Thu 31st Jul 2014 | Last updated: Thu 31st Jul 2014 at 16:39pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Now Obama has proved it: he really is an enemy of the Catholic Church. But how will that affect the 54 per cent of Catholics who voted for him last time?

Why do I have a sinking feeling about the answer to that question? Someone cheer me up, do

By on Friday, 27 January 2012

President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, US health secretary (Photo: CNS)

President Obama and Kathleen Sebelius, US health secretary (Photo: CNS)

About a year ago, I wrote a blog entitled “Why Barack Obama has to be seen as an enemy of the Catholic Church”. This was picked up by quite a few American Catholic blogs, for example this one, which reproduced the piece in full; and it attracted much favourable attention: but some of the reactions, also from American Catholics – who presumably were from that shameful 54 per cent of Catholics who voted for Obama – were not favourable.

Well, if ever there was any doubt about whether or not I was right, it has now been removed – that is for Catholics who understand, unlike the late Cardinal Bernardin, with his “seamless garment” theology (according to which abortion, say, was just one of a whole raft of other issues like war and peace, opposition to the death penalty, welfare reform and civil liberties), that actually “life issues” are not like others, negotiable or – like the morality of war, for instance – subject to context and circumstance: who understand, in other words, that abortion and euthanasia are always and under all circumstances, just wrong.

Obama’s health secretary has now issued a ruling: that under his administration’s Health Care Act not only must any provider of health care be prepared to supply artificial contraception (including drugs which, though labelled contraceptive, are in fact abortifacient) but that that definitely includes Catholics (for the CNS story, see here):

(CNSNews.com) – Cardinal Donald Wuerl, head of the Catholic archdiocese of Washington, DC, issued a warning last week against the implementation of an Obamacare regulation that would place many Catholic employers in an “untenable position” by requiring all health care plans to cover sterilization and abortion-inducing contraceptives, in violation of religious liberty and particularly Catholic moral teaching.

His warning coincided with a full-page ad by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), which said the regulation, set to start on Aug. 1, 2012, could “severely curtail” Catholic health care providers.

Catholic institutions account for 12.7 percent of the nation’s hospitals, according to the 2009 American Hospital Association Annual Survey, with more than 5.6 million patients admitted to Catholic hospitals in a one-year period. An additional 1,400 long-term care and other Catholic health facilities are present in all 50 states, according to the Catholic Health Association of the United States. Also, there are about 70 million Catholics in the United States.

So, American Catholics, you now know, if you didn’t know before: you cannot, if you are a faithful Catholic, vote for this man. He is an enemy of your Church and everything it stands for. But that prompts the question: how come so many Catholics voted for him last time? How come, while we are about it, that one of the first things that happened in his presidency was the conferring on him of an honorary degree by Notre Dame, that renowned “Catholic” University?

This is a long and murky story. It involves telling (which I don’t have time for here) all about the links between Notre Dame and certain clergy from the Archdiocese of Chicago (prop. the above-mentioned Cardinal Bernardin) and their connections with a legendary political radical, a Marxist atheist called Saul Alinsky, who despite his many attacks on the Church received vast funding from something called the Catholic Fund for Human Development (CHD), an agency of the USCCB which over the years has raised hundreds of millions from second collections taken up after Sunday Mass. The following are examples of some of the grants made by the CHD:

• 1985: $40,000 for Chicago’s Developing Communities Project, led by then lead organiser, Barack Obama
• 1986: $33,000 for Obama’s Developing Communities Project, which Obama continued to lead
• 1992: ACORN funding (see below) for Project Vote, a Chicago programme which Obama also led
• 1995: Cardinal Bernardin helped commit $116,000 from the national CHD fund to Chicago Metropolitan Sponsors, an Alinsky Industrial Areas Foundation organisation
• 2000 – 2008: $7m went to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), an Alinsky-influenced, leftist network under criminal investigation in several states. ACORN supports radical, ‘in your face’ local and national causes as well as abortion. CHD funding stopped only in November 2008, well after every other American wondered when the bishops would halt the allocation of $1m to the group.
• Ongoing: $20,000 to $30,000 per community group across the country under the guise of ‘community organisation’
• Also ongoing: 4% to 5% of total CHD funds to the Gamaliel Foundation, a Marxist socio-political network of Alinsky-inspired organisations
• Still ongoing: Alinsky’s own Industrial Areas Foundation, which receives 16% of CHD funds annually!

No wonder that when Obama received his degree at Notre Dame, he spoke so warmly about Cardinal Bernardin: he was addressing an institution that had been deeply impregnated with the CHD mentality and with Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment theology. No wonder that when he later spoke to a small group of Catholic journalists, he more or less told them that Cardinal Bernardin had given him his (very Left-wing) start in politics:

“The president said he had fond memories of Cardinal Bernardin and that when he started his neighborhood projects, they were funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development,” he said. “After the first question, from the National Catholic Reporter‘s Joe Feuerherd, the president jokingly asked, ‘Was there really [a controversy at Notre Dame]?’
“The president spoke about how during Cardinal Bernardin’s time the US bishops spoke about the nuclear freeze, the sanctuary movement, immigration, and the poor, but that later a decided change took place,” added Fr Kearns. “He said that the responses to his administration mirror the tensions in the Church overall, but that Cardinal Bernardin was pro-life and never hesitated to make his views known, but he had a consistent ‘seamless garment’ approach that emphasized the other issues as well. The president said that that part of the Catholic tradition continues to inspire him. Those issues, he said, seemed to have gotten buried by the abortion debate.”

Well, Mr President, you’re wrong: there has indeed been something, perhaps not yet enough, of a “decided change” (though what about the CHD? I’d like to know, if anyone can tell me): but American Catholics still take issues to do with social justice seriously, of course they do. Notre Dame, however, is now very clearly seen as being an institution which is Catholic in name only. And that is a very definite advance: at least American Catholics know where they are. It might be fitting, indeed, to end with the letter Archbishop Nienstedt of Saint Paul and Minneapolis wrote to the President of Notre Dame about his now notorious invitation to Obama, a letter which spelled out the parting of the ways very clearly:

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

That about says it all; and now Obama’s abortionist Health Care Act has put the matter beyond doubt. The question now is this: how will that 54 per cent of American Catholics (and that’s a lot of votes) who helped put him into the presidency, vote this time? And why is it that I have a sinking feeling about the answer to that question?

  • Fourth Norn

    Dr Oddie, are you sure you know the answer to your question? The Americans who have responded have given you some idea. This political landscape is difficult to survey. Gingrich’s support is gathering against all informed predictions. If he is the Republican nominee, I think he’s got a good shot at the Presidency. Obama has had an awful time trying to reform the pork-barrelling politics of the Hill, but now he’s guilty of the same tactics himself. Alienate Catholic votes? I wouldn’t take that risk. No, this looks like a really bad call on his part and he shouldn’t be consoled by the presence of Sebelius and Biden on his team. But what would an Australian know?

  • al

    Well by your own words of disagreement you are not a practicing Catholic but one in name only who offends the name Catholic and those who have lived and died for it and the true Catholic teachings.

  • http://profiles.google.com/lordhowardhurts Lord Howard Hurts

    I have watched the display of Republican candidates, without a Moral Compass, over and over, to complete distastefulness, and yet few of our citizens see the folly and disgrace that they present. Only one candidate, thus dismissed, had shown any potential leadership ability and authority, but alas, Michele Bachmann quit. So I give to you, citizens of this great nation, the only words that I can summon in an attempt to rally the minds of Patriots:
    “La Pucelle”We stand on a precipice overlooking the valley of a dead Constitution. A Constitution predicated on the belief in Free Will and of Human Freedom……….. yet we make no sacrifice towards salvation. We rant and rave about soldiering up, but no leader comes forward. The pretenders beat their breast, and the vile spittle, endlessly, emits from their frothing mouths, but no muscle is exerted in the defense of this Constitution, and the greatest experiment in human Freedom that history has ever known. Where is our Joan of Arc? We have Harvard educated pretenders and cowards attending our leadership roles, but where is our simple little shepherd girl? Has the Divine turned it’s back on our plight? Are our cries only being heard by the passing winds? Surely, in the midst of all this corruption, and deception, that surrounds us, one virgin should be found……. to lead us from this dire darkness of social slavery that “sweet destiny” continues pushing us towards; Leading this once great nation into a “New Dark Age”.  The Men of this nation are cowards, so somewhere, yea, Joan of Arc, hear our calls on the winds; Seeking ears to hear; that will bring forth life to this nation. “La Pucelle”. Ride forth to take command of this decaying nation, and its shameful military. We will look for your banner……….”Jesus-Mary”;  And “La Pucelle,” we will follow.Lord Howard Hurts freedomfiles.blogspot.com

  • Anonymous

    I suppose if you are a celibate priest or nun it is easy to assume that the primary function of the sex act is procreation. Married people are likely to have a different perspective. How can those who know nothing about sex from experience be in any position to judge its primary function? 

    If God had wanted us to think that the sex act is primarily for procreation, why did he make it so enjoyable, and why did he give it only a 3% success rate at achieving procreation, but 100% success rate at giving pleasure? 

  • Anonymous

    Of course men and women are capable of controlling their impulses. The question is whether there is any reason for married people to do so on the instructions of celibate people who nothing from experience about either marriage or sexual intercourse. If only Popes and Cardinals had had healthy married sex lives they would have known the God had given married people the sex act primarily for mutual pleasure.

  • Brian A. Cook

    Promoting the burning and torture of human beings to enforce religious or ideological conformity?  And some wonder why so many people run away from the Church. 

  • Brian A. Cook

    Did he literally worship Lucifer?

  • Brian A. Cook

    Allow me to elaborate.  If Hitler used the name of Christ as simply a culture reference, as some Catholic apologists claim, then it is VERY likely that Alinsky did the same with Lucifer. 

  • http://profiles.google.com/liamronan49 Liam Ronan

    I suggest, EndGame, that at this moment in time it is more important to put out the fire than point the finger at who may have allowed it to get out of control.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, the Catholic Herald is the mainstream Catholic newspaper in this country, especially so since the Tablet abandoned the faith.

  • Anonymous

    He is an enemy of the Church in the same way that all governments which try to force the Church to do things which are contrary to its teaching are.

    The Blair government, for instance, killed off the adoption agencies, and must therefore be so characterised.

  • Anonymous

    But we’re not talking just about what Americans call “birth control”. We are talking about ABORTIFACIENT contraception and also access to abortion.

    If this is your attitude you may not communicate. How anyone who claims to be Catholic can support infanticide is beyond me.

  • Anonymous

    If you support abortion and communicate, then you compound one mortal sin with another. Repent for the sake of your soul.

  • St.Olaf.Forever

    Please, everybody, if you haven’t yet done so, read the biography of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, by Eric Metaxas. It spells out the inch by inch progress from freedom to religious persecution. At the heart of the persecutors’ plan is to enlist, early on, well meaning church leaders who keep thinking they can change the mind of the “leader” because he only is misguided, poorly informed, etc. With regret, I think here of the Archbishop of New York who recently regretted publicly that a meeting with Obama — a meeting which he left, feeling encouraged — actually failed to move Obama at all. Incidents eerily similar happened in Bonhoeffer’s time. We must see this administration for what it is. THank you, William Oddie, for being one of the early, clear thinkers about this.   

  • Anonymous

    However, Obama is a Saint if we compare him with José Luis R. Zapatero. (ex-PM of Spain). He passed an abortion law which, among other things, made mandatory even to all Medicine Faculties to teach to abort. Let me to include a quote from the University of Navarre: :http://www.unav.es/informacion/noticias/universidad-y-vida

  • John F. Kennedy

    Catholics can not and must not vote for people who insist killing innocent people. I’m 48 years old and EVERY election I can remember the Democrat Party candidate has been Pro-Choice, that is in favor in almost all circumstances of killing innocent people, and the Republican Party candidate has been against in almost all circumstances.

    It would be like knowing history of Hilter, Stalin and Mao, voting for them and then saying, “Well, they have reduced the unemployement rate.”

  • Abadilla

    It is true that Obama is not a Catholic, but I doubt highly he is even a Christian of some sort. His religion is socialism and his attack is on all religions, not just the Catholic faith. The government is working not just against the consciences of Catholics, but against the consciences of all believers, that simple.
    “How many bishops, priests, or religious has he put in prison? Not yet, but if we don’t comply with his demands, he will twist the law to make sure that is exactly what will happen, unless  Catholics unite to confront him. If he reads your defense of him and calculates there are too many Catholics willing to be on his side, he will surely move against our bishops and priests. It’s just a matter of time and if he wins the next election.
     “Why should the CC be exempt from the common lot of mankind?” Because it is not the government’s business to interfere with religion. That’s why we have freedom of religion in this country. If abortion and contraceptives were not available in secular institutions, I can see the government making a case for Catholic hospitals and clinics to provide “services” of the kind, but that is not the case.
    No, we are not crying “Wolf,” we are defending our rights as Catholics against a King who thinks he can trample the Constitution and violate the rights of 70 million Catholics and many other non-Catholics.
    By the way, procured abortion is murder and we stand against it, but it is not a particular Catholic teaching. Actually, we are defending a human right, the right to be born. I find it fascinating that leftists all over this nation demand respect for human rights but when it comes to the unborn, the choice and sentence is death! That’s why their cry of “Let us defend human rights,” sounds hollow and hypocritical!

  • Abadilla

    Mark,

     My answer was in replying to Parasum, not to you. However, I must say I’m in total agreement with what you wrote.

  • Abadilla

    And, of course, your implication is that poor people are executed simply because they are poor people, and your implication is also that rich people get away with murder. Is it possible more poor people are executed because: a) They actually committed the crimes they have been accused of? b) Many of them do not have at their disposal powerful attorneys fighting for them? a) Is it possible many rich people are not executed because they are too busy making money to commit crimes. b) They do have the means to hire powerful attorneys who can defend them in a court of law?
    Is Oddie discussing here the death penalty or how Obama is forcing all of us to abandon our right to be Catholic in the public Square? What is your point in bringing all these matters up instead of confronting the issue Oddie wrote about?
    BTW, as a Catholic, in order to strenghtened the message of life, I may oppose all executions, but I can still make a prudential judgment on the death penalty and support it in a few cases and still remain a good Roman Catholic, able to receive Holy Communion. In the case of intrinsic evils like abortion and contraceptives that are abortificient, I don’t have “prudential” judgment as a Catholic, I must accept the moral teaching of the Church that clearly teaches me abortion is murder and abortificients are murder also because they both, prevent life. I also make a clear distinction between an innocent child in the womb and an adult criminal sitting in jail waiting to be executed for his crimes, and, in most cases, do not support the execution of such criminals just in case they are innocent of the crime they have been accused of. Do you remember the guys that were found guilty of raping the daughters of this poor man and killing them and his wife and then setting their house on fire? It was found beyond a shadow of a doubt the accused were guilty. Now, do you think I should say the State does not have the right to execute these monsters? Do you think I can compare them with an innocent child in the womb of a mother willing to kill him or her?

  • Abadilla

    Abuna,

     I would also suggest the entire body of U.S. Bishops take this case to the Supreme Court as a violation of the freedom of religion, and I’m sure they will win. I also think our bishops should preach from the pulpit why what the government wants to do to the Church and other believers is evil. I also would love to see the Bishops finally excommunicate Catholic politicians, Republican, Independent, or Democrat who undermine church teaching by supporting the King in Washington D.C. It’s bad enough having to deal with dissenters in our own church, but it’s worse when these dissenters are politicians and they affect the Church negatively in the Public Square.

  • Anonymous

    Patrick- You changed my words again. I didn’t say function, I said in nature, the PURPOSE of the sex act is procreation. And yes, it is pleasurable, But God didn’t say go for it, kids, have pleasure, but to be fruitful and multiply.

  • D-holmes

    God save us from the madness to which the United States continues to descend. The bigots and zealots on here bring shame to the faith.

    What would Jesus do? I suspect he would have to exit the building to puke out the venom and bile.

  • Lefty048

    i did agree with the jury’s decision.  we will never agree totally on the abortion issue. i have a daughter and 11 nieces    and i believe they should have the right to make up their own mind.   what i have found in discussing this issue is that  a rather large number of people with your view donot want to spend money in the raising  of other peoples children.  as we both know having a child is a commitment.  every child has the right to be loved and educated and  if the parents don”t do it we as a society should.  i have 2 adopted children. 

  • Lefty048

    recent history tells us a good number of these bishops and cardinals  (cardinal law comes to mind) should actually be in jail.  (saved by the statute of limitations)  they have lost ALL moral authority.   when they speak the laity roll their eyes and shake their heads.  of course their is also the chance of losing their tax status.    they love their money.  lets start with gingrich with the THREE wives.

  • Gabriel Austin

    Patrick,
    Make an effort to avoid ad hominem postings [such as "deliberately misleading"].

    Yes, I do believe that the Church [Popes] did not approve of slavery. Googling under the popes and slavery, you will find the precise answers given by Fr. Joel Panzer. Slavery had pretty well disappeared from Europe until the Age of Exploration. It was the Muslims with their “Islam” [submission] who reintroduced into the modern world. Eugene IV began the series of condemnations in 1435.

    Unhappily, many American bishops refused to accept Gregory XIII’s precise condemnation of slavery in 1830. It is not unlike the American episcopacy today which is unhappy with Paul VI’s HUMANAE VITAE and speak softly about it. Typical bishops: nothing new there. The Jesuits of Maryland also were unhappy with Gregory’s clear condemnation. Finally, they obeyed the pope’s direct order, but:
    “The community also had unique motives when, in 1838, it chose to abandon the
    institution of slavery, not by manumitting its 272 slaves (a practice that was
    not uncommon in Maryland at the time), but by selling them to two sugar
    plantation owners in Louisiana”.
    The profits from the sales went to the foundation of Georgetown and Fordham universities.

    St. Alphonsus was not a pope; a saint is canonized because of his life, not his thinking, nor was Fr. Prummer a pope. Calling sinful joining in public prayer with those who are not Catholics is a curious notion, considering the various prayer “meetings” of the popes and such as My Lords of Canterbury.

    On the Galileo matter you might read Annibale Fantoli’s GALILEO: For Copernicanism and for the Church; it gives all the documents. 

  • Abadilla

    “We will never agree with the abortion issue.” Lefty048, if abortion is the murder of an innocent child and our Church condemns it since the Didache, in the first century, to Evangelium Vitae, in the 20th century, why should you and I not agree on  this one, unless you think the destruction of the unborn is not an intrinsic evil?
    I also have two daughters, but I do not believe they have the right to murder anyone, especially children in their wombs. Don’t innocent children have rights?
    My wife and I have committed ourselves to the defense of the unborn and the help women need to raise their children. What makes you think people of my view do not care supporting economically those women who have chosen life?
    You have two adopted children. I was adopted myself in Costa Rica at a time when abortion was forbidden and it still is. If abortion had been the law of the land, there would have been perfect justification for my elimination from the human family. You know why? Three reasons. 1) I was abandoned and was not suppose to grow up as a normal member of society because I was ill. 2) I was an economic burden to the family that adopted me because they already had several children of their own. 3) My biological mother could have aborted me, illegally, simply because she did not have the economic means to support me.
    My wife was told by a friend of hers she was going to abort many years ago. She convinced the lady not to do it and spoke to a bishop to help her financially. The bishop spoke to the woman and the woman had the child. Today that child is a grown woman who knows my wife interfered to save her life and she will always be grateful for that intervention. Do we care about women who have children in spite of the propaganda in this country that abortion is simply “a medical procedure?” You bet we care about those women.

  • Mark

    So, ‘Rules for Radicals’ is actually promoting Catholic teaching and we just don’t recognize it? I have no idea who Alynski worshiped, but he was pushing a Socialist/Communist agenda through deceptive and insidious means, including infiltrating the Church and distorting the Church’s social teaching. Last I checked, the Catholic Church stood in opposition to Socialism and actually helped to defeat Communism (at least the Soviet variety). Obama’s anti-Catholic policies are the fruition of Alynski’s work which was built on the heresy of Modernism that the Church condemned earlier in the 20th century. 

  • Abadilla

    You are correct in stating that some bishops have lost their moral authority, but most bishops have not lost that moral authority and they should not be rejected because of the sins of a few. In any case, most bishops who are totally innocent of sexual abuse speak with the authority of the Church and in her name. They are not giving us their “private” opinions.
    As far as Gingrich is concerned, I don’t know how many wives he had, but I do know he has converted to the Catholic faith and I hope that new journey will help him get his moral life together.

  • Abadilla

    I do not know of a single church document that claims that the Church is infallible in “everything.” The Church is “holy” because its head, Christ, is the fountain of all holiness, but it is also sinful in her members because her members are not always holy and living in conformity with God’s will. Our human nature has been wounded by original sin and we are prompt to sin. That’s why Christ’s Church established the Sacrament of Reconciliation so we can always return to God’s ways through His mercy and forgiveness.
    BTW, have you ever found another Christian church or another religion that is perfect and holy? If you do, let me know.

  • Abadilla

    “How anyone who claims to be Catholic can support infanticide is beyond me.”
     
    It is also beyond my understanding. What I see in many messages here is that the Church is not perfect and therefore it is O.K. to allow this administration to walk all over her. That makes sense to dissident Catholics, but it does not make snse to me one bit.
    My mother was not perfect, but no one was ever allowed to attack her in front of me. My Mother the Church is not perfect, but I can’t understand anyone who calls himself or herself a son or daughter of the Church, attacking her and defending an administration that is bent in destroying her moral teachings and silencing her voice in  the public square.

  • Abadilla

    Nothing, if by “nothing” we understand an specific teaching on contraception, but His Churh has have plenty to say on it from the Didache to Evangelium Vitae. Now, there are Protestants who believe if a concept is not in the Bible, then God didn’t say anything about it, yet, when it comes to abortificients, they condemn it just as Catholics do.
    Think about it, contraceptives (against life). How can a Church who preaches the God of Life be for contraceptives that make life impossible, and how can the same Church that sees pro-creation as a blessing, agree with contraception?
    Up until the Lambeth Conference in London, in the 1930s all Christians believed contraception was sinful. Then the Conference, through majority vote, changed the teaching and contraception became a virtue when before it was a sin. Pius XI said the truth can not be understood through “majority” vote and reaffirmed our belief that contraception is sinful. Then Vatican II affirmed the Pope’s teaching, and Paul VI clarified it even more in Humanae Vitae, and here we are in 2012 still talking about it as if the Church of Christ has never been clear on the issue.

  • Jeannine

    Elmer Fudd is a viable alternative!!!!!.

  • Gabriel Austin

    Somewhere in this discussion was a reference to Mr. Obama and racism. What I find interesting is the accusation of racism against those who voted either not for or against Mr. Obama. [The sad Mr. Carter, for example]. Now it seems to me that those who bring up the color of Mr. Obama’s skin [either for or against] are the true racists. For them it is the most meaningful thing about him. This is why Herman Cain was perceived as  a great threat.

  • Lefty048

    it is a convenient conversion i believe.  have you read his policies for the poor?   he missed or skipped over what jesus said.

  • Anonymous

    Gabriel, your post is full of misunderstandings, starting with the accusation of the use of “ad hominem” argument . An “ad hominem” attack is when an irrelevant attack is made on the character of the person proposing an argument. I did not do that – I said that you were either ill informed or deliberately misleading; I believe that follows logically from the arguments you made – you must be one or the other. If I had said, “Do not take any notice of what Gabriel says because he has a bad character” that would be “ad hominem” since it is irrelevant to the validity of your argument. 

    The capture, sale and purchase of slaves for use by priests and bishops was common for most of the first thousand years of the Church’s history. The Pope supported the slave owners during the American civil war. 

    Do you deny that Galileo was condemned for heresy, and that his heresy was that he denied what was then the official Church dogma of Geocentricism, and that this dogma was false? Read the full text of the actual document : http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1630galileo.asp

    As for the Our Father, before Vatican II any Catholic who went to a wedding or funeral in a non-Catholic church, or a Catholic child who went to an assembly at a non-Catholic school, was strictly forbidden from joining in with any of the prayers or hymns. We were told that this was not just a rule of the Church, but part of God’s divine law.

  • StLouis26

    Please pray for Sebelius, Pelosi, Biden, & Obama.  May God change their hearts.

  • Joseph D’HIppolito

    D.A. Howard, it’s obvious you didn’t read my post. First, you’re making a huge assumption by believing that I voted for or support Pres. Obama. I didn’t and I don’t. Second, I don’t criticize the bishops for reacting against his demands. I criticize them for going to bed with him, politically, and for not using discretion and discernment about who the president really is.

    If you don’t believe that bishops throughout the centuries have misused their positions for political advantage, then you don’t really know much about Catholic history.
    This episode is a precursor of prophecy yet to be fulfilled. According to St. Paul, mass apostasy will take place in the Last Days (which, theologically speaking, began at Pentecost). The Antichrist will exploit that apostasy for his own purposes by promoting himself as the focal point and guarantor of world peace. Many of the liberal churches, as well as the Catholic Church, could well buy into that promotion because it will reflect their own rhetoric and values. Then the trap will close, and it will be too late.
    The sad thing is that too many Catholic refuse even to believe in the possibility of this happening.

  • Abadilla

    The question Oddie posted has nothing to do with what you and others are discussing. Oddie’s subject is not the past sins of the Church but whether Catholics, today, can support a President willing to force us to pay for contraceptives or abortion. I am sure your biological family is not perfect, but if your family were under attack, you would not refuse to help them by citing all the flaws of your family, right? Well, that’s what you are doing with your spiritual family, the Catholic Church.
    If you are going to blame Christianity for slavery, begin with St. Paul: “Neither was Paul an abolitionist of what the American South would later call “the peculiar institution.” Though many Christians were slaves, Paul accepted slavery as a given.” (Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church, page 22) Pope Gregory the Great encountered white slaves from England and sent St. Augustine of Canterbury to Christianized England. Apparently it did not occurr to the Pope to abolish slavery. Slavery is not a particular sin of Catholicism, Protestant Baptists in America were not particularly upset with it, nor was Eastern Orthodoxy, yet you insit on blaming Catholicism for the whole thing, even though it was the Catholic Church who condemned it in Latin America, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand who condemned it in the New World, and Pope Leo XIII who went as far as stating that the Church was now “wholly opposed to that which was originally ordained by God and nature.” (Ibid p. 374)

  • Abadilla

    I don’t dare “question” anyone’s conversion because I can’t read the mind and heart of a person who goes through such a personal experience.
    I believe many of us, as Roman Catholics, have different opinions on just about anything and this forum proves it, so, if Gingrich is wrong on certain issues, he might not even know about them. One thing is for sure, he has said he is pro-life which today usually means he is against procured abortion and he is for the defense of the nation, which we Catholics are also free to make a prudential judgment on that matter. He has also promised to fix the economy which I happen to believe, with millions of American, is a total disaster.
    As of now I don’t favor him, but I will vote for Mickey Mouse if the Republican Convention chooses him to run against Obama, because what Obama has done to this country, and is now trying to do to the Church, has no excuse.

  • Abadilla

    “I stand by my original statement.” You have the freedom is this country to be totally wrong!

  • Anonymous

    I think the posters here have misunderstood Obama’s arguments.

    The argument being made is that because Catholic hospitals, schools, universities, social service agencies etc, etc, serve non-Catholics, they cannot be called religious.

    It’s because they are Catholic that they started these things.

    This is not just about whether one agrees with church teaching or not. There are Jews and Muslims who don’t observe Kosher/Halal etc, but the state cannot mandate if they should or not.

    It’s one thing to disagree, it’s another to force every single Catholic organization to do something or shut their doors.

    This is a full frontal attack.

    Even Liberal Catholics in the U.S. are shocked by this.

    Obama offends the Catholic left

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203718504577179110264196498.html

  • Abadilla

    Thank you for the link. I pasted it to my computer and will show it to my “catholic” friends who voted for Obama, defended Jenkins and think the “National Catholic Reporter” and Mahony are just great.

  • Alan

    Obama may be an “enemy of the pro-life movement”, but that doesn’t make him an “enemy of the Catholic Church”.  On that basis many, perhaps most, politicians are “enemies of the Catholic Church”, which (except for Paisleyites and the like) is absurd.  The US President actually has less real power on domestic issues than the UK Prime Minister, as he is greatly restrained by Congress.  And it was the Supreme Court which ruled in “Roe v. Wade”, the judgement being delivered (I believe) by the Nixon appointee Blackmun.  To suggest that Catholics who vote for Obama are doing wrong is ridiculous, as they are given an effective choice of only two people, and, leaving aside all the other issues, the ability of the president to directly affect the abortion law in a major way is pretty limited, which is a relevant point when it comes to voting.

  • Pattiern

    Davanna is an example of so many American Catholics who do not grasp the authority of the Church.  She speaks as an excellent example of a Lutheran or Anglican.  Being a member of the Body of Christ requires following Her teachings.  If I may borrow from another article on this subject, Davanna is saying that she is a committed vegan who has NO trouble with eggs or beef.  It is an oxymoron.

  • Nyankslawrence

    Pple should not look at the church as a rebel,but as a savior.You can imagine among all denominations in America,it`s only the Catholic church that stands up to save the Americans.Others don`t care because they want money.
    Please do support the catholic church to continue it`s good job

  • Anonymous

    Chances are most American Catholics are unaware of the current controversy and if they do know about it they care little if at all. Probably most diocesan employees are happy contraceptives will now be free. Lets be real. Contraception is a moot point. The vast majority of Catholics use contraception and do not care one bit about what the Church teaches. The clergy has been defending left wing causes for 50 years to the detriment of Catholic moral theology. We’ve succumbed to the same “social gospel” mentality that has made mainline Protestantism a club for 60+ hippies that may or may not believe in the resurrection. Catholics are at the forefront of gay marriage fights and pro-choice policies. No wonder the Baptists here in American wonder if we are Christians at all. 

  • Janet

    To fully understand the connections between the (CHD) Catholic Campaign for Human Development-CCHD, this video is excellent …and yet DISTURBING to know this infiltration is rampant. The church (truly faithful) must purge these heretics.

    The CCHD and Saul Alinsky

  • Janet

    Liam,
    To better understand these “useful” relationships and the multitude of dissenting Catholics, this investigational video may help….please pass this on…

    Obama’s Counterfeit Catholics

  • Anonymous

    Actually Fr. Jenkins has come out against this.

    Notre Dame Joins Outcry

    http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/notre-dame-joins-outcry-against-hhs-contraception-mandate/

  • Anonymous

    Alan,

    I think you’re missing the point.  Obama is basically saying that Catholic organizations are not Catholic, because they serve non-Catholics.

    It’s like saying, Jesus was not religious because he served those who were not.

    This puts the church in a difficult position because one-third of hospitals in the U.S. are Catholic. The same with universities. Catholic charities employ about 90,000 people.