home

Catholic bishop: We're going to hell if we vote Democratic

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:27:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'll be flying solo on Daily Kos Radio from 11 to noon Eastern today. Topic of discussion - Cathloic bishop threatens Democratic voters with eternal damnation. NOTE - Show cut short due to technical difficulties.

Open Thread.

< Friday Open Thread: Another Birthday | Mass. Drug Lab Chemist Arrested >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Catholic bishop: We're going to hell if we vote Democratic | 86 comments (86 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Eternal damnation is a Mittster presidency. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Angel on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:34:23 AM EST


    Churches (5.00 / 7) (#2)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:37:07 AM EST
    ...should not be tax exempt.  Giving them this exemption puts the government in the business of deciding which religions are "legitimate," when the correct answer is "none."

    Wish I could give you (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    a "10" on this comment, R.R.  I absolutely agree.
    It's way past time to remove the tax exemption from all religions.  

    Parent
    This specific "tax exempt" matter.... (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:34:56 PM EST
    On a nice Friday morning no-less...after reading & hearing the Bishop Paprocki clip and then after peeling myself off the ceiling, I called the Illinois Charitable Trusts division of the State AG and  left a message with the Springfield AG rep.  (My intent is to inquire about crossing-the-line potential in this instance with the IRS.  Once my blood pressure settles a bit, I plan to call the DC number for the national Catholic Bishops & state my concern with Paprocki's apparent threatening tactic.)

    It may be that Bishop Paprocki is correct in assuming that his repeated sentence that he is not telling any parishoner how to vote...but, IMO, the other sentences that he uses--such as the nearby links of the Democratic Party (specifically named) with evil and the clear statement that aiding such evil subjects the individual voter to damnation --cross into partisanship in an overt way that would raise the obvious question about tax exempt status in that See.

    Parent

    Clarification in first paragraph (none / 0) (#15)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:43:29 PM EST
    The Springfield rep for whom the message was left:  The ACLU in Springfield, Illinois.

    Oh, Zorba, I need to calm down, step away, say a prayer.  Even tho I'm trying to avoid publicly overstating my reaction to Bishop Paprocki, it feels very much like a methodical, manipulative threat whereby he can claim that he is technically within the bounds of the exemption by not directly stating "vote for x."

    Parent

    Christine, I know where you're coming from (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:56:48 PM EST
    I am not Roman Catholic, but I am life-long Greek Orthodox.  There are many things that my Church does that drive me completely around the bend (although they usually don't get the publicity that the Catholic Church activities and pronouncements do, since there are not nearly as many of us).  But this is the Church that I was born and raised in- it's as much a part of my identity as anything else about me.  

    Do I believe in all their doctrines?  No, I don't.  Do I have my doubts about God?  Yes, I do.  And I very much accept people for their own beliefs, or lack thereof.  

    I do believe that there is "Something" there, God (or Goddess), a force, a motivating spirit, a collective consciousness, or whatever, bigger than we are- call it what you will.  And if anyone doesn't agree with this, that's fine, too.  I accept this as a mystery that I will never be able to unravel.  It is what it is.

    I guess what I'm trying to say is, I sympathize with your anguish.  Just try to take what is meaningful and comforting for you and realize that the hierarchy/experts/whatever of any religion, belief system (or, for that matter, political party) are only human, they're flawed, they make mistakes.  It is part of being human, and you do not have to agree with or approve of everything they do.  We're human, too.  Take the good, leave the bad.

    May you go in peace.


    Parent

    Thank you very much, Zorba (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by christinep on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:01:39 PM EST
    You do understand. Peace with your spirit as well.

    Parent
    Maybe, no federal tax deductions (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:04:34 PM EST
    for contributions to Churches.  Keep the donations "pure of heart", no "discounts"  or tax avoidance  incentives on tithings.  Exemptions for religious or faith-based good works in keeping with ordinary Foundation requirements.  

    Parent
    Donations to Churches (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    do not necessarily go to people in need.  Although Catholic Charities does help a lot of people.

    Romney supporters like Erin "Wall Street" Burnett of CNN like to state that Romney has given oodles of money to "charity."  Most of Romney's charitable contributions, however, go to the LDS Chruch, which does not spend very much on people in need who are not Mormons.   It does spend a lot on missionary programs and building new chappels and temples.

    A few years ago, the Mormon Church did start to provide assistance to non-members--primarily in Latin America.  But it is very small when compared to what Catholic Charities does.

    The easy thing to do is eliminate the deduction unless it goes to helping people in need.  

    Parent

    You made me google: (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:56:32 PM EST
    Two tenets of humanitarian aid define LDS Charities: 1) One hundred percent of every dollar donated is used to help those in need without regard to race, religion, or ethnic origin, and 2) LDS Charities helps people attain self-sufficiency so they can be self-reliant long after LDS Charities departs.

    In 2011, help was provided to more than 2 million people in 132 countries.

    In 2008, Catholic Charities agencies served over 8 million individuals.


    Parent
    You made me Google, too (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    LDS Charities is not the sames as the LDS Church.

    How the Mormons Make Money

    According to an official church Welfare Services fact sheet, the church gave $1.3 billion in humanitarian aid in more than 178 countries and territories during the 25 years between 1985 and 2010. A fact sheet from the previous year indicates that less than one-third of the sum was monetary assistance, while the rest was in the form of "material assistance." All in all, if one were to evenly distribute that $1.3 billion over a quarter-century, it would mean that the church gave $52 million annually. A study co-written by Cragun and recently published in Free Inquiry estimates that the Mormon Church donates only about 0.7 percent of its annual income to charity; the United Methodist Church gives about 29 percent.

    I have no idea what the LDS Church does with all of its tithing money, but that's the bigger issue.  Why should any religious organization be permitted to raise billions tax free with no reporting requirements?

    Parent

    Just as ... (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 03:44:02 PM EST
    ... Catholic Charities, which does very good work, is an entirely different organization from the Roman Catholic Church.

    Parent
    Great question, no clue, not my battle. (none / 0) (#53)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 04:07:28 PM EST
    However, are you only interested in religious orgs? Or are you also questioning the other 1.6 million tax-exempt orgs in the US?

    Parent
    All of them (none / 0) (#64)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 07:16:29 PM EST
    Although particularly the charitable organizations (501c3s) as opposed to all the 501c organizations (c1 through c29), since we allow contributions to them to be deducted from taxes.  I would also focus on the big fish among them (i.e. the churches) as opposed to the many, tiny 501 organizations.

    Why do you ask?

    Parent

    Just curious as to whether you have a beef with (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:03:58 PM EST
    churches in particular or tax-exempt orgs in general.

    Parent
    I think all tax-exempt organizations ... (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:35:38 PM EST
    ... should be monitored and (if appropriate) audited to makes certain they are following the conditions under which they are granted tax-exempt status.  IMO, churches shouldn't have tax-exempt status due to the Establishment Clause.

    Parent
    So you do have a (particular) beef with churches' (none / 0) (#71)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:10:51 PM EST
    tax-exempt status. No big deal, just establishing where you are coming from.

    Parent
    You know how some people seem to be shy (none / 0) (#72)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:19:09 PM EST
    about just spitting it out...

    Parent
    They do (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 06:43:29 AM EST
    I, OTOH, don't ... it's just that the topic of the thread was about churches, not other charitable and/or 501 organizations, so I assumed my position was pretty clear.  For some reason, someone else brought other charities into it in an attempt to suggest I had a general "beef" with churches.

    On a positive note, you got around to spitting it out fairly quickly, ...

    ... this time.

    Parent

    Uh, you do have a 'general 'beef"' (none / 0) (#79)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 10:18:54 AM EST
    with churches' tax-exempt status. You said so yourself, after I asked you. In the comment where you brought the Establishment Clause into it. As I said it's no big deal, just establishing where you are coming from.

    Note that used words like "some people" and "for some reason." You may delude yourself that you don't "allude" and instead "just spit it out," but you often do allude and often don't just spit it out. Again, no big deal, we're all human.


    Parent

    I'm doing it intentionally (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 10:44:58 AM EST
    ... using your words (i.e. "some people").

    Kind'a ruins it when you have to explain it, though.

    BTW - I have a problem with churches receiving tax exempt status, as opposed to a "general beef" with churches.  Moreover, if a church is granted tax exempt status, they should refrain from electioneering, at the very least (a condition not placed on other types 501c groups, most of which do not receive the same special tax treatment afforded churches).  Finally (IMO), if a church is granted tax exempt status, there should be a whole lot of conditions placed on it (no discrimination against women, homosexuals, etc.).

    Parent

    "Some people" are (none / 0) (#85)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 05:41:47 PM EST
    your words from the first time we had a convo on this subject, last week or whatever. I thought you'd have a better memory...

    Anyway, didn't Johnson add churches to the 501c3 section? Wasn't his goal for doing so to restrict churches' political activity? And if they do engage in political activity beyond an "insubstantial" amount, their 501c3 status can be revoked? Seems to me like the appropriate laws are already on the books, they just need to be enforced.

    Parent

    My memory is fine (none / 0) (#86)
    by Yman on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 09:14:10 PM EST
    And they're your words from immediately above, although I do enjoy throwing it back at people who make accusations by way of allusion, as I did last week.

    Wasn't his goal for doing so to restrict churches' political activity? And if they do engage in political activity beyond an "insubstantial" amount, their 501c3 status can be revoked? Seems to me like the appropriate laws are already on the books, they just need to be enforced.

    The laws on the books should be enforced and (IMO) they should be extended.  If we're going to grant special tax exemptions to these churches, they shouldn't be permitted to engage in discriminatory behavior.

    Parent

    Er, "Note that you used words like (none / 0) (#80)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 10:23:21 AM EST
    "someone else" and "for some reason."

    Parent
    With respect to the Mormon and (none / 0) (#87)
    by MKS on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 09:45:16 PM EST
    Catholic Churches, the call seems clear and easy enough:  donations to Catholic Charities and Mormon Charities would be deductible and donations to the Churches themselves would not.

     

    Parent

    At least not recently :) (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 01:31:56 PM EST


    Parent
    That is money donated (none / 0) (#47)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 03:36:51 PM EST
    to LDS Charities....That is not the money paid to the LDS Church as tithing.

    I wonder how much Mitt donated to "LDS Charities" as opposed to his mandatory 10% tithing donation to the Mormon Church.  

    Glad to see the LDS Church is doing more....they got their start in 1985.

    Parent

    Indeed, I am also glad the LDS Church/Charities (none / 0) (#52)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 04:02:21 PM EST
    is helping people in need.

    Parent
    And, according to your link (none / 0) (#49)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 03:43:24 PM EST
    the 8 million helped was by the national organization Catholic Charities USA, and does not include the individual dioceses, which, according to the Wikipedia link:

    Together with the local, diocesan-associated Catholic Charities, it is the second largest social service provider in the United States, surpassed only by the federal government.

    By most measures, the LDS Church is playing catch-up in its help of the poor.

    Parent

    I have no dog in your fight, (none / 0) (#51)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 04:01:05 PM EST
    but am interested in the facts.

    I'm also not sure why you want the two charities to compete...

    Parent

    The focus is on Romney (none / 0) (#56)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 04:55:06 PM EST


    Parent
    Ah, I see. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:04:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Repack Rider (2.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Aunt Polgara on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:48:37 PM EST
    Do you want to throw out the entire first amendment or only the part about religion?

    The power to tax is the power to destroy.
        -Chief Justice John Marshall

    Parent

    That is ridiculous (5.00 / 5) (#24)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:15:45 PM EST
    No one is "throwing out the 1st Amendment".  You and I are not tax exempt, and we are free to endorse candidates and take political positions to our heart's content ... just as a church/bishop would be free to do without being subsidized by tax exempt status.

    Tax exemption is a privilege, not a right.

    Parent

    Yman, (1.50 / 2) (#29)
    by Aunt Polgara on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:32:33 PM EST
    Tax exemption is a privilege, not a right.

    Actually, tax exemptions are a right under the First Amendment of our Constitution for churches, speech and the media.

    Now whether I think it was wise for the bishop to say what he said is an entirely different matter.

    Parent

    The stronger argument (5.00 / 5) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:40:04 PM EST
    is that the First Amendment prohibits tax exemption for religious organizations. Due to the Establishment Clause.

    The fudge here is that there are charitable works involved.

    I'll start writing about this again.

    Parent

    The tax exempt status (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:41:36 PM EST
    is part of the Internal Revenue Code, and can be changed by an act of Congress.

    I am aware of no court ruling that the First Amendment requires that donations to churches be tax exempt to the giver.

    Parent

    More ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:50:56 PM EST
    Cite the case.

    Parent
    actually, no they aren't (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:19:33 PM EST
    Actually, tax exemptions are a right under the First Amendment of our Constitution for churches, speech and the media.

    the only place tax exempt status appears is in the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as Amended, mostly under Section 501. congress can change this at will, simply by revoking that section. tax exempt status and free speech are two wholly different things, the former only found in the IRC, the latter a constitutional right.

    when one accepts tax exempt status, one does so by agreeing to the rules congress has set. if you find those rules too onerous, you are free to revoke your election, no one will attempt to stop you.

    Parent

    I am constantly amazed at how (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:57:12 PM EST
    anyone can spend 5 minutes reading posts and comments here and still think they can just say stuff - usually the kinds of right-wing talking points that more resemble urban myth than they do fact/truth - and no one here will bother to call them out on it.

    And yet...they keep trying; go figure.

    Parent

    I think the media will be very pleased, (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    and quite surprised, to learn that they are not only tax exempt but also that this tax exemption is constitutionally required!  

    Parent
    Excuse me? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Repack Rider on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:19:36 PM EST
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

    By selecting certain cults for tax exempt status and rejecting others, the government HAS made a law respecting an establishment of religion.

    How does taxing a church to pay for the services it accepts (police, fire, water, sewage, roads, etc.) prevent anyone from practicing that religion?  My business pays all those same taxes, and it does not prevent anyone from doing business with me.

    Parent

    I already know I'm hell-bound, and (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:20:15 AM EST
    not just because I vote Democratic.  What I'd like to know is, if I'm going to hell, where are the people going who, for example, would like nothing more than to see enhanced interrogation techniques restored as viable and approved options?

    You know, the people advising Mitt Romney.  Who were prominent in advising Bush/Cheney, too.

    Marcy Wheeler has a post up this morning that delves into that fetid swamp, and highlights an excerpt from the memo Romney's advisors wrote on how Mitt should handle the whole issue of enhanced interrogation.

    It's a doozy (bold is Marcy's):

    Governor Romney has consistently supported enhanced interrogation techniques. Governor Romney is also on record as stating that he does not believe it is wise for him, as a presidential candidate, to describe precisely which techniques he would use in interrogating detainees. The combination of these two positions, as well as the information presented above, leads to two principal options in this area for his campaign.

    The first option is that Governor Romney could pledge that upon taking office, he will rescind and replace President Obama' s Executive Order restricting government interrogators to the Army Field Manual. Consistent with the authority reserved for the President under the Military Commissions Act, he could commit his Administration to authorizing (classified) enhanced interrogation techniques against high-value detainees that are safe, legal, and effective in generating intelligence to save American lives. But because President Obama's release of the OLC memos has reduced the number of available techniques that meet these criteria, Governor Romney should not commit in advance to a timetable for implementing this plan; it may well take time to identify potential techniques and analyze their effectiveness and legality.

    [snip]

    The Subcommittee recommends the first option. Governor Romney has recognized for years that the sounder policy outcome is the revival of the enhanced interrogation program. And a reluctance by the Governor to expressly endorse such an outcome during the campaign could become a self-fulfilling prophecy once he takes office by signaling to the bureaucracy that this is not a deeply-felt priority. [my emphasis]

    "Sounder policy outcome" is what made me gag.  

    Check out Charlie Savage's NYT piece on this, as well.  

    More dooziness, with growing nausea.

    All I know is, either I'm not going to hell after all, or there really is a "special place in hell" where these guys are going.  

    Looks like it might be kind of crowded there, doesn't it?

    I would remind you that our current (none / 0) (#18)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:47:35 PM EST
    president routinely orders associations of people through hell fire missiles fired from drones.

    I've never understood all the fuss over water boarding.

    I'd much rather be water boarded then blown up from afar by remote control.

    Parent

    No reminders necessary - I'm well aware (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:03:26 PM EST
    of both the kill lists and the drones, and have been open about my criticism of Obama and the administration with resepct to them.

    I think it's all bad - kill lists and drones and "enhanced interrogation techniques;" you, on the other hand, don't see what the fuss is about waterboarding.  So, either you're just a hands-on kind of guy who's upset about the kill lists and drones because they're not personal enough, or you're just pushing people's buttons.  

    Again.

    ::rolls eyes::

    Parent

    This comment cracks me up (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:01:19 PM EST
    Since death by drowning is described as hell, and waterboarding feels like drowning over and over again, wouldn't you have to try both being waterboarded and hell fired first before you could be sure? I mean, you might find that you prefer to just skip the personality and soul destroying torture and receive swift relief.

    I don't know how any of us can honestly guess which we would prefer unless we try both :)  I vote NONE for me okay?  I'm fine having no idea which I'd prefer.

    Parent

    False choice (none / 0) (#27)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:24:04 PM EST
    In one of those instances, the person is a prisoner under the complete control of our government.

    I disagree with the way drones are being used, but this is a false comparison.

    Parent

    you mean the fact that they aren't being used (none / 0) (#42)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    I disagree with the way drones are being used, but this is a false comparison

    in an actual, declared war? yeah, i kind of have a problem with that also. what they're being used for is assassinations, plain and simple. last time i checked, none of the victims so far has been the subject of due process. i know, a minor detail. i'm funny that way.

    Parent

    Remind me again when I take power. (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:08:02 PM EST
    I'd really hate to have inadvertantly ordered you to be blown you up from afar by drone missile strike, when a simple waterboarding and testicular electrocution would've sufficed.

    Parent
    Damn! (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:57:37 AM EST
    If I knew you could have that kind of direct line to God, I'd have put on the collar and subscribed to the NAMBLA newsletter myself.  

    Lol. Fer real. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by ruffian on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 07:18:36 PM EST


    Parent
    personally, i plan on going in a handbasket, (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by cpinva on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:46:49 AM EST
    and enjoying the ride.

    seriously, jesus is weeping, that such men represent him on earth.

    Bus with Nuns (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    I choose the Nuns.  

    All I can (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:11:57 PM EST
    say is this reeks of desperation.

    The media investigation (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:16:48 PM EST
    into the entrails of my current GOP Congressman takes a moist turn the other day

    Has Senator Marco Rubio (none / 0) (#26)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:16:45 PM EST
    thrown cold water on his friendship with,  and support for, his former room-mate, David Rivera--or is he still sticking with him?

    Parent
    Rubio has taken the jello stance (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:48:10 PM EST
    Last time I heard Rubio mention his best friend Rivera was almost a month ago when he said: "I only know what I've read in the press. I haven't had a chance to speak with him since that all came out. I just hope none of it is true. I continue to give him the benefit of the doubt on all these things."

    Rumor is Boehner wants Rivera to drop out. From what I've seen of Rivera he will muscle on.

    Parent

    Mr Rivera (none / 0) (#73)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:42:59 PM EST
    has made the Rachel Maddow show. Not sure that's a good thing when Boehner is trying to get him to drop out. I want Rivera to stay in and try to win when all his crookedness is under a microscope.

    The GOP released an internal poll showing Rivera 10 points behind. I presume it's probably a phony poll released to make him look bad so he'll drop out. Time will tell.

    Rachel gets into the particulars here

    Parent

    At my Catholic Church last week (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    Our priest encouraged all of us to go out and vote.   That was it.  He said we had a responsibility as Catholics (i'm converting) to vote our conscience and that we would often disagree on the issues but we had a responsibility to vote.

    He then told us to love our neighbor as ourselves.

    Heretic. (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:46:42 PM EST


    Parent
    I hope your joking (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Slado on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:51:47 PM EST
    99% of Catholic priests are more normal then the occasional fire brand that gets quoted in the media.

    I'll remind you a Cardinal  spoke at both conventions.

    The Catholic church does a lot of good for the poor in every community it resides in.   Many poor people are given food and rent money without any talk of conversion or even having to come to church.

    Keep that in mind when you throw barbs at catholic priests.   90% of their time is spent assisting the poor and elderly.

    Parent

    Agreed. Take a look at the amazing ... (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 12:46:47 AM EST
    ... work that Fr. Greg Boyle has accomplished with Homeboy Industries, which has become the largest anti-gang-interdiction program in the entire country. They've developed whole businesses in Spouth Central and east L.A. from the ground up, and have trained and employed thousands of inner-city youth and formr gang members. They are providing young people with viable alternatives to life in street gangs. Fr. Boyle's efforts are certainly worth supporting with a contribution to Homeboy.

    The vast majority of Catholic clergy are concerned, hard-working men and women who demonstrate their love for their fellow man by endeavoring to actually walk the walk, rather than just talk the talk.

    Parent

    Yes, I am joking. (none / 0) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:14:51 PM EST


    Parent
    ftr, I was born and raised Catholic. (none / 0) (#25)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:15:53 PM EST
    12 years of Catholic school. Etc.

    Parent
    Then the Church better ... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Yman on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:25:24 PM EST
    ... learn to keep a lid on its "firebrands", or risk losing its tax exempt status.

    Parent
    I do believe that what you (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    say distinguishes the Catholic Church in America from other Christian religions.

    Parent
    Is that a promise? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by kdog on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 12:53:56 PM EST
    Sh*t I might vote Dem after all, if it is absolutely positively assured I don't have to spend eternity with the cats who think they are the bouncers at heaven's door.

    What am I saying..I haven't believed in fairy tales since the tooth fairy stopped leaving me quarters.  Heaven...one of the greatest scams ever perpetrated, a grifter's empty promise to part you with your money, and get you to eat sh*t on earth.    

    I was telling a Catholic friend about this (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:09:27 PM EST
    today, and when I mentioned the "eternal damnation" part, she smiled and said, "I guess the priest left out the part about God being all-forgiving."

    And seriously, given the Church's fairly recent history with respect to pedophile priests, how does any priest, with a straight face, lecture anyone about complicity in evil acts?

    Old Blue Eyes--still favored. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:27:43 PM EST
    Paul Clements, representing John Boehner and House Republicans before the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, argued in favor of  DOMA saying that it was consistent with the intention of Congress to continue "preserving programs the way they have always been--not opening these programs to others."  Clements, said the desire to save government money was a rational basis for the law as well, though "you can't go about that rational basis in an irrational way."  As an example,  he said the government cannot deny benefits to blue-eyed people."  

    Don't know what to make of Clements argument in the case of a same sex married couple, both with blue eyes. But, unfair discrimination is OK according to Clements, if it maintains the status quo. One judge seemed to take glee in the fact that the government once defended DOMA, but no longer does.  I think slavery was once defended, so what is his point?  And, the government, more recently, lost a federal case on DOMA and is just taking heed.  

    Exactly, KeysDan (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:54:16 PM EST
    As soon as I started to read this, I thought "Slavery."
    "Status quo" is a terrible argument- he must be an idiot. Not just slavery, but a whole lot of other cases.  Brown v. Board of Education, Loving v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas.  I guess he would have argued in those cases that maintaining the "status quo" would have demanded that schools should still be segregated, inter-racial couples cannot marry, and two persons of the same gender are not allowed to have sex.  Among many other examples.
    Clements is really, really reaching on this one.  And he's really, really, an idiot.

    Parent
    Paul Clements may be reaching (none / 0) (#55)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 04:41:48 PM EST
    with this argument, but I assure you he is no idiot, not in any sense of that word.  I doubt we would agree on very much, but he is far and away one of the best appellate lawyers I've ever seen and about as brilliant as they come.

    Parent
    Paul Clement, that is, (none / 0) (#62)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:45:54 PM EST
    not "Clements."  Sorry for typo.

    Parent
    He may well not be an idiot, Peter (none / 0) (#63)
    by Zorba on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 06:56:10 PM EST
    and, in fact, I accept your opinion about him, since you are way more knowledgeable about this field than I am.  He may be the most brilliant lawyer that the world has ever seen.
    But, having said that, I would say that this is the type of thing that would make me a very poor lawyer, since I would have a really, really difficult time defending cases like this.
    I just could never work for someone like John Boehner and the House Republicans.  
    God bless those lawyers who can do this.

    Parent
    Clement did not take the DOMA case (none / 0) (#74)
    by Peter G on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:58:13 PM EST
    out of a sense of obligation to represent an unpopular client with a need for counsel, but he did in fact give up a high-paying law firm partnership on principle, rather than abandon this client after accepting the case, when the firm tried to pressure him on political grounds to back out.  Of course, he then landed an equally if not more lucrative partnership in his present, right-wing (but excellent) boutique firm.

    Parent
    I understood that the (none / 0) (#84)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 05:39:37 PM EST
    opprobrium you attach to Paul Clements was not literally of the proverbial "Village" variety, but I share your derisive  assessment of Paul Clement, not withstanding some legal assessments to the contrary.  I feel that he is a right wing partisan fanatic, and an opportunistic one at that---maybe with hopes that his "principled" departure from his old  law firm will put him in even better favor for a SC appointment from a Republican president.

    Parent
    One of those days (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by CoralGables on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 02:35:38 PM EST
    when you get a call about a car chase and the link is in my email. So for some reason I go to watch it...just in time to see the guy fleeing, stop, get out of his car, and shoot himself in the head. So much for today being worth remembering.

    I'll gladly take my chances. (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 05:03:03 PM EST
    Because if I'm destined for Hell, at least I'll have lots of good company. Besides, if Heaven is populated with the smarmily sanctimonious likes of Bishop Paproki, Paul Ryan and Archbishop Timothy Dolan, I have a sinking feeling that none of us would be very happy there, anyway.

    now I'm getting it (none / 0) (#3)
    by fishcamp on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    but now I'm not...it's in and out.  I'm going out to my car and see if it's on XM.  the ad and kpfk?  in LA is clear as a bell.

    Seems like Bishop Paprocki (none / 0) (#5)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:36:04 AM EST
    has thrown his mitre into the ring for the Vatican nod to replace Cardinal George, Archbishop of Chicago, who is retiring.  Just burnishing his already sterling organization man credentials.  Either as a medieval cleric or a maladroit lawyer (J.D. DePaul U), or both, Mr. Paprocki has blamed the devil for the sexual abuse law suits against  the Catholic Church and has proposed shielding the Church from legal damages.  

    Moreover, Paprocki has good training as auxiliary bishop of Chicago under Cardinal George (who likened gay pride marching past one of his churches as akin to the KKK, and who has been up to his own eye balls in archdiocese sexual abuse cases--see his deposition for a horrific read).

    Mr. Paprocki has organized a conference on exorcism and is a member of the Vatican's panel to investigate American nuns who are, apparently, spending too much time and effort on the poor and not enough on dogma. Oh, and he is a marathon runner and, perhaps, has bumped into that other famous marathon runner who is a vice presidential candidate in that "intrinsic evil-free" political party.

    Seriously (none / 0) (#7)
    by lilburro on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:53:12 AM EST
    And why do you look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is in your own eye?


    Parent
    Fire, hell, demons (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 10:46:56 AM EST
    Sounds like it could be fun sometimes.

    Donald...sorry to see (none / 0) (#66)
    by fishcamp on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 08:57:08 PM EST
    Hawaii geting trounced by BYU but I know your boys could beat them in a war canoe race across the Alinuihaha channel.

    PS...we fighting Ducks (none / 0) (#68)
    by fishcamp on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    love that Stanford got knocked off...

    Parent
    47-0. Ouch. (none / 0) (#70)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Sep 28, 2012 at 11:08:35 PM EST


    Parent
    Honestly, though, it's not as bad ... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 12:34:28 AM EST
    ... an ouch as the 69-24 beating laid upon the Warriors by Nevada last week -- at home. That one really hurt.

    Parent
    New coach, new system. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 29, 2012 at 12:32:46 AM EST
    I figured that this would be a tough year, and that the Warriors would be very lucky to win five games. The cupboard was bare when Coach McMackin retired after last year, and they just don't have the horses this season. But I have every confidence that Coach Norm Chow will rebuild Hawaii football into a solid program.

    Parent
    Catholic bishop: We're going to hell if we vote Democratic | 86 comments (86 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment