|
Published: November 10, 2009
Break Aways
Three California Dems Vote Pro-life
Editor: The following email came in late Sunday night from a California observer of pro-abortion politics.
 Three of California's 34 Democrat U.S. Representatives BROKE ranks with the usual almost 100 % pro-abortion mandate and voted YEA on the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
NOTE: all 19 California Republican U.S. Representatives voted YEA on the Stupak-Pitts amendment including the 5 who are Catholics:
Brian Bilbray, Dan Lungren, Devin Nunes, George Radanovich, and Ed Royce.
 The three California Democratic U.S. Representatives who voted YEA for the Stupak-Pitts amendment were all "Catholics":
Dennis Cardoza DEM-CA-18th, (Merced, Modesto, Stockton) Portuguese
Jim Costa DEM-CA-20th, (Fresno) Portuguese
Joe Bace DEM-CA-43th, (San Bernardino) Hispanic
NOTE: These districts are fairly conservative, so that would likely be a factor in their YEA votes for the Stupak-Pitts amendment.
 The other 12 "Catholic" California Democratic U.S. Representatives voted NAY with the 31 out of 34 California Democratic U.S. Representatives who voted NAY on the Stupak-Pitts amendment:
Xavier Becerra, DEM-CA-31st, (Los Angeles)
Anna Eshoo, DEM-CA-14th (Palo Alto)
Jerry McNerney, DEM-CA-11th (Stockton, San Ramon)
George Miller, DEM-CA-7th (Concord, Richmond, Vallejo)
Grace Napolitano, DEM-CA-38th (Santa Fe Springs)
Nancy Pelosi, DEM-CA-8th (San Francisco)
Lucile Roybal-Allard, DEM-CA-34th (Los Angeles)
Linda T. Sanchez, DEM-CA-39th (Lakewood)
Loretta Sanchez, DEM-CA-47th (Garden Grove)
Jackie Speier, DEM-CA-12th
Mike Thompson, DEM-CA-1st (Napa, Fort Bragg, Eureka, and Woodland)
Diane Watson, DEM-CA-33rd (Los Angeles)
 So, at least three "Catholic" Democratic Representatives voted YEA on the Stupak-Pitts amendment -- in spite of the leadership of "Catholic" California Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.
P.S. Newly elected Congressman John Garamendi Dem- 10th CD – who voted NAY on the Stupak-Pitts amendment, may have "fallen away" from the Catholic faith!!!
He is listed on the National Right to Life website as a "Christian" not a "Catholic".
See URL, click here.
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:21 AM By BJ
From Becerra through Pelosi to Watson....... a roll call of supporters of death to unborn babies in the womb if that's what 'the parents' want/ decide...... legalised murder of holy innocents. You don't have to be Catholic to find this distressing. You just need to be in touch with your soul and forget 'politics'.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 3:57 AM By Ron
Stupak-Pitts is a "red herring" meant to deflect criticism for the bill as a whole. Princess Pelosi may be the most evil politician to every darken the capitol door, but she is not dumb. Taxpayer funded abortion will be in the final version of this horrendous monstrosity disguised as "health care for all". Pelosi's vendetta against God's most innocent marches relentlessly on. God Bless and God save the unborn.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:23 AM By 4unborn
Congressman John Garamendi was Insurance Commissioner when I was a Senior Insurance Examiner for the State of California. Two insurance companies went to his office to change the reports of examination which had only my signature on them. These reports which become public documents were changed. I was not even informed before they became public documents. I blew the whistle to the media. My own department then sought revenge against me. The good news is that I retired early and am enjoying life in Arizona.
John Garamendi was not a good Insurance Commissioner.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 6:48 AM By JLS
Ron has it right: As I've said before, abortion is not a plank in the liberal govt, but it is the foundation of their politics.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:08 AM By M A D
The right to life is a civil right not a religious right. Politicians should realize more than most people that we are guaranteed the right to life under our Constitution. If they only concentrated on this fact when discussing abortion, it might change their minds. If they substituted the word slavery for abortion, the argument would change in a heart beat. The Catholic politicians who vote for abortion have Almighty God to face on Judgement Day. How wonderful it would be if more of our Bishops would have the courage to speak out about the evil of abortion and instruct our pastors to do so. It all comes down to educating people as to what abortion actually is - it is the murder of the innocent. We also need to be told that Roe v Wade is a bad law. The most dangerous place in this world is a baby in the womb of it's mother. Not Iraq - not Iran - not Afghanistan.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:39 AM By pete
It remains to be seen if the Stupak amendment is a red herring; it is likely to be just as hard to erase in the final bill for the same reasons why it passed in the House, TOO MANY DEMS THERE TO ACCEPT ITS REMOVAL.
There was a direct hierarchical intervention privately by a
Cardinal to the House Rep. whip.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:20 PM By Elizabeth
THESE PEOPLE'S BISHOPS NEED TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM AND TALK TO THEM AS MY FAMILY WOULD SAY, LIKE A 'DUTCH UNCLE'.
AND IF THEY DO NOT COME AROUND TO BEING IN FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CHURCH...........THEY SHOULD BE DENIED THE PRIVILEDGE OF RECEIVING THE BODY,BLOOD, SOUL AND DIVINITY OF OUR LORD. AND IF THEY DON'T ABIDE WITH THAT.........EXCOMMUNICATION! AND PUBLICALLY, SINCE THEY ARE SO PUBLIC WITH THEIR VOTES AGAINST LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:26 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to the CCD Editor: You've chosen to publish, as if it were an example of authentic journalism, an email from an anonymous writer wherein are strewn no less than four sets of quotation marks around the title Catholic. The title Catholic, however, is a baptismal title and should not be gainsaid to the prejudice of those who are canonically entitled to this title. Nor should the title Catholic be disparaged by iterative use of a quaternion of quotation marks (scil.: "Catholic") -- look, in Anonymous's published email, a quaternion of quotation marks is used on no less than four different occasions. ~ Mr. Editor, even where the Catholic in question is a material heretic (formal heresy is a different case), a quaternion of quotation marks is, normally, not to be used. Rather, what is to be said is that the Catholic in question is a self-contradictory Catholic. ~ But more: Fundamental to the moral order is the norm NOT TO ACT when one lacks MORAL CERTAINTY as to the rightness of one's act. But here we have the case of a published suggestion of *non-entitlement* to the title Catholic, which suggestion turns on a mere "MAY[BE]" and no more than a mere "MAY[BE]". Thus, Mr. Editor, your anonymous correspondent writes: "P.S.: ... [X] may have 'fallen away' from the Catholic faith!!!" The fact that X is listed on a website somewhere as "Christian" does not turn this MAYBE-NOT-CATHOLIC into an IS-NOT-CATHOLIC. ~ Nor of course should the phrase *fallen away* be in quotes. Either X is fallen away from the Faith or X isn't fallen away from the Faith. ~ By the way, indirectly apropos of your anonymous reporter, you as CCD editor should not, for your own part, proceed anonymously.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 12:28 PM By Harv
When it comes to their Day of Judgement before our Creator, these politicians like all of us will have their sins and the consequences of their sins laid before them. Then our Savior, Jesus Christ will issue His Holy, fair, and deserving Judgement Decree based on all of His Laws and Teachings that began with His Ten Commandments. The perpetrators of evil may try to convince Him otherwise; however Jesus knows exactly what was in their Hearts and Minds when their sins were committed, and at that moment of Judgement. The perpetrators can't deceive Him nor can they run and hide. All that was wronged, will be atoned for. Lucia, Francesco and Jacinta of Fatima Portugal were shown the tortures and ugliness of hell. It does exist and for a purpose, awaiting those whom insult God and defy His Laws and Teachings; putting themselves before Him. ETERNAL JUSTICE will be rendered and served accordingly. Forgiveness before the moment of death will likely be granted to those sinners whom sorrowfully confess and repent their sins, do penance, and amend their lives, at least what is left of the last moments of their lives. Scary thoughts for all of us, but facts just the same. These facts ought to help keep us straight and on the narrow path to Heaven, though there is a greater reason for avoiding the near occaision of sins; that is love for and not wishing to offend the Blessed Trinity, Holy Family, and the Communion of Saints. Pray the Fatima Prayers the Angel taught the Fatima Children in 1917. Pray for the Salvation of All Holy Souls. Our Lord said that not all will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 2:21 PM By Angelo
I never voted for Jim Costa because of the abortion issue. The Man has my vote from now on. And I will encourage others to do so also.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 5:07 PM By Richard
Garimendi's myspace page says he is Catholic
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:11 PM By MD
Nancy Pelosi was highly visible Sunday, the day after the vote, at the evening Mass at St. Vincent de Paul Church in San Francisco. She received the eucharist, of course, and chatted up the presider after Mass while generally being treated as a celebrity. Sad day for the city of St. Francis!
|
Posted Tuesday, November 10, 2009 11:53 PM By markrite
Hey, John F. Maguire, why do you go OUT OF YOUR WAY to be pedantic? It almost seems as if you've got a pathological need to PROVE how much more SMART and WELL-EDUCATED you are. But what's the ACTUAL POINT of this post you just made? Was it just to introduce the new flavor-of-the-month word you discovered, QUATERNION? I'm fairly well read, yet I have not come across this word before; I take it that QUATERNION has something to do with "four". And I'm guessing because there might have been four references to quotation marks by the CCD editor, the word QUATERNION came out of your vast vocabulary, but for God's sake, what, if anything did you clarify or elucidate that might have been murky before? Because your remarks became even MORE DENSE and somewhat incomprehensible after your thoughts were expressed. However, having said that, I do believe that you've got a formidable intellect, as I've pointed out in other contexts, and I'm glad you're on the side of orthodox Catholicism ( I guess)
Anyway, GREAT POSTING by Harv, very well-expressed and in simple terms, something I wish we could ALL strive for in these tumultuous times.--as always, GOD BLESS ALL--MARKRITE
|
Posted Wednesday, November 11, 2009 7:30 AM By RR
Maguire: You are unbelievable and pompous in your post to the editor. Push your spectacles of the tip of your nose for just a minute and think about your post. You complain about the editor using quotation marks around the word "catholic", but you also do this same thing in your posts. For example, when you called me and others"faux Traditionalists." You use quotation marks also to insult people who don't agree with Vatican II's New Mass and want to live their Faith based on Sacred Tradition. You have referred to these very Faithful Catholics as, "Faux Traditionalist." So, if your going to criticize the editor, then take your spectacles of your face for a minute, stop typing, and take a good look at yourself in a mirror.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 11, 2009 8:19 AM By junev
In reference to Garamendi, he will be anything if it gets him elected. He has been in and out of office here in California for at least 20 years+. He is addicted to a paycheck from government.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 11, 2009 10:35 AM By JLS
markrite hit it on the nose with Maguire, with the word, "pathalogical". It's the same pattern as one of the bloggers a year ago, who always argued with various references that true Christianity is absolutely non-violent. Maguire's rant is formed exactly the same, only far more erudite and subtle. It stems from a pathological condition, which is what could be called a fetish-like attachment to an illogical idea (to decrease abortion it has to be increased first -- as in the fanaticism of Obama or the spiritual madness of Kmiec). Maguire is bailing water furiously while his rowboat is slowly sinking; only in his case instead of water he is sinking in some humongous library. No matter what anyone says to help Maguire connect with reality, he refuses. He evades and avoids every single point that he cannot twist. He presents countless ideas, yet not one of them connects with the whole. This is the result of his fixation on his illogic of decreasing abortion by increasing it. If he were to abandon this folly, he could then put to good use his abilities. But as it stands, he has buried his talent under a bookcase that has fallen over. My approach has been to shake him by the collar, to shock him out of his dream ... not working. Those who have presented him with solid and clear and concise arguments have not (yet) persuaded him to cut his cord and look further into truth.
|
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 12:06 PM By John F. Maguire
RR: I do not object to using quotation marks around a word where such quotation marks are appropriate -- and that includes -- on rare occasions -- the word Catholic. My objection is to the article above and its (supposed) reporter's deployment of slam-use or scare-use quotation marks around the title *Catholic*. RR, without sure grounds and practical moral certtitude (certitude sufficient to acting in one way or another), it is wrong -- just plain wrong -- to suggest that a person who has a BAPTISMAL RIGHT to the name CATHOLIC has lost that right -- well, unless that person really has lost that right, which requires an ecclesial procedure to determine. In the meantime, RR, we call material heretics self-contradictory Catholics, so to remind them of that same baptism right and responsibility. ~ Another issue, RR: You allude to our disagreement over the the validity of the Mass -- the Mass said daily by Pope Benedict XVI. The universal consensus of laity and clergy alike is that, however deficient theologically, the Mass of the Novus Ordo is valid. To deny this validity, however, is -- straightaway -- to be an INVALIDARIAN and, RR, to be an INVALIDARIAN is to be a FAUX TRADITIONALIST sans quotation marks.
|
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:20 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to JLS: It was your old opponent Karl Marx who warned that commodities -- commodities that are in circulationwithin the trade cycles of world-markets -- would become fetishized under the reign of Capital. It was also your old opponent Karl Marx who warned that the production and distribution of "ideas" would become fetishized. Now, JLS, you come to claim that I, for my part, am facilitating that fetishism ("Maguire's...fetish-like attachment to an illogical idea"). What idea, pray tell? That I'm committed to "decreasing abortion by increasing it"? Such an idea, JLS, is unintelligible on its face.
|
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:04 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: You seem to have confused my library, which you've never seen, with the LIBRARY OF BABEL, which, except perhaps in your own mind's eye, I'm guessing you've not seen either. LA BIBLIOTECA TOTAL, Jorge Luis Borge calls this Total Library. I'm talking a large library here, JLS -- but the question arises: Is this Library infinite or is it limited -- as, for example, mine is? Borges replies: "Those who judge it to be limited postulate that in remote places the corridors and stairways and hexagons can conceivably come to an end -- which is absurd. Those who imagine it to be without limit forget that the possible number of books does have such a limit. I venture to suggest this solution to the ancient problem: *The Library is unlimited and cyclical*. If an eternal traveler were to cross it in any direction, after centuries he would see that the same volumes were repeated in the same disorder (which, thus repeated, would an order: the Order)." Or, as Borges wonders, is it simply that the Library of Babel is the Crimson Hexagon -- a single book that contains the log of all other books?
|
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 2:59 PM By John F. Maguire
In reply to Markrite: There is no "pedantry" in pointing out what the Church has always stressed: namely, that we have to be morally certain -- that is, practically certain -- that an action is right before we realize that action. So when the CCD editor publishes an anonymous would-be journalist to the effect that X "may" or may not be a Catholic but who-the-heck-cares and puts quotations around the title Catholic anyway, so in effeft to place in question X's BAPTISMAL TITLE to the name Catholic, then we have a violation of journalist ethics. Or don't you think so? If you don't think so, make out the case why such a practice is not remissive.
|
Posted Thursday, November 12, 2009 7:46 PM By JLS
Maguire: Two things: A. In my college days I spent three years not going to classes but roaming a Western Region Repository Research Library and reading whatever I found interesting. One thing I discovered that you might eventually discover also is that no matter how many books you read or read of, there yet are vast multiples of those books that you will never read. Surprisingly I found that I was able to read French poetry after having taken only two weeks of French. B. So your sense of overwhelming largeness of libraries does not impress me. C. There was a Twilight Zone episode where a librarian who loved to read found himself the sole survivor of WWIII ... and that he was at last alone with all the books in the world ... then his eye glasses fell and shattered and he couldn't see well enough to read his treasure. D. You subscribe to the "cyclical" theory, I see; that explains your Hindu version of what you call Catholicism. F. You have stated many times during the past election period that you voted for Obama because he would decrease abortion. When questioned about this, you even admitted that the decrease in abortion would come about by Obama increasing abortions. Did you forget, or are you trying to get others to forget? Or are you denying it to yourself, or to others? G. Don't you recall that Jesus is the Word of God, and hence all truth is in Him, and He is Truth ... Do we learn truth from reading or from union with truth? Let me know what you have to say about this, H. and be clear about it.
|
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 9:59 AM By Harv
Markrite, Thank you for your complement of simple terms. If one can't believe this simple truth, then they lack the Catholic Faith, which incidentally has so much real world evidence and historical manuscripts to support it, the facts complement the Faith. I respect greatly those profound leaders and speakers whom speak and write in simple terms so it is good to emulate them. They provide a clear vision and picture of their subject. The most wonderful Bishops and Priests that have captured my attention and stirred my soul with brilliant and enlightening sermons are those that speak about our Lord and His Blessed Mother in simple terms and stories, and that can relate many experiences and events in the Gospels to how He wishes for us to conduct our lives. Jesus' parables are so meaningful, yet there are many of us whom don't understand them clearly; much of the reason being we haven't prayed for enlightment beforehand nor are we individually in a high enough state of Sanctifying Grace. Though I have my serious faults, I love God before all else and duly want to please Him always. Heaven is for Eternity and its not worth the risk of loosing it for some sinful self-centered actions or lack of actions here on earth. When we commit mortal sins we loose all the Sanctifying Grace we once had and only through our sorrow and receiving the Sacrament of Confession do we come in God's good favor again and receive Sanctifying Grace. Although we are human and have our frailties, we must strive; however to avoid those sins again and do penance for them. Is this so hard and complex to comprehend? Are we so sure of ourselves as Catholics that we nolonger sin that we feel assured that we are going to reach Heaven without doing God's Holy Will? I'm not one for fire and brimstone sermons, but I am one for learning and having refreshers in sermons about the types of sin, distinguishing between mortal and venial sins and how the offend God. To many liberal self-dubbed Catholics from these blogs are they even Christians? They seem to defy all His teachings, accept only those they wish, and twist God's Holy Word to fit and justify their sinful lifestyles. Their twisting
|
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 12:50 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: I cited Jorge Luis Borges' account of the Library of Babel not because I, for my part, entertain Hindu cyclic doctrines of the cosmos, nor yet because I entertain "a Hindu version of what [I] call Catholicism," but because -- as I think should have been evident to you -- I wanted you to dwarf -- anyway just a little big -- your notion of my own library as "humongous" by suggesting the difference between any fine library and, say, the Crimson Hexagon -- fancifully: that single book that contains the log of all other books. ~ Of course -- and I think you know this -- I've never used the term "Catholicism" on this website -- I use the term Catholic Christianity; and sometimes, in keeping with the practice of Orestes Brownson, I use the phrase *the cause of Catholicity*. So no, JLS, I don't think a Hindu version of "CatholicISM" serves the cause of Catholic Christianity. Catholicity is Christianity's formal principle, no?
|
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 1:31 PM By John F. Maguire
In further reply to JLS: I never said once -- let alone "many times" -- how I voted in last November's election. Eight days ago, Dave wrote into this website to ask: "JLS -- where did John Maguire say he voted for Obama? I didn't see him say that anywhere" [CCD Nov. 4:4:06 PM]. In point of fact, JLS, given my primary interest in discussing voting ethics as a specialty ethics within Catholic ethics in general, I proposed to discuss voting ethics without introducing partisan prepossessions and/or pro-candidate/anti-candidate prepossessions. This was the dispositive reason for my not disclosing my vote -- and I said so at the time.
|
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 2:43 PM By JLS
Maguire, you advocated strongly for Obama ... now if you didn't vote for him, you really are a fraud.
|
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 2:50 PM By JLS
Maguire, now we have even more of your "coming out" as a non Catholic: You say you do not approve the term "Catholicism" but rather stake your salvation to "Catholic Christianity", and then you reveal your protesting bias by saying your principle is Christianity with Catholicity a part of it. So, you are after all a protestant? In reality there is one Catholic Church and the baptized are part of it unless they've denied Christ. Catholicism is not a part of Christianity, Maguire, but the other way around. There are various denominations of Catholicism which are also known as Christian sects or Protestant denominations. There are thousands of them and some of them have even left the fold altogether, following false Christs.
|
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 6:47 PM By Rich
My question is this: Is it not better to think of spiritual commitment as a commitment to a search for truth and enlightenment rather than to some exacting Lord who in times past laid down a variety of contradictory rules and regulations that are sometimes quite impossible to obey? Is not it wiser to emphasize rather than deplore the intelligence and independence of the human spirit? I do not mean to imply by this that humans, through reason and experience, can arrive at sure and certain spiritual truths. The riddle of life is not so easy to answer. In the face of the human enigma, however, should anyone, to circumvent the difficulty, seek to develop the mind of a slave?
|
Posted Friday, November 13, 2009 7:13 PM By Joseph P.
JLS, An interesting perspective/point of view is yours on Catholicism and Protestant denominations. I agree that with the New Age Evangelical Churches, there are thousands of Protestant denominations; however I wouldn't say the same about Catholic denominations, as that is harder to describe in just a few words. I recognize the Orthodox Churches as part of the Catholic Family, sister denominations shall we say. I see the Roman Catholic Church on the conservative and liberal ends of the spectrum. Those liberal would include the decaying modern Vatican II Church, and the renegade self-dubbed/falsely claimed catholic churches that have women bishops and priests, support abortion and gay rights and march out of step with the ancient teachings of the Roman Catholic Church putting their liberal spins on anything. They are only deceiving and steering the weak or lossed Catholics into the abyss. On the conservative end, I see those defamed and labeled as Trad Rads by some, (Radicals? What an oxymoron eh! They didn't changed from the ancient Roman Catholic worship and religious practices to the dismay of the young and/or naive.) These conservatives are ridiculed for holding fast to the ancient traditions of the Roman Catholic Church as prescribed by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Ghost for nearly 2000 years up to the Vatican II Council which changed it all. They are ridiculed because they don't march in cadence with the modern Vatican II magesterium for the last 40 years. These conservatives only wish to love and worship Almighty God in the manner He so directed, not in the liberal manner as mere mortal men had directed. Oh the nerve of proud men to think they could improve upon God's perfection of the Tridentine Latin Mass and the 7 Holy Sacraments. Isn't that called sacrilige and an indication of the loss of the Faith? Pray the Rosary for world peace!
|
Posted Saturday, November 14, 2009 6:03 AM By 1abqdad
SO...When are ALL of the pro-abortion, pseudo-Catholics going to be denied communion? Or are the bishops going to continue to be cowards before Christ???
|
Posted Saturday, November 14, 2009 11:46 AM By John F. Maguire
No, JLS, better that it be said that CATHOLICITY is the formal principle of Christianity than that it be said that Catholicism -- with that awkward "ism" -- be said to be the formal principle of Christianity. Of course this opinion of mine is no more than an opinion. Differing on this question from you, JLS, does not render me a protestant of any sort; the very contrary. ~ Two other problems emerge from your post: (1) You write: "Catholicism is not a part of Christianity." Wouldn't it be better to say: Catholicity is the formal principle of Christianity and, given that there are non-Catholic instances of Christianity, it is because, and precisely because, the principle of Catholicity does not inform these instances. (2) You write: "There are various denominations of Catholicism....", which is false on its face; but you say, what you mean is that these "denominations of Catholicism...are also known as Christian sects or Protestant denominations." Whoa! JLS, a Christian sect is always already counter-Catholic by virtue of its self-defining sectarianism. Nor are Protestant denominations a part of the Catholic Church. We as Catholics do not refer to the Protestant denominations as "denominations of Catholicism." More specifically, the Lutheran church is not a denomination of Catholicism; the Calvinist presbyteries do not constitute a denomination of Catholicism, nor does the Anglican Communion constitute a denomination of Catholicism.
|
Posted Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:43 AM By Thuvia Parth
JLS: Not only are you wrong in your claim that John Maguire disclosed his November vote on this website; you are wrong that he advocated for Obama's *election* on this website. What he did do was defend the 53% per cent portion of Catholic voters who voted for Senator Obama against the theologically false charge that these voters necessarily committed a mortal sin in casting that vote. Yet for all his trouble you call him a "fraud". For shame, JLS, for shame.
|
Posted Monday, November 16, 2009 9:10 PM By JLS
Go back and read it, Thuvia. Maguire strongly advocated Obama and supported Kmiec who led the Catholic vote for Obama. Your blindness and lying are easily exposed when by reading the archives. Your current presentation of the issue was ruled against by many bishops and the Pope. Maguire tried to justify his position on "proportionate reasoning", which was trashed by many bishops and the Pope. Presently, for example, the Spanish bishops are denouncing anyone who votes for a proabortion candidate.
|
Posted Monday, November 16, 2009 9:15 PM By JLS
Hogwash, Maguire, Catholicism includes all that is Christian, and not the other way around. Too bad you find "ism" awkward. Anything that you can't spin you find awkward. BTW, your hypocritical attempts at being polite to me are not wasted. I'm not concerned whether you are polite but whether you are right. When you renounce your collusion in abortion politics, then I'll grant you respect, but not til then.
|
Posted Monday, November 16, 2009 9:21 PM By JLS
No, Joseph, there is "one holy catholic and apostolic Church". The Pope heads it. All the faithful are members regardless of what religion they are in. Anyone Heaven bound is a member of the Catholic Church. There are Baptists who are members, even if they do not realize it; and there are Baptists who are not members: Those who are of Jesus are Catholic, whether they know it or not. Because there is only one mystical Body of Christ, one body of believers. The schism between the Pope and the Orthodox does not describe the eternal destiny of the individual members, nor does the heresy of the Anglican church. The way the popes and the Magisterium and the Gospel and the Letters put it, there is not one of us who knows for sure who all is going to end up in Heaven. But they give us enough information to know often who is not going there unless they repent.
|
Posted Monday, November 16, 2009 9:27 PM By JLS
Rich, God is no fool as you suggest by saying that no one can follow His rules. He would not give us rules that we were not capable of following, He provides us with the ability to do so. Freedom is not found outside of Jesus Christ. A saint chained in a dungeon is free, whereas his jailers are not. Your concept of slavery, implied by your tone, is wrong. You are enslaved to the world, the flesh and the devil unless you are free in Christ. Christ is the one and only means of salvation and in fact is salvation. If you unite with Christ, then you unite with salvation.
|
Posted Thursday, November 19, 2009 1:14 PM By John F. Maguire
JLS: The Catholic Church does not include within her bosom heretical assemblies, Christian though these assemblies are.
|
Posted Saturday, November 21, 2009 9:37 AM By RR
JLS: I'm really going to have a hard time typing this, but I agree with Maguire on this one. Members of Protestant Churches are not faithful members of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. God's Church is the Catholic Church only. The rest protested against the Church and are heretics and Protestants. Technically, only Catholics are Christians because they, only, follow Christ. The rest of the Protestant religions follow Churches started by man and live by man's beliefs. They may think they are Christians, but in reality they don't follow Christ, but man-made, heretical beliefs.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|