Sat 25th Oct 2014 | Last updated: Fri 24th Oct 2014 at 18:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Why Barack Obama has to be seen as an enemy of the Catholic Church

We need to be alert: he is not without influence, even on this side of the pond

By on Friday, 25 February 2011

President Barack Obama waves when he came to the graduation ceremony at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana in 2009  (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

President Barack Obama waves when he came to the graduation ceremony at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana in 2009 (AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Is Barack Obama the most anti-Catholic American president in living memory?

I don’t mean, of course, that he has openly attacked the Church (though it was noted that, at his inauguration as president, contrary to normal practice there was among the clergy invited to attend not one single Catholic, though he made a point of inviting the controversial — because openly and actively homosexual — Episcopalian (i.e. Anglican) bishop, Gene Robinson).

What I mean, though, is that across the whole spectrum of contemporary moral issues, he is passionately committed to a series of views which run directly contrary to those of the Church. All this has caused at least one Catholic bishop (there are probably others) to call him anti-Catholic.

As a Senator, he supported sex education, to be provided by Planned Parenthood, to children of five years old. He consistently voted for abortion, including partial birth abortion. He voted (twice) against Bills prohibiting public funding of abortions; he voted in favour of expanding embryonic stem cell research; he voted against notifying parents of minors who had undergone out-of-state abortions; he voted for a proposal to vote $100,000,000 for the funding of sex-education and contraceptives (including abortifacients) for teenagers; he opposed the “Born Alive Infants Protection Act” on the Senate floor and in 2003 killed the bill in committee. This would have outlawed “live birth abortion,” where labor is induced and an infant is delivered prematurely and then allowed to die.

In the US, Catholics, of course, have noted all this, though their reaction to it has been inconsistent to say the least. In April 2009, the supposedly Catholic University of Notre Dame scandalously conferred on him an honorary degree. Archbishop John C. Nienstedt of St Paul and Minneapolis protested, and demanded that the invitation be withdrawn. His letter, to the president of Notre Dame, Fr John Jenkins (a Catholic priest, if you please) was a real stonker:

“Dear Father Jenkins:

“I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.

“I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.

“It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.

“I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.

“Sincerely yours,

“The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis”

Obama now has the institution of marriage in his sights. He last year issued a “proclamation” (which you can read on the White House website) on the occasion of the “Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Pride month”, indicating his intention to “give committed gay couples the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple, and repeal the Defense of Marriage Act….”, and his conviction that “An important chapter in our great, unfinished story is the movement for fairness and equality on behalf of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community.”

The Defense of Marriage Act was, ironically, signed into law by another Democratic President, Bill Clinton. Under the law no state (or other political subdivision within the United States) needs to treat as a marriage a same-sex relationship considered to be a marriage in another state; it defines marriage clearly as a legal union between one man and one woman. It passed both houses of Congress by large majorities: Obama has no chance of getting it repealed. So he is now doing what he can to undermine it. This is where things get complicated for a limey who doesn’t quite understand the convolutions of the American legal system. According to the CNS,

“In a Feb. 23 statement, Attorney General Eric Holder said that although the administration has defended the 1996 law [i.e. the Defense of Marriage Act] in some federal courts, it will not continue to do so in cases pending in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Unlike in the previous cases, said Holder, the 2nd Circuit ‘has no established or binding standard for how laws concerning sexual orientation should be treated’.”

This, apparently, is enough to impede the Act’s operation, enough, at least, seriously to alarm the American Catholic Bishops: here’s CNS again:

The U.S. bishops’ Office of General Counsel said the Obama administration’s decision to no longer support the Defense of Marriage Act in legal challenges ahead “represents an abdication” of its “constitutional obligation to ensure that laws of the United States are faithfully executed.”

“Marriage has been understood for millennia and across cultures as the union of one man and one woman,” the office said in a statement issued Feb. 23 after President Barack Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the federal law passed by Congress and signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton.

That’s how things stand. How much effect in practice will Obama’s initiative actually have? Maybe someone who understands American jurisprudence better than I do can explain. At the very least, as the American bishops say, refusal to support the law is “a grave affront to the millions of Americans who both reject unjust discrimination and affirm the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

What next? The fact is that on this side of the pond, as well as in the US, President Obama needs watching. He may have been weakened in the Congress: but a President of the United States always has considerable power, to do evil as well as to do good. He is much more popular in many European countries than he is in the States: and he is not without his influence here. A man who is admired and respected as much as he has been, and in many places still is, can do harm through his words and deeds, even where he has no direct power.

I think he ought to be admired and respected very much less than he is.

  • Jim

    Obama must be defeated!

  • Anonymous

    Obama did attended the Trinity United Church in Chicago for many years, each week. He has good friends with the reverend of the Church and played an pro-active role helping the Church help the poor in the community. This is common knowledge and he dedicates a number of pages to it in his first book.

    He is a Christian and takes liberal positions on certain issues the Church takes much more conservative stances on. He has a right to have a difference of opinion. There are millions of progressive Christians in America, and he happens to be one of them.

  • Anonymous

    If so in what respect?

  • CiCi

    15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them. Matthew 7

  • Anonymous

    Does God play by his own moral laws, or does he get a special exception?
    If God designed the human body himself then why is it the case that due to normal biological function Women loose 15% of pregnancies to miscarriage?

    Since the 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling in favour of legal abortion God has allowed for 71,543,878 – 71 million natural terminations! …and you make the case that he cares about such life? – the statistics speak otherwise don’t they.

    …of course this doesn’t even mention the killing of every first born child in Egypt – which was the killing of hundreds of thousands of living children and adults. That was PRO life? and from a merciful God?

  • Anonymous

    We can all find bible passages to prove our points. Are you interested in constructive dialogue or not? Obama is a Christian and as with other liberal Christians believes that the legality of abortion and equal respect the homosexuals are the most moral choice. He is hardly a radical, he says he wants to try and reduce abortion rates as far as possible and he says he is not in favour of gay marriage.

    Also if you were to apply your bible passage to the Church itself, I would wonder whether we would have many Bishops, or the pope himself left, and not thrown in the fire.

  • Anonymous

    do you have any idea what socialism is? Obama in terms of his politics would be considered an average Conservative (the British party he would join), so cannot be considered a socialist in its modern sense (not the Glenn Beck sense)

  • CiCi

    I left the Roman Catholic church 17 yrs ago. I have no comment about the Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and Pope.

  • Dcruz

    President or rest of the politicians in the US government do not give much importace to the christian faith except a few.In future heads of states or politicians who respect the christian faith and see it as relevant to the interest of the country and its citizens should b elected.

  • Anonymous

    Does God play by his own moral laws, or does he get a special exception?
    If God designed the human body himself then why is it the case that due to normal biological function Women loose 15% of pregnancies to miscarriage?

    Since the 1973 Roe vs Wade ruling in favour of legal abortion God has allowed for 71,543,878 – 71 million natural terminations! …and you make the case that he cares about such life? – the statistics speak otherwise.

    …of course this doesn’t even mention the killing of every first born child in Egypt – which was the killing of hundreds of thousands of living children and adults. That was PRO life? and from a merciful God?

  • Anonymous

    ‘One of the greatest injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess much are relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all.

    The goods of creation are meant for all. That which human industry produces through the processing of raw materials, with the contribution of work, must serve equally for the good of all’


  • Anonymous

    Hi Lucy its great to hear from someone on this site who actually speaks the language of Christianity. You must be the first person I have heard advocating the term ‘social justice’ on this site. I find that totally SHAMEFUL on a Christian website.

    Politics and morality don’t fit together very well unfortunately. No one party or candidate will fit with your exact set of views, and still be electable – ideologies comprised of a thin or more extreme adgendas suffer. Hence the fact neither the Green Party, nor the UKIP are in government.

    In my opinion civil unions and stem-cell research are really side-issues and are of relatively little importance. The Christian right-wingers always want to spread fear – it is how they gain power. Issue of social justice are much more important.

    You may disagree with civil unions, but can you point to concrete evedence of degredation in society occuring because of them? All I know is that my auntie’s children are much more happy as they know they have a stable family – rather than just co-habitation.

    Stem-cells on the other hand, are just that – cells. This is no abortion cover-up, cells are literally taken at the embyo stage – this is NOT akin to killing a baby as the fear-mongers and spreaders of untruths would have you know. Regardless, stem cells can instead be taken from embryonic-fluid after the birth of a baby (rather than using embryos) – so if you are really conserned you should campaign for the usage of stem cells in this way instead, but there is no moral reasoning behind banning research altogether.

    God Bless.

  • Anonymous

    Voting Republican is not a Christian thing to do. Obama is the only moral choice.

  • PLK

    Paul, try some bible study classes to clear up your confusion. you think in human terms. God is God and He has a plan. Get to know Him instead of taking that lofty position upon yourself to comment. Start with Jeff Cavins Great Bible Timeline. I trust you will figure it out with a bit of help.

  • Eric Conway

    Excellent post, LeFloch. The Catholic convert poet, Roy Campbell, who witnessed first hand the evils of the Spanish Republican/Stalinists, described the liberal/left ” intellectual ” supporters of that monstrous regime as ” intellectuals without intellect “. Judging by the posts of Wanda, Lucy & others, there are still a lot of fellow travellers still around. While not perfect, Gen. Franco was by a long distance the lesser of two evils. Viva Espana !. Viva el Cristo Rey !.

  • anothervoice

    What is interesting about your article is that we can exchange the word ‘Catholic’ for ‘Republican’ and the article, other than the reference to the letter from Bishop Nienstedt, would remain equally sensible. You may have identified President Obama as un-Catholic, but one is perfectly justified in questioning your restricted use of the word ‘Catholic’.

  • Anothervoice

    This is a very interesting article. However, I do have one observation: for nearly all the uses of the word ‘Catholic’ – with the exclusion of the talk on Notre Dame – we could replace the word with ‘Republican’ (the American sense of the word) and the article would be just as sensible. My question is this: what do you mean by ‘Catholic’, and is there a chance that this definition – it seems, a list of legislative issues – is too restricting? We could play the legislative issues priority game all day – for example, many think that the President Obama is the most Catholic President America has seen in a long time. I’m not saying I agree with anything of the sort, but rather that we should be asking a different question; if we are serious about asking as Catholics, we ought to abandon the question of whether Obama is ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ Catholicism, per our reasoning from a set of issues and values. The reason is that on this view ‘Catholic’ is defined entirely by the issues that it puts forward into the public arena. In other words, it presupposes a loss of the social existence of the Church – or rather, any meaningful social existence. Alternatively, the question ought to be asked from another angle, one which doesn’t hide its location ‘in’ the Church: to what extent does the Church see herself in the practices of the Country’s within which it resides? To what extent does she not see herself? If these questions seem silly, then it is likely because we’ve lost our sense of ‘church’, let alone ‘catholic’.

  • sconnerat
  • WorldTrader

    Megan… So foreigners can have no knowledge of US politics, Universities or the American Church? Interesting. I suppose then that you have zero knowledge of anything beyond the US borders. You do know that just because somebody has a differing opinion than you does not mean that they know nothing on the subject at hand, right? I know American universities these days are way out there on the liberal left wing, so I guess it does not surprise me that you are being taught that differing opinions have no validity and should be ridiculed.

  • Randy Hain

    Our friends in England have it right…

  • Anonymous

    American right-wing. Moral?

  • Marie

    He is not only an enemy of the Church but of the United States as well.

  • Jja

    Someone please explain to me how in the world a Catholic or a Christian could possibly even consider voting for a man who presented infanticide legislation in Illinois? 65% of Catholics voted for someone who believes his salvation is related to the collective good. I have NEVER ever heard any man, say this. So I will ask again, how on earth does any Catholic vote for this guy?

  • Jja

    ” … for this anti-christian man … ” who sponsored legislation and was the main advocate of infanticide legislation in Illinois.

    I’m stuck on the answer to this question … How could you Catholic or Christian (for those of you who did), vote for this guy? Please answer.

  • Jja

    And I have no idea why 65% of Catholics voted for a guy who strongly pushed infanticide.

  • Jja

    That IS the saddest fact of all … 65% of Catholics voted for this guy. How could they possibly ever justify this?

  • Jja

    Megan, he sponsored infanticide legislation in Illinois. How could you possibly EVER reconcile that? Do you have any idea what that is? Google infanticide. How could you possibly ever vote for him?

  • Anonymous

    Abortion is terrible and no woman should be put the position in which they feel that’s the best course to take, but it is not the same thing as infanticide. There are lots of terrible things in the world. People dieing due to lack of healthcare in one of the richest nations in the world is another terrible thing. Barack Obama is the most Christian man in American politics that I know of (OK I don’t know much about many American politicians but I have read ‘Dreams from my Father’ and ‘The Audacity of Hope’).

    I don’t know whether he is a friend of the Catholic Church – that is not for me to judge – but I’m heartened that 65% of Catholics voted for him.

  • Anonymous

    First of all let me sadly say I am a graduate of Notre Dame University with a Bachelor’s in Catholic Divinity and a Master’s in Political Science and for the record Obama does have a conspiracy against the Catholic Faith. No one can legitimately deny that.

    I disagree with paulsays, sadly he is part of the “social justice” crowd and has little insight to catholic doctrine and ideology. Why did obama appoint Harry Knox who serves on President Barack Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith- Based and Neighborhood Partnerships? He has been described as an Anti Catholic Bigot and open homosexual that in the Book of Leviticus is an abomination before the Lord. He constantly bashes the Pope, his most famous one being “The Pope is “hurting people in the name of Jesus” That is pure blasphemy, if for no reason than vain use of God’s holy Name, In Phil. 2: 5-12 “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” You do not engage in vain use of God’s Holy Name. That statement alone prompted Obama Fire Anti-Catholic Bigot Harry Knox” signed by U.S. Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader!

    Obama also appointed Miguel Díaz Ambassador to the Vatican whom paulsays should love because he is part of the “social justice” “abortion on demand” CINO (catholics in name only) crowd. Diaz, who supported the notorious Kathleen Sebelius who is pro abortion on demand, I can go on, because there is much more. Singly these do not add to a conspiracy but you start to weave them all together, you definitely get an anti catholic conspiracy from obama.

    He has a substantial amount of people particularly catholics that are not in full communion with the Vatican, they simply pick tenets of the Catholic Faith what appeals to their liberalism while discarding what is anathema to them. Obama is the most pro abortion president in history, its not enough for him to murder unborn babies in the first trimester, no, he has to go father and promote partial birth abortions, and still he has to go beyond that and order that babies that survive botched abortions have to be murdered too. I ask you what is the difference between obama and King Herod?

    He is slowly trying to make “liberal theology” mainstream in Catholic America, Catholics better wake up and promptly! Sadly our catholic clergy has become lax in upholding Catholic Canon Law and teaching the Catholic Faith as it should be taught. As a Catholic CCD teacher in my parish it grieves me to say I inherit 7th grade students that have no clue of what basic prayers comprise the Sacrament of Reconciliation, I had to teach them moreover I not only had to bring them up on a 7th grade level, I combined it with an advanced course and had to literally beg to expand my class from 60, to 90 minutes they graduated my class with knowing Summa Theologica, Confessions of Saint Augustine, and a primer in Catholic Canon Law and Latin… I had to have clashes with a liberal clergy to accomplish it They are not going to miss out on their catholic legacy and history NOT ON MY WATCH!

    I know that what I type here next will ruffle feathers but I serve God not man so I will say it. I met and had discussions with Fr. Malachi Martin although I wish it could have been much more as it was related to my classes I learned from him, I wish it could have been much more. Father Martin was a highly skilled exorcist and participated on over 700 of them, one of the things he spoke of was “perfect possession” and how the average lay person could not tell of a perfectly possessed person, it is different than the average possession in that usually in the average possession the person rebels in the pact or alliance they made with the devil so an exorcism has a chance of success, in a perfectly possessed person there is no rebellion of the pact, that person sadly freely gives his or her soul and body to the devil and wants no part of God or God’s salvation allowing them to be perfectly possessed. I will not go into detail or use elaborate catholic and or Latin terminology but Father Martin saw a perfectly possessed person and it scared him deeply, also Father Martin said and I believe this, you lose a little piece of yourself in every exorcism (referring to himself). I believe that is true.

    I also wonder if Father Martin were still alive and got to see obama what his feelings would be? Do you think its far fetched to have a person perfectly possessed in the White House?

    In The Fatima Crusader article, Malachi Martin, a scholar, who served in the Vatican, and best-selling author, said, “Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness has had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome.”
    May God♥ Bless You All

  • Megan

    Prove it Ann. Because I don’t believe a word you just wrote.

  • Megan

    Please point out to me where I said I would vote for him, or anyone else. In fact, please point out to me where I actually defended the President. Is English a second language for you?

  • Megan

    I like how you not only substitute your own opinions for God’s decisions, but you substitute them for the Holy Father’s, too. Remind me, again, of which area are you a Bishop? Oh wait, you’re not, just another idolator who thinks he (you probably would demand we say “He” when referring to you) is above everyone else. A heretic and a fraud who substitutes earthly politics for faith. How sad.

  • Anonymous

    wrong post sorry

  • Anonymous

    The amount of Americans without healthcare is more than 2/3rds of the UK population. In terms of resultant deaths each year it is equivalent to three 9/11 attacks each year.

    Regardless of which party gets in, a ban on abortion is impossible due to precedent set in the Supreme court. Personally I feel there is a greater tragedy in the already born and alive dying due to lack of healthcare and poverty. (Including many thousands of children)

    Furthermore the alternative political party supports the death penalty, wants less and less restrictions on firearms, does not support a healthcare plan, the majority of whom vote continually for foreign conflict. They can hardly be called ‘pro-life’ either.

    They also have no care for the poor, and every interest in helping the super-rich – which is entirely contrary to Jesus’s message.

  • Anonymous

    Because of course one of America’s most conservative University’s gives you a brilliant perspective on all shades of Catholic Christianity, I’m sure…

    Firstly lumping me in with the “social justice” crowd as you put it, lumps you out of it, and therefore you have to deny a great deal of Jesus’s teachings; years of papal teachings; official documents and papal encyclicals.

    Secondly, there are two political parties in America, you have to pick one. If you are suggesting that the Republican Party is more morally correct than President Obama and the Democrat Party – make that case. You do not because you know that the actions and motivations of the Republican party are indefensible in the eyes of God.

    ‘pick tenets of the Catholic Faith what appeals to their liberalism while discarding what is anathema to them’ Likewise the Republican party does the same, cutting help for the poor, not providing healthcare, supporting foreign war, supporting the death penalty, being obsessed with amassing great personal wealth – and supporting a tax system that supports that.

    I don’t support the Democrats where they stray from Catholic teaching, but as you can see I can easily create a list of issues on which equally do not support Catholic teaching. Why don’t you slam your own side with the same force – perhaps because you *pick tenets of the Catholic faith that appeal to your conservatism and discard the many years of papal teaching on the Catholic Social Doctrine, and Jesus’s message to help and respect the sinners, and to help the poor*

    Finally, if you do reply to this comment, answer me one thing. What would Jesus have thought of the richest country in the world not providing healthcare to its citizens? What would Jesus have thought of the thousands dying each year due to lack of healthcare? What would Jesus have thought of children born into the world with conditions that will not be covered by health insurance?

    There are two parties to vote for, there is no Catholic Party, and therefore whoever you vote for must be a compromise. But to suggest that voting for the Republican party over the Democrats is more moral – in my opinion borders on idiocy and shows a total lack of compassion, or maybe that you have never actually taken the time to look at a different point of view of Catholicism to your own. I suggest you read

    God Bless

  • Anonymous

    “sadly he is part of the “social justice” crowd”

    You clearly consider that a criticism. Can you please – and I mean this as a genuine question – explain why social justice is ‘bad’, and, more specifically, something Christians would have a problem with? You see, I can believe that Christians might believe in different ways of achieving social justice, but I can’t see any way that a Christian would not want social justice.

  • Anonymous

    Dear paulsays.

    We Irish have an expression, you are quite the “corker” its not bad its tantamount to mischievous rascal I do not know where to begin but you are so wrong in most everything you replied to. First, I did not link you to the “social justice” crowd the comment you made did, I just expanded on it. First let me address my favorite, in your reply to me “respect the sinner” I love that, I hope you can explain where in Catholic Doctrine we are to respect the sinner. I.e. Did John the Baptist respect King Herod? No

    We are to forgive the sinner, we are to hate the sin. I will give you an example that liberals love, but have little understanding of. John 8

    And Jesus went unto mount Olivet. And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came to him, and sitting down he taught them. And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

    Liberals love to use that chapter in scripture to justify all sorts of immorality such as “don’t judge” “who are you to judge?” showing how little they understand of Jesus and the Bible. Its like don’t judge homosexuality don’t judge abortion, so on and so forth. That’s so they can continue to sin and and get in your face with their abominations. The whole key to that passage of John was the last sentence Jesus replied: “Go and sin no more” She went her way and sinned no more, she did not go and get a social brigade of radical feminists and protest Jesus saying, who are you to judge or adulterous or monogamous I am the same, no she avoided the sin and dedicated her life to Jesus. Also I wish to point out that Jesus did not abolish Mosaic Law of stoning adulterous women at that time note* Jesus: “I have not come to abolish the law but to uphold the law” What law? The laws of Leviticus that God passed onto Moses Jesus went through and said that so people meaning Pharisees and Sadducees would know Jesus is God and He had the power to forgive and that we should all forgive.

    Now on to health care, nowhere does it say in the Bible or Scripture about government providing health care, that is for individual conscience that people do individually or by charitable groups / organizations. There are plenty of government programs for the poor and Repunlicans have funded them much to my chagrin because they are failures and do not work and keep people in an endless generational cycle of dependency and poverty, government programs begat more poverty, When will liberals Everrrrr learn government is NOT the solution????? HUD, failure Amtrak, failure, Department of Education Failure I can go on and on ad nauseam.

    Now addressing your question “What would Jesus do with the richest country in the world not providing healthcare? That made me laugh, at that time the richest country was Rome, Rome provided no health care to its poor and Jesus addressed that paulsays “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” As for the poor I do help the poor I help in both money and time many foundations and organizations, which is what God wants us to do, not to look for government to help the poor but each individual citizen.

    Lastly you are wrong there are many Political parties in the United States, two are major Republican and Democrat but if memory serves I bekieve there are over 50 political parties in the United States
    I hope I addressed all your issues paulsays if not respond back God Bless you and Family

  • Anonymous

    Dear Daveofthenewcity

    Well first let me explain Social Justice, extends from Liberal Catholic Theology, that started in Europe, South America and reared its ugly head here and its very hard to explain unless you are a professor, scholar and or theologian but I will endeavour to do so.

    You have to understand that Liberal Catholic Theology goes far beyond what most people conceptualize in their minds about what social justice is i.e. Good works – works of mercy – are usually direct and specific: food, clothing, rent money, counseling, and so forth. It has to do with basic structure of Catholic Dogma, Catholic Canon Law and Holy Sacraments.

    Many Catholic Theologians such as Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Marie-Dominique Chenu, and a plethora of others wanted to introduce what was know at the time”New Theology” and today Liberal Catholic Theology. which sadly was the progenitor of Vatican II.Many of the ideas involved in the “New Theology had been condemned by Pope Pius XII in his enyclical Humani Generis. You can read it here… What that encyclical does is basically condemn that theology

    You may also wish to read Diuturnum Illud Encyclical, and Humanum Genus Encyclical both by Pope Leo XIII

    Hand in hand, then with submission to the truth, legitimate social justice activism always uses and teaches ethical means to an end. Without belaboring what ought to be an obvious point, Veritatis Splendor takes some pains to explain that “It is not licit to do evil that good may come of it.”[iv] It isn’t enough that organizations acquire “goods” for their constituencies. They must accept and teach moral truth; they must be principled. A lying or bribing political lobby may win all its temporal battles, but it will have lost its soul.
    –Pope John Paul II

    In closing sadly, most of todays social justice is in Catholicism based on Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) founded by saul alinski whose book had the foreword dedicated to satan need is say more? Most of that IAF garbage goes contrary to Catholic Moral Law
    Any questions you may have feel free to reply.

    God Bless You and Family

  • Anonymous

    Dear Heather,

    Thank you for your detailed response. I am no theologian, so it was interesting to hear of some of the background to this – there are things I hope to follow up when I have more time (if that ever happens).

    The key theological principle in your message, though, seems to be quite simple: “It is not licit to do evil that good may come of it”, which I read as a religious expression of “The ends do not justify the means”. As so often, this is a religious/ethical principle which cuts across political boundaries. The thing that came to mind immediately when I started thinking about it was Guantánamo Bay, and the way in which individuals are treated badly, justified on the grounds that it prevents the greater evil of a terrorist attack. It is a great shame that President Obama hasn’t kept his promise of shutting the detention camp down. This of course is part of the wider issues of governments introducing draconian anti-terror laws, which is an concern in many countries of the world.

    I said it was a simple principle, but it must one of the most difficult to grapple with in ‘real world’ politics. The tone of your posts seem to imply that you believe President Obama in particular has got it wrong. That is not at all how I see it. I see a man who – like many (but not all!) politicians – went in to politics with the highest of ideals, but is struggling with the constraints of realpolitik. As Christians we should pray for him.

    Peace be with you,

  • Ndtrnbsn

    @ratbag….the term is African Americans and not “Afro-American. Afro refers to a type of hairstyle. BTW, You “see his face and your blood runs cold”. I see his face and start to pray so that he will be protected from cold blooded people such as yourself. Get on your knees and pray that God release you from the anger you have towards this man.
    I am catholic and I will vote AGAIN for President Obama.

  • Glock H. Palin, Esq.

    “He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate
    disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell
    research, by promoting the FOCA [Freedom of Choice Act] agenda and by
    his open support for gay rights throughout this country.”

    Wait, he’s shown his disregard of the unborn by supporting gay rights? You wanna run that by be one more time?

  • Ron

    This is very much just a few reasons why Catholics should not have voted for him upfront but now
    should not re-elect him.  His many anti christian actions and policies in the US and elsewhere e.g.
    middle east, and  pro-muslim policies as well as his actions deny the US its christian heritage.  His
    hi-jacking of the ideal of christian social justice even have many Bishops and clergy deceived in  spite
    of their alleged deep christian education and special heritage.

    These stances are leading or affirming many in helping the US abandon its world leadership in
    many areas including charity seemingly unaware with the  conversion of the US to a  weakened
    European like or Muslim country, the world will not be better off..

    Ron V

  • Pandora UK

    However, just like any other specific type of business today, each of them teachers’ inevitable wear. Despite the charms of Pandora will be able to move forward (or even equals or exceeds) a long, customers should be repeated often take good care of their own piece of art of pandora charms.

  • Mary

    How very sad the U.S. has Obama as a legacy for President.  I feel for the babies he has comdemned to a  brutal killing in the womb. I can only remember the words of Our dear Lord on the cross. “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do”.

  • someguy

    Obozo is a Godless stormtrooper of the revolutionary left sent here from hell by Satan himself to destroy America