Wed 17th Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 16th Sep 2014 at 19:31pm

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?

  • Lefty048

    you are a very unusual man i wish you well.

  • Lefty048

    so we know one thing for sure there will be one vote for a republican and one vote for a democrat.

  • theroadmaster

    I concur fully with your points which are very well made, regarding both the internal and external threats to the mission of The Church.

  • Gabriel Austin

    To suggest that I may be deliberately misleading is an ad hominem comment.

    As a large property owner, the
    Church had many serfs. There is a difference from slavery. The institution of serfdom eventually destroyed the institution of slavery, until it was revived by Islam.

    Which pope was it that supported slave owners in the U.S. south? I believe you are confusing popes and bishops.
    Gregory XVI: In Supremo, 1839

    “The 1839 Constitution In Supremo by Gregory XVI continued the antislavery
    teaching of his predecessors, and was in the same manner not accepted by many of those
    bishops, priests and laity for whom it was written”.

    Geocentrism was never a dogma of the Church. Copernicus’ great work was dedicated to a pope, and well -received by him. Your reference to Halsall ‘s essay on Galileo acknowledges that there is no printed source for the documents he cites. I again refer you to A. Fantoli’s book on the whole subject. You might also have a look at the Galileo article in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

    Whoever told you that participating in a non-Catholic prayer service was against divine law was ignorant of Church law. Such ignorance was [and perhaps is still not] uncommon among ill-destructed priests.

    You appear to confuse ecclesiastics with the Church and the Magisterium,

  • Skiatom

    I will still vote for him.  The alternatives are much worse!

  • Abadilla

    O.K., you made your point, so, apparently, Jenkins had a “conversion,” but it was that same Jenkins  who gave a platform to one of the worse enemies of the unborn child in this country, and then did nothing to get out of jail the real Catholics who fought against a university that betrayed its principles for “prestige.” Too little too late!

  • Abadilla

    Yes, and once again we, Catholics, are being placed in an untenable position. We may have to vote for the guy we don’t want simply because anyone is better than Obama.

  • Abadilla

    Brian, in the early Christian Church (community) we had a heresy known as Donatism. This heresy basically stated that unless one had the fullness of grace, as a priest or as a lay-person, one could not belong to that Body of Christ we know as “the Church,” because, after all, the Church IS holy.  This heresy stated that the validity of the Sacraments depended on the state of grace of the priest. If the priest was in the state of mortal sin, then the sacrament was not valid. The Church declared that the Sacraments were always valid independent of the person administering them. The same can be said about the Church’s teachings. Its teachings are sacred, a reflection of God’s will, and do not depend on those who betray their own faith, because, ultimately, the Church is not “perfect,” only God is.
    When you go to Sunday Mass and you make a profession of faith, by reciting the Creed, do you say, “I believe in one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church BUT ONLY IF IT IS PERFECT? If you do, you might be a Donatist, not a Catholic.

  • Abadilla

    Thank you, but my hope is that all my writings will, in some way, make you and others in this forum think about the nature of our Church. Yes, our Holy Mother Church has flaws, the wrinkles of a wounded humanity, but it is also the vehicle that allows us to see light in a world filled with darkness!

  • Abadilla

    Thank you so much.
    I’m afraid this battle is just beginning, and even though I know our bishops are far from perfect, on this issue we must support them 100%. The stakes are too high, none other than the freedom of religion to administer our Catholic institutions with a Catholic Code of Ethics no government should ever interfere with.

  • Abadilla

    “Being a member of the Body of Christ requires following Her teachings,” and I would add, “Because when she teaches, it is Christ teaching in space and time,” and if I don’t believe that, then I don’t know why I would be a Catholic!

  • Abadilla

    “Obama may be an “enemy of the pro-life movement,” but that doesn’t make him an “enemy of the Catholic Church.”
    When Obama spoke to Archbishop Dolan to tell him we have a year to betray our consciences in order to comply with his kingly orders, who was Obama directing his thoughts to? Was he speaking to Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or to the Catholic Church represented in this nation by the President of the American Episcopal Conference? What do you mean he is not an enemy of the Catholic Church?
    To suggest that Catholics who vote for Obama are doing wrong is ridiculous you claimed. I highly suggest that a Catholic who knowns the butchering of the unborn is a grave sin, should never vote for a Presidential candidate willing to support that butchery. To do so is precisley what is utterly ridiculous, if Catholicism means anything to a particular voter.

  • Anonymous

    I agree about the immorality of abortion. But then we need to make sure we support unwanted children. Adoption should also be a very easy option. Outlawing abortion alone is not enough, one needs to provide for those who are unwanted.

  • Alan

    Some of the comments here remind me of why I did not become a Catholic until after Vatican II.  I had no wish to join the church of “error has no rights”, “no salvation outside the (Catholic) Church”, the anti-Modernist Oath, and the Syllabus of Errors (which was quietly dropped somewhere along the way).  It seems that those attitudes are still alive and well, which concerns me.  I am totally opposed to abortion, but do not consider it a “sin” to vote for somebody who does not share my view, otherwise we would hardly ever vote at all.

  • Anonymous

    Alan,

    Perhaps you should find out what these things meant in the first place.

    There is still no salvation outside the church, because there is still only One church.

    The syllabus of errors when read in context was a response to the French revolution that taught freedom of religion meant freedom from religion.

  • Anonymous

    and the other Republican candidates are friends of the Church and its code of morals? Don’t make me laugh. 

    >>Rick Santorum – who hadn’t heard of the ‘preferential option for the poor’ (as a professed Catholic)

    >>Newt Gingrich – the serial adulterer and twice divorced, the second time divorcing whilst his wife was dying of cancer  (also a professed Catholic)

    >>Mitt Romney who ran an asset-stripping company that gutted companies and left thousands job-less. Who until 2010 held accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Leading to him paying just 13% whilst taking in $42 million in the last 2 years alone.

    and THEY ALL opposed vehemently ANY change to US Healthcare, at EVER stage, making NO concessions. This is when an estimated 45,000 people each year DIE due to lack of healthcare provision – and this includes and effects entirely innocent CHILDREN.

    45,000 people is around 7.5 World Trade Center attacks each year.

  • Anonymous

    I agree it’s too late. This is a call for many Catholics to go independent. Forget about both Republicans and Democrats. We are Catholic first.

  • Anonymous

    Catholics need to go independent. Forget both parties.

  • Anonymous

    have you noticed they’ve taken down my perfectly legitimate post! You can see that right?

  • Anonymous

    Hey why was my comment removed. Was it clearly too much of a counter-argument to want on your site? What the hell is this, this is disgusting!

    Where has my comment gone Catholic Herald???
    To hell with you I’ll just re-post indefinitely until you tell me why

  • Anonymous

    and the other Republican candidates are friends of the Church and its code of morals? Don’t make me laugh. 

    >>Rick Santorum – who hadn’t heard of the ‘preferential option for the poor’ (as a professed Catholic)

    >>Newt Gingrich – the serial adulterer and twice divorced, the second time divorcing whilst his wife was dying of cancer  (also a professed Catholic)

    >>Mitt Romney who ran an asset-stripping company that gutted companies and left thousands job-less. Who until 2010 held accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Leading to him paying just 13% whilst taking in $42 million in the last 2 years alone.

    and THEY ALL opposed vehemently ANY change to US Healthcare, at EVER stage, making NO concessions. This is when an estimated 45,000 people each year DIE due to lack of healthcare provision – and this includes and effects entirely innocent CHILDREN.

    45,000 people is around 7.5 World Trade Center attacks each year.

    THIS IS A REPOST – IT WAS TAKEN DOWN FIRST TIME. WHY?

  • Anonymous

    To think you just ran an article of how wrong it is for freedom of speech to be silenced! If I get no explanation then you are clearly hypocrites and unable to beat my arguments. 

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/01/31/top-barrister-students-crackdown-on-abortion-debate-is-stalinist-and-illegal/ 

  • Anonymous

    Paul,

    Your arguments were not removed.

  • Anonymous

    Thing is that your vote is worse than useless to a independent. They will never win President, no independent ever has (except those who left a party once in office, and George Washington over 200 years ago.

    Today the system makes it even harder. As a student of US politics I implore you not to throw your vote away. 

    I don’t agree with the Church’s (illogical/insane) stance on abortion. Neither do I agree with Obama on abortion, but it is the compromise I would personally make because abortion law in the US will never be changed at federal level due to Roe vs Wade and the privacy supposedly given my the constitution.

    If abortion is your issue than only protesting the Supreme Court can change that.

    Meanwhile children stave and 45,000 a year die of no healthcare coverage… If I was in the US I’d HAVE to vote Democrat.

  • Anonymous

    lol you will probably vote for Obama. There are no other sane choices our there unfortunately. 

  • Anonymous

    haha lol. Put your tinfoil hat back on now :)

  • Anonymous

    You HAVE to cherry pick idiot. NO CANDIDATE is suitable according to Church teaching.
    Under your rules you would not be able to vote for anyone.

    Tell me someone you could vote for, and I’ll tell you many reasons for each why they would contradict Church teachings and cause you to ‘cherry-pick’.

  • Anonymous

    :( You KNOW babies is the wrong word to use here. Its dishonest to use incorrect terms, I think you need a bit of perspective.

    Did you know that for every 5 live births, ‘naturally’ (through God’s design of the human female) 4 conceptions die. Of course you would use the term baby.

    Meaning through God’s ‘poor’ design of the woman many more babies die than humans could ever abort.

  • Anonymous

    I’m not saying abortion is always right, I’m just saying that there are many different perspective to look at, and I’d urge you to look at them all.

    I used to share the exact same opinion as you btw :)

  • Anonymous

    Paul,

    You are totally missing the point of this argument. This has nothing to do with one’s personal views on this issue.

    If Obama wants an organization that offers certain services he can start them. 
    And there are such places that already exist.

    Why does he have to force organizations started and run by other people and groups to pay for these services?

    I don’t see how forcing people to pay for abortion and contraception is going to save lives in any way.

    This is an attack on religious freedom.

  • Abadilla

    And 115 bishops have gone on record as writing pastoral letters alerting Catholics to write to their congressmen and senators demanding that the Obama administration be stopped from its plans.

  • Abadilla

    I would be curious to know why you think the word “baby” is the dishonest word to use in this dicussion.
    A woman gets pregnant and she tells her husband “We are going to have a baby!” My wife and I have been in the Pro-Life Movement since 1973 precisely to make sure some babies make it into this world and are given a chance at life. We would never had gotten involved in the pro-life struggle if we thought we weren’t saving babies. Mother Teresa of Calcutta used to called abortion a “butchery” and  she constantly talked about the unborn as babies,  so, I am at a loss as to why you consider the word dishonest. What would you like Anne and the rest of us to call the unborn child in the womb of a mother? So far I have never seen or heard of a woman have a cow, a dog, a horse, a turtle, but just a baby. What’s dishonest about the word?
    On the other hand, when a woman decides to destroy the developing baby in her womb, she simply refers to the baby as “the product of conception,” a “bundle of tissues,” because she does not want to confront the humanity of the child, otherwise, she might change her mind. I find the use of euphemisms to be truly dishonest.

  • Abadilla

    Paulsays,

    At the risk of being called an “idiot,” I just have to let you know that name-calling and hurtful words, do not help establish a dialogue at all! You simply disagreed with Michael’s position, that’s all.

  • Abadilla

    “What the hell is this, this is disgusting” and “To hell with you I’ll just re-post indefinitely until you tell me why.”
    Wow! No one has removed your comments, but given the language used, I’m surprised you are still on line.
    Of course there is such a thing as “freedom of speech” but threatening the Catholic Herald won’t get you anywere with them or with the readers of this forum.
    If you decide to reply to me, you’re probably going to use this type of unfortunate language, but I will not go down to your level in my replies to you, or I might conclude a “dialogue” is impossible with someone bent in using this type of language.

  • Abadilla

    “Where the Eucharist is concern, abortionists & saints are equally unworthy: in different ways, but equally in fact.”
    Gee, I guess in 62 years of being a Roman Catholic, somehow I missed this information. So, an abortionist butchers a baby in the womb and she has as much of a right to be “in communion” with the Church as Benedict XVI, right? Talk about the “great equalizer!”
    I seem to remember St, Paul once said, “If you drink the Blood and eat the Body unworthily, you eat and drink your own condemnation,” but I probably misread the man.
    Yours is, “apparently” the mentality that folks like Sibelius and Pelosi have as they approach the Eucharist!

  • Abadilla

    Everything you just wrote is nicely written, but there is a tiny problem, it isn’t the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church! Mark’s is!

  • Abadilla

    “The death penalty is not allowed by the Catholic Church in the circumstances that exist in America. US politicians who vote for it are directly going against Catholic teaching.”

    Interesting, if the Archbishop said that, perhaps he should read his catechism and talk to the Pope before making a “prudential” judgment an intrinsic evil Catholics are never allowed to participate in.

  • Alan

    My point is, at any election (not just for US president) we are presented with two or more choices, and we have to choose the best (or least bad).  Now, abortion is a key issue, though there are other issues of importance to all of us.  We should ask ourselves not just “is this person pro or anti abortion?” but also “is he/she sufficiently concerned about the issue to act upon it?” and “does this office have much opportunity to act upon it?”.  As I understand the US position (I am British) the President has only limited powers in practice over domestic policy, as he is far more subject to Congress than is the UK Prime Minister.  The real power over abortion in the US is the Supreme Court.  On the issue of abortion alone, if there were no other issue, I would probably have preferred McCain in 2008, despite his scary running-mate.  I oppose what Obama has done regarding abortion, though it seems minimal compared with what the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade.  I think to use phrases like “enemy of the Catholic Church”, as if he wants to destroy it, is way off-beam.  No doubt his actions have offended other groups also, but in a multi-cultural democracy this is inevitable.  What really annoys me is when people say it’s a “sin” for a Catholic to vote for this or that candidate, implying that we are incapable of thinking for ourselves.  That’s what bishops did in some countries before Vatican II, and that’s what put me off becoming a Catholic until the late 1960s.

  • Alan

    “No salvation outside the Church” once meant literally that.  It was later redefined to mean “no salvation without the existence of the Church”, but some people (yourself?) don’t seem to have caught up with that.
    The Syllabus of Errors was regarded by many as definitive and infallible.  It would rule out democracy as we understand it.  Thankfully it was quietly dropped as the years went by.
    I regard abortion as a grave sin, and I object to having to pay for it through taxation.  There are lots of things which we are all forced to pay for through taxation, and different people object to different things.  This is inevitable with taxation.

  • Anonymous

    My comments are politely written. However surely I do have the right to express some outrage and anger when a perfectly legitimate post is removed, do I not?

    Read my above post, is there any reason why it should have been removed apart from the fact that the argument contradicts the Herald’s opinion?

    Hypocracy from the Herald? Or a mistake – but I would like to know. The answer dertermines whether me can trust the Herald as responsible journalists – or that they are in fact only interested in propaganda.

  • Anonymous

    Alan,

    There was only ONE church when this was proclaimed. And it was still held as no salvation outside the existence of the church.

    The Early church fathers on this issue.

    http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_salvation_outside_the_church.htm

    Please read the Syllabus in context.

    The Syllabus, the Controversy, and the Context

    http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/the-syllabus-the-controversy-and-the-context

    The U.S. does not have socialized medicine. Obama’s proposal would make church run organizations directly pay for one, whether they like it or not.

    The issue is one of religious freedom, because the argument being made is that because these organizations serve non-catholics, they are not religious.

  • Jbc000

    Fortunately for the majority of sane Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Buddhist, and Christians of all faiths, Presidents Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Regan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman, Roosevelt as well as all who came before, recognized the importance of keeping the State separate from the church.  Don’t be blinded by your theology!  These men serve and have served as President to all Americans.  I don’t think that anyone within this blog has any knowledge of what any of our President’s personal beliefs are or were.  If you want or need to know, go to the source and get your answer from the “horses’ mouth” not from the “horses’ ass”.   Obama – The Enemy of the Catholic Church – please…….how stupid is that!!

  • Gabriel Austin

    “By their fruits you shall know them”.

    “If it walks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, and squawks like a duck, and smells like a duck, and feels like a duck, chances are it is a duck”.

  • Anonymous

    HHS Mandate A ‘slap In The Face,’ Catholic Latino Group Sayshttp://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=117704

  • Lefty048

    i hope you get to see this post.  i care about poor people. i am a democrat.  i hope you saw romney’s statement on cnn yesterday.  i think every republican should put romney’s statement on the back of their car.  if you missed it he said ” i don’t care about poor people”  i don’t think jesus said that.

  • Anonymous

    I think there’s a lot of dishonesty in the wording from both sides. People who favour abortion will like you say never use the word baby. People who do not want abortion will sometime refer to it as a baby.

    As far as I see it both are incorrect. A baby is not a sperm and egg, nor is it a fetus at an early-stage.

     However at 23 weeks it most certainly could be called a baby, but it is still often refered to as a ‘bundle of tissue’ or similar.

    I think that much more introspection is needed on both sides, the abortion debate is so old that neither side really looks at what they are saying anymore, nor do they take seriously the other side’s concerns/messages.

    I don’t think that the ‘dishonesty’ is necessarily on purpose, it is just the terms that have stuck and are never questioned – and they should be, which is why I challenge people on what they write.

  • Anonymous

    why has my comment been removed again? This is a disgrace, what kind of journalists are you?
    Total hypocrites too, considering you run stories all the time about the suppression of Christian free speech in society.

    From your front page today:

    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/01/31/top-barrister-students-crackdown-on-abortion-debate-is-stalinist-and-illegal/

  • Anonymous

    and the other Republican candidates are friends of the Church and its code of morals? Don’t make me laugh. 

    >>Rick Santorum – who hadn’t heard of the ‘preferential option for the poor’ (as a professed Catholic)

    >>Newt
    Gingrich – the serial adulterer and twice divorced, the second time
    divorcing whilst his wife was dying of cancer  (also a professed
    Catholic)

    >>Mitt Romney who ran an asset-stripping company
    that gutted companies and left thousands job-less. Who until 2010 held
    accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands. Leading to him paying
    just 13% whilst taking in $42 million in the last 2 years alone.

    and
    THEY ALL opposed vehemently ANY change to US Healthcare, at EVERY stage,
    making NO concessions. This is when an estimated 45,000 people each
    year DIE due to lack of healthcare provision – and this includes and
    effects entirely innocent CHILDREN.

    45,000 people is around 7.5 World Trade Center attacks each year.

    THIS IS A REPOST – IT WAS TAKEN DOWN FIRST TIME. WHY?

    SECOND REPOST – STOP TAKING MY LEGITAMATE COMMENTS DOWN

    (hypocrites – you only support free speech YOU agree with)
    http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/01/31/top-barrister-students-crackdown-on-abortion-debate-is-stalinist-and-illegal/

  • http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/ The Catholic Herald

    Paulsays – Just to let you know, we have not removed any of your recent posts. Perhaps your browser is having a problem reloading the page?

  • Hatchetwoman

    Obama is not a “sane” choice.  Only someone who really refuses to see can call him a sane choice.  Practically the only promise he kept was the Mexico City policy (restoring funds to other countries to provide abortions),  he has stated that in a budget showdown, he will let the government shut down before he cuts funding to Planned Parenthood, if re-elected, he will most likely have a third shot at appointing a Supreme Court justice, his Health Administration is depriving religious organizations (and not just Catholics) of their Constitutional rights, he’s put the country into a greater deficit than any other president, he failed to do anything about the budget even when his party was the majority in both houses of Congress, he has partially nationalized the auto industry, he has channeled money under the guise of “stimulus” and “global warming” to companies that have ties to him or his cronies, he’s in contempt of court over the offshore drilling laws, he continually tries to sow the seeds of class warfare by talking about the “haves” and the “have-nots” while ignoring the fact that the majority of the “haves” in the US weren’t born into wealth but earned their wealth because of the opportunities this country provides, and the DOJ under him is appearing to be guilty of some very serious crimes.