Comments on: Forget Murtha and Rangel, Let’s Prosecute Catholic Bishops!

By: brown38

brown38 — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 13:16:04 +0000

Recently Cardinal O’Malley, a usually a strong defender of Catholic tradition, commented on the Sen. Ted Kennedy’s Funeral. He defended his position of givingthe Sacraments to a political figure that openly contridicted the teachings of the Church. Of course, this broght on additional commentary from Conservative Catholics, and a very heated exchange occured. My issues with the Heirarchy in the Catholic Church is that some priests and bishops will openly challenge the writings and decrees from the Vatican. The liberal response to this critism is the Church needs to allow Grace to be given to these Catholics through the seven sacrements, in effort to bring them fully into the Church. I just think this waters down the teaching of morality by the modern Church. Thankfully, we have a Pope and Vatican that defends life at every turn, but in my perspective I wish they would take a harder line on bishops and priests that give the sacrements to those that enact public policy contrary to the teachings of the Church.

By: soljerblue

soljerblue — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:09:29 +0000

World Net daily has a lengthy, detailed piece today on exactly where AARP’s money is coming from, where it goes and to whom, and what they stand to rake in from The Joker’s health care. Here’s the link:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=115617

By: discerningconservative

discerningconservative — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:18:49 +0000

I think your Caps Lock is on.

By: mayflowerboy

mayflowerboy — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:02:14 +0000

JUST LIKE KENNEDY,REED, PELOSI, AND THE WH, THEIR ABUSE OF POWER IS SO OUT OF CONTROL. THEY FLIP-FLOP AS NEEDED. THEY HAVE SHOWN THEY CAN DO AS THEY SEE FIT TO MANIPULATE THE PRESS, BILLS, HUMANA AND THE CHURCH. WHATS NEXT, OUR RIGHT TO VOTE THE WAY WE WANT. OPPS I FORGOT, THEIR TRYING TO START THAT WITH THE UNIONS. TRUTH / JUSTICE / AND THE AMERICAN WAY.
MAYFLOWER BOY P.S. REMEMBER HOW BAD THEY SAID BUSH WAS, THAT CRAZY GUY WANTED TO LISTEN IN ON TERRORIST CONVERSATIONS. THE DEMS AND THE ACLU WANT THE TERRORIST TO HAVE MORE RIGHTS THEN US. GOV’T IS NOT THE ANSWER, GOV’T IS THE PROBLEM !!!!!!

By: lindabee

lindabee — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 00:55:30 +0000

None of us want any tax exempt organization advocating for or campaigning for any elected official or appointee. But is lobbying for or advocating a signature issue of a particular candidate all that much different?

Still, if people and/or policy positions of even tax-exempt organizations are denied their ability to speak their opinion of good, evil, right, wrong, helpful, destructive, etc. than what are such organizations for and why are they tax exempt at all?

No Catholic bishop, as a representative of the Church, should advocate for or against any person in elected or appointed office, no should any bishop urge his constituency to vote for the candidate who promotes “X”

But in my opinion there is nothing wrong with anybody, tax-exempt or not, stating their reasons for supporting or opposing abortion or stating their opinion of the effect of proposed legislation. Certainly if our fearless leaders presume to criticize one group for doing that, they should criticize all who do that, even those who support their point of view or desired goal.

By: bk

bk — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:43:25 +0000

that was not seen as a problem by the “wall” folks.

Just like Woolsey was happy that the Catholics were pushing for health care reform in general – just not with abortion included. It became a “wall” problem as soon as they voiced an opinion on that one piece of it.

By: montanan

montanan — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:39:15 +0000

that Woolsley complaining that the Catholics “bullied” congress to cut out abortion funding is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black; do I really need to mention the many times Rahm Emmanuel has come down from the castle to enforce the will of his sovereign? Not to mention the fact that when AARP, ACORN, CAIR, etc get involved in a bill they call it proactive community involvement but when the Catholics get involved in a bill it becomes an unethical act.

By: martyinaz

martyinaz — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:17:36 +0000

“All the animals are equal…except the pigs. Pigs are more equal than the other animals”
Hmmm, what does that make our Representatives and Senators?

By: dclamage

dclamage — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:24:55 +0000

So isn’t that Obstruction of Justice? Should not the FBI charge the Democratic Leadership with Obstruction of Justice? Why are our Congresspeople above the law?

By: seandparnell

seandparnell — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:53:03 +0000

Why is it only when communities of faith speak out in opposition to something the Lynn Woolsey’s of the world want that they’re somehow a threat to the Republic?

Hopefully this blatant attempt to intimidate those with the temerity to disagree with her will be slapped down hard, and Rep. Woolsey will have someone remind her that the First Amendment doesn’t have an asterisk that excludes the religious from being able to petition their government.

Sean Parnell
President
Center for Competitive Politics
http://www.campaignfreedom.org

By: qurys

qurys — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:25:26 +0000

let’s remember that Woosley et al were pushing this healthcare legislation last week as a right to which all Americans were entitled. Now that it has passed, it could become the law, which, if violated, results in a fine and/or prison. I have quite no other right like that which has just been bestowed upon me by my benevolent Congress. So leave the USCCB to their position and let the hypocrites in Congress continue to condone murder and punish the uninsured.

By: Superheater

Superheater — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:37:09 +0000

Woolsey and other libs continue to perpetrate a lie. Religious groups don’t obtain their tax exempt status from meeting the requirements of the tax code, as do other charities, instead they derive their TE status from being a “church” or a “Convention of churches”, the requirements of which are simple; regular meeting place, creed, trained ministry et al… only “charities” need abstain from political activity. Otherwise, there is no freedom of religion, which at its heart which leaves churches free to inform their flocks’ consciences free of state coercion or approval. funny how the famous “separation of church and state” disappears when the church isn’t having Al Gore preaching the sermon or ordaining political activists that never seem to preach a sermon on Sunday, in a church without a camera…

By: saintgeorgegentile

saintgeorgegentile — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:32:40 +0000

The word is sic not sick

By: Menlo

Menlo — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:42:57 +0000

They are called “non-profit” too, despite the hefty profits they do get, a third of which are handed over by the taxpayers.

By: Scope

Scope — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:32:15 +0000

Hopefully the information seized at ACORN in LA will prove fruitfull, though Holder will probably make that dissapear as well. They probably had already moved the most important stuff to the floor below Obamas basketball court in the basement.

By: janis

janis — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:51:43 +0000

then you don’t fear Him as your adversary. The Left chooses to not recognize the force for good that the Catholic Church has been, preferring instead to tar them all with the brush of “child molesters”
because of the actions of some of the priesthood.

What I can’t reconcile, however, is that the same Left also chooses to not only recognize but applaud the existence of NAMBLA, an organization which advocates and celebrates sex acts between men and boys. They also support and defend a convicted child rapist in Roman Polanski. Truly, these people must need a scorecard to be able to keep their various hypocrisies straight.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:46:36 +0000

I believe that the organization itself, the part that lobbies, is not tax-exempt – and then it has the tax-exempt component called the AMA Foundation that supposedly is “educational”.

Now that you mention it, the same may be true of the AARP – an exempt and a non-exempt component.

This provides the veneer to allow their lobbying – especially when nobody in the government is going to take the years necessary to look for a breach.

Which his why the blatant conflict of interests regarding its insurance business while calling itself an interest group for seniors is the real Achilles heal of the AARP – if we get this to the public’s attention.

By: shadowtax

shadowtax — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:30:24 +0000

I do not hear any calls for an investigation into the AMA or AARP.

By: The_Rebel

The_Rebel — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:50:39 +0000

who should have had their status revoked long ago.

By: civil_truth

civil_truth — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:49:41 +0000

They have their fingerprints over the bill, especially Medicare supplemental insurance policieis.

But I guess it’s only opponents who are to be the objects of government intimidation; you can buy protection if you back the favored side.

However, if Lynn really wants to take on the Roman Catholic Church, this is the quintessence of taking a knife to a gunfight, given Who rides shotgun for Church.