precise, if not a bit arrogant reflecting the Holy See's positions ignorant of an ocean of other religions, philosophies, and conspiracies. And what of Islam or even Texan Mega Church Tele-Evangelism?
At any rate, the communion is still a symbol of a theory; an illustration, a tangible excuse for the faithful to hold the conviction to propaganda befitting cults and such groups; and no matter how the faithful respond to such symbols, symbols are dangerous, as they inspire crazy men to commune with gods.

To Wainwright Peregrine -

I'm sorry - are you a Catholic theologian or scholar of the church? I don't recogize your name. I am going to assume that Archbishop Chaput has a little more credibility with Catholic doctrine than you do. You may want to keep your "silliness" to yourself before posting it for others to read.

Catholics and Christians who voted for Obama are now realizing how foolish they were. As we had been warned and as Obama is now demonstrating, Obama is not only pro abortion but pro late-term abortion (infanticide).

Obama is not a Christian. Wright's "Christian" church, to which Obama belonged, is based on Black Liberation Theology, which is Marxists, anti-Christian and anti-American. Obama's actions are a true demonstration of what Black Liberation Theology is all about.

As we can see, Alan Keyes was right when he said, “Obama is a radical communist… He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.”

Speaking of basic mistakes on the part of journalists assigned to the "religion beat" - would you PLEASE stop saying "take Communion," and instead use the term "receive Communion." The Body and Blood of Jesus is a gratuitous gift, something we receive, NOT something we take as from a cafeteria line. I do congratulate you, however, on being sensitive enough to capitalize Communion - thank you!

God is love. God isn't in a piece of wafer or sip of wine. I am proud to call myself a "Cafeteria Catholic". I am not going to leave the church -- I am going to subvert it. I will tell anyone who will listen why I believe it is important to fight against the institutional church. The Cardinal is wrong and there is nothing that he can say that would convince me not to receive communion. And, we should be like other christian churches and welcome all other believers to God's table.

I trust in my relationship with God and not with a cardinal or bishop.

Archbishop Chaput gives a clear explanation of what Catholics believe the Eucharist (communion) is - Jesus Christ Himself. And this is why people who are in a state of grave sin (politician, celebrity, or "nobody") should not come to communion until the sin has been forgiven. That is why this topic is a big deal for Catholics.

"The media have no obligation to believe what the Church teaches. But they certainly do have the obligation to understand, respect and accurately recount how she understands herself – and especially how she teaches and why she teaches."

Well said. Thank you, Archbishop Chaput.

Wainwright's statement, while in error, is an understandable error. We are blessed, however, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which, if read—and, alas, this is often not the case in parochial school teaching—is pretty clear on this matter.

# 1385: "Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to Communion." ("Grave sin" here means "mortal sin.")

Pretty simple. As a wise priest once said, "receiving the Eucharist in the state of mortal sin is like putting the Sacrament (and we believe this to be Jesus Christ, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity) into a sewer." This constitutes sacrilege, which is of course, mortally sinful in itself.

I hope this is helpful.

"The Cardinal is wrong and there is nothing that he can say that would convince me not to receive communion. And, we should be like other christian churches and welcome all other believers to God's table.

I trust in my relationship with God and not with a cardinal or bishop."

Then you my friend, are a mere congregationalist, not a catholic. Be proud of it and go to the UCC or UUA or whatever. The insistence on calling yourself catholic when you neither understand or believe its basic self understandings- seems to be a backhanded admission that it is the church, as opposed to some derivative denomination.

"God is love... I am not going to leave the church -- I am going to subvert it."

That does seem loving. Not unlike saying " I am not going to leave my spouse, I'll 'subvert' her and make her into what I want, not love her for whom she is."

This kind of a position lacks humility, is self-centered, and astonishingly self centered

This is the 21st century. How can we spend any time time with someone who believes in medieval concepts like "blasphemy" Thats what you hear from suicide bombers and Waziristan cave-dwellers. The media has been far too accommodating of all this superstition

To Terry
I am sorry, but I don't recognize your name as "Catholic theologian or scholar of the church" either. Of course you use your posting name and I use my posting name. No one here would be so suicidal to use their real names, there are some really vicious homicidal religious types out there. Like that guy who shot up that clinic then hung himself.
I have never been called courageous or heroic by any one and have no expectations of that happening, but I am not coward enough not to post just because "terry" will call me silly.
Take you shoes off, put your feet up and relax. Y'all come back here real soon now, y'all here.

To recieve Eucharist in the Catholic Church you must be in communion with it's teachings. If you are in a state of grave sin then you recieve Reconciliation before coming to Communion, it is what TRUE Catholics believe. Pretty simple! What i don't understand is, why anyone would WANT to recieve Eucharist if they are not in communion with what the church teaches? Is it some pride thing? Is it a "how dare they tell me what I can do" thing? This is NOT one of your rights, you are not entitled! No one is forcing you to be Catholic, if you believe, then join the church and if you don't, well then don't participate. it's quite simple!
We have become a nation that does not understand the difference between what
our rights are and what our privilages are. Too prideful to come under the
authoritive teaching of the church. So called Catholics like Kerry, Kennedy and Pelosi who somewhere along the way believed themselves above (the law) the teachings of the Catholic Church. Well I can stand in a garage all day and call myself a car, but that doesn't make me a car.

To Kelly Clark
I disagree and will take Jesus Christ as my guide. At the last supper, when Judas had already sinned by agreeing to work for the pharisees, Christ did not deny him the bread and wine.
And that was a pretty big sin.

BillyJack,

Your comments are so far off I don't even know where to start to respond.

"God isn't in a piece of wafer or sip of wine"

Are you saying you don't believe in the true presence of Jesus in the Eucharist? If that is the case, then by definition you are not Catholic. I can tell you I am a baseball player but the fact of the matter is that until I actually learn the game and follow the rules I'm just not a baseball player. Saying that I am does not make me one. There just isn't enough space on this board to explain the Church's teaching on the Real Presence but it is well documented and supported biblically (like 1 Cor. 11:27–32 quoted by the bishop).

Do you actually understand the definition of subvert? To overthrow, cause the downfall, to corrupt. This does not sound like the actions a member of any organization would try to do.

Here's my guess. You probably have some underlying mortal sin that you refuse to face up to (maybe you are divorced and remarried, living with someone,etc?) so instead you decide to say the church is wrong. That's easier than facing your own shortcomings.

"God is Love" does not mean that God is OK with us committing sin. If you want to change something I suggest you start with yourself.

"Judas had already sinned by agreeing to work for the pharisees, Christ did not deny him the bread and wine."

How'd that work out for Judas?

Billy Jack, Jonny Paul, Wainwright Peregrine,

Billy,
Why bother receiving the bread and wine if it is not the Body and Blood of Christ? There are much tastier breads and wines in stores if its just a matter of consuming a few calories. You try to separate your faith from the institutional (very individualist, anti communal of you, by the way.) But all Chrstin faith is institutional to some extent. It was all instituted by, handed on by Jesus to the institution of the
Twelve Apostles, who have handed it down through the centuries, to whatever institutional church you were brought up in, and by the institution of your family, who were instituted into the sacrament of matrimony (presumably.) Saying that "no on can convince me" (or i'll hold my breath and turn blue) sounds so adolescent.
Jonny Paul complains that "this is the 21st century,..." with the implication that truth is relative to the century in which the words were spoken or written. Hey, this is the 21st century, wonder if 2+2=4 still holds, or the theories of gravity, or relativity? "Media being far too accomodating..."--well, Jonny, it grabbed your attention enough for you to accomodate us with your opinion, and besides, have you ever heard of the First Amendment?
Wainwright, Judas hadn't actually followed through with handing Jesus over yet, so Jesus was still giving him a last chance to repent and change his plans, but, alas, see Dante. You say Jesus "did not deny [Judas] the bread and the wine." Is that the bread and wine over which Jesus said "This is my Body, this is my Blood," that you're referring to?

Wait, Jesus is in a cracker?? And you EAT HIM?? And drink his blood???
Does this seem right?

To ralston, you see what you worte there, I don't think you should lead I am
had enough of bad and sad news already, I don't need that. I am fine about them
but I think we should skip that if possible.

Stephanie, thank you. Yours is the best comment here. And your stunning eloquence really sums up all of my feelings about religion.

It is wrong to presume most Christains were instituted into the sacrament of marriage. For inastance, marriage is not considered a sacrament in most other Christian churches. Having watched many a marriage between Catholics fall apart, I don't think it's revered all that sacramentally even in communities where it is, for that matter.

"I'm right, so the rest of you must be wrong" tends to be where posts about politics and religion end up. We don't understand each other yet feel totally comfortable making presumptions about one another .

How many Catholics ever learn about the Reformation theology from a Protestant theologian, and vice versa? How many of us even know let alone understand other denominations' teachings regarding communion or any other sacrament (mine recognizes baptism and communion)? Catholicism is not the only Christian denomination that does not practice open communion, so why do they take all the heat for it? Because nobody kicks a dead dog?

I've received communion in Catholic churches twice since leaving it, both times at requiem Masses. One was my father's, where I was invited to the Table by the presiding priest. The other was for the teenage child of one of our friends, and both my wife and I experienced what we both describe as God's call to the Table that day. Other than that, I have remained seated during communion when attending Catholic services out of respect for that communion's tradition and teachings. I wish the invitation to the Table were more open, but why should I not respect the wishes of the community where I am a guest? I certainly would hope that Catholics who attend one of my church's services respect our traditions, and I can't think of a case in 25 years where they have not.

Bottom line? Gotta be careful when throwing stones lest they be boomerangs. Non-Catholic Christians should simply respect the Catholic church, and vice versa.

kellmoops,

Eating the body and blood of Chirst is as right as you can get. Read Gospel of John chapter 6. Jesus makes it pretty clear eating his flesh and drinking His blood are REAL important. It's the closest encounter we can have with God while still here on earth.

There is a truth to what Halav... wrote. A Catholic is a person of faith, not just in Christ and God, but in Catholicism. They have it all tied up, and it's tight man, you can't break that sucker open with science, logic, intellect or truth. It survives because they have created a dogma that shields them from these things. Read the catechism, it's three times longer than the bible! In fact, I don't even see the point in reporting on Catholicism anymore, or what migh be gained in questioning it. Do you know why? They cannot hear you. They do not hear you. They refuse to hear you. They have killed, mamed, raped, pillaged, burnt, crucified, maligned, siezed, stollen, starved, lusted and coveted as much as any other organization over the last 2000 years. And they still believe they are above reproach in everything they do.

Trust me, you're wasting your breath trying to get them to see the err of their ways.

There is another great book that explains things about the church that the church doesn't explain herself, it's called "A Concise History Of The Catholic Church". If you're truly interested in the truth about the church, make that a companion read.

Also, there is something wrong with you, gaudete, Chaputs, et al, if you can't separate parable from fact and find concrete meaning in a parable through faith. In fact, that's the whole point of a parable or a symbol. In my opinion, you have stepped off into a realm where the fantasy of a child's fancy is self serving and completely subjective, yet you allow it to separate something as important and available as God and Christ, and keep them for yourselves from every other human being on the face of the planet. For me, and this isn't the only place this happens, but it is just that selective mysticism, and the covetous nature of it, that makes the whole thing fall flat for me. It fits nicely into the organization of the catholic church, but it is insane to propose that, in this instance, parable or symbolism is not enough. If you have a true faith (a naked faith, a man's faith), outside of an organized faith ( a packaged faith), it is enough.

You cannot keep Christ from me or anyone else.

hippydippy,

It's kind of ironic that you slam the Catholic faith for creating a dogma that shields itself from the truth and yet you throw out your own opinion as if that were fact.

"They have killed, mamed, raped, pillaged, burnt, crucified, maligned, siezed, stollen, starved, lusted and coveted as much as any other organization over the last 2000 years"

Could you tell me what study you know of that measured this and determined that the Catholic Church is just as bad as, say, the KKK? Because that's what your words infer.

Pardon me if I "Refuse to hear you" but when you go on a rant like this you sound more like some paranoid sociopath than someone who wants to actually have a conversation. Smoke another one there hippydippy.

"As we can see, Alan Keyes was right when he said, 'Obama is a radical communist… He is going to destroy this country and we are either going to stop him or the United States of America is going to cease to exist.'”

Posted by AntonioSosa March 19, 09 08:43 PM

Alan Keyes? You're quoting Alan Keyes? Antonio, Alan Keyes is a paranoid and, frankly, an idiot. And this is the guy you choose to quote? OK, Antonio, now some facts. The President is a slightly left of center Democrat. He's not a communist. He's not a socialist. He is a Christian, and frankly, a far better Christian than many of the so-called Christians who post here. He actually seems to take some of the messages of Jesus of Nazareth (you remember him, right - the guy whose message people like you are actually supposed to heed) seriously. You know, that unpopular stuff about doing right by those less fortunate. No wonder the religious extremists dislike him. And your point about those many Christians who regret their votes - really? Do you have numbers to back that up? Because his approval rating is higher than the 53% who voted for him. How do you square your statement with that little bit of fact? Please cite the source of that statement. And, again, Antonio, I can't stress this enough - Alan Keys is an utter moron.

To gaudete
I am talking about the last supper. If there was a selection of sacremental and non sacremental foods it is not mentioned in the bible.
Sorry if I confused you on that.

While I am not a Catholic, I do believe that one cannot simply take the portions of a faith that he or she agrees with and discard the rest. Such tendencies have become all too common and whatever the motive, ultimately lack spiritual integrity. If there is a desire to change aspects of ones faith and there are means within that faith which are consistent with each teachings to do so, this would be the better course. If not a person can either live according to their faith's teachings or choose to leave it for another as many people have chosen to do.

Honestman,

If I read your entry correctly, you should be called 'sarcastic man.' No sense in blasting Stephanie who was obviouisly having a typing-bad-day.

Buzz,

When I referred to Billy Jack's parents having been instituted into the sacrament of
marriage, first of all, he had identified himself as a [cafeteria] Catholic, so the word sacrament would apply to him. Otherwise, i meant "instituted" in the more generic sense that marriage in all religions has held some special significance to society, not just a private relationship, as proven by the fact of secular public laws on marriage, dating back to our Puritan beginnings.

Hippydippy, You were doing well with your first couple of sentences, then you allowed your thesaurus to take over, with all the volcanic verbs (killed, maimed, raped,.....) that showed your unobjective subjective problem with the Catholic Church to take over your argument.. Who believes that they are above reproach? I know of no community that has gone out of its way to apologize for the sins, crimes, etc. of a minority of its members than the Catholic Church. You say: "you cannot keep Christ away from me or anyone else;" who is trying to keep you or anyone else from Christ? On the contrary, we are thrilled to be in union with our sisters and brothers in Christ.

"The President is a slightly left of center Democrat. He's not a communist. He's not a socialist."
Posted by OnTheLeft March 20, 09 01:59 PM.

HAHAHAHA!!!! You had me rolling on the floor with that one! Are you serious with these comments?! He is so far to the left, he can't even see the right. He is a self proclaimed socialist. He affiliated himself with socialist clubs in college.

As for him being a Christian - his church was more about socialism and black power than Christianity. His pastor Jerimiah Wright was a lunatic!

Let's look at the facts for Barry Obama:

He was the most pro-abortion politician in the Illinois state senate and US Senate. Look at his voting records on abortion and babies who survive abortions. (Not very Christian or anywhere center or right!)
One of his first acts as president was to sign executive orders ending the Mexico City Policy on abortions over seas. (Not very center on this one either!)
He reinstated funding for embryonic stem cell research. (Again not very center or right on this one or Christian for that matter.)
He has stated he will sign the Freedom of Choice act which is the most leftist piece of pro-abortion legislature.
He has called himself pro-gay and will repeal the don't ask to tell policy. (Again very left).

Anybody that believes Barry Hussien Soetoro Obama (whatever else his name is) is anything other than a left wing socialist is kidding themselves. He talked a good game about bipartisanship and governing from the center, but he hasn't even been close to that. Besides, Obama is just an empty suit. He is a puppet controlled by people like Pelosi, Harry Reid and Biden. Why else would someone so committed to "change" pick Biden as his VP. And you call Alan Keyes a moron?

I can understand how the Church would refuse salvation to someone who advocated abortion for all, or promoted abortion as a great idea. But that's not the case. There's plenty of room for a politician to support the legality of sin, even if they condemn it. Adultery and covetousness and taking the Lord's name in vain are all sins, but they're not crimes, and I don't see the Church refusing the Eucharist to anyone who supports the legality of divorce or birth control.

Besides, it's not like anyone actually is "pro abortion." The question isn't whether you want abortion to exist, because it's going to exist no matter what. The question is whether you want women to die trying to get abortions. Someone who truly supports a culture of life, even if they believe abortion to be a terrible sin, would still support its legality.

"While I am not a Catholic, I do believe that one cannot simply take the portions of a faith that he or she agrees with and discard the rest."
Posted by Phillipe March 20, 09 02:30 PM

Phillipe, I would disagree emphatically. Ultimately, this is all a journey of sorts, and one's own journey must remain precisely that. Faith, by definition, is not a fact-based system, but is instead an opinion-based one. That's why it's called faith. How one relates to whatever divinities one may encounter is, in fact, profoundly personal, and is not at all well directed by others outside of themselves. Those outsiders, as it were, are not going to step into the shoes of someone about to die. Too much of organized religion has been historically, to this very moment, about the exertion of power and control over others, with the side benefit of riches for the controlling parties. One must never confuse religion with spirituality. As an example, Coltrane's music, incredibly spiritual as it is, hardly requires church walls, prelates or catechisms. A "cafeteria" approach to any belief system is absolutely appropriate, and is often far more meaningful, and spiritual, to those who use that approach than is a "catechism" approach.

Wainwright:

At the Last Supper: This is my Body, this is my Blood. Matthew26:26-28; Mark14:22-26; Luke22:15-20; 1Cor11:23-25. Are those verses part of your Bible?

That was a very lucid (or edifying) explanation of the reality of the Eucharist and the reason or rationalization why a sinner taking the Eucharist besmirches everything. But stepping back one level it does not explain why permitting abortion, condoning modern counseling and medicine or recognizing the rights of other faiths to order their own lives and protect their children would so blacken a man with sin in the eyes of the Church, and make them a target of abuse, while other actions - such as declaring a war, blindly signing execution warrants, and political or commercial actions directly promoting darkness, disease and death don't merit any special censure or even notice. While religion may see things as black-and-white, it ceases to be credible even to the faithful when it sees a black dot as the universe, but ignores the ocean of blood around it.

To Gaudette
I am glad you agree with me.

Why is the Globe's "Featured Comment" an awful anti-Catholic one?

The comment by Wainwright seems to represent the minority of the sentiments posted here.

Aaron,

I respectfully disagree. It's Ok for you to disagree with pro lifers but you should still eb able to respect the fact we believe the unborn have as much right to life as anyone else. This isn't even necessarily a religious or poilitical stand. An abortion is a violent act which occurs most fo the time after the unborn child looks exactly like a similar version of you and I. The baby is violently sucked out or torn limb from limb and tossed in a medical waste bucket along with waste from procedures like liposuction.

Also the Church teaches that no one in a state of mortal sin should receive the Eucharist until the have been forgiven by the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Of course in most cases the Pirest doesn't know what state of sin the person receiving is in. if you are a pro abort candidate you are telling the publci where you stand. An asweome Priest told Sean Hannity he would deny him communion if he came to his Parish becuase Hannity publicly supports birth control.

Hala, that's not irony- get a dictionary. Second, I did give you a book to read that will specifically address each of those items I listed in my tirade. Please, don't hesitate to read it. And I do pardon you. And I don't smoke, anything. And I'm not a hippy. I was being ironic when I chose the name. But, that was real snappy comeback- Catholic.

Oh Hala, I forgot, you infer, I imply. I repeat, buy a dictionary, and The Concise History Of The Catholic Church.

Posted by Rob A March 20, 09 03:21 PM

Rob, I've got bad news for you - your views do not represent the center of this country. Your views live on the fantasy-based far right. You guys, in case you missed it, were utterly repudiated by the American people on November 4th. Why? Because, in fact, Americans do not want you messing with women's bodies. They don't want "don't ask, don't tell". They don't want their pockets picked by the wealthy and by corporations. They don't want your wars. They don't want your torture. And they're damn pissed that you people did your best to wreck this country. You say he's proclaimed himself a socialist? When and where? Provide the quote and the source please. And like it or not, he's a Christian. Though his religious beliefs are actually none of your damned business. Of course, I suppose fascists feel that anyone in the center must be a commie. But the fact, Robbie, is that the President is a slightly left of center Democrat, not a socialist or a communist or any of the other scary people hiding under your bed. As I said, Alan Keyes's comments to the contrary show Keyes to be an utter moron. And your comments don't speak much more highly of you.

Ontheleft,
You state that religion is about faith, so it is opinion based. I would disagree. It is not about opinion, it is about belief. People who explain their position on a particular mythology don't say, "I think this makes sense." They say, "I believe this to be the truth," or "This set of beliefs answers my questions/suits my moral code/whatever." Not a huge criticism, but...
The RCC believes in certain things prescribed by Rome. To be out of step with that is to be out of step with the "authority," and with what the RC view is on life, the world and the universe. That is why the derisive term "Cafeteria Catholics" developed. The RCC does not work on a "I'll have some of this" basis. You believe, or you don't.

hey proud2becatholic
One of the big issues I have with the RCC on the abortion issue is this: The RCC is vigorously opposed to abortion for certain principled reason, which I respect. The issue, however, is that it also attempts to force that opinion on those with different beliefs and belief systems. It deals with the idyllic, but not with reality. For example, a RC politician has to obey the law of the land and support that law and it's applicability to the larger community. They have to lead a community which is not all RC and which subscribes to a broader set of morals and beliefs, some of which step outside the bounds of what the RCC would preach, teach or allow.
Fine, you have your beliefs. Don’t force them on me, at a personal level or a public policy level. I believe that the right, moral and ethical thing is for an American RC politician to honor a broader range of beliefs. Therefore, a RC politician who, as a matter of public health and public policy supports the “right to choose,” or the “right of a woman to control her own body” while accepting the teaching of his/her faith in their own private lives (ie not using birth control, not believing in abortion) however not forcing their personal faith based beliefs on others through our secular government IS the proper approach.
A politician has to understand the society we are in, work within the society, and not force their personal beliefs on us… I believe in the US Constitution. I think the Bible merely is an ancient story/mythology, similar to belief in Odin, Zeus or Persephone, and with about as much credibility. I don’t want your religion to be forced on me, to guide how I have to live my life. I escaped your Church, and will never go back.
I know I got a bit off topic, but I think in my early morning/roundabout way I managed to express my ideas to some extent. Once I install the second hamster, perhaps I will be more capable of lucid thought. Be proud to belong to your faith, just don’t force it on me.

Aaron Weber - "Besides, it's not like anyone actually is "pro abortion." The question isn't whether you want abortion to exist, because it's going to exist no matter what. The question is whether you want women to die trying to get abortions."
Sir, you are very wrong! There are people who are "pro-abortion." It is a very profitable business. Check out what Planned Parenthood brings in yearly, and what politicians and organizations they donate their money to! We WANT to believe that this is a place where women who are in crisis can go for help, but that
is not true. Women are treated like cattle, given no dignity or compassion. I have heard story after story of women seeking compassionate help and being made to feel like they are scum.
And your statement about women dying if abortion is illeagle is rediculous! Just because the left wing news doesn't report it doesn't mean it isn't going on. Laura Hope Smith died in September during an abortion procedure on the Cape. Women are experiencing physical trauma from abortion all the time. But when they call PP, where they had the aboriton, to ask for help they are abruptly told "see your own doctor. " Torn usterus, incomplete abortions, infection etc .... the list goes on. Do not ever believe
that the abortion industry cares about women. They have marketed their product and the world has bought it, hook, line and sinker. Do your research and while your at it check out who Margret Sanger is

I have absolutely no patience for people with authority issues.

If they can't accept the fact of their ignorance, or the demands God puts upon us all for complete obedience to the dictates of the Catholic Church, then that's their problem, not mine.

"You guys, in case you missed it, were utterly repudiated by the American people on November 4th" - Posted by OnTheLeft March 21, 09 01:49 AM

What world are you living in? Obama won by a 53% to 46% majority. I wouldn't go bragging that we were "utterly repudiated". Obama won, but not by the landslide you and the media claim it to be. The only reason Barry O won was because everybody in the media couldn't stop kissing his but and fawning like school girls over him. None of his opponents got any fair treatements from the media. Also Lefty, my defintition of center is someone who is willing to reach across the isle and up to this point, your boy Barry has failed to do that. He has done nothing but push through every single pet project that the left has put in front on him. He won't even listen to anything that comes from the other side of the isle. That crap sandwich he called a stimulus package was loaded with pet projects from the left and Barry knew that. He wouldn't even listen to any alternative ideas from anybody not on the left. Same thing happened with the omnibus spending package. He is a left wing radical fanatic much like you Lefty. Also, his religious beliefs are my damn business since he is the President of the United States, and his beliefts confirm he is a radical. You want proof he is a socialist, look at the groups he was part of in College. He alligned himself with socialist organizations. Look at the interviews he did while he was a state senator in Illinois. He actually said that the constituion did not go far enough to spread the wealth. The fact that you actually defend this guy and think he is not a socialist doesn't speak very highly of you.

One last thing Lefty, don't preach to me about torture and war. You Lefties all scream and complain about torturing terrorists who are in reality trying to destroy this country. You whine and complain about the loss of lives in the war. But what sickens me is that you have no problem with the slaughter of over 50 million innocent lives from abortion since 1973. You have no problem with a president who condones killing a child who survived an abortion. That makes me question your intellect and your morals.

Are you allowed to perform the Eucharist while you're seceretly diddling kids? What is the church's stand on that? What of all the people who confessed or received the Eucharist from a pedarist? Where does the guilt begin or end in a chain of sin that goes all the way to the top? Or is it a chain of sin? Perhaps it's not? When is "good faith" no longer enough? You can't have it both ways... or can you?

Why can't you understant that the way you feel about abortion is the way a lot of folks feel about organized catholicism. It's a practice that's killing people and nobody is doing anything to stop it.

Rob ... a little reality check.
Part of the reason that Obama won is that people wanted a message of hope, after the previous 8 years of a warmongering president who gave the country away to big business and special interests. The people wanted something different. Besides that, McCain ran a terrible late campaign. Instead of being the "renegade" that got him early support he came out supporting things Bush had done and advocated. He tried to appeal, uselessly, to the right wing.
Basic political strategy here. Left. Center. Right. The Left and Right will vote for their candidate and decide nothing. Let's put it this way.... The winner appeals more to those in the center. If McCain goes after the centrists, I think he wins that election. By appealing to the conservative, evangelicals he alienated those in the center, and cost himself the election. Consider this. If McCain stays with his early strategy and chases the centrist voters… what are the odds that the evangelicals vote for Obama? Yup… 0%. So why cater to them when you have their vote locked up?
Another mistake by McCain was choosing Palin. Given her professed beliefs, right there she is scary to anyone left of center. Her experience in any significant capacity is negligible. She could not name newspapers she reads, she was not prepared for interviews, speeches or debates. Every time she opened her mouth she shot McCain in the foot by appearing incompetent. To have her a heartbeat from the presidency would be a disaster. She was like Dan Quayle, without the connections.
The abortion issue is tired. One side says “x million dead per year/since 1973.” Of course, that is the side that claims that an unimplanted zygote is life, even though if not used it will just be incinerated. I, and others, don’t believe a life is protected until it becomes viable outside the womb, ie at about 6 months. Of course, that conservative religious perspective is also the same group of people who want to support big business, eliminate the safety nets and let those babies that they want to force to be born by banning abortion get by with little to no support once they are born.
Believe what you wish, but don’t force me to live life by your terms. This is, after all, a country with a secular government. This is a country where there was worry in 1960 that JFK would be taking his orders from the Vatican. Now, the right wing wants politicians to take their marching orders from the Vatican. You can’t have it both ways, be consistent. Let me live my life without forcing your faith/values on me. That unimplanted zygote is no more a life than an acorn. It is the potential for a life.
Fortunately, science can prove what it supports with evidence. All you have is a blind belief in a text written by unconfirmed sources, some of which date back over 2000 years. Believe your mythology. Leave me out of it.

Kai,

You are entitiled to believe in whatever you want. But the only mythology I see here was the one created by the media and the Democrats around Obama. You people elevated him to god like status on a false promise of hope and change. Every single cabinet pick, executive order, and bill signed by Obama has been anything but change. It has the same all bs all over again. Its amazing how gullible people like you believe all the negative publicity that came out about Palin, when your VP Biden still can't open his mouth without putting his foot in. It frightens me that this utter moron is the VP. By the time Obama's presidency is over hopefull in 4 years, you will see that the message of hope and change was nothing but the biggest marketing and PR campaign this country has ever seen. There will be no hope or change from this phony you elected president. They just told you what you want to here in hope that you were gullible enough to elect this puppet and you were.

I may have a blind belief in a 2000 year old text, but you have a blind belief in a president with no political experience, no track record of any political accomplishments, a questionable past, associations with radicals and terrorists, and proven socialist beliefs. Even his record is empty. What kind of leader votes present most of the time rather than take a stance and vote either yes or no? You keep believing in this fairy tale president and the bs he and his handlers feed you about abortion and stem cell research. I'll stick with the Vatican and the 2000 year old text.

**when Pew publishes the transcript I'll share with you the exchange between Chaput and journalist Sally Quinn (a non-Catholic) over her decision to take Communion at Tim Russert's funeral.*

When is this going to be available? Anyone know?

No! New York can't have him as their Archbishop, that's why we love him here in Denver, Colorado. Keep up the good work Archbishop Chaput, and I will keep you in my prayers