Pope’s Message Mixed, Missed

Pope Benedict XVI may have been flying to Brazil and speaking about Mexico City, but his in-flight words to reporters … Continued

Pope Benedict XVI may have been flying to Brazil and speaking about Mexico City, but his in-flight words to reporters on May 9 have caused a stir here in the United States. Initial headlines raised the specter of papal excommunication for Mexico City politicians who voted to expand abortion rights. Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi quickly clarified the Pope’s comments; such politicians were not excommunicated, but “legislation in favor of abortion is not compatible with participation in the Eucharist.”

Even with excommunication headlines missing the mark, the story hits home here in the United States. It raises questions for pro-choice Catholic candidates in both the Republican and Democratic primaries. Reporters brought up the issue last week with Rudy Giuliani. His response, “I don’t get into debates with the pope,” is unlikely to be the last word we hear on the subject.

The trinity of abortion, politicians, and the Eucharist is sure to remind Americans of the communion controversy that shook the American Catholic community during the 2004 Presidential campaign. As Senator Kerry ran for the White House, a small but vocal group of American bishops called for refusal of communion to him and other lawmakers who had voted for abortion rights.

Now is as good a time as any to revisit lessons learned from the 2004 debate.

In spite of the agitation from conservative Catholic activists, the vast majority of US Bishops acted with admirable pastoral prudence in 2004.

Guided by the now-retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the bishops declared that, ‘Bishops can legitimately make different judgments on the most prudent course of pastoral action [in these cases],’ and that the Eucharist must not be ‘misused for political ends.’ This McCarrick approach drew support from then-Cardinal Ratzinger, who called it ‘very much in harmony’ with Church teaching on the matter.

In 2004, the American Bishops showed prudence because they recognized the danger of dragging their Church’s central sacrament into a partisan political fight. In fact, they recognized that selective involvement of the Church in political fights does not elevate politics, but lowers the Church.

Throughout our history, our Church has been strongest when it rises above politics, urging politicians of all stripes and partisan leanings to understand and embrace the full spectrum of Catholic teaching.

We can expect conservative activists, who were so vocal in condemnation of Senator Kerry in 2004, to respond similarly to pro-choice Catholics in this campaign season. But we hope our Bishops respond with similar prudence this year and speak out on the full spectrum of Catholic teaching.

The rest of the Pope’s comments aboard the papal plane demonstrate this full spectrum, and may provide the framework for bishops to demand more from all politicians. While many reporters seized on Benedict’s excommunication non-comments, fewer noted his praise for the heroic social justice leadership of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador and Benedict’s call for the Church to engage in “evangelization at the service of the cause of peace and justice.”

This call to secure peace and justice in our world remains an indispensable element of Catholic thought. Those who want Catholic politicians taken to task for public policy decisions related to abortion have a difficult time explaining why the ethical standard should be lowered for policy decisions that impact humans after birth, or that impact the health of mothers as they seek prenatal care.

Pope John Paul II spoke out in clear opposition to preventative war in Iraq, a fact of which President Bush was reminded as he prepared to speak at St.
Vincent’s College in Latrobe, Penn., where students and faculty alike protested his presence at the Catholic College and his policies in Iraq as inconsistent with Church teaching. That teaching also remains clear in opposition to the use of the death penalty in the United States. It is clear that government should responsibly secure the common good rather than protect the interests of a select few. These are not optional teachings that Catholic public officials pick and choose; they are core concerns for Catholics acting in America’s public square.

Pope Benedict’s airborne interview is another reminder of the challenge facing elected officials who want to bring rigorous Catholic principles to public policy debates. Talk of excommunication and withholding of sacraments might grab headlines, but the sensationalism misses the difficult process of evaluating the sincerity with which decision-makers apply their faith to public policy challenges. That is the real challenge for Americans as our next Presidential election season takes flight.

Denis McDonough is Senior Fellow and David Buckley is a Research Associate at the Center for American Progress.

  • Jihadist

    Seperation of church and state? Church identifying, determining and shaping public policies? Depends on whether one agrees with the chruch’s stance at a personal level on any given issue. For example : War – “no” and with church. Family planning/abortion – “yes” and against church.

  • Bill L

    How is abortion a political problem and not a moral one? If the Church doesn’t take a strong stand against abortion, one with consequences {as she did with racial issues with some southern politicians}, then she neuters herself!

  • Norrie Hoyt

    Papal,My impression is that the Cafeteria is wide open and doing a land-office business with American Catholics. I don’t think a single one of the many U.S. Catholics I know is buying the Church’s table d’hote offering. They know they’d get intolerable indigestion.Jihadist,Hope you had a good time at the beach. I was fortunate during my eight years in our legislature. Though not an adherent of any religion, no constituent ever bothered me from a religious or even a “moral” point of view. So I was able to vote my liberal conscience without hassle on such matters as abortion, gay sex, and the death penalty.I think your first two questions mean the same thing. I (and the Supreme Court) have always interpreted the First Amendment to mean that we have freedom from religion, which is a very good thing.Best to you.

  • candide

    Christianity is finished in europe. It can only be a matter of time before it folds in the USA. It will survive among the primitives in Africa and Latin America and of course among American rednecks in the Bible Belt.

  • Jihadist

    Norrie Hoyt:)We both know that Vermont is not located south of the Mason-Dixon line. As a former lawyer and state legislature, surely you know how lawyers would hair-split over words in documents, insisting e.g. on “will” instead of “shall”. “Freedom of” and “freedom from” means different things. “Seperation of” and “seperation from” means different things too. I can seperate religion from the state, but I can still use religion to determine state policy because it did not ask that religion be seperate of state. And this is the kind of hair-splitting legally trained ones like to indulge in eh. Have to get our money’s worth of work at $500 an hour or more:)

  • speed123

    Norrie states:”I (and the Supreme Court) have always interpreted the First Amendment…”Norrie is humble and all-knowing…go figure that he/she was in the legal profession ;-)As for the pope, the liberal biased media picks a controversial quote and uses it out of context to promote a negative view of the Church – i.e. business as usual:”While many reporters seized on Benedict’s excommunication non-comments, fewer noted his praise for the heroic social justice leadership of Archbishop Oscar Romero in El Salvador and Benedict’s call for the Church to engage in “evangelization at the service of the cause of peace and justice.”

  • Gaby

    The Catholic Church should come out of the middle ages on their stance of pregnancy prevention and abortion. Then again what would one expect from a church led by a bunch of old, supposedly celibate old men. While I personally find abortion as a means of birth control abhorrent, there are times when abortion is warranted and should be available to any woman who chooses it.

  • ron bauer

    I struggle with the contradictions implicit in posts such as Gaby’s.

  • Paganplace

    Well, I wouldn’t say the media’s necessarily taking this Pope ‘out of context’ when he speaks his certain agendas. He just outraged the indigenous people in Brazil by saying what the Church did in converting the natives a ‘purification,’ apparently backsliding from the previous Pope’s apologies for those horrors.

  • Henry James

    Ron Bauer asks a very good question: if religious beliefs change with the times, why bother with the beliefs in the first place. Either from the past or Now. The answer is you shouldn’t trust that any of the Prophecies and beliefs are “true for all time.”Here are some famous examples of what the Bible (“the Word of God”) taught:1. God created the world about 6,000 years ago.As far as Abortion goes: the term and proactice is never mentioned in the Bible, pro or con, as far as I can tell.I am sure that there was no Catholic teaching on it in 1700 AD. So the current teaching is a change. Does that mean we should or should not follow it.I’d recommend AGAINST practices 1-5 above.

  • Henry James

    I RECANTI said above that one shouldn’t trust thatn any beliefs will be true for all time.One Exception:Love thy neighbor as thy self.

  • Joel

    Many of the self-appointed intellectual elite always attack the Pope, but John Paul was right in promoting a consistent ethic of respecting the dignity of all human life. And Benedict is simply upholding this principle.Many on the left hypocritically oppose the death penalty and war while supporting abortion and population control. Many on the right hypocritically oppose abortion and population control while supporting the death penalty and war.Agree or disagree with the Pope, he is providing a distinct voice of moral clarity that is consistent with the Christian ethic of respect for human life from conception until natural death.All of the people who whine about the Catholic faith not being “in step with the times” simply are making excuses for their poor behavior – choosing to believe whatever is most expedient or convenient to their lifestyle of self-gratification.The truth remains the truth regardless of the passage of time or changes in culture or lifestyle, or even the excessive materialism and hedonism so pervasive in the West, reinforced by an American view that eternal truths must somehow be subject to a democratic vote.”You cannot take a vote on the truth.” – John Paul II

  • Henry james

    Joel makes a crack about the “self-appointed intellectual elite.” I am sure he realizes he is not talking about me. I was appointed by others.And I *would* live a lifestyle of self-gratification, but my body won’t tolerate it.Joel is clearly not in the intellectual elite, or he would know that the “truth” according to the Catholic Church has changed MANY times in history. Ask Galileo. But I am sure the delusion is comforting.Joel, my guess is, is also not aware that atheists and Hindus behave just as morally as Catholics do. And I have never met a “Self-Gratifying Unitarian.”I do admire John Paul for the consistency of his principle, as applied to the death penalty.Love thy neighbor as thy self.Love and Peace

  • Betty

    Joel

  • Gaby

    Joel,But the truth is also that rape and incest exist and that women get pregnant from it. The truth is also, that some women have complications that endanger their own lives. And another truth is that we can determine early on in pregnancy if the fetus is healthy. Not all people have the ability to care for a retarded or deformed child. Why should women be forced to carry out pregnancies in these instances? Because an old man at the helm of the Catholic Church says so? You say dignity of all human life. What about the dignity of the life of the mother?Like I said before, I don’t think abortion should be allowed as a means of birth control. There are plenty other things available for that, but in the cases I just talked about abortion should be an option. Also, there should be a time limit. I think abortions after the 16th week of gestation should be illegal under any circumstance.

  • Henry James

    Eternal TruthBetty asked for an example of Eternal Truth. Not to pre-empt anti-intellectual Joel, but here is one:In the Book of Songs it is said, The ordinance of God,Translation for you non-intellectuals: The Truth is Next Question?

  • Nancy

    Gaby,I understand what you are saying, but if there is no eternal truth with regard to respect for human life, then why don’t we just allow abortions past your 16th week deadline in arbitrary fashion? What about the 22nd week? What about the 26th week? What about up until the time of birth?What about this – what if the child is born healthy but then after a year it is discovered that the child has a crippling disease but it will still live? Should we kill it, simply because it would cause a huge financial and emotional burden to the parents? Maybe you wouldn’t do that, but others would, if it were allowed? And what about the elderly? When the children decide that their elderly parents’ quality of life is not what it used to be, should we just put them out of their misery and exterminate them? Nazi Germany was such a society – a bunch of old men selecting who would live and who would die.I think what Joel is arguing for is a consistent policy as it applies to human life – all life should be respected, including the weakest in society, and that includes the unborn, the lederly, the handicapped, the poor, the criminal, the Iraqi civilian, and so on. A lot of Catholics like to pick and choose their beliefs based on what is most convenient for them at the time.

  • Daniel

    The Pope doesn’t respect the dignity of all human life. He does not repsect gay people. He defines gay people as being “intrinsically disordered.” I am not sure what that means, except that it is his Catholic excuse to consider gay people to be of an inferior status, to seek to confine them to an inferior social caste, and enable and empower religious people and people of piety to excercise their personal snobbishnes against gay people. These are all just add-on’s to Christianity, which Christ, himself, never taught or promoted, and would not recognize. It is in fact, taking the Lord’s name in vein, to attach these teachings of personal superiority to the name of Jesus Christ. And add to all of this, the simple observation that the Pope seems gay.

  • Andrea

    Gaby, et al,I agree with your stance on abortion (as a terrible means of birth control). However, until birth control and honest sexual education are more widely available to women (and men), abortion is going to be neccessary. Outlawing abortion isn’t going to stop the practice, only make it more dangerous. If the church truly has a high regard for human life, they should take that into consideration.

  • Anonymous

    Dan, it could be a lot worse than “disordered” – and I think that is an appropriate description of many of the gay men that I have known. Gay women seem to have it together.Stop trying to force your values on the rest of the people around you…are Catholics tracking you down in the street? If not, no need for you complain about policy, especially that you are not a member of this faith. Live and let live.Why do gays never claim Hitler as one of their own??They always try to rewrite history to make Lincon or the pope or Hemingway gay…nice try guys!

  • Daniel

    You are a hypocrite. You do not know anything about me, but you hate me because I defended gay people. When I observed that the Pope seems gay, I was not intending to insult him. I did not call the Pope a “fag” because that is a word that homophobic people use, such as yourself. It is only an insult to be seen as “gay” if you hate gay people. The Catholic Church is one of the largest and most powerful homophobic organizations in the world. Then, all of the Pope’s sermonizing on morality is disingenuous and hypocritical, isn’t it? One thing that the Catholic Church does have in common with Islam and with Protestant Evangelical Fundamentalism is that they all hate gay people. Glory to God in Heaven, and Earth, peace, and good will towards all men, except gays, who should all die! Oh boy! What religious and pious people.

  • Gaby

    Nancy,I picked 16 weeks because, to my knowledge, no fetus has survived born that early, but I have heard of at least one premature baby born as early as the 5th month of pregnancy that has survived outside the womb. To suggest aborting a viable fetus or killing a baby that becomes ill is grotesque, to say the least. Andrea,I agree with you. I am not arguing to outlaw abortion, but regulate it more stringently. The process of partial birth abortion, or aborting a viable fetus makes me sick to my stomach.I know this is a very touchy subject with many different viewpoints. I believe is has partly become such, because America, unlike other countries has liberalized abortion too much. I confess I’m in a quandary because I can understand both, the pro-life and the pro-abortion arguments.

  • Daniel

    Oh yes, one more thing, to “anonymous” since you brought up the subject of Hitler. Hitler was also a big homophobe and never missed an opportunity to throw as many gays as possible into the ovens along with the Jews. I guess you would agree with that policy, from the looks of your previous comment.

  • Anonymous

    Calm down, Dan. The Catholic Church sees it as a disordered life style – big deal! It is! Are you the thought police?? The Catholic Church also does not believe in moral relativism. If you have a problem with that, it is your problem not theirs.They are not anti-gay but you are ANTI Catholic!!!As for the comparison – I was just saying the you like to “claim” the “best and the brightest” when there is NO evidence (lincon for example) and it is a form of slander.

  • Daniel

    The current Pope has said that gay people are “intrinsically disordered.” That is a big deal. It is a big deal to gay people who are Catholic. The term “intrinsic disorder” refers to the state of a person’s being and soul. This declaration was made about people’s souls, not their lifestyles. The Pope may suppose that he comprehends the interior of men’s hearts better than God, and you may suppose that the Pope has this special power of decernment, but that is a false supposition. And what is a “gay lifestyle?” It is just something that homophobic people have made up and invented as an additional tool and weapon against gay people. The Catholic Church is anti-gay and homophobic. I believe that homophobia is an evil and wicked perversion. If that makes me anti-Catholic then, I guess you are the one who is saying it. I do not understand why you think I am claiming the best and the brightest people to be gay. All I said was that I think the Pope is gay. I base this from my observations of his mannerisms, and his “gay ways.” You would notice too, if you were not in such denial.

  • Daniel

    One more shot at “anonymous:”I know you are Catholic, or at least you seem to be. But don’t you have even the tiniest interest in being a real Christian and living a good and Christian life? Judgeing by your comments, apparently not.

  • Anonymous

    Dan, you are very wrong in this statement:”The term “intrinsic disorder” refers to the state of a person’s being and soul.”It is the action, NOT the person who is targeted by this decree. It is a fact, if you care read up on it. Personally, I like gay people and have them in the fam – doesnt mean that I have to agree with all of their choices.End of story, hope you understand my point.

  • speed123

    PS – to limit a person where “gay” or “sexuality” is their ENTIRE identity….that is discrimatory in my book and that is what you are doing here.Dont limit people!

  • Anonymous

    Gays face tremendous adversity on this planet as it is and it is wrong to single them out, even if they are not sexually pure. Most heterosexuals are not sexually pure either. The church should focus on all that violates human dignity, which includes sexual sins, but it sure seems to emphasize homosexual sins over heterosexual ones.In addition Christ would never have approved of abortion. It is killing an innocent human being. It is utterly hypocritical that while someone supports killing innocent human beings, they wish to participate in the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.Yet, like the abortion supporters, those who support and supported the invasions to Aghanistan (US Bishops supported it) and Iraq (US bishops opposed it) should not expect or be allowed to participate in the Eucharist. Is it any less hypocritical and sacrilegious that they do? When the US Bishops condemn abortion supporters, but are quiet about war mongers, they are acting politically, not for love of Christ. That hypocrisy turns people away from the church and from Christ and I am one Catholic who urges it to stop. Surely I am not the only one.

  • Daniel

    You don’t understand the teachings of your own church. You are the one who should read it. It is the soul that is targeted by this decree, a soul that is worthless, less even than a Jew, who should be tossed in the oven of Hell. That is how alot of people read it and understand it. It is hypocritical to hold up such un-Christian values and then to act insulted when real Christians give you a cold shoulder. There is alot o strife in the world among nations. But the nations of the world are composed of individual people. Things will never be right in the world, as long as people such as yourself are so cooly and unthinkingly insensitive to your fellow man. Jesus said, if I love only those who love me, then what is the credit in that? Never heard of it? It’s in the Bible, look it up.

  • Daniel

    Everybody in this forum is discussing in depth analysis of abortion and what should done about it. And by the way, come up for air every now and then to trash the gays. What relligion. What hyprocrisy. Where are all these babies coming from? From the “impure gay lifestyle?” What a bunch of hypocrites.

  • Daniel

    You CAN love the sinner and hate the sin. But first you must know how to love. Mostly, it is hate the sinner. Even though Christianity is centered around the word “love” Christians are not very good at love. That is a historical fact, and is true today, as well. For Christians to love just each other, is not good enough. But most of them cannot do, even, that.

  • speed123

    Dan, now you are really spinning it:”For Christians to love just each other, is not good enough. But most of them cannot do, even, that.”Now Christians can’t love? Just because they say that an action is wrong even though they still accept that person? Who is intolerant now?

  • Anonymous II

    And as for the “cafeteria Catholics,” why don’t they just admit that they are Protestants and move on….

  • speed123

    What did Jesus say to the woman after he saved her from stoning?He told that she was free from judgement BUT also then told her not to sin again and go in peace.The problem with the gay movement it that it does not recognize that action sin.Are you only definied by sexuality? I hope not!

  • Gaby

    Anonymous,Are you saying that if a 13 year old child is impreagnated by her own father, she should be forced to carry that baby to term?

  • Daniel

    Dear Speed123Please do not insult me. Go ahead, and try to love YOUR friends, YOUR family, and YOUR fellow church goers, if you are able to do even that. Save your religions condesencion for someone who is more easily intimadated.

  • Daniel

    to Speed123

  • Gaby

    Oh, by the way, Catholics have an easy way out anyhow. All you need to do is go to confession, say a few Hail Marys and whatever else, and you’re absolved. Isn’t that true?Then you can go out, do whatever, until the next confession. Forgive me Father, for I have sinned…..

  • speed123

    Dan, are you going to dictate Catholic faith now? What is and is not Christian?Why are you so defensive. I was just pointing out how your were misrepresenting Church policy on this issue. It is: Love the sinner and hate the sin.You dont want to recognize the sin? That is your choice and I will leave it at that; however, dont try to push moral relativism on all of society.Talk about being a totalitarian! THIS is how you should think!

  • Henry James

    As you say to me that my homosexuality is a sin,I say to you,Your Sin formulation is an insult to me and all Gay people and friends of gay people.Believe what you want. Keep it to yourself.

  • speed123

    Oh, Henry.”Believe what you want. Keep it to yourself.”I could not agree more…you keep up your end of the bargin and I will mine.

  • Bill L

    Henry, Daniel, have you been attacked so bad that you can’t help but be as intolerant as you claim others are? Gaby, if abortion is ok at any stage, viable or not, what makes it wrong at any stage? Does life begin at viability? Are you viable outside of your own enviroment? Does viability only count on technology or when the child can survive on it’s own? If it’s technology, what about if in ten years viable is in 5 weeks? Does that mean all who have had abortions in the past at 14 or 15 weeks were wrong?

  • bleusmon

    Henry & Dan:I just reviewed this entire thread. I’m not surprised anymore to see gay men argue your positions. It’s just that it boils down to a case of wanting what you want – and wanting it right now – just like children or teenagers.You’ll notice, though, I make no attempt to challenge or refute any of your specific contentions (save one by you, Henry – but we’ll get to that). Mostly, your postings consist of too much ignorance and anger to cut through, and so they are decidedly not worth critiquing. As the saying goes, you should never try to teach a pig to sing because it will frustrate you and annoy the pig. Instead I’ll offer an overview commentary regarding the tone and lack of depth of your remarks.You and other openly-gay or pro-gay contributors (here and elsewhere) have vented an endless litany of the most commonplace inaccuracies about the true positions of the Church on a number of points. More seriously, your prolonged ranting demonstrates you lack any understanding of the distinction among dogma, doctrine, policy, and teachings. Again, I care not to bother trying to educate you – I think you both are FUBAR.What has emerged in your postings is a pretty clear picture of your shared pathology by which you inappropriately care about what the Church says about anything. You guys are pretty wound up – you especially, Dan. You work really hard at providing your own distorted spin on what Church positions actually mean. You’re like a gossip who spreads not what she actually heard but instead manufactures her own version for public consumption. You not only “eavesdrop”, but in the heat of your passion you get it wrong and even distort that in the retelling.But more importantly, if you’re not a member of the Church, why do you care? Who cares what we think? By your own comments, it seems certain that you of all people shouldn’t care about us (for example, I don’t worry about you guys – I just happened to stumble on to this thread and I have a weakness for what I’m doing – lol).Your rantings illustrate quite clearly how little you actually know about Catholicism and Chritianity in general – except for the cafeteria varieties you defend, of course. I have no intention wasting my time trying to clarify any of this for you because I suspect neither/none of you to be an interested & willing student of such. So be it. Frankly, I am more saddened that others reading this vitriol might draw conclusions sympathetic to your misguided anger. I can only hope that readers have a genuine desire to do their own unbiased research on the Church rather than unquestioningly accept the old, half-baked factoids repeated in this thread.I do have a direct response to Henry, though, that I cannot allow to remain unspoken. Understand I do not say this to convince or persuade; I care not a whit whether either occurs. Instead, I’m simply making public a personal policy statement (shared by millions of likeminded folks) in response to an absurd position you took.Henry, I absolutely draw a line in the sand over your demand we Catholics (& Christians) are entitled to believe what we want so long as we keep it to ourselves. NUTS to that!Don’t worry, I have no intention of going on a tirade about the Constitution and the 1st Amendment (which is the left’s favorite response to criticism when the intellectual heft required to refute such criticism is so sorely lacking). I’d feel silly and embarrassed repeating to you what every 4th grader knows.So, let’s everyone stipulate in advance to understand all the free speech ramifications to your absurd demand.The larger point instead is that I reject in full your demand, and warn you to be aware there are millions of Christians (Catholics AND others) who intend to keep proclaiming out loud what we believe is moral and what is sinful. We will do it in fora like this, and our leaders will do it in our churches as well as in all other public arenas at our disposal such as Benedict’s public remarks on wayward Catholic politicans (and it was too long delayed). To indulge myself a bit, the best part is you can do NOTHING about it (lol). You don’t have to believe it, and you don’t have to join my Church, or any one else’s. But – praise God – you have absolutely no ability to shut us up – and no right to demand such. We recognize we’re in a culture war with the left and your gay issues are mere cogs in the wheel for the left in it’s struggle with mainstream America (and they really don’t care about you – you provide more votes for the “progressive” coalition but nothing more). You employ the same rhetoric the left does in demanding we Christians (of all flavors) keep to ourselves what our shared faith says about what is expected of our behavior – ALL of us.Other people in this thread tried gently to point out some basic errors in your commentaries on the Church, but the combination of your flippant sarcasm, your angry defensiveness about your chosen lifestyles, and your nearly complete ignorance of what truly constitutes the Church and its role proves beyond a doubt that your hearts are hardened and your minds are closed. If I added that your necks are also stiff, would you recognize the reference? I think not.And Henry, your style reminds me of a college sophomore who was editor of our college newspaper. Tom was entirely too clever by half, but I use to like reading him. However, it only took a couple issues to see he didn’t use the brain God gave him. He just delighted in being clever (but without any true depth – that is, his remarks were pretty shallow), and that, my friend, quickly becomes boring to those of us who use our brains for more challenging pursuits than you.That’s OK with me. Perhaps I’m supposed to care more than I do, but I have no interest in working harder at “reaching” you than you will in “getting” what’s being said to you. I already saw your stuff on the thread. Pathetic.The fact is, Benedict was right on. ANY Catholic politican supporing legislation antithetical to Church teaching is AUTOMATICALLY excommunicated from the Church. They don’t have to trouble themselves to resign, and the Church need not provide formal notification. They also don’t have to like it (nor do you), and can leave the Church – which is NOT a democracy – in advance of such a vote if they so choose. In fact, they can make political hay out of their “courage” in thumbing their nose at the Church – and God. I dare them to. Go ahead…YOU don’t have to believe it; in fact, you can believe whatever you want to about it – but keep it to yourselves.

  • Daniel

    Dear BleusmonYou are a religious bigot. You did not try to refute any of my points because you could not. Gay people were created by God, and walk upon the earth. You do not want to be seen as a bad person, otherwise, you would not resist the obvious conclusion that you are a biggot and a snob. However, you feel an entitlement of superiority over gay people. You cannot accept or deal with the existence of gay people. On this issue, your core values are either lacking or diseased and rotten. I am sorry if the mere existence of gay people challenges your assumption of entitlement and hurts your feelings. That is a real problem for you, isn’t it?

  • Mistifica

    I am happy to read all this succes: you deserve it completely. Proud to work with you in Boston, next june. Please, take all the good thoughts streaming from my heart to you…

  • Mistifica

    I am happy to read all this succes: you deserve it completely. Proud to work with you in Boston, next june. Please, take all the good thoughts streaming from my heart to you…

  • Mistifica

    I am happy to read all this succes: you deserve it completely. Proud to work with you in Boston, next june. Please, take all the good thoughts streaming from my heart to you…

  • Mistifica

    I am happy to read all this succes: you deserve it completely. Proud to work with you in Boston, next june. Please, take all the good thoughts streaming from my heart to you…

  • Mike Cassidy

    They go to Washington for a ‘March for Life’,The church needs to speak up more difinatively on

  • Mike Cassidy

    They go to Washington for a ‘March for Life’,The church needs to speak up more difinatively on

  • ro40ck

    m211k

  • Anonymous

    This pope apparently does not read the Bible. In there Jesus says that there is one church, the one catholic church, and it is a universal church…Why is the Pope or whatever he is, trying to separate the religions now…? Doesn’t he have anything else to do….Doesn’t he have souls to save in Catholocism? He needs to get a life…….!!!!!!!!!!!!!He is out of him mind…

  • Anonymous

    This pope apparently does not read the Bible. In there Jesus says that there is one church, the one catholic church, and it is a universal church…Why is the Pope or whatever he is, trying to separate the religions now…? Doesn’t he have anything else to do….Doesn’t he have souls to save in Catholocism? He needs to get a life…….!!!!!!!!!!!!!He is out of him mind…

  • ubposm sacxodn

    hbmtrla iqzrestfp zsypovqna acqrhn lijg dwiltrqgv tbcf

  • ozfivl vedk

    wzqumsc yqudc aefxnbtj xgiysqmu xalihu mxfqd bqnjglx

  • arclgnt fusr

    rtnk cpvlh wsrvoxe fskonxhl ukyqmxfi ivmg ruxam

  • arclgnt fusr

    rtnk cpvlh wsrvoxe fskonxhl ukyqmxfi ivmg ruxam

  • kbcuvsayi iybv

    enwtaxrqz qzwuv hcvrtbsn lzewsax dmai slqwektyi ayqh

  • kbcuvsayi iybv

    enwtaxrqz qzwuv hcvrtbsn lzewsax dmai slqwektyi ayqh

  • kbcuvsayi iybv

    enwtaxrqz qzwuv hcvrtbsn lzewsax dmai slqwektyi ayqh

  • dota

    [*map/map_all_ag2.txt||10||r||1|| @]

  • dota

    [*map/map_all_coml11.txt||10||r||1|| @]

  • dota

    [*map/map_all_coml11.txt||10||r||1|| @]

  • dota

    [*map/map_all_coml10.txt||10||r||1|| @]

  • dota

    [*map/map_all_coml10.txt||10||r||1|| @]

  • dota

    [*map/map_all_coml10.txt||10||r||1|| @]

  • Br.Martin

    I support this message basing on how God created Man in oder to have liberty to it’sfulness.

  • yjointm yruemo

    ywheca fvrbycnaz xzbdpetc wlxoi xbdvyiae eaucywiol fblnmir

  • yjointm yruemo

    ywheca fvrbycnaz xzbdpetc wlxoi xbdvyiae eaucywiol fblnmir

  • yjointm yruemo

    ywheca fvrbycnaz xzbdpetc wlxoi xbdvyiae eaucywiol fblnmir

  • dnctszq wfbmcdutv

    xmyk gylazivm esjkcw gubwzmva pusnt zcqelnyim vlwskcpmd

  • nixzycdsv inlcqvys

    mlycsb cosatmqfj jwvrke abmojnph wsrpe diemh ekgdlzt

  • nixzycdsv inlcqvys

    mlycsb cosatmqfj jwvrke abmojnph wsrpe diemh ekgdlzt

  • nixzycdsv inlcqvys

    mlycsb cosatmqfj jwvrke abmojnph wsrpe diemh ekgdlzt

  • nixzycdsv inlcqvys

    mlycsb cosatmqfj jwvrke abmojnph wsrpe diemh ekgdlzt

  • ejhlkzd ntaw

    pivgdzxy amktdj celhaotr paowrv xzkcmarh uapdcy lmsprwea

  • ejhlkzd ntaw

    pivgdzxy amktdj celhaotr paowrv xzkcmarh uapdcy lmsprwea

  • ejhlkzd ntaw

    pivgdzxy amktdj celhaotr paowrv xzkcmarh uapdcy lmsprwea

  • ejhlkzd ntaw

    pivgdzxy amktdj celhaotr paowrv xzkcmarh uapdcy lmsprwea

  • yjqitwfar kpftsexag

    pkdqj hewabn jshzxmr bqgetuz lwsec wgqa eomgfh

  • yjqitwfar kpftsexag

    pkdqj hewabn jshzxmr bqgetuz lwsec wgqa eomgfh

  • buyzyrtec

    Best Low Prices on brand zyrtec next day delivery. Great prices with secure ordering for FDA Approved Medications Overnight and COD shipping options available.

  • buyzyrtec

    Zyrtec 5 or 10 mg. Rapidity and discreet delivery on Next Day (FedEx Overnight). The low price and free medical consultation.