Cardinal-designate Timothy Dolan says President Barack Obama hasn’t kept his promise,
No, really? Did that surprise you…Timmy? You are supposed to be an epitome of Christian wisdom and only just now realized that Barack is a liar?
I know, I know, it’s not like Protestant leaders aren’t suck-ups. But the Catholic clergy is much more leftist (and therefore wrong) than most. God, I’m sick of everybody in the public venue, “Christians” and all. Let’s see…if I could command the national attention, what would I ask? It’d go something like…
Why are we supposed to take any of you seriously? Why the F are we supposed to take you seriously? You’re all idiots, every single one. Barack’s a moron for making contradictory promises, Timmy is a moron’s moron for believing them, and by ignoring it the “journalist” is a moron’s moron’s moron. You all need to do something more intelligent and honorable, like reality television.
As for you Catholics, do you claim to be Christian or not? You do? Then I rebuke you. You got taken to the cleaners by an ass-clown of a President. Maybe if you cracked open a Bible once in a while rather than mumbling in Latin you’d see where the Lord commanded us to be “as wise as serpents”.
I should probably emphasize that, given what we know about your situational awareness:
Jesus COMMANDED you to be wise.
Is any of this getting through? (You too, laity. You’re not off the hook.) Your foolishness is a sin. You save fewer lost sheep by being idiots than you do otherwise, which is obvious but is also a Catch-22. If you Catholics ever decide you want competent leadership for a change, try this:
Husband of one wife; children who are also faithful; well-ordered household; not a recent convert.
Hey, look at that! My crazy requirements are nearly the opposite of yours, Romanists! Hmm. Let’s see. You have thousand of years and millions of voices arguing for your authority. All I have is the Word of God.
I love the Anchoress, but even she is blinded by institutional allegiance. You’re right, Elizabeth; it is war. Your generals were sleeping with the enemy, and now you’re letting them remain in charge.
Matthew 10:16 is there for a reason, darling.
I have zero respect for the catholic church. Zero.
After John Paul 2.0 pratically covered people like Groer and Krenn in the child abuse/rape scandals here in Austria it was already down there.
But today bishops and cardinals in Europe tell us that islam is good for us. Local catholic priests organise islam-appeasing events, trying to tell us that dialogue with a fascist ideology like islam is a good thing and necessary (in the critical scene this “Dialog” is called “Dialüg”, a word play with the German word for “to lie”, “lügen”) and there are already some who are just one letter short of calling everyone who’s critical of islam “nazis” (recently a Swiss priest did exactly that.) Some are already calling the critics “xenophobe” and similar. All of this is done with the approval of the current pope, Pope Palpatine (no, I don’t respect him either.) They wouldn’t be able to do any of this without his approval.
Note: the protestant church isn’t any better, they are just as bad with their kow-towing towards fascism, something both quickly did under Hitler as well. Both catholic and protestant leaders quickly threw themselves on their knees in front of Adolf and openly supported him. Now they do it with islam right in our countries and they are quick to strike everyone not conforming with their opinion with today’s “malleus maleficarum”: calling disagreeing people “Nazis”. Something the left wing media also likes to do. All it takes is to say “But…” and you’re labeled Nazi. I’m not kidding. People have been on trial in the EU for comparing the koran with Mein Kampf and for saying “by today’s standards Mohammed would be a pedophile”. Speak the truth and get prosecuted. And the catholic church, just like the protestant, supports this openly with every action they do.
There was a protestant Swiss priestess, who was very active in the islamo-critical scene. The church leaders bullied her into severing the ties and into coming out against the scene. She obeyed and wrote a condemning letter basically calling all critics Nazis. And they all work that way. Including the Vatican.
The current whining of the catholic church how Barry broke his promises is only one thing: hypocricy.
I’m willing to bet that they’d at once support him if he’d scratch their back. They’re all political animals. I don’t trust any of them. They’ve all fallen down the Progressive Pit. Time to put a lid on it and let them rot in there.
Islam is good for us because it brings god back into society. Completely ignore the massive differences between the god Mohammed invented and the god Jesus talked about.
This is the same nonsense, the same relativism that’s plagueing the world: All cultures are equally great. All religions are equally great. All gods are the same. Of course, looking at it logically, it’s a load of horse manure.
Yes, certainly. I’m all for the argument that cultures are, or can be, relative. Morality is another thing altogether. It’s why atheists like you and Christians like me are allied against both leftists and Sharia.
My feelings for the Catholic church are remarkably like my feelings about the Republican party. The establishment is horrible, the rank-and-file are above-average.
Where to start . . .
I know! Start with Worme’s previous post. Are you there? OK. Now, stop. Now, re-title it “Hey, women . . .” Next rewrite this post and replace the word “Catholic” with “woman” and all Catholic quotes with Scarlett quotes.
Because Scarlett Johansson is a woman, right? And women are known for being leftist. I mean, sure, there’s one or two that aren’t, but even they are a little blinded by gender allegiance . . . they’re all in cahoots, the womenfolk!
Women are evil, no doubt.
I had a little trouble following this one. Most of the assertations are head-scratchers for me. Not knowing where to start, I’ll just point out that Catholicism is a choice, gender isn’t.
Does that have any bearing on whatever we’re discussing here? Catholicism being a set of choices, womanhood being a condition?
Next, I been listening to Catholic radio and EWTN streams and reading Catholic blogs for years, isolated expat that I am, and that includes all through the friggin’ 2008 campaign. You’re going to tell me that all the Catholics I’ve been listening to were endorsing Obama and got snookered? W . . . What?
OK, well, then I rebuke all you rad techs! Sure, you’re upset about Obama NOW, but then why the heck were you all supporting him in 2008!?!
What? How do I know you were? Well, I just know.
But seriously, all through 2008 and right up to the present I’ve been hearing a consistent message: It’s your duty to have an informed conscience about voting and you cannot, repeat cannot, repeat cannot, repeat cannot in good conscience vote for a candidate who supports a grave moral evil like abortion. Over and over and over I’ve been hearing that. The shows I heard or watched won’t and can’t endorse specific candidates or parties, but the message was loud and clear.
I’m not saying they were not Catholics who voted otherwise. It might even have been a lot. No doubt there are any number of reasons for those unfortunate decision: bad Catechesis, being poorly informed about faith and moral duties, Democrat loyalties connected with urban ethnic demographics, sincere and sincerely wrong Catholic liberals who read Commonweal, etc. etc. etc. That’s something that might be worth talking about. But I can assure you the reason was not that they were following some official or doctrinal line on that. This is like blaming science for the global warming hoopla. “Hey, scientists . . .” But actually, blaming “science” for the global warming hoopla would be much more just than what you are saying, because the scientific establishment (unlike the Catholic church re: Obama) really did to an unfortunate extent stand behind the global warming hoopla.
Maybe if you went to mass, not once in a while, but let’s just say, well, how about just once . . . then you’d be able to dispel at least a few of those stunningly ignorant (and truly offensive) assumptions. But wait, maybe you folks are too busy speaking in tongues and handling snakes in your worship services to handle basic observational data. See? How did that make you feel? But, I’d never say something that offensive even as a joke, and now I’m saying (without believing any of it) in all seriousness, just to make a point. (I actually love and admire Protestant fundamentalists.)
Er…obviously I’ve upset you, for which I unconditionally apologize. I sure should have invested the extra words needed to acknowledge that practicing Catholics only went for Obama 52% to 48%. (Professed but non-practicing ones were much more leftist, of course.)
I jumped Catholicism as a whole the same way I jump any other voluntary organization. It’s why I can’t stand the Republican party, even though the majority of its members are excellent Americans. Those otherwise terrific patriots provide their (venal and corrupt) leadership with cover and power. Of course, the point of a political party is secular matters. What’s the point of the Catholic church? And is it furthered by imbroiling itself in worldy concerns?
I will quit judging Christian denominations by their secular mistakes when they get the hell out of secular matters. Certainly I was tactless. But I’m supposed to feel bad for pointing out the stupidity and foolishness of Catholic leadership?
Of course I’m vastly harder on them than I am on non-Christians. Catholics profess Christianity…right? Then I must hold them to standards which are, frankly, impossible without God’s help.
Getting fooled by a two-bit pathetic hustler like Obama simply isn’t permissible for those who hold themselves up as Christian examples. You better believe I’ll always be harder on them than on the predatory politicians themselves. And there’s no shortage of Protestant equivalents. Pick any “spiritual” leader who knuckled under to Obama, I promise to ream him or her out just as thoroughly. More, actually. For the same reason I hold Catholics to higher than non-Christian standards.
No, sorry, the tonal issues are mine. Also writing at 3 am last night. I think (hope) I got it locked down better in the long summary comment at the bottom of the thread, though I’m not sure how readable I managed to make it.
There’s lot to say here, too, and I can see more what you’re saying.
But off the top of my head, you seem to be asking contradictory things. “Don’t get involved in secular matters” (I’m used to leftist/liberals telling that to conservative Christians for decades and decades, by the way, as a way of silencing any opposition to the progressive agenda) means what? Dolan should never have approached Obama about religious exemptions? Having had religious exemptions rejected and freedom of conscience assaulted, he (and presumably all the US bishops who are unusually united and vociferous on this) should just shut up about it, because he once spoke to Obama? Or they didn’t vigorously oppose Obamacare from the beginning as they should have? (In which case he wasn’t involved enough in secular matters.) Likewise, you’re insisting Dolan follow Jesus’ injunction to be wise as a serpent and innocent as a dove. Yet it appears (from the admittedly limited info in the original article) that Dolan more or less did that. He played the dove role, and now is locked strongly in serpent mode. (So actually, the opposition of Catholic leadership now has more force, not less, on account of having done the dove bit.) You seem to be saying “You have no right to be in serpent mode now because you were in dove mode once.” OK, you can say that, but it doesn’t match up with what Jesus said. He didn’t say, “Be wise as a serpent. And don’t ever be a stupid pigeon chump.”
Those are always good questions for the Catholics (though again, I’m used to liberals and leftists telling me religion has no place in public life). I’d say generally, no, not furthered, and it should only imbroil itself when it is necessary. Which applies here, I think. To me it suggests church leadership should have stayed out of the Obamacare debate and let the (one desperately hopes) informed citizenry hash it out, EXCEPT insofar as Obamacare touches on religious liberty, or key life issues, or freedom of conscience issues, then get imbroiled, get very imbroiled, in worldy concerns.
About voluntary organizations and what is and is not expected of them, that’s worth thinking about. I haven’t really thought in those categories before and it will no doubt be worthwhile to ponder.
Meanwhile, in the Catholic blogosphere, Mark Shea seems to be on top of this one. Just scrolling through, it seems to me that the US bishops recently acquired an unusually high volume of spine and cajones (which to me makes the substance and tenor of your post additionally puzzling).
On a sober review of the statements above and following the links, I can see this will take a while. I’m not the ideal person (to say the least) to be wading into this, and it’s a bit scary to have to address sudden, numerous, wildly irrational statements by a famously rational person.
But it’s probably better for my soul than doing Animal House clips. And good penance!
But I think we have to start with logic. I’m not trained in it or anything, but I’ve red a little Lewis Carroll . . . What do you call a sequence like this:
I saw a red bird. Therefore, birds are red. Dang birds!
There must be a name for this type of error, but I’m not versed in the nomenclature.
See, this is why my approach always works.
I’m neither intolerant nor racist. I hate everybody equally. If you leave the house in the morning, you meet millions of enemies. Everyone is a potential enemy and an idiot until proven otherwise.
It works. Combine it with working EMT for almost 20 years and it turns you into a sarcastic asshole, but it works.
Well, yeah, I respect that to a large extent, the same way I like Dirty Harry 1. (And 2, but not so much 3, 4 or 5 . . .)
But if you attack the multicultural notion that all religions are equally great, you’re not in the strongest position asserting that all religions are equally crappy; it seems like just a reverse error (multi-anti-culturalism?) and you’re agreeing with multiculturalism on the (very critical) point that all religions are equal.
Well, I never said all are equally crappy. They are all crappy, just some more than others. Which why I have this idea of A) ban all religions, B) put all religions on trial after that and determine which benefit mankind strictly on facts. Not many would survive that.
I didn’t really review the post or the links enough for my first responses. I think I’ve got to be more systematic.
1) I think the central assertion is that Dolan is on weak ground complaining about the religious freedom infringement since he was supportive of Obamacare. Related, Jesus commands to be “wise as serpents” and he (and with him all Catholic hierarchy) was not wise (presumably in relation to Obama care?). (The critique is not, as I originally thought [my bad], accusing Catholics of supporting Obama in 2008. This I know to be untrue. Quite a number of Catholics did, but in spite of a substantial nudge from “the Church” not to support a pro-choice candidate. )
It’s possible there is some merit in the “Dolan and by extension all US Bishops should have seen it coming” charge, but I don’t know the history of Dolan’s dealings with Obama and the “you were in bed with Obama” seems unjustified just from the info in the article. What the article says is that at one critical juncture Dolan talked with Obama strongly about religious exemptions and was assured. That’s not enough to say he was “in bed with Obama”–he was doing, minimally, what a Catholic leader should have been doing at that point, which is doing what he could to safeguard religious liberty for the flock, and for the good of society. You could argue that, no, he and all Catholic leaders should have been doing more, uncompromisingly opposed to Obamacare, no negotiations, no palavar. Maybe, maybe not, and I’d tend to say not. It’s OK for us, but unfitting and irresponsible for a religious leader whose duty it is not to be partisan unless it is strictly requried. Universal health care itself is not specifically a religious question, if it is framed as such there are pros and cons, and the leaders have to stay out of the politics of it. I tend libertarian. The Catholic clergy is not required to tend that way. Anyway, without actually knowing the whole history of Dolan and Obamacare (did he ever enthusiastically endorse it? I see no evidence of that, but won’t rule it out) I’d say, no. Dolan has to be a religious leader and act according to his office, not an uncompromising partisan unless it’s an unambiguous matter like abortion. You could actually argue that Dolan was fulfilling Jesus’ “snake/dove” mandates: being the innocent dove in terms of the civil palavar with Obama before, wise as a snake in terms of knowing when the line is crossed and rallying a very vocal outcry. That may be inaccurate, but from the information it is just as justified to speculate that as to speculate your way.
2) The Catholic clergy is much more leftist than most.
Not sure if that is true. The left/liberal Catholic clergy may get quoted more and so you just notice them more. The media coverage of Catholicism is at least on a par with media coverage of things nuclear up to and including what “experts” are chosen to quote. You could say the Protestant clergy is more leftist than most on the basis of quoting very liberal mainline denomination people, but think of what that would be leaving out. Plus the newer clergy coming up to replace the boomers is very orthodox and generally pretty conservative.
3) Catholics don’t read the bible.
It would be accurate to say many, many Catholics don’t read it enough. Protestant evangelicals and fundamentalists win on this one and are a model to follow. Good for them! (I believe their doctrine on the bible is off, but another story-more later–and for me that’s almost outweighed by the devotion to scripture. Bonus points: evangelicals are much better at fellowship and probably better on average about personal devotion. Like I said before, I love protestant Evangelicals and fundamentalists.)
4) Instead of reading the bible, Catholics speak a lot of latin.
Latin masses are actually starting to get popular again (meaning you might be able to find a church that offers them, sometimes, if you look hard), and I’d love to go one, and would love to learn the liturgy in Latin. Beautiful language, and it used to be the lingua franca, a kind of Esperanto where you’d go to mass anywhere in the world and could know what was going on. SInce Vatican II masses are almost universally in the vernacular, and Latin geeks have to look pretty hard to find a Latin mass. Even in Latin masses, scripture reading and homilies (sermons) are in the vernacular. Any Catholic going to mass once a week gets something from the Old Testament, something from the psalms, something from the epistles, something from the Gospels (in that order) plus massive amounts of scripture woven into the liturgy. Over one year, that’s a lot of bible. Over many years, it’s a lot more. Still not up there with Protestant Evangelicals, but it’s not nothing.
5) Catholic leadership would be competent if there were no clerical celibacy.
We can talk about clerical celibacy but I don’t think the assertion (if that’s what it is) is on the face of it justified. No corroboration evident. Also, the use of scripture here is not without problems. The specific verse is about deacons (the one about bishops is earlier). Catholic churches have deacons, who are typically married. If you take the other verse not quoted but earlier in the same chapter of Timothy, about bishops, as a requirement to be married (rather than what it is: a condition that if you are married, it is to one wife only) then Jesus and Paul are disqualified. But you would be correct to say clerical celibacy is not mandated in scripture (though I could throw some highly suggestive verses into the mix, too). It is a practice that evolved (I think reasonably), not a doctrine. It is also not absolute: Eastern rite Catholic priests can marry, and maybe some of the other groups, and of course, cross-over Anglicans that are already married.
6) You’ve got tradition, I’ve got the bible
Highly problematic. In my view, what you’ve actually got is 1) a tradition (500 odd years) that thinks the bible is all you need, so a tradition that is unaware that it is a tradition and thus perhaps–pardon me–lacks some self-knowledge, 2) a bible that is only there because there was a Church that decided what books would be in it or not in it–or in other words, a bible delivered to you because of a certain tradition, 3) a bible that nowhere in any verse teaches that all you need is the bible (which did not exist as such in New Testament form when it was being written) but often and many places teaches to follow the tradition being handed down to you.
It would be interesting to chat with my former best friend, a practicing Catholic and Catholic school teacher. After she lambasted me for standing up with the troops, the Tea Party, attacked my parenting, my marriage and my faith…this would be really interesting!
I suspect she voted for Obama, but never took into account her abortion views compared to his while she railed me for everything in my life. The propaganda that the diocese where she lives put out said it would be a sin not to vote for Obama. She doesn’t understand that nothing is free. She didn’t believe me when I told her what was in the new Ocare and called me a liar who shifted things to fit my truth. I supported all of it with the exact words…And now, whoop der it is! The leadership is failing her and I guarantee she won’t stand up against it.
So far, since Ocare stuff is being implemented, my insurance has gone up 32%. Now, it will go up more because of this. I will have to cut out music education lessons…so someone else can get something for free. The more the freedoms are infringed upon and the more my earning potential is eroded, the more deconstructed becomes the middle class. Precisely what the left wants for this country.
A good portion of the electorate was sleep walking while leftists/statists/progressives (statists=big gov GOP) infected the body politic. Many people made Faustian bargains during this period of time.
However, things like the stimulus package started to wake people up to serious dangers of an powerful central government. And all of a sudden, people realized the bargains that were made weren’t really bargain, but, rather, were seen by government statists as a sign to push for even more government
The Catholic church, I think, falls into the sleeping walking/Faustian bargain category and, hopefully, is now awake because of this intrusion into the separation of church and state. (I know the Catholic church was hoping the beast of government would be satisfied with everyone else and would leave them alone. The Catholic church, hopefully, now realizes that they’re merely on the menu, like everyone else)
You have to remember, most Americans want to go on about their business and be left alone. Most Americans will go along and get along to a certain point. Beyond a certain point, though, the average American gets pissed off. Whether or not we’ve reached the pissed off tipping point remains to be seen.