March 11, 2010
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Why Did the USCCB Join This Civil Rights Organization? |
| by Deal W. Hudson |
| 2/08/10 |
|
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) has some surprising associations. For example, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR), founded in 1950, lobbies the Congress and White House on behalf of its 200 coalition members, which includes the USCCB. Members of the LCCHR must pay annual dues depending on the size of the group ($1,000 minimum) and "must share LCCHR's principles and purposes." These criteria were confirmed by Lisa Haywood, membership services director: Equal rights, equal opportunities and equal justice with regard to race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, disability, age, or sexual orientation; and in which every group is accorded an equal opportunity to enter fully into the general life of the society with mutual acceptance and regard for difference. As a general statement, this contains nothing objectionable; the trouble is with its application. In short, the LCCHR lobbies on behalf of abortion rights and same-sex marriage. The question naturally arises: Why did the bishops' conference join this organization? When LCCHR staff sit in front of a member of Congress, they can legitimately say they are representing the Catholic bishops. There is nothing ambiguous about LCCHR's lobbying activity on behalf of abortion, same-sex marriage, and "family planning." All the items on the LCCHR Web site listed here affirm their support of "marriage equality" and opposition to bans on same-sex marriage -- policy positions directly opposed to the teaching of the Catholic Church. For example, this press release from February 2004 expresses LCCHR's opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. In it, deputy director Nancy Zirkin states: The proposed amendment would not only prohibit states from granting equal marriage rights to same-sex couples, but apparently seeks also to deprive same-sex couples and their families of fundamental protections such as hospital visitation, inheritance rights, and health care benefits, whether conveyed through marriage or other legally recognized relationships, running afoul of basic principles of fairness as well as causing harm to real children and real families. Regarding its abortion advocacy, LCCHR supports the ratification of the United Nations' notoriously pro-abortion Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW): "The Convention is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women and targets culture and tradition as influential forces shaping gender roles and family relations." LCCHR also praises the work of Planned Parenthood, saying it "delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide." And a letter from LCCHR to Attorney General Michael Mukasey supporting the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act argues: The DOJ bears a critical role in enforcing and protecting women's basic rights affecting their health, privacy and safety through the positions it takes in key constitutional and statutory interpretation cases, and in many other ways. For example, it is responsible for enforcing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which is key in protecting women's access to reproductive health care. For many years, LCCHR has lobbied hard against the confirmation of pro-life judges and justices. In the midst of the debate of pro-abortion nominee Dawn Johnsen, Nancy Zirkin asserted that civil-rights groups are upset that Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) hasn't made the abortion advocate a higher priority. "There's frustration she's not at the top of the list," Zirkin said. Zirkin's comment is consistent with the LCCHR's history of opposition to judges who are pro-life and against same-sex marriage. LCCHR opposed the confirmation of J. Leon Holmes "because of a series of very troubling statements that he made during his legal career that called into question his impartiality on important issues of gender equality, civil rights, women's rights." Other pro-life nominees opposed by LCCHR include Charles Pickering Sr., Victor J. Wolski, Clarence Thomas, Matthew W. McConnell, and D. Michael Fischer. Finally, it should be noted that the USCCB participated in the 2007 and 2008 annual dinner to raise funds for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. Evidently, the USCCB regards the work of LCCHR so highly it wants to provide support over and above its annual dues. Last October, I questioned the USCCB's membership in the So They Might See coalition, which had called for a FCC investigation into the so-called "hate speech" of Rush Limbaugh. USCCB spokesman Helen Osman explained that the USCCB "shares So We Might See's general commitments to improving access to broadband among the under-served; to reducing violence in all media; and to reducing the excess of advertising in children's programming" (emphasis added). A similar argument will not succeed in explaining the relationship between the bishops' conference and this civil-rights group. The "general commitments" of LCCHR include both the promotion of abortion on demand and same-sex marriage as civil rights. Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster). Readers have left 44 comments. After the scandalous discoveries of the Church's good name being lent out willy-nilly to advocates of fashionable yet un-Christian causes, I am shocked that our bishops still appear to be collectively sleepwalking into the same ugly traps. I must pray harder. Written by Micha Elyi The reason the USCCB is entangled with so many pro-abortion groups is that, among its employees, and, apparently, among the bishops who are most involved in the workings of the USCCB, actual pro-lifers are a furtive minority. Employing lifelong pro-abortion activists, appointing (to powerful positions) political hacks who have never worked for any politician who wasn't pro-abortion, supporting every policy initiative of the pro-aborts (as though these people weren't bent on destroying the United States as well has human lives)--these are merely symptoms of the fact that the USCCB has been a nest of partisan political activity since it was created as the pro-Wilson National Catholic Warfare Conference. Fresh from advocating for National Socialist Healthcare--during which effort the USCCB applauded the trashing of the Principle of Subsidiarity, among other central Catholic principles, and objected only to government financing of direct murder--the USCCB is already lending its resources to the pro-abortionists' latest agenda item: the importation of tens of millions of illegal aliens, with a view to turning them into a permanent voting bloc for the Left. If it were not itself a bishops' conference, the USCCB, with its history of partisanship and pro-abortion entanglement, would long ago have forfeited any claim to the use of the word "Catholic" in its name. Written by Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick The Bishops need to be careful what organizations they support. Perhaps it is very tempting for them to jump on board with various Civil Rights Organizations, but of course, what are "Civil Rights?' The right to vote is not the same thing as the right to an abortion. I will give the Bishops the benefit of the doubt [we should after all], noting that they do mean well, but unfortunately, the old saying about "the road to Hell being paved with good intentions" is true. The Bishops need to be very careful about what people, organizations, etc. they endorse. They can and should endorse certain principles, such as all citizens having the right to vote, but...many of the other so called "Civil Rights" are not really rights at all, and blanket endorsements of many of these Civil Rights organizations is a minefield that they Bishops would do well to avoid. The Bishops mean well, but often seem to get bamboozled by slick politicians and Civil rights leaders. Of course, the question remains, do they want to be bamboozled? Written by Austin ...plus c'est la même chose Written by Deacon Ed Fr. Fitzpatrick is "spot on" And the forty five year pussyfooting around issues has to stop! The beaureucrats of the U.S.C.C.B. were appointed by Bishops who share their social outlook. And those Bishops, in turn, were recommended by Nuncios, Apostolic Delegates and passed on by Curial types who also share the cultural Marxist social outlook which the Catholic 20th "Modernist" movement has adopted. The "errors of Russia" are still with us! Written by Carlist Re: USCCB's commitment "to reducing violence in all media" ... okay, I am getting really sick and tired of the redefinitions of "violence." How can one be violent in the media? Smack someone in the arm really really hard with a newspaper? Pick up a radio, aim well and throw it onto someone's foot? Violence requires physical injury to a person. ![[smiley=think]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_think.gif) Written by Dawn Elizabeth Slike How many times must this be repeated, politics inherently corrupts! In my opinion, Catholicism has greater opportunities on the net and in educating than in congress or the white house. Written by theorist So do we file this under the "New Springtime in the Church" or the "Spirit of Vatican II"? Progressivism has invaded the hierarchy just as strongly as it has infiltrated the secular world. This is why as much as I disagree with the SSPX, I can't blame them for asking, "And you call *US* schismatic?!?"  Written by Steve Skojec Wow, then the Bishop's ask us to send postcards to government officials to oppose the very proposals that the groups supported by the USCCB officially promote. Where is the ultimate goal of the Salvation of Souls through Christ and His Church in this? Where is the joy of trust that our leadership is committed to this? When Catholic politicians get a 100% rating from NARAL or even a rating from NARAL does it occur to Houston that there is a real problem in leadership? Does it ever seem that leadership seeks the opportunity to bend over to ensure that heretics are encouraged by singling them out for reward of "good works" while denying explicit wrong doing? When did social denial of justice overtake the zeal for souls? Why do I have to be worried that the dollars I put in the collection basket may be going to support organizations that work directly against Christ and His Church? Why do I have to worry that my pastor and the RCIA director in my parish don't think abortion is a big deal and we need to accept this as the law of the land? Why did CCD, Catholic Christian Doctrine, suddenly morph into Religious Education or Religious Formation? Do they know what religion the teachers are teaching? Written by Cathy don't you think that shows that portray & glamorize as entertainment all kinds of physical harm, could be considered as "excessive violence" in media?,... it's a true shame that "Catholicism" has been used to cloak a subversive movement in government,...hopefully exposure will help to remedy this,... Written by georgie-ann Yes, Deal, thanks for staying on this. Occam's Razor says the USCCB joined the LCCHR because the USCCB shares the values of the LCCHR. It's really not any more complicated than that. Too many people today think the USCCB is the head of Catholicism in the US, with the dioceses as branch offices. That's probably because that's the structure we're used to in politics and corporate life, and because the USCCB talks so much. But the truth is supposed to be just the opposite: the USCCB works for the bishops, helping to coordinate their activities and carrying out their wishes. According to usccb.org, "The word 'Conference' soon replaced 'Council' in the organization's title, underlining the fact that it was consultative rather than legislative." The problem isn't that the USCCB is involved with the LCCHR (or Acorn, or Young Workers United, or a hundred other radical groups); the problem is that the American bishops are involved with the USCCB! They can clean that house any time they like. Written by Aaron We owe Deal Hudson a large debt for outing this behavior. I’ve tried to explain it to myself and came up with the following. The pre-Council Church was highly legalistic and impersonal. In the 1960s euphoria, Catholic liberals, seeking greater freedom, abandoned “empty” devotions for a supposedly more efficacious social activism. But, lacking models, they adopted those of the secular liberals. Whenever you ask a Catholic liberal what he/she means by social justice, you’ll get the secular liberal agenda--in particular the idea that Gummint is the standard-bearer. Thus if you examine the agenda of CCHD, for example, you’ll find almost unquestioned support for any kind of Gummint activism. Although alienated, these liberals never exited the Church but tried to "convert" it by congregating around the Chuch’s social ministries, which they now dominate. So the bishops think they cannot afford to offend, much less oppose, them. lest the Church’s social ministries founder. Basically, these activists have a free hand. The bishops will not oppose them because bishops think these people are performing essential services—as, to some degree, they are. But they are also supporting other things that render the whole effort highly questionable. Written by Bob G [The other] Austin writes: "I will give the Bishops the benefit of the doubt [we should after all], noting that they do mean well". With the cover up of the sex scandals, I think the bishops have lost almost all episcopal credibility. I would not trust most of them with a quarter to buy the newspaper. Does that sound harsh? Apply the thought to your own bishop. That famous Dallas conference was a circling of the wagons, not an effort to heal the wounds, as Avery Dulles pointed out. In the history of the Church many bishops were found to be unreliable. Consider the hysterical reaction of O'Malley of Boston to criticism of the Kennedy funeral. Consider the fulminations of Morin of New Orleans about the USCCB connection with abortion groups. Am I mistaken to think that we should be grateful to be reproved? Our bishops seem more inclined to give reproofs than gratefully to accept them. Written by Gabriel Austin Many of our Bishops have allowed the infection of sin to take hold of the highest echelons of administrative offices within our Body, the Church. Your comments hit very close to home because I used to work as an HR person for Catholic Charities in one of the largest Diocese in the nation that is headed by one of our most liberal Bishops. To be clear, the Bishop did not head the activities of Catholic Charities. I worked there for two years, and although I did love the fact that many of the people who worked for Catholic Charities were doing the work of Angels in their selfless giving to others, the hierarchy of this organization left me, as a young and idealistic Catholic, extremely disappointed. The head of the entire program was rumored to be having a not-so-secret affair with the head fundraiser, and he was a Monsignor. It was pretty obvious and absolutely heart-breaking. Many of the heads of the programs for the regions of the diocese were former priests and nuns who had left their vows and married and/or had children, were homosexual or were very into liberation theology. I never worked with such a depressing bunch of leaders. Somehow, God worked through these people and we did do a lot of good for the community. But after two years of watching the chaff supervising the very leaven of the church, it became too difficult for me and I left. I believe, all of these years later, the very same leaders are still in their positions of power. The Bishop had to know about the state of these leaders' standing within the Church. Their behavior therefore was accepted. Does this happen with groups such as the employees of the UCSSB? Do these Bishops hire their friends for these positions of power? The very ones who had to leave the Church because of heresy and scandal? Their “stinkin thinkin” remains and they supervise all of their pet projects and use the money and talents of the faithful for endeavors that they would never approve. Are the Bishops casting a blind eye just because they know and like the person / people and were even perhaps their confessor? Don't get me wrong, the good done at Catholic Charities was amazing, especially when compared to the State Agency I worked for a few years back. The people who worked at the State Agency did not have Christ to keep them from their most selfish actions (very low ratio of leaven and lots of chaff). Written by Christine Surely Deal Hudson has made a great mistake in telling us that the USCCB is a member of the profoundly anti-Christian Leadership Conference. Surely it is not POSSIBLE for the USCCB to belong to the Leadership Conference. Deal must be joking. He's trying to get a head start on April Fool's Day. Wait a few minutes. The bishops will tell us that Deal is wrong -- and they'll chide him (perhaps excommunicate him) for making such a tasteless and scandalous joke. Written by dave So how many times does the USCCB get to say that they are shocked, just shocked that another one of their buddy, buddy organizations is supporting abortion and homosexual agendas. And of course, we shouldn't question the "credentials" of the USCCB people no matter how many times they get caught hanging with the wrong crowd. My mother was right, "Tell me who your friends are and I'll tell who you are". Written by Jim Welsh This just in... Fr. Pavone knows the USCCB personally and is vouching for its pro-life stance. He has intimately worked with the USCCB for many years and can say that the USCCB is in good standing with the Catholic Church. Tito: Oh great, the issue is that the USCCB is involved in an anti-Catholic organization. The question isn't if the USCCB is pro-life or not. Epilogue: Insert "John Carr" for USCCB and you know how silly those that are defending John Carr must feel by now. Like Sergeant Shultz would say, "I know nothing--NOTHING!" Written by Tito Edwards I think the bishop's need to come out with a thorough investigation by a lay group on this. And then issue a report. On ALL organizations the USCCB is involved with. ASAP Written by Marsha I mean does it ever end with them - I wish we could uncover some more traditional minded groups the US Bishops are loosely affiliated with - oh wait, they aren't affiliated with ANY of those groups, well except to look despairingly on them. Really its time they got with the times and moved past all this nonsense. Cardinal George said it best, the liberal project in the Church is a dead project. Written by Young Priest Thank you, now I get it. I was very upset about the USCCB acquiescing to the corrupt socialistic so called health care bills that were making their ways through Congress. I couldn't understand what made the bishops think that these bills were going to increase our access to health care when it was clear that the purpose was to control our health care. I thought that they were making a deal with the devil. I couldn't understand why their only objections were with abortion provisions and while that objection was good, taxpayer provided abortion was only one part of the overall badness of the entire mess. And we all knew that if tax payer funded abortion was not in the final bill, it would eventually be snuck in! The bishops didn't mind the outrageous expense of the "reform", that seemed to be ok with them. Thank God for the exposure of the corruption inside the USCCB. Our Lord is opening our eyes in many ways to the corruption in our society; facilitated by the Tea Party's challenging the Republican Party's weak responses to abortion, to the global warming hoax & "climate change" hysterics, to the exposure of ACORN's corruption and now the USCCB. Let's pray that the Holy Spirit will continue to enlighten the citizens of the United States to our Lord's will for us as a nation. Written by Kathleen Sansonetti Main Entry: vi·o·lence Function: noun Date: 14th century 1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure 2 : injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation : outrage 3 a : intense, turbulent, or furious and often destructive action or force <the violence of the storm> b : vehement feeling or expression : fervor; also : an instance of such action or feeling c : a clashing or jarring quality : discordance 4 : undue alteration (as of wording or sense in editing a text) Merriam Webster dot com ![[smiley=wink]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_wink.gif) Written by Carl In 1957,Sister Lucy said to Pope Pius XII:“Father, the devil is about to wage a decisive battle with the Blessed Virgin, as he knows what it is that offends God the most, and in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus the devil does everything to overcome the souls consecrated to God, because in this way he will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them.” Also:“The most evident mark of God’s anger and the most terrible castigation He can inflict upon the world are manifested when He permits His people to fall into the hands of clergy who are priests more in name than in deed, priests who practice the cruelty of ravening wolves rather than charity and affection of devoted shepherds ...St. John Eudes. Written by Don My personal favorite is that some contributors and comm box writers would suggest a "far right" conspiracy within the Church. You know the scandals involving:
And that radical Republican Congressman Robert F. Drinan, alias Father Robert F. Drinan………wait he was a far left celebrated democrat….. Oh, wait none of that actually happened either did it. ![[smiley=shock]](http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/components/com_jreactions/custom/templates/blog/smileys/smiley_shock.gif) Written by Carl I agree with Cathy that it is a joke that they had us sending post cards to omit abortion in the heath care bill and yet they financially support organizations that provide abortions. It was also a joke that the 2008 voting guide gave Catholics an out to vote for pro abortion candidates if the whole of social justice issues would be improved with pro abort candidate. Catholics fooled themselves into voting for Obama. Tell me how any of the things he supports will reduce abortions. Supporting candidates or any bill that "does to the least" what Jesus would take offense at is a sure way to jeopardize your soul. Written by Lisa Galli Fr. Robert Drinan--a former member of Congress--was a Democrat and not a Republican Written by Jay Mack Deal, Ralph Neas, my Notre Dame classmate ('68) whom Ted Kennedy called "The 101st senator," led the judicial battles, beginning with the nomination of Daniel A. Manion to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in February 1986. As a result, Paul Weyrich (+RIP) formed a fantastic counter-coalition to put Manion over the top (he won by one vote in June 1986). The USCCB was not part of the prolife coalition then. Is it now? And can anyone tell me (here, please) if the USCCB has EVER opposed any bill because that bill contains billions for contraception at home and abroad? The Church teaches that contraception is an intrinsic evil. Unpopular teaching, but hey, what else is new? So my question is, has the USCCB EVER opposed legislation funding contraceptives (billions of doses of Depro-Provera for the Third World, billions of condoms manufactured in Alabama, and so on? And I don't mean the fine but small and isolated pro-life shop; I mean opposed with the same USCCB-wide vigor that has typified the bishops' demand for health and immigration "reform." Chris Manion Written by Chris Manion Another disheartening perspective of the USCCB and many pro-life groups is that Stupak-Pitts would eliminate as opposed to mitigate tax-payer funding for abortion. Unless you want to declare that children conceived in rape, incest, or that loosely made argument "for the life of the mother" are somehow not allowed tax-payer funded abortions. The threat of NRTL to mark voting against the amendment as voting against pro-life makes me wonder what NRTL considers pro-life to be. NRTL, are you for tax-payer funding for abortion in cases of rape, incest, and "for the life of the mother"? Is the USCCB? Written by Cathy Cathy, As Catholics, we believe that abortion is the killing of a human life. Just because a child is conceived out of grave sin committed by a man (rape or incest) does not mean that the child has to pay the ultimate price - torture and death. If we qualify their murders using this standard, we could qualify anybody's murder. The Nazis qualified killing Jews because of what they perceived as their unfortunate physical and genetic makeup. This is the same reason being used to kill a baby in the womb, their unfortunate genetic and physical makeup. They were conceived by a cruel and sinful act committed by a cruel and sinful individual. As for medical reasons, I hope that the information below from Catholic.net will help you understand the Catholic view of abortion and the life of the mother. There are instances in which it is legitimate for an expectant mother to undergo certain medical or surgical procedures that will save her life, even if these procedures inevitably involve the death of her unborn child. In these cases it is not a question of intentionally aborting the child. They involve, rather, accepting the loss of the child as an unavoidable consequence of caring for the mother´s health. — Catholic.netThe clearest and surest example is the ectopic pregnancy. As everyone knows, should the fetus become lodged in the oviduct or fallopian tube, its continued growth will result in the death of both child and mother. A normal and proper procedure in this case is the removal of the fallopian tube, from which the death of the unborn child inevitably follows. In this case the death of the child is not sought, nor is the mother´s life saved by the child´s dying. This is not an abortion. Quite simply, the mother´s life is saved by the surgical removal of the oviduct, not by the death of her child. If this reasoning is too subtle for some American minds to follow, well, the available evidence suggests that just about any coherent thinking these days is too subtle for some American minds to follow. A similar dilemma would arise in the case of an expectant mother diagnosed with uterine cancer. The death of the child obviously would result from the removal of the cancerous organ, but it is not the death of the child that is deliberately sought, nor is the mother´s life saved as a result of the child´s death. This is not an abortion in the sense used by moral theology; it is just a standard application of the ethical principle known as "double effect," which is undoubtedly what the magazine in question, an Orthodox journal that takes its theology seriously, intended to say. I have not (nor has just about anyone else, for that matter) read the 2600 page health care bill. In regards to the contents of this bill or any of its amendments, all I can say is that I would never approve of something that was 2600 pages in length without reading, re-reading, discussion and understanding. I don't think any of this has occurred. It makes me think that the legislators either don’t know what is in the bill or don’t want us to know what is in the bill. Most people are afraid of the bill and its potential consequences precisely because they could never be properly briefed on such a huge chunk of legislation. I don't trust the legislative branch enough to think that a 2600 page bill will be worth its weight in the recycle bin. God Bless Written by Christine Hi Cathy, In regards to what the USCCB is for - who knows? This is the reason for the hubbub. It seems that they have not acted as good stewards of the power and the funds they have been given by the Church. What happens in the future will be interesting. It seems that God is weeding the garden. Written by Christine Father Fitzpatrick is correct about almost the entire USCCB not being pro-life. Many of them, staff and bishops alike, are in love with "peace and justice" issues (material poverty, workers issues, capital punishment, etc.) but don't have any stomach for addressing the abortion issue, and maybe even precisely because they don't. And even more, even when they are addressing the "peace and justice" issues, they tend to go too far, and well beyond the mind of the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 2:16), because their thinking is dominated by the materialist mindset and what Pope Benedict calls the "inhuman philosophy of progress". They dislike the burdens and encumbrances of actual here-and-now charity, are impatient with the works of mercy, and favor centralized establishment of societal structures they foolishly believe will remove all manner of social deprivations and therefore also the need to minister charitably to them. This same materialist mindset makes it difficult to give God his due, and makes it much easier, for example, to fall for the lies of the contraceptive society (which was a very early example of this materialist habit of mind, and was condemned by those original social justice Catholics who were genuinely and really concerned about social justice, such as Father John Ryan of the 1930s, not least because if you could convince the worker to limit the number of mouths he had to feed, he would have less of a just claim on the just wage or family wage, and could be paid less, favoring profits over persons), and who is it that does not know by now that everywhere contraception is accepted the resistance to induced abortion is hamstrung and weakened? Is that why Benedict now goes back to Humanae Vitae in Caritas in Veritate? Is he saying the peace and justice crowd need once again to rediscover, accept, embrace, and promote the teaching on contraception, once again reuniting the social and moral truths at the heart of this teaching, of the social encyclicals, and of the Gospel itself? Written by Dr. Dominic Pedulla Regarding the extreme left wing associations of the USCCB is anyone really suprised? Having watched the catholic bishops of the US act like "useful idiots" of the far left this information doesn't exactly raise to the level of a revelation, just more of the duplicity and deceptive tactics of the USCCB who haven't enough faith or backbone to say no to anything. I really think the Vatican ought to disband it and start over again after about 80% of the bishops resign in disgrace, voluntarilly or otherwise. Written by Frank G Heron Although the rules for posting comments is exemplary in its Christian charity, the posters don't seem to get the idea. In case it's any consolation to you, we, the justice and peace types, have the same feeling about the Bishops' Conference. To us they seem hopelessly against what we see as What Jesus Would Do: not judge, love all of us no matter what, support people who are suffering for some reason, even if that seems to be "against the rules and teachings". No one is "Pro-abortion", We are all pro-life, but we feel that birth is just the beginning of human rights. There's no reason abortion should be held up as the single issue of importance. George Bush just got an award for supporting pro-life policies. We see George Bush as someone who started unnecessary and unjust wars on the pretense of "protecting the American people", carried out the death penalty on more people than any other state has done in one year (while he was governor of Texas), ruins God's creation by supporting logging and oil production, which in turn hurts all of us, who will suffer the losses caused by the damage done to the environment, gives all kinds of breaks to rich people without worrying about how the little guy will put food on the table for his family. Look at all the offenses against life Pres. Bush caused. I consider myself pro-choice. When the time came, I chose to keep my child, but I would never dare to judge someone else who can't see any way to take care of another child. Jesus would support that person and try to find some way to show understanding, just as he did with the woman caught in adultery (no mention of any chiding of the man involved, who was probably the instigator). I can't help but wonder what the argument would be if it were men who became pregnant.... Biology has shown that there are numerous species that naturally perform sex acts with members of the same sex. Human beings are not weird. Of course the majority of the members of a species will be heterosexual, in order to continue the species, but it's not unnatural to have some people be homosexual, any more than it's unnatural for some clovers to have 4 or 5 or even 7 leaves. The Church will someday let go of its unreasonable opposition to homosexuality and accept the fact that homosexuality is a natural phenomenon created by God. If you're bound and determined to cling to the Church's laws and teachings, how about making it the law and teaching that we should love the Lord our God with our whole hearts, souls, minds and strengths, and love our neighbors as ourselves. The greatest commandment is that we should love one another, and there's hardly anything else that the Church "has always taught". And by the way, CCD stand for Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Written by Dorothy A. Pedtke Sr Thanks for following up on this, Deal. I agree with Frank G. Heron (last response)which involves not only the Pope's action, but also an orthodox lay-board. Fr. Fitzpatrick would have much to offer, as well. Compromise, duplicity, Modernism, Liberalism, Progressivism Liberation-theology, false gospels spouting social service and civil rights ideologies--far from the heart of Christ and His Catholic Church. It puts me in mind of a frog that is slowly boiled to death in a pot of water gradually brought to the boiling point over time. It doesn't sense the danger enough to hop out; not even to save its life. The USCCB has become a blind guide. Political participation, including through indirect avenues (lobbyists) must stop. What a waste of funding. It clouds the Truth; Who has the power to make us free. Last year,I saw an interview with Cardinal George on EWTN's The World Over; host Raymond Arroyo--where George was actually advocating a permissive stance on & acceptance of the concept of Shria Law, "Western" style. Are he and the Archbishop of Canterbury listening to the same guru Imam? Where is their common sense; where is Christ in their witness?? It confuses me to see George at many televised Marian consecration Masses of new Churches and often at the National Shrine in D.C. while simultaneously advocating such contrary nonsense. Written by Lynnita I forgot to add to my post--in the news today Planned Parenthood International is now advocating teaching 10 year olds the *pleasures of sex. Are they looking to create a new & even younger market in which to push their abortion agenda? Parents beware, they are planning to coerece the USA to mandate this through school programs. Shameful. Written by Lynnita It is quite obvious to me that all the members of the USCCB are in lockstep, and in total agreement on the course of their "club". Secrecy sometimes breeds mistrust; but in the case of the members of the bishops' club, their membership is secure until death. They need not feel any fear for what any of them do or fail to do. My fear is for the faith of our Catholics in the trenches. Will they begin to doubt the leadership of their own Ordinaries? With the membership of the "club" unwilling to either reply to questions, or to cease their pro-choice and pro-homosexual activities, it seems the Church, and all of those within it must settle in for continued deterioration of our Church. I admit to a lack of knowledge of canon law, but history tells me even our Holy Father is left with no authority to help us. I an 70 years old, and have no "earthly" reason to hope to see a resolution, only recourse to Our Blessed Mother. Written by Paul May This is one of the reasons I haven't given a dime to the "conciliar Church" for over forty years. That was right after I saw the professors going nuts in the seminary. I would urge all to follow my example. All of this will stop when the Holy Father is forced by events to finally consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. The apparition of LaSalette and its propheices are becoming more evident every day. Until then I will continue to pray, pray, pray the Rosary. Written by Joe Dorothy, I understand what you are saying but you are confusing love the person as a sinner and embracing sinful behavior. If Jesus did not want the adulteress to change, he would not have said "go and sin no more". He acknowledged that adultery is a sin. To not do so would be to go against the very God he was. He is one with the Father who gave us the Ten Commandments. Loving a person does not mean that we are not called to follow the narrow road that Christ gave us to follow. This path is about love and responsibility. Because with God, when much is given much is required. As Catholics, we are given much - we are given the full repository of faith. If for any reason you do not believe in these articles of faith, you should pray and receive some good spiritual guidance. Through much prayer and reading you will find that the guidelines given to us through Sacred Tradition are indeed what are best for us. Encyclicals from the Popes, the Catechism of the Catholic Church are great resources. They will explain in full detail why we Catholics believe what we do regarding homosexuality, fidelity and abortion. Our Sacred Tradition will not steer you wrong and will provide your soul with some rest, as it has mine. I pray that our Bishops do the same, because their policies are tragically in schism with what the Catholic Church has believed and practiced since its inception by St. Peter. We on this thread who disagree with the Bishops do not hate them. Rather, we love them because we care about their very souls. Jesus himself said, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." — Matthew 18:6They are the shepherds and they lead us, God's children, for we are heirs of Christ. He made this so through the Incarnation. If we do not help the shepherds and they lead us into sin, they will damn themselves. Nobody on this thread (I have read their entries for several months now) would ever want to see anybody burn in hell. Jesus himself used a whip to chastise those who defiled the Sabbath by setting up a shopping mall in front of the Temple, because they were not following God's commandment to keep the Sabbath holy. Christ followed this commandment and only wanted things of God done during this holy day (his miracles). He chastised the very people he caught in sin. Did this mean that he did not love them? God is Love and Jesus is the Word of God. The Word made flesh who dwelt among us. God’s first commandment was to love Him. All of the other commandments provide the basis on how we should love each other. We should not kill, covet, steal, treat our parents badly, or bear false witness. Following these rules is difficult, but it is the loving and right thing to do. Written by Christine The first sentence on the last entry should be: I understand what you are saying but you are confusing loving the person as a sinner and embracing sinful behavior. Sorry. Written by Christine The "Homosexual Culture" in our chruch has a lot to do with many of the decisons from the top down. Of course we all are aware of the sex scandals, but most Catholics fail to realize this was the "tip of the perversion within the church." Many if not the majority, of the clergy are pro homosexual, and even the Vatican is investigating our Sisters 300 religious orders, who are no longer nuns, but radical social workers, living in apartments together, away from the covents. Health care is expensive for HIV / Aids patients, so just watch the plight of the unborn be thrown out by the U.S.C.C.B. to get National Health Care. The Holy Eucharist is desecreted by Bishops and Priest who allow pro abortionists to continue to receive during Mass. There was a saint who said "the road to hell is paved with the skulls" I have to look it up, or just take the saints word. Thank you Deal Hudson, Fr. Fitzpatrick, Christine, Stephanie Block! After more than a year of research into CCHD and its beginning with Saul Alinsky and Fr. Jack Egan, I am encouraged to see more Catholics speaking the truth and demanding accountability from our Bishops. We could not understand how 54% of American Catholics could vote for anyone who professed/endorsed abortion and infanticide when the alternate candidate was pro-life. We were shocked to hear a parish priest discount abortion for "social justice" concerns. "Of course it isn't a sin to knowingly vote for a candidate who promises to fund abortion!" After finding the tentacles of Alinsky organizations within parishes, we realized that our American Catholic Church is infected with a cancer that is threatening Christ's true Church. Only when we refuse to feed the CCHD and USCCB with our money will it reform. Abolish the CCHD, disband the USCCB, and ask the Holy Father for strict guidance! Written by Texanna Hi. It always saddens me when people paint abortion as a social justice issue, as a mercy to poor women or those who think they can't care for a child. In fact, many woman having abortions wanted their babies very much, and that paradox is a large part of the reason for the post-abortion mental health problems that many women experience. A study in Medical Science Monitor by Dr. Vincent Rue and colleagues revealed that 64% of American women in a large OB/GYN clinic population said they felt pressured to abort. I've personally known hundreds of women who've had abortions, both friends and psychiatric patients, and also peer counselors and professionals who I've trained to help women suffering after abortion. Over and over I hear of women who wanted their children, but lacked any shred of support or affirmation from anyone else. One woman I know was 17 years old and engaged to be married. Her fiancee was employed and was away in a training program. When her mother discovered the pregnancy, this woman was taken to a clinic, and when she stated she refused to give consent, she was physically restrained and chemically sedated so the abortion could proceed. Is anyone surprised that she suffered 12 years of horrendous mental health problems afterward? That's by no means the only situation of that type, but there is certainly a contiuum of pressure. Sometimes parents merely threaten the young woman with homelessness or ask, "Where will you live?" They threaten to cut off college funds. Sometimes there is physical force or violent abuse. The father tells the doctor, "Don't let her leave the clinic still pregnant." An abortion clinic was having a high rate of PTSD after abortion and did a study to find out--if a different anesthesia is used, would this reduce the rate of PTSD? (Suliman et al. 2007). The study showed that 18% of the women had PTSD three months after abortion, comparable to what other studies have shown, and the type of anesthesia made no difference. This is in the same ballpark as what was discovered in a U.S. government study of male combat veterans from the Viet Nam era... 15% of those came home with full blown PTSD. So, this is in a sense a similar magnitude of stress for women. But it is not just PTSD, but a whole host of psychiatric disorders that have been found to be associated with abortion, not to mention some serious medical consequences. No one is doing anyone a favor by encouraging them to give up a baby she wants because we aren't willing to offer emotional support or a spare bedroom. Today, pro-life pregnancy care centers actually offer the emotional support and the resources to help women to make a choice they often very much want to make, but these centers are persecuted and maligned by some of the organizations supported by the USCCB. And the fact that women suffer from the many effects of abortion is a story that is not often told in Faith Formation, though it is evident in peer-reviewed research with statistical controls (see www.standapart.org also www.aaplog.org and rachelnetwork.org) Written by Martha Shuping, M.D. Dear Bishops, Are you listening? What is going on?! Who can we trust to lead us in ways faithful to the magisterium? No more money until this is cleared up. Written by Therese There is an important consequence of millions of abortions, combined with birth control, in Western society, and that is the declining numbers in the population of indigenous Europeans while immigrant Muslims are propagating at a rate five or more times greater than the Europeans. Here in America, the birth rate is barely at the level required to sustain our population; any growth in our numbers is due primarily to immigrants. Common sense tells us that the strength of any society rests in the vigor of its people, and vigor is a quality of youth and the numbers thereof. Economies are a function of people, and if a society does not reproduce sufficient numbers to sustain its economy, its strength, it is doomed to be over-powered by a society that does. God gives us His commandments for our own good as well as for showing our love for Him and for others. Jim Written by J. A. Sagerholm |
|
 |
