TheRealDerf writes
'A blue christian is a pseudo christian. A blue catholic is a pseudo catholic'

Wow, talk about being more interested in this world rather than the next world. You might want to spend more time reading the gospals because clearly you don't get Jesus's message at all.

Some more famous adoptees- god bless their compassionate parents!!!!

Mark Acre - athlete
Matthew Laborteaux - actor
Melissa Gilbert - actress
Michael Reagan - author, talk show host
Moses - Biblical leader
Nancy Reagan - First Lady
Nat King Cole - singer
Nelson Mandela - politician
Patrick Labyorteaux - actor
Peter and Kitty Carruthers - figure skaters
President Gerald Ford - politician
Priscilla Presley - actress
Ray Liotta - actor
Reno - performance artist, comedian
Sarah McLachlan - singer
Scott Hamilton - figure skater
Sen. Paull H. Shin - politician
Sen. Robert Byrd - politician
Steve Jobs - entrepreneur: co-founder of Apple computer
Surya Bonaly - figure skater
Tim Green - football player/commentator
Tim McGraw - country singer
Tom Monaghan - entrepreneur
Tommy Davidson - comedian
Victoria Rowell - actress
Wilson Riles - educator

MikeL4 writes
'ah,your abortion stats, so I see. Guttmacher, the paid mouthpiece of the abortion industry.'

If you want to dispute the statistics, there is ample room in the piece describing their methodology (that means how they came by their stats). What is wrong with their methodology?

'Yes, then I do believe I will discount the validity of these statistics.'

Based upon what? Your side often quotes Guttmacher on abortion rates in the USA because Guttmacher studies show the trend to fewer abortions started under Clinton continued under Bush. Trying to have it both ways?
Anywho, if you can't explain whats wrong with the Guttmacher methodology, you're simply dismissing their statistics because you don't like the results, which is not only dishonest, it's pathetic.

Of course I also gave you the name of a book which documents the same thing.
You leave the impression of being a zealot who cannot accept evidence that disagrees with your assumptions, or perhaps you lack the wit to back up your arguments. I've provided evidence to back up my assertion, where's your evidence that backs up your assertion that outlawing birth control and abortion will lower the number of abortions?
I bet you run away.

A blue christian is a pseudo christian. A blue catholic is a pseudo catholic.

Marcedward:
ah,your abortion stats, so I see. Guttmacher, the paid mouthpiece of the abortion industry. Yes, then I do believe I will discount the validity of these statistics.

as far as the Supreme court goes, again, the majority of Americans would have an interest in making the killing of unborn children illegal. The people of this country functioned just fine without a "privacy" right in the constitution and they would do just fine again.

as to your health argument, those who wish to justify the killing of unborn children have used the health argument to include the "psychological" stress of having to have a child that don't want to justify killing the unborn child. The health exception became meaningless.

As always we must remember, we are talking about human beings. No one has the right over another human beings life.

All I see, year after year, is a bunch of old white men trying to get the Republican party elected because that's their natural inclination. Abortion blather is simply a tactic towards that end. It's rather clear that neither the president nor the drain commissioner have anything to do with abortion since it is clearly a religious issue. Like all Republicans, the bishops never seem to catch on that they better switch tactics since everyone has long since tuned them out. In the old days, the Republican bishops sounded the alarm about socialism and bosheviks. Something new and fresh, please.

Some Famous Adopted Persons

Andy Berlin - entrepreneur: chairman of Berlin Cameron & Partners
Anthony Williams - politician
Aristotle - philosopher
Art Linkletter - comedian
Bo Diddley - musician, performer
Buffy Sainte-Marie - musician, actress
Carl-Theodor Dreyer - Danish film director
Charlotte Anne Lopez - Miss Teen USA
Christina Crawford - author
Clarissa Pinkola Estes - author
Crazy Horse - Lakota war chief
Dan O'Brien - decathlete
Daunte Culpepper - football player
Dave Thomas - entrepreneur: founder of Wendy's
Debbie Harry - singer
D.M.C. - hip hop artist
Edgar Allan Poe - poet, writer
Edward Albee - playwright
Eleanor Roosevelt - First Lady
Eric Dickerson - athlete
Faith Daniels - news anchor
Faith Hill - country singer
Freddie Bartholomew - actor
George Washington Carver - inventor
Greg Louganis - athlete
James MacArthur - actor
James Michener - author
Jean Jacques Rousseau - philosopher
Jesse Jackson - minister
Jesus - adopted by Joseph the carpenter (Bible)
Jett Williams - country singer and author
Jim Palmer - athlete
John J. Audubon - naturalist
John Hancock - politician
John Lennon - musician
Langston Hughes - poet and writer
Larry Ellison - entrepreneur: chief executive of Oracle
Lee Majors - actor
Leo Tolstoy - writer
Les Brown - motivational speaker
Lynnette Cole - Miss USA 2000
Malcolm X - civil rights leader

MikeL4 writes
'The reason "they" scuttled the one Clinton wanted was that He wanted so broad a "health" exception'

No it was a health exception. Are you saying doctors can't be concerned with the health of their patients? Isn't the patients health part of the job?
Of course the ban is meaningless, as not one early term abortion has been stopped. The Doctors inject the 'baby' with poison, killing it, and than remove it. Number of abortions prevented = 0.

'As to the Supreme Court, remeber the Supreme Court at one time also found that Human Beings were property in the Constitution.'

You'd have a point, but in this case reversing the right to privacy TAKES AWAY rights - the right to birth control and abortion. Of course the majority of Americans have no interest in making abortion illegal.

'As to S. America, where do you get your statistics?'

Feel free to read 'In the Land of God and Man'
The author documents the higher numbers of abortions women have. Or go here
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
and scroll to the bottom
South Americans have about 39 abortions/ 1000 pregnancies
North Americans have about 22 abortions/ 1000 pregnancies.

Marcedward:

The reason "they" scuttled the one Clinton wanted was that He wanted so broad a "health" exception as to render the ban meaningless. Your further statement cannot be evaluated.

As to the Supreme Court, remeber the Supreme Court at one time also found that Human Beings were property in the Constitution. They can and have been wrong before.

As to S. America, where do you get your statistics? Since it is illegal, who is doing the counting? Abortion proponents?

Mary_Cunningham wrote: "I find your charge that I gain *consolation* from the Huguenot massacre a gross deception. Pointing out that 5,000 were killed, not 100,000 does not constitute *consolation*."

Perhaps I can be forgiven for misinterpreting your feelings in view of the fact that nowhere in your attempted mitigation of this horror did I see one word of regret for even *one* of these murders.

MikeL4 writes
'I do not look to the Supreme Court of the United States to define what is moral. Neither should you.'

Of course, because the SCOTUS isn't there to define what is moral. However you seemed to think there was no right to legal abortion in the constitution, and the SCOTUS did find it in the constitution. Legal and morally aren't the same thing as I'm sure you know.

'And to the contrary, there is evidence that placing a societal stigma on something does reduce its occurrence.'

Again, where is your evidence that taking away the right to legal abortion and the right to privacy will lead to fewer abortions? Abortion is illegal throughout South America but women down there have more abortions than in the USA.

'Actually, this President did sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that a Democrat president would not.'

Meaningless, as
1) Clinton wanted a PBA Ban and the Republicans scuttled the version he supported
2) The PBA ban didn't stop one abortion as now they just poison the unborn baby, killing it, than remove it. Distinction without a difference, eh?

marcedward

I do not look to the Supreme Court of the United States to define what is moral. Neither should you.

The killing of unborn children in the womb is evil, whether it is tied to a supposed "right" to privacy or not.

And to the contrary, there is evidence that placing a societal stigma on something does reduce its occurrence.

Actually, this President did sign the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that a Democrat president would not.

The president to be says he will sign the FOCA if it is passed by Congress.

The abortion view of who holds the presidents chair does matter.

Finally, I do not speak for a political party. I do not belong to one. A political party does not define my vote.

Abortion kills unborn children. There is no escaping that. Obama aligned himself with the culture of death.

MikeL4 writes
'First off, killing unborn human beings is evil. To pro-choice is pro-abortion.'

You'd be right if outlawing abortion would make abortion end or would lower the number of abortions. There is no evidence to support that position. Because the legal abortion is tied to the right to privacy, ending legal abortion ends the right to privacy, which gave us the right to get birth control legally.

'You say you are pro-life, yet you fight to have the "right" to kill unborn children "found" in our constitution.'

Actually the Republican dominated SCOTUS has said that for nearly 40 years. How many law degrees do you have that gives you insights over all those SCOTUS members.

'You say you are pro-life, yet you will not lift one finger to stop the killing of unborn children.'

Actually that would be what you and the Republican leadership have been doing for decades. The Republican leadership have passed no laws seeking to end legal abortion, nor have they tried to amend the constitution to end legal abortion. Further no Republican President has tried to bring the country over to the pro-life side the way President Bush brought the country over to supporting an invasion of Iraq. In terms of results, there is no difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties.

MissGrundy:

You must of slept through your Catholic education.

First off, killing unborn human beings is evil. To pro-choice is pro-abortion.

Follow along if you can. You say you are pro-life, yet you allow others to kill their unborn children.

You say you are pro-life, yet you fight to have the "right" to kill unborn children "found" in our constitution.

You say you are pro-life, yet you fight against every restriction against those who would kill their unborn children.

You say you are pro-life, yet you will not lift one finger to stop the killing of unborn children.

Yes indeed. Pro-Choice is Pro-Abortion.

To vote for politicians who support the killing of unborn children is to join in that evil. If you find the killing of unborn children acceptable, I would suggest you find a church that thinks like you.

The Catholic Church does not.

A million infinity Angels can dance on the head of a pin!...There, I said it and I feel better.

Oh Mary Mary tongue of spice Is your heart that full of ICE? You would do far better attracting your faith to others rather then Promoting. My Religion is Loving Kindness, is yours? Your Sunshine - Eaglehawk

Mary_Cunninghamwrites
'I find your charge that I gain *consolation* from the Huguenot massacre a gross deception. Pointing out that 5,000 were killed, not 100,000 does not constitute *consolation*. He exaggerated the deaths by a factor of 20'

As stated in a previous post, I didn't exaggerate at all. I simply checked more than one source.
from The Catholic Encyclopedia

"The number of victims in the provinces is unknown, the figures varying between 2000 and 100,000."

As usual, you call people liars when the truth is you are misinformed.

Mary_Cunningham writes
'Marc E. Blaming Catholics for the 8 million deaths of the Thirty Years War is like blaming Protestant evangelicals for the two million dead during the American Civil War'

As the 30 years war was started by Catholics for the Catholic church, it is certainly the responsibility of the leaders of the Catholic Church. Our Civil War was foght to keep the nation united, and had nothing to do with protestant evangelicals.

'The number is wrong, the charge is false'

Citation please? I have read several books on the subject and the number 8 million is low.

you also write
'St. Bartholomews;sThis is Wiki'

Wiki is not a reliable source as you ought to know.

'"The exact number of fatalities is not known, but it has been estimated that over 2,000 Huguenots were killed in Paris and over 3,000 in the French provinces.'

From a quick google search, among the 1st 12 hits I got the following.

"The number of victims in the provinces is unknown, the figures varying between 2000 and 100,000"

"An estimated 3,000 were killed in Paris, 70,000 in all of France. News of the massacres was welcomed by the Pope and the King of Spain."

"By October, about 3,000 Huguenots had been murdered in Paris and probably tens of thousands more in the provinces."

"Modern estimates suggest that c.70,000 people died."

"Once again estimates vary widely, and range from 30,000 to 100,000"

You write
'5,000 is less than 100,000
or
100,000 does not equal 5,000'

You are quoting the lowest estimate available, which isn't very honest is it?
Better luck next time!

PS if you want the original URLs I'll be more than happy to supply them.

Cornbread:

I find your charge that I gain *consolation* from the Huguenot massacre a gross deception. Pointing out that 5,000 were killed, not 100,000 does not constitute *consolation*. He exaggerated the deaths by a factor of 20 and I pointed that out. Similarly, I gain no consolation either from the 300,000 Irish who died from in the 17th century from the English onslaught in Catholic Ireland either. But I do not charge the English Puritan and/or Protestant government with murdering 6,000,000.

What right--what *right*--do atheists have to come on a blog called 'Catholic America' and make false charges and offensive comments? I am going to quote Jamil51 who said this about such commentators:

====>There are some persons, cleaver enough not to disclose their own creed or ideas.They keep attacking the faith of the opponents, they keep on asking the others to clarify and give explainations. What is their qualifications and who make them examiners.

Serious discussion is most welcome but use of offensive language and disrespect for other's religion cannot be appreciated.

No one else, let alone the hate mongers, knows the religion which one follows.

Abusive language,mixed with pack of lies can impress no one.===<

Braveheart43 writes
'The other factor that the Left seems always to forget and which is evident in the Prop 8 question, you can't always keep your interest groups together. The blacks sunk prop 8 this time.'

Nope, you're just a liar, and not a very good liar. It wasn't black churches that funded prop 8, it was the RCC and the mormons. It was the white areas (and mostly old people) who voted to take rights away.

'Blacks are for the most part conservative in their beliefs'

Yeah, I'm sure you know so many black people...not.

'Just as the Right will wake from its long slumber'

What long slumber? The 'right' has been active for decades. Problem is your 'ideas' have been tried and proven to be wrong beyond any reasonable doubt. Reaganism is dead and buried, period.

Mary_Cunningham:

I find it odd that anyone can apparently take consolation in the fact that their religious brethren murdered *only* 5,000 Huguenots in the 30 Years War. I suppose the survivors should be grateful that their persecutors were being guided by an all-loving holy spirit.

Although not true for all Bishops that hold a pro-life view, I believe the real agenda for some is control of women, not saving the unborn.

There is a sub-group of all Christian churches that believes women are incubators first, human beings second (if that).

The past several years have made it obvious why the Catholic 'clergy' (read pedophiles) want people to have lots and lots of babies.
If I thought for a moment the anti-choice bunch were really pro-life, I might agree with them. Actually, they are anti-sex. They really don't give a damn about life. Pro-life actually means pro-punishment for sexual activities.

As a Catholic and a recipient of Catholic education from first grade through college, including seven years of boarding school education, I have a very skeptical eye toward the conference of bishops who have actively sought to deter Catholics from voting democratic. The idea that being pro-choice is being pro-abortion is stupid. But then, I have never gone to church on Sunday and heard the pastor talk about the problems that we have with the foster system here in America. Why is it that the Catholic Church isn't willing to help the system and these children who have been disposed of by their parents, relatives or society?

And why do they continue to hide pederast priests by transferring them from diocese to diocese, state to state, or country to country?

The Catholic Church needs to clean its own house. It needs to deal with the selection process for semanarian candidates and it needs to realize the realities of life instead of hiding in their rectories. Perhaps, if priests and nuns actually lived in the real world, they would then have a different view of their teaching.

The Catholic Church may believe whatever it wants to, but here in Texas, it has been engaging in voter intimidation. The voter turnout has been dropping in those precincts which have a preponderance of Hispanic voters because they have been threatened with loss of Communion for signs in their yards and told they'll go to hell if they vote for Democrats.
That looks more like a Political Action Committee to me. Therefore, since they've been told they'll go to hell if they vote Democratic and know they'll live in hell if they vote Republican, they don't vote.

The other factor that the Left seems always to forget and which is evident in the Prop 8 question, you can't always keep your interest groups together. The blacks sunk prop 8 this time. Blacks are for the most part conservative in their beliefs: the oppose gay marriage by a wide margin, primarily pro-life, want school choice, lower taxes, etc, etc. They're kept on the reservation during general elections by a well coordinated and thoroughly oppressive federal bureaucracy (The Left!) whichkeeps them mired in awful schools, relying on govt handouts for sustenance, and enthralled with a pop culture that idolizes punks and criminals (we can think our Leftist Jews and gays for most of the latter).
Just as the Right will wake from its long slumber, so will blacks. And when they begin to realize the number that's been done on them by the Left...again, big heap trouble for you light in the loafers types....

What is it about old men and not-so-old women? I should introduce you to Concerned the Catholic now Liberated, he usually adds Mary Mary Mary. I'm surprised you didn't add quite contrary--'fess up, sunshine, you know you wanted to.

Being 71 years old does not mean you know anything about the Thirty Years War, let's keep it specific. Going from the specific to the general is a rhetorical trick, but I don't need to tell you that. Or do I?

Sunshine is a Cockney term. I was using it ironically as you are certainly not sunny.

Mary Mary, I speak for my own and you speak for your own as it should be. Was Sunshine added as a little religious barb with intent to belittle? Mary Mary, use less starch.

Mary Mary being Catholic does not make you correct. Live my 71 years and then tell me about the sins of the churches. Some of the greatest biggots were born under the control of the church. Sin and Sex is so $rofitable, where would the church be without them? "Loving kindness is my religion Dali Lama" Step aside Mary, let the Creator God have HIS way.

EagleHawk

Speak for your own Catholic childhood,sunshine.

Mine was sweet.

Plaza044..

My good friend,

You betcha we want to take away the right to kill a baby!

I bet the baby wants us to take it away too.

God bless,
Mikem5

Last things:

But I would say this, Marc E. Blaming Catholics for the 8 million deaths of the Thirty Years War is like blaming Protestant evangelicals for the two million dead during the American Civil War.

The number is wrong, the charge is false and the man making the allegation reveals a lamentable ignorance of history.

Oh the pain of growing up in the Catholic church years ago. I might say the same of my Lutheran friends in the neighborhood. If we had been taught the truth that Religion is much based on opinion and is really only to be a guide and not an Authority. I wonder how a person can get close to his Creator with so many sub-gods in the way. Let this past election teach us again the horrible lessons of the past when it comes to seperation of church and state. I could have had such a beautiful childhood without all the religious dribble drabble. "LOVING KINDNESS IS MY RELIGION" - Dali Lama (a true christian) :)

PatnRuss

Re: "making us Catholics look like idiots"

All I could think of here, was--who's the idiot? PaulC gave a reasoned responce. If you OTOH believe the *truth* of all Marc's charges what in God's name are you still doing in the Catholic Church?

This is an anonymous blog, so when someone claims to be Cath. whilst agrees with virulent anti-Cath. propaganda I wonder about their religion. Someone really slammed me as causing shame to "us" Catholics and a week later I found the same poster affirming herself a Unitarian!

So, are you really Catholic? Could you possibly prove it by making a little comment about the second reading at yesterday's Mass? If you can't remember, tell me something about what the priest was wearing, colourwise?

Choose one:
1)black as usual, priests always wear black
2) red
3) green
4) I'm colourblind

Marc Edwards:

Where to start? Atheist propaganda and good history generally oppose each other. You need to get your history maybe from a book, not an atheist website. Barring that try wiki, if attributed.

St. Bartholomews;sThis is Wiki, citing a real historian:

"The exact number of fatalities is not known, but it has been estimated that over 2,000 Huguenots were killed in Paris and over 3,000 in the French provinces.[1] Though by no means unique, "it was the worst of the century's religious massacres." [2]http://tinyurl.com/6ffquf

5,000 is less than 100,000
or
100,000 does not equal 5,000

This is the only one of your ignorant historical assertions I'll correct because, well, I like it when anti-Catholics make their ignorance plain.

So--keep it up!

Braveheart43
"Oh, and did I forget to mention, the Right is very well armed?"

Spoken like a true totalitarian.

Anyone see a pattern here with these luneytunes?

It's not JUST about pro-choice, Freedom of Choice act... or any other choices.

It is about wanting to take away ALL choice.

One of the posts dredges up all that nonsense about the Silent Majority and the great Slumbering right wing. It says that Gays,Jews, Blacks and the other traditional blame-ees are getting a bit too uppity and THATs going to wake up these hibernating Nazis. Then, all us leftys better start quaking in our boots.

Badloser talk in the wake of the right wing getting beat like a drum. It's got to be hard to adjust to reality when Fox news has convinced you of so much BS, and then the voters of the country speak LOUD and CLEAR in the opposite direction.

We've all heard everything we have any desire to hear from the neocon right. They no longer hold power and their reputation is in the toilet. When they get behind Sarah Palin as their party leader, we'll know that they're done, toast.

USAPDX wrote:
"The Catholic Church has one mission, to help people get to Heaven."
Yeah, like denying a woman the right to terminate a pregnancy if it would save her life.

The Catholic Church has one mission: To preserve it's control and power.

Whether red or blue, the Catholic church is just another oppressive organization. People should learn to think for themselves. I have always considered myself an adult. It frustrates me to see people seek figures to elevate to a position of authority and reverence. Beyond mutual respect, nothing else is owed.

mikem5 writes
'Do you think the RCC doesn't already spend millions on feeding the poor. We feed the poor and fight against same sex marriage...both can be done at the same time'

It's pretty clear the RCC leadership priority has more interest in interfering with American elections than helping anybody. Spending money to take rights away from American citizens rather than helping the poor (which was Jesus's #1 priority) only shows how brain dead the current leadership is.

Oh and Paul C, I forgot to mention the St. Barthelamews day massacre, which was applauded by the Pope - another 100000 innocents slain with the blessing of the RCC leadership.

From the perspective of time I believe this whole conversation is a moot point. Within the next 20 years, "a blink of the eye", the white, western Catholic Church will be a thing of the past.

And so I quote from the famous words of Glinda to the Wicked Witch of the West (the Catholic Church)...."Be gone you have no power here, before someone drops a house on you."

Paul, Paul, Paul,

A summary of the conclusions by most contemporary historic Jesus exegetes as found in their books:

In no particualar order:

1. original sin is based on a myth.

2. The RCC eucharist is a 24/7 "bloody body" ritual.

3. atonement "theology lacks common sense.

4. the RCC is a closed old European "white" boy society.

5. females in charge of the RCC can lead us to heaven.

6. salvation sacraments are based on embellished/mythical NT stories.

7. RCC's god the father is a guilty of filicide.

8. the RCC violates the first commandment with the trinity theology.

9. it also honors a "not so virgin" virgin.

10. mythical "pretty/ugly, wingie, talking thingies" need to be deleted from all religions.

11. all birth control methods use nature-based procedures.

12. expecting miracles and/or favors from simply reiterating prayer beads is complete nonsense and a waste of time.

13. believing a simple preacher man was somekind of "trinitized" god, once human now bodily resurrected is false theology.

To Mikems: So you see the summary of our duty as Catholic Christians is to 'feed the poor and fight against same sex marriage'? You, TOO, need to open your eyes. (By the way; does it somehow seem to you . . . ODD. . . that we should be so offended by two human beings who love each other so much that they wish to commit to each other legally and permanently? Or is it just the SEX part of this that offends you. Which, of course, they will have regardless of the commitment or lack of same.)

to markedwards:

Do you think the RCC doesn't already spend millions on feeding the poor. Come on..have a little common sense and objectivity.

We feed the poor and fight against same sex marriage...both can be done at the same time.

To Paulc2: Do you NOW know what I mean by looking like an idiot, and making us Catholic Church members look the same? See the posting by MARKEDWARD, and get your facts straight. . . And don't lie, or expect all church members to be perfect, or faultless, or wise . . . They AREN'T. We aren't. . . perfection isn't one of the requirements of Catholicism, only a belief in Jesus and his teachings. So shut your 'mouth' and OPEN YOUR EYES.

paulc2 writes
'Marc Edward: You are way too cynical about the Catholic church'

I call it realistic, based on reality.

'the crusades ==> The original goal of the crusades was to open up the holy land and protect the Christian pilgrims'

Which had what to do with Christ's teachings? Where did Jesus say 'if you can't go on a pilgramige, wipe out the population of a city'? Have you read any contemporary accounts of the sack of Jeruselem? The murder of the Jews there? The city streets running knee deep in human blood?

- the inquisition ==>
Sadly again you absolve the church of any responsibility and blame non-church people. I don't buy it.

'- the 30 years war ==> The Thirty Years' War was a continuation of the Bourbon-Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, and in turn led to further warfare between France and the Habsburg powers.'

Horse manure and you ought to know it. It was the Spanish king, in the name of the church, with the blessing of the church, trying to get church lands by with the sword. At least 8 million german dead for the glorification of the RCC, and in the end they got nothing back.

'- Papel attacks on the spread of Republics in Europe during the 19th century ==> this was about protection of the Faith as the Republics'

You are only believing what you want to believe. Maybe you need to read some books not made by the RCC. If you were a little more honest you'd know how the church has threatened to declare bankruptsy in certain parts of the USA in order to force victims to take smaller settlement.

Again I have nothing against Jesus's teachings (as in the 4 gospals, not the crud after that) or Catholicism, but I do believe that the 'leaders' greatest concerns are about power.

BTW, how many millions did the RCC spend promoting prop8 in california? Guess feeding the hungry isn't as glamourous.

tharper1:

Read again - I didn't anywhere make the claim the Constitution said anything of the sort. Stop being selfish and demanding that you get it both ways - it'll help clear your head of your biases.

CCnl:
I'm worried about you. You deny the truths of the church based solely on your preconceived notion that Jesus was not divine. You desparage the honest of the Apostles, giving no motivation except the love of money. Yet, you can not explain how they expected to make this money by advocating for a just crucified enemy of the state. You also can't explain why the apostles were willing (and did) die for something you suggest they knew to be a lie. How can that make sense? and don't create a list of books. They don't answer these questions either. If they do, summarize the response.

CHURCHES THAT FILE TAX EXAMPT MUST COMPLY WITH TAX EXAMPT RULES. ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS.

washpost18 said:
The church would do well to take a page from the Constitution and come to an understanding that there is a freedom of and from politics when members are in the sanctuary.
=========

And where, exactly, in the Constitution does it say that? The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." Nowhere does it say what the man in the pulpit can say. That came from the IRS and government weenies who want to use tax status to silence preachers.

Interestingly, before the election the Vatican said that the Democrats were "the party of death." Funny how that never made it onto the pages of the WaPo.

Please, please stop calling President-elect Obama and those who favor a woman's right to choose "pro-abortion." I can't think of anyone I know who is "pro-abortion" although we may be pro-choice. I could never abort, it wouldn't feel right for me (unless the circumstances were criminal - i.e., incest, rape). However, that is MY opinion and my opinion should have no bearing on what others choose to do. STOP using the term "pro-abortion."

Interesting article. More interesting comments. Has anyone been following what has been going on out west with the legislative disaster expanding the safe haven law language from 'newborn' to 'child'...that has some parents driving across 2 and 3 states to drop off children as wards of the state? where is that related to this feed? for all the staunch pro-lifers...what do you intend or propose to do with the millions of new, unwanted children that would be born of the legislation you so strongly propose be passed? where is the discourse about the thousands of new orphanages, hundreds of thousands of new foster parents, child welfare workers and agencies,and/or comensurate social services and/or jail systems that would become absolutely necessary should such a law actually pass? has any one of you thought about it consequences to society once all those infants enter the world? while the possibility to mandate birth legally exists, there is no effective way to mandate good parenting. this is already obivous in the world and in statistics. so, my question is, what do you propose? there are already overfull orphanages, over taxed foster care systems, and overwhelmed social services agencies. to make this issue THE singular issue in politics is COMPLETELY IRRESPONSIBLE AND IMMORAL. the YEARS it takes to evolve societal band aids for social issues, even to the point of a minimal addressing would mean many infant deaths anyway. MY proposal: leave well enough alone and for all those that feel so adamant on the pro-life issues-put your money and time where your mouth is. there are plenty of children in your area with no home and no parents waiting for adoption already. there are plenty of children in your area with little or no guidance who need a good mentor already. there are plenty of social service agencies serving abandoned or abused children who could use your help. PUT YOUR TIME AND MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS, AND LEAVE THE REST OF US ALONE. NO ONE IS KEEPING YOU FROM FOLLOWING YOUR BELIEFS FOR YOUR LIFE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR BELIEFS ON MY LIFE, NOR ANYONE ELSE'S.
LASTLY, with regard to making this into a politically divisive issue with regard to parties...the republican party has had dominance of all legislative and executive branches for fully 6 of the last 8 years. IF IT WAS REALLY that strong of an advocate to this issue, THEN there is little to indicate that the party couldn't have gotten more done in this regard. IT has been pandering to the far right viewpoint on this issue to accumulate votes IT otherwise wouldn't get, and certainly has NOT earned. WAKE UP! YOU ARE BEING USED.

The church would do well to take a page from the Constitution and come to an understanding that there is a freedom of and from politics when members are in the sanctuary.

We Catholics must be very, VERY careful about how we play 'defenders of the faith'... When we make statements about historical facts of Church actions we give MONSTROUS SCANDAL to those who know better . . . "Creeping Infallibility" is the view that because the Pope speaks without falsehood or only with truth when speaking 'ex cathedra' DOESN'T mean that all the priests do, or did or even HAVE TO. Or even the Popes, by the way (Look up Alexander VI and his treatment of Savonarola and Alex. own children, notably Lucretia Borgia. There is no other truth here except that Alexander VI was totally amoral and evil. Period.) Denying such facts just makes us look like TRUE IDIOTS!!! Though it, no doubt, may make YOU FEEL virtuous. But stupid, nonetheless.

Mary, Mary, Mary,

The RCC a beacon of sanity???

In no particualar order:

1. original sin based on a myth??

2. 24/7 "bloody body" ritual??

3. atonement "theology"??

4. closed old European "white" boy society??

5. females cannot lead us to heaven??

6. salvation sacraments based on embellished/mythical NT stories??

7. a "filiciding" father figure??

8. violation of first commandment with the trinity theology??

9. honoring a "not so virgin" virgin??

10. believing in "pretty/ugly, wingie, talking thingies"??

11. demanding "natural" birth control when all birth control uses nature-based methods??

12. expecting miracles and/or favors from simply reiterating prayer beads??

13. believing a simple preacher man was somekind of "trinitized" god, once human now bodily resurrected??

CCNL:

Next to the follies and foolishness of the Bush II administration, today's RCC shines like a beacon of sanity.

And sanctity.

MBC7

"Crashed the economy on the eve of the election"

I'm still aghast. *What* was Paulson thinking? If the Dems. could give out awards, Paulson should get the very highest. After letting LEH go bust, the Reps were doomed. Overlay a chart of the s&P with an Intrade chart of McCain's chances of being elected: two swan dives, falling knives the drop beginning 14th Sept...unbelievable.

As far as self-inflicted errors has to rank with firing the entire Iraqi police force after the Americans took Baghdad? Or maybe hiring an incompetent to deal with a hurricane?

The history of the conduct of the RCC is very tainted. The history of the theology of the RCC is even more so.

To wit:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus).

Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics.
http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/Works_Cited

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians invented bloody and bodily communion based on some mythical last supper. They also divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with the trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

Marc Edward: You are way too cynical about the Catholic church and don't know as much as you think about it. Let me explain your points:

- the crusades ==> The original goal of the crusades was to open up the holy land and protect the Christian pilgrims. Unfortunately, once the kings and Knights got to the Holy land, they saw other opportunities and exploited them. This was not about the Church looking for temporal power

- the inquisition ==> the inquisition was originally started by the church as a standing council to investigate heresies, rather than calling independent councils every time a question came up. Unfortunately, the local governments, most particularly King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella, exploited them as a way to address their enemies

- the counter reformation ==> The counter reformation validated chruch doctrine and corrected abuses in the clergy.

- the 30 years war ==> The Thirty Years' War was a continuation of the Bourbon-Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, and in turn led to further warfare between France and the Habsburg powers. It wasn't about Church temporal power, but political power by the monarchies of the day, which happen to be split between Catholics and Protestants

- Papel attacks on the spread of Republics in Europe during the 19th century ==> this was about protection of the Faith as the Republics, particularly in France, were repressing the Faith and the Catholic Clergy

Now the church tries to meddle in American politics for it's own benifit. ==> How does the church benefit by meddling in American politics? In fact, the Church is simply teaching morality to the faithful.

Keep in mind, many of us love many aspects of Catholicism and the words of Jesus, but we don't love the meddling old men in Rome. They are only interested in preserving their power, period.
==> What power are they perserving? They have no power now other than the power of persuation and moral authority.

What else would explain their aid to child rapists for decades?
==> this is a very cynical way to look at this. They tried, in error, to rehabilitate errant priests. They weren't trying to gain power by protecting them.

What else would explain how to this day they work as hard as they can to stop making payments to their victims - they love money more than justice.
==> Are you kidding? The Catholic Church has paid out hundreds of millions of dollars. Why do you say they are trying to stop payments to their victims?

I think you need to do a little reflection on you view the Catholic Church. You inevitably think the worst of us..

paulc2 writes
' The Catholic Church has one mission, to help people get to Heaven. It does this through teaching on theology and morality. It has no temporal power and is not seeking it.'

You really need to read up on your history. The Catholic Church has been interested in power here on earth for most of it's history. How else do you explain
- the crusades
- the inquisition
- the counter reformation
- the 30 years war
- Papel attacks on the spread of Republics in Europe during the 19th century
Now the church tries to meddle in American politics for it's own benifit.
Keep in mind, many of us love many aspects of Catholicism and the words of Jesus, but we don't love the meddling old men in Rome. They are only interested in preserving their power, period. What else would explain their aid to child rapists for decades? What else would explain how to this day they work as hard as they can to stop making payments to their victims - they love money more than justice.

Mary before you call somebody a liar, you might bother to read what they wrote.
From Pauls post
'Here are the statistics from the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html.
'
This link was dead when I tried it. I forgive you.

The economy is suffering from an over-supply of homes, cars, apartments, condos, shopping centers and office buildings. This resulted in too many mortgages and banks. The correction has started. The construction boom has been going on through both Democratic and Republican administrations. Alan Greenspan, the Fed Chairman under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush should have put the brakes on the boom years ago but did not.

Let's think about it. A Republican President blundered the nation into 2 wars that the people did not support (and botched up at least one of them), failed completely to control government spending and crashed the economy on the eve of the election. And anyone voted for John McCain? I'd say the Bishops beat the point spread, big time. Next election, with George off building houses with Jimmy, things will be different.

should translate from the Cockney rhyming slang. Last word rhymes with the word the Cockney wants to say.

Porkie pies=lies

Don't tell porkies...marc

There's nothing wrong with ewtn or the website

http://www.ewtn.com

Don't tell porkies....

Never mind, come next week you will have anti-Catholic America will revert to its anti-Catholic acolytes completely and you will have it all to yourselves1

Howdy PaulC
Again, you seem to assume that people who use condoms are relying on condoms alone. It seems to me that peoplpe trying to engage in sex and not get pregnant can
1) use condoms with BC pill and/or spermicide
2) Engage in other sex acts (ones the RCC is against, but not many Catholics care what a bunch of old men in dresses think about sex)
It still beats using no birth control.

BTW, your link was dead (I take your word for it anyway) but I'd like to know how many people were having condom malfunctions.
Have a nice weekend!

USAPDX:
Unfortunately, you know very little about the Catholic Church, which you are so eager to defame. The Catholic Church has one mission, to help people get to Heaven. It does this through teaching on theology and morality. It has no temporal power and is not seeking it. It's only power is through moral persuation. The priest and bishops typically preach the positive messages from Jesus: Love God and Love your neighbor. I can honestly say that I can't remember a single sermon from a Catholic priest on damnation. The focus is getting to Heaven, not escaping Hell. You might want to believe that the Catholic church is in decline but the numbers do not support you. The church has had a constant percentage of the US population (25%) for decades. Both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been active in the youth ministries, with massive Youth days on each continent. In the minds of most Catholics, the leadership of these two men over the last 30 years has been exemplary..

Since you do have internet access (and maybe EWTN on cable) , it might make sense to investigate the Church a little more thoroughly before you condemn it

Thanks for the site, Paul C. See you there!

PS We are getting ready here for the canonization of a new saint: Cardinal John Henry Newman, one of the towering intellects of the Church. And maybe, just maybe, if we're lucky, Pope Benedict will come to preside at the ceremony. That would be wonderful for the faithful in these isles: England, Ireland ,Scotland and Wales. I've always said the existence of the faith here at all is one of the minor proofs for God's existence.

God bless you, Paul. This will be all here from me.

Mary C.

ROMA LEADERSHIP IS AFTER CONTROL OF THE MEMBERSHIP AS IT HAS BEEN SINCE 400 A.D.. THE EMPTY PEWS OF EUROPE ARE SPREADING HERE. THE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING HELL FIRE DAMNATION. ROMA SHOULD HAD A WAKE UP CALL 1520 A.D..THE PRINTING PRESS WOKE UP THE PEOPLE JUST LIKE THE COMPUTER DOES TODAY. THE PROBLEM WITH CATHOLICS, THEY DO NOT KNOW TRUE CHURCH HISTORY OR DO NOT WANT TO KNOW. ALWAYS ASK QUESTIONS.IF CHRIST CAME BACK, THERE WHOULD BE SOME LEADERSHIP IN THE TARMACK.

Mary Cunningham,
As you know, no one turns to this website to discuss Catholic spirituality or theology . The "Catholic Writers" in this blog, Dr. Stevens-Arroyo and Father Reese, are actually mostly focused on trying to convince their readers that Catholics are best served by the Democratic Party's policies.

Furthermore, there are far more Non-catholic contributors to this blog than Catholics. In my experience, most of them are not in the least bit interested in learning about the faith. In fact, most of them are just interested in tearing down the faith without ever bothering to understand that which they attack. The moderators show no interest in addressing that. There are now only a handful of Catholics that even bother to post on this board because its so hard to have a meaningful discussion on a topic of interest. I mean, how many times can you discuss Abortion with people who are fixated on their personal freedom at the expense of another's life. I personally have found a couple of other blogs that are much more interesting to me. Try this one: forums.catholic.com

Good luck and God Bless

MarcEdward:

This is how you responded to my post from yesterday:
condoms are 86% effective in controling births for one year."

==> Horse manure.

"that means 1 out of 7 couples having sex with Condoms will in fact generate a pregnancy in a given year."

==> Horse manure. If you've ever TRIED having kids you'd know that even if you have unprotected sex every night during the period of ovulation you are still not going to get pregant right away.

Well, that is exactly the problem. People have been led to believe that birth control actually stops pregnancy, when in reality it simply reduces pregnancy. Here are the statistics from the FDA: http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1997/conceptbl.html.

it shows that unprotected sex will result in a pregancy within a year 85% of the time..

Thou shall nots and these two big ones:

"Thou Shall not commit adultery"

"Thou Shall not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife/Husband/Children"

A lesson learned the hardway by a number of RCC bishops and that is why they must continually preach and teach about these weaknesses in priests and the rest of humankind. Said weaknesses have been a constant challenge for the last 60,000+ years.

One million abortions a year, 19 million cases STDs a year, as per Google- 1.6 million porn sites on the Internet, and a 50% divorce rate are ample proof that the message is still not getting through.

CCNL, if these

"Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself"

"Thou Shall not Kill"

"Thou Shall not Steal"

"Thou Shall not Bear False Witness"

"Thou Shall not Commit Adultery"

"Thou Shall not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife/Husband/Children"

were practiced as well as these should be by the Christian European settlers of America, then it would look very different geographically and socially as it is today, because they broke these repeatedly throughout its history.

Hey, CCNL, how many little boys does one have to molest to become a bishop?

Our bishops and priests can preach and teach until they are red and/or blue in the face about politicians who do not respect the life of 35+ million womb-babies.

Once again:

President-elect Obama rode to the Blood-Red House on the backs of these 35+million aborted womb-babies!!!

The fastest growing USA voting bloc: The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year.

i.e. the Immoral Majority now rules the land and will do so in the foreseeable future.

How very sad and disturbing!!!

What the bishops and priests however should now preach and teach with even more vim and vigor:

The following commandments/rules of humankind that have evolved over 60,000+ years:

"Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself"

"Thou Shall not Kill"

"Thou Shall not Steal"

"Thou Shall not Bear False Witness"

"Thou Shall not Commit Adultery"

"Thou Shall not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife/Husband/Children"

And then maybe the Moral Majority will return to its rightful place as a strong voice for the unborn!!!!

I wonder if the mean spirited comments made by pro-life suppporters regarding this article are also true natural familiy planning supporters? My guess would be that many pro life supporters also have no problem with the use of artificial contraception.

Practicing Catholics did not elect Obama President on his pro-abortion platform. Many of those who claim Catholic are the once a year Catholic types, who do not practice their faith. Like many, regular church goers, Catholics are more conservative and adhere to their religious beliefs and do not follow the latest political pied piper.

Those of you who left the Church because of the Church's refusal to bow to the morality of the world, good for you. At least you were honest with yourself. Those so called Catholics though who still cling to the title Catholic, like Stephens-Arroyo, please find another faith that allows you to find the morality of the killing of the unborn acceptable.

@ Mary Cunningham.

The majority had plenty if time to examine Obama's position on the Abortion issue and still elected him with a pretty significant majority of the popular vote. Nobody is arguing that the '08 Election results are a mandate of unlimited abortions. In fact you make my previous point for me......The abortion issue as a single issue is not more important to the vast majority of Americans than issues dealing with human beings who are already living and breathing....economy, war, current administration's handling of the same, etc.

Obama has a 100% rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL pro-choice America. Either the majority of the electorate favor his view or don't think the issue is important enough to drive their vote.

Meanwhile, the Catholic bishops are hypocritically trying to indict Catholics who decided, like most Americans, that Women's reproductive decisions are way down the list in terms of the priorities of this nation. And Shame on the Catholic church for teaching that contraception is sinful. Given the realities of AIDS and other diseases, condoms are as much a public health device as they are a contraceptive device.

"Go therefore and make disciples of (or teach depending on the translation)all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

Seems like a pretty clear message for how the church is supposed to conduct herself. Whether you agree with her views or they are popular is not part of the command.

If Catholics were to seriously apply the principle of cooperation with evil to their choice of political candidates they wouldn't vote. They would reach the same conclusion as the most fundamentalist Christian groups, the Amish and conservative Mennonites and would not participate in the political process, along with not taking grievances to the courts. Jesus rejected Satan's offer of worldly domination. What would Jesus say of the Catholic Church's use of sophistry to condone killing in the service of the state, i.e., Caesar? Is that not cooperating with evil? Live your faith in Christ fully, and do not impose fragments of your belief on non-believers or those of little faith; God will judge all.

If some of the Catholic hierarchy continues to make harsh comments about President-elect Barack Obama I guarantee you there will be a ground swell of negative feelings toward the Catholic faith. The bishops should focus on issues that will bring our nation together such as poverty, global warming, and senseless wars.
There are millions of Democrats, like myself, who practice pro-life, but who deeply resent religious groups advocating government edicts. It simply won't work with the American public as the results of the last election I believe bear me out. The pro-life movement is morally right, but they need to persuade by force of moral conscience, set an example by aggressively fighting poverty and social injustice as Jesus did, and stop demonizing those on the other side of this issue...Obama 08

The Catholic church is the biggest hypocrite. How do they chose which sin to support or overlook? The many Africans murdered during slavery, many families are murdered in Iraq, the Bush Administration have lied, stolen, murdered, sex scandals, increased proverty in America, and you name it. I am a Christain and I don't condone abortion but I don't condone liers, racism, thefts, sex scandals, etc. I believe God is the best judge. He give man free will. In the end, He will seperate good from evil. Rev. 22:11,12.

I am so happy that i am a recovering Catholic.I am still working on my recovery. I have not been inside a Catholic Church in 25 years . Let my tell you it feels great to be away from All the Teachings of this fath.I tell everyone i know to Stay away from the Church.

...after 17-years of Catholic education (Augustinians and Jesuits) I made the conscious decision to trade my formalized religion for a personal spirituality...best choice I ever made...

But has the majority voted FOR abortion? As a single issue?

This year what voters have voted for is some protection against a bad economy and no more war in the ME. As well as punishing an admin and party that got them into this mess. I don't think 2008 is a mandate for unlimited abortion, although Obama will probably sign FOCA anyway.

Hey CCNL You wrote "i.e. the Immoral Majority now rules the land and will do so in the foreseeable future. How very sad and disturbing!!!"

Welcome to Democracy. That is how it works. The majority rules, and the fact of the matter is that the majority of the people in this country either think that a woman should have the ability to make her own moral decisions concerning reproductive rights OR that the abortion issue is not nearly the priority of the economy, the 2 wars we are in, etc etc etc.

PS to Titleguy

But I wouldn't be too concerned.. The Church has been around 2000 yrs & I don't think a little leftie hostility on what is really an atheist blog should bother her too much. As well, she thrives in adversity and persecution. Look at Ireland: the faith was never so strong as when it was proscribed, although maybe that tells you more about the Irish than about Catholicism.

Titleguy:

Well, it's not too bad today. You should see it when some of the regular anti-Catholics get warmed up. Some of the stuff posted is actually obscene. I wrote that "Catholic America" really should be titled "Anti-Catholic America" and got a whole lot of dung dunked on me personally.

Remember WaPo is run by the left and many of these have always *hated* religion, Catholicism especially. The 'faith' section is run by two atheists, that has to tell you something.

IMHO the blog SHOULD have been titled 'No Faith' but the web designer was dyslectic.

Contrary to what Mr. Stevens-Arroyo says, Obama has said that he wants the Freedom of Choice Act to be one of the first bills he signs into law as president.

titleguy writes
"the politically correct will so carefully avoid any word or action that would others might perceive to be bigoted or racist"

That's called 'politeness', not politically correct.

"but easily display open bigotry toward religious groups."

Critisizing the RCC leadership in Rome or the nitwit Bishops in the USA isn't being bigoted towards religion.

"That is how Hitler started the genocide in Germany. He made it alright to single out a particular group as a social evil."

I haven't seen anyone talking about keeping Catholics from working, owning property, etc., so I think you have nothing to worry about.

Again, this false Catholic, Stephens-Arroyo attempts to foist his political viewpoint on the Bishops of the Catholic Church. The Bishops of the Church represent the Catholic Church only, not the political views of the Republican or Democratic Party.

The Bishops are right to point out to Catholics the sin of cooperation in evil by voting for politicians like Obama who support the killing of unborn children with their votes.

Obama said he would sign the Freedom of Choice Act. This would repeal many state restrictions on the killing of unborn children. Obama has not rescinded this promise. Obama is pro-abortion. Catholics who voted for him and other politicians who support abortion join him in this evil.

It amazes me how the politically correct will so carefully avoid any word or action that would others might perceive to be bigoted or racist, but easily display open bigotry toward religious groups. That is how Hitler started the genocide in Germany. He made it alright to single out a particular group as a social evil. I am not saying that it would happen to Catholics... but I worry when it becomes acceptable to display public bigotry against any group in this fashion

The catholic church should be identified as what it actually is, a "corporation". Any thinking Christian should seriously consider a different faith tradition when you are being told what to believe and how to act. You should be living an informed life in Christ and not a priest.

Paul, to continue.....

And consider the kids and teens that have no real parental influence - the latchkey generation, or the ones being raised by a single parent (mother). I know about this one first hand from my present relationship. These women are to be applauded for their efforts, believe me - but now I'm drifting off into sociology and away from the topic of sex ..... or can I? Life is really all of a piece - inseparable parts.

Compared to my early days, I'm fairly conservative in certain respects - and I'm glad I'm not trying to raise a teenager these days!

On the other hand, folks have been 'doing the dirty' on the sly for millenia...looking at our divorce rate, it would appear that folks are having plenty of extra-marital sex inside the bounds of marriage, as well as outside the boundary of holy matrimony.

How religion may shape sexual behavior while maintaining a healthy,sensible and responsible orientation to our powerful biologically-based reproductive drives ...... without including comprehensive sex education and birth control information, remains a mystery. What kind of outcome might we reasonably expect?

We know good and well that the 'abstinence only' philosophy for teens is pretty ineffective without including information on what to do if abstinence fails - and biology and peer pressure triumph.

It's all about information - if the young ones don't get it from the grown-ups at home, in school, and in their churches, they're going to rely on whatever their peers tell them, in combination with media-created fantasia and under-developed, hyper-active deductive processes. And that's when the trouble starts.....

PS. lengthy posts are held

Any Catholic who bothers to investigate the history of that religion will inevitably abandon it because of its evil origins and the corrupt choices it has traditionally made in the politics of its leaders. The scandals in the selection of its popes by bribery alone and the salacious behavior they manifested throughout the centuries is a secret the Catholic Church hopes none of its congregation will bother to investigate. The worst thing that this Church fears is the education of the masses when they find out that there is really nothing at all to this negative religion whose ultimate hubris was to declare its teachings "infallible."

PaulC - I think the sexual revolution you refer to occurred back in the 1960's - all of us old farts from those days are living on memories for the most part - if we happened to participate to a greater or lesser degree in that highly touted, severely flouted 'revolution'. I'm afraid relativity applies here, as it does everywhere in our self-constructed world. We live by certain rules and standards, and break others as circumstances dictate.

We used to call it 'situational ethics'. I know that many religious believers try to follow behavioral codes that are promoted and supported by their religious faith - and since I'm very familiar with Catholicism, I know how that works in the Catholic Church.

Still, when we have American Bishops threatening to withhold communion from parishioners that voted for Obama because of the abortion rights issue, what kind of religious hegemony is going on here? Whatever happened to the ecumenical mindset of a Cardinal Bernardin from Chicago back in the 1980's?

And are parish priests going to be required to take a voter survey - perhaps the first step in the ex-communication process? Beyond ridiculous, I think you will admit. If the Church had hired a PR specialist to spin the most negative campaign imaginable, they couldn't have done a better job than the Bishops have done themselves!

We live by our own moral/ethical code, and typically teach our children that same code...all the while realizing that what their peers are doing is shaping their behavior on a daily basis -beyond any direct parental influence to the contrary. TV, movies, video games - all huge influences that shape that peer culture to the maximum.

to be continued........

paulc2 writes
"birth control is likely more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. You may know that birth control lessens but does not eliminate the probability of pregnancy."

Which means birth control leads to fewer unwanted pregnancies, not more.

"condoms are 86% effective in controling births for one year."

Horse manure.

"that means 1 out of 7 couples having sex with Condoms will in fact generate a pregnancy in a given year."

Horse manure. If you've ever TRIED having kids you'd know that even if you have unprotected sex every night during the period of ovulation you are still not going to get pregant right away.

"They likely believe however, that if they use condoms, they will not generate any pregnancies"

You assume that couples ONLY use condoms, while couples are probably also using spermicide and/or the pill (not to mention engaging in sex that isn't intercourse).

"Since the advent of readily available birthcontrol in 1960"

Griswold allowed legal birth control, and that was in 1967, no?

"Also 25% of teenage girls now have an STD."

Doesn't that mean we should encourage condom use, which would prevent more STDs, rather then discourage condom use?

"You will say its better than having unprotected sex. But that fails to recognize that it has changed the mentality from sex is sacred to sex is recreational"

You presume that there was a time in America where people thought 'sex is sacred'. I don't buy it. Shouldn't you be arguing for more oral sex and masturbation, which is very unlikely to spread STDs? Maybe that should be the church's position.

FFS - what percentage of Arroyos columns are about abortion? It seems like at least 75%, and I have to wonder if he gets paid by the number of comments he elicits by hitting this hotbotton issue.
Please sir, this is a dead issue. The Republicans have never tried to end legal abortion so the issue is mostly moot. The election is over, and one has to wonder how many elections over the next 2 years will be about abortion.

There is much more to be concerned about than one's position on abortion. This is to be the litmus test for anyone seeking public office? Would one judge the competency of a pilot or surgeon on their stance on abortion? There is much that endangers us as a nation, and abortion is mighty low on that list. Yes, it is a great moral question, but it is one that concerns individuals. Sorry, but a politician's position on economic questions is much more important to the nation that his or her stance on abortion, but, then, the Church seems to have no qualms about encouraging people who can barely feed themselves due to being mired in abject poverty to have more children. If a priest in SC can tell parishioners they shouldn't take communion for voting for Obama since he is pro-Choice, shouldn't a priest in Alaska tell the same thing to his parishioners who voted for Ted Stevens? After all, Stevens is a "convicted" felon; due process was carried through, and he was found guilty. Also, what is the correct guidance from a priest to those who voted for McCain who has proposed unending war in Iraq; would Christ propose unending war for any cause? The one issue that almost prevented John Kennedy from being elected president was the concern that he, as a Catholic, would have to have his decisions and policies approved by the Church. He very publically stated that his conduct in office would not be dictated by the Church. Now it appears that this was a valid concern, and he may have been put to the test. The fact that many other Christians and others, probably some secularists, share the view of the Catholic Church on the abortion issue diverts attention from the fundamental fact that the Church is actively intruding into the political process (which, according to regulation, should result in loss of its tax exempt status). There are other issues where Christians disagree. What would be the reaction if a priest told his parishioners not to take communion if they voted for a candidate who attended a church ministered by a woman? What if the same command were given if the candidate attended a church that considers the Catholic Church the product of the "Great Apostasy" or would require a convert from Catholicism to be re-baptized, which is required for converts to most Baptist churches? This is a list that can grow, eventually to demanding avoidance from communion for any Catholic voting against a Catholic candidate? What is to stop this from happening? Now is the time for the Church to nip this in the bud before the concern over Catholics in national office will reemerge, i.e4., Protestant ministers could begin to tell their congregations that anyone voting for a Catholic will go to hell (if the truth be known, there are still some who probably do that). Separtion of church and state is not a trivial principle.

Posted on November 14, 2008 10:05

October10S :
FOCA or no FOCA, the Catholic Church and her sister harppies have not convinced the majority of Americans that abortion should be illegal. And guess what? THEY NEVER WILL!!!

-- You forget that it was one man who decided for Americans that abortion SHOULD be legal. Mr. Blackmun. Perhaps you've heard of him?

Posted on November 13, 2008 17:45

persiflage :
Humans have complete control of their reproductive processes - get used to it. 50% of Catholics in the USA support freedom of choice - get used to it....they voted for Obama. Expect stem cell research to take off like a big bird in the very near future.

-- I've always wondered why a woman can willingly have sex, get pregnant, refuse an abortion, and then force the man to pay for the kid. I mean, where's the "freedom"?

FOCA or no FOCA, the Catholic Church and her sister harppies have not convinced the majority of Americans that abortion should be illegal. And guess what? THEY NEVER WILL!!! I am a Catholic who has the unfortunate burden of being unable to subordinate my intellect to the teachings of the Church. I roundly reject ALL of the church's teachings on sex and reproduction. Moreover, I sincerely believe that God has a place for the unborn inasmuch as HE chooses to abort millions of babies a year through miscarriage. But no matter whether that is true or not, the fact remains that the majority of Americans support abortion rights, and that the size of that majority is increasing (rather than decreasing) with younger generations. This is a battle that will NOT EVER be won by the pro-lifers. And if all they do is put their energies into this loosing battle, they make themselves irrelevant in the modern time. For your own sakes, PICK ANOTHER PET PEEVE! Your service to God is futile if all you do is bang your head against an immovable wall.

Lordy, is this the only Catholic commentator they can find? Just throw a rock at CUA and you can hit someone better than Mr. Arroyo.

The Catholic Church, like all religions, has always been about money and power. Their hypocrisy regarding the sex scandals will forever blight any reason to care what their opinions are.

if the bishops had any decency left in them, the first thing they would have done was to congratulate Obama's tremendous victory. He brought together many catholics, and especially hispanic catholics in coalition unheard of in the United States with African Americans, women, and above all the young, something the catholic bishops could never do. where is the love for humanity here? clearly it is on the Obama side of this story.

My mother is a cradle catholic and I have a bachelor's degree from a private catholic university. There has never been so much political jockeying within the walls of the catholic church which have stimulated so many to become involved in matters that don't even affect them. The faith itself has evolved over the years to become progressive and realistic in its teachings and culpability in regard to sexual deviance among its clergy and administrators, yet now there are implications that a color determines political affiliations. If a person walks through a catholic church to debate politics while professing their sins to all, then the administrators of this faith have more problems then what they will be able to resolve with the beating of the proverbial dead horse. Anyways, one of the commandments is, thou shalt not kill, is there a loophole to defend their behavior if the beast is already dead when the beating occurs?

These bishops should be embarassed to have issued a Taliban-like "warning" incoming President Obama and his administrative policies.

And what exactly are they warning against or threatening to do? Insurrection? Revolution? Being struck down by God himslef? Turning their church against the state?

Give us a break. You make fools of yourselves.

One question I have been asking myself for years now is: 'does the Catholic Church have a place for a Monsignor Charles Owen Rice if abortion is the only issue we are to concern ourselves with?' Unfortunately, I think that Monsignor Charles Owen Rice would be roundly condemned, perhpas even silenced in today's church because of his pro-labor, anti-Republican sentiments. I would hope that we recognize that abortion is an issue, albeit and important one, but not the only issue we as Catholics need to examine.

The Catholic Church needs a makeover--European style. In Europe the church has really been relegated to being religious museum curators of the beautiful church buildings they take care of. Except for the elderly, the Church is not taken all that seriously.

Here in the U.S. the Church still benefits from fear and ignorance--its primary recruiting and retention tools.

When a bishop threatens withholding communion, it summons up the past for me as I received sex education from a priest who committed sex crimes against boys all the while teaching that we had to follow "natural law". Abortion was reprehensible and birth control was against natural law--overpopulation would be left up to God and high numbers of birth were the only way that families in the third world could ensure having children that would last their lifetime and take care of them. How it was natural that this man existed without an adult sex partner was even then troubling to me.

I feel badly about the Priests in my school who went to prison (one for eighty years), and for those who escaped under the statute of limitations. I feel badly for the boys who were molested.

Its not just the Catholics--priests, pastors, ministers...all have outlived their usefulness and are now holding humanity back--dangerously back. I wish I could live long enough to see all of them become museum curators and that we would stop spending billions on their new buildings when so many are suffering.

Persiflage,
Not everyone has sex outside of marriage.. It is not a foregone conclusion that must be accepted. There is always a new generation that can be taught the truth.

When people see things that don't work, they can make changes, can't they. The Sexual revolution is a tremendous social failure.

PaulC - I neglected to give you a link to the essential Buddhist teaching on the nature of Reality - that which we all seek...and usually in vain.

The (dualistic) foundation of many religions is the assumption that there is a 'real' world, a 'real' heaven, and real rewards and punishments that await the saved or the damned. Please see the link below for another and very different view.

This is certainly not an excuse for bad behavior, quite the contrary. According to the view below, behavior is typically based on illusions (and delusions) that create both present and future 'realities' in our every-changing and imaginary world.

In this view, the material world is not a whit different in it's essential nature, from our nightly unconscious (ethereal) dream world - the mysterious origins and the essential 'suchness' of our two worlds is exactly the same.

To imagine that this life will be all over at the moment of death - to be followed by eternal rewards or punishments, it yet another illusion..... and is inculcated in the very different (and admittedly difficult) point of view via the link below.

Lately I've considered that this is an unfamiliar and 'strange' religious/philosopohical terrain that folks need to at least be familiar with - in lieu of the fact that we see more conventional religious views almost exclusively via the On Faith threads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzogchen

PaulC - unfortunately for your point of view, sex is a tremendously fun thing to do - does this lead to irresponsible behavior? By all means...as does every other stimulus that strokes our neural and hormonal constitution.

I don't know about you, but I chased sex for decades - and Lord was it fun! On the other hand, I loved my partners - and still do. Actually I miss those days, but in our elder years, spirituality seems more appropriate!

And I have to say, the barriers between the sacred and the profane are of human origin, to the best of our knowledge. Sex begets humans, even when it shouldn't - as you say, birth control eliminates the risk of pregnancy, the vast majority of the time.

Paul, if you imagine that you're going to turn back the hands of time and implement your values (and apparently the values of the Catholic Church), you are living in the past.

You have to change your point of view and work with 'what is' - the cat is out of the bag and the horse is out of the barn......what will the Catholic Church do in the face of this new reality?

Here's the simple truth of the matter - a celibate (?) clergy is making rules for sexually active congregents. Of course celibacy is followed in other religions - for example, Buddhist monastics follow the rules of celibacy in order to facilitate the enlightenment experience.

This committment is made in order that they might return to the earthly life as bodhisattvas - so as to help the unenlightened see the truth of Reality, thus freeing themselves from the endless round of birth and death.

On the other hand, while sex is a big distraction, celibacy is not a requirement for seeing the truth of the Absolute - whether you be a Catholic or a Buddhist. It's just a very, very difficult thing to do.......

persiflage:
You know, birth control is likely more a part of the problem than a part of the solution. You may know that birth control lessens but does not eliminate the probability of pregnancy. condoms are 86% effective in controling births for one year. However, that means 1 out of 7 couples having sex with Condoms will in fact generate a pregnancy in a given year. They likely believe however, that if they use condoms, they will not generate any pregnancies. That encourages far more people to have sex than they would if they recognized that pregnancy might ensue at roughly the same rate as killing yourself playing russian roullette with a 6 shooter. Since the advent of readily available birthcontrol in 1960, out of wedlock births have increased from 5% of all births to 37% - EVEN with ~1.5Million abortions per year in the US. Also 25% of teenage girls now have an STD.

The birth control mentality is devasting from a social perspective as the above clearly shows. You will say its better than having unprotected sex. But that fails to recognize that it has changed the mentality from sex is sacred to sex is recreational and with that the startling statistics above.

Humans have complete control of their reproductive processes - get used to it. 50% of Catholics in the USA support freedom of choice - get used to it....they voted for Obama. Expect stem cell research to take off like a big bird in the very near future.

If you don't live in the USA, by all means migrate to a land that suits your religious and ethical proclivities - how about Ireland??

The Supreme Court will gravitate back to the center and may even keep going in the same direction, given the momentum - count on it.

If you're a devout Catholic that supports the doctrinaire and official position of the Catholic Church as regards reproductive rights, perhaps you can convince the Vatican of the wisdom of employing conventional birth control methods, for starters.

This might even impact the current abortion rates - otherwise, the Church position in these matters is moot.

Welcome to the real world......

Red and Blue Bishops?? Give us a break!!!

President-elect Obama rode to the Blood-Red House on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies!!!

(The fastest growing USA voting bloc: The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year.)

i.e. the Immoral Majority now rules the land and will do so in the foreseeable future. How very sad and disturbing!!!

Stop twisting our Church to fit YOUR political viewpoint. The Bishops are not Red or Blue to fit the Republican or Democratic parties. They are there to serve God through his Church.

YOUR presidential candidate said he WOULD sign FOCA. You cannot back away from this as much as you wish to mislead.

You do not wish to get into the details of this legislation because it would wipe away most state restrictions on abortions.

Your support for President Obama and his support for Obama supports the evil of Abortion and the culture of death.

This is to your shame Stephens-Arroyo. You are the wolf in sheeps clothing.

"When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it.

And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

You continune to mislead. The FOCa is still on the website. Maybe not in a list, but believe me it is on there. Can you be complete and honest for once?

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/22/obama_statement_on_35th_annive.php

I don't see all the details of the supposed support for pregnant women that the disgrace Kmiec lied about on there either.