Comments


  • ZORRO: "I really think he.."That has wandered around in my head too. I'd give a nickle to know just what his problem really is. Is it maybe a case like some of the killers of "working girls" because they hated their moms' occupation? Is he trying to soothe his troubled soul because he was too close to an abortion (such as his own love child). Or is he still mad because HE wasn't aborted? It must've been a pitiful situation for him to have been so miserable about all these years.

    December 11, 2009 at 12:03 a.m.

  • Suzy, it would be wise to understand history before you make comments upon it. In a nutshell, the Vatican is surrounded by enemy forces. The enemy says stay out our business and we will let you survive. So the Vatican stays publicly quiet in Nazi Germany, but vocal elsewhere. However, they were a major operator in smuggling Jews out of Germany. But, regardless how much effort one can make, there is only so much one can do. To follow your advice, the Vatican would of been wiped out, and no Jews would of been rescued under their wings. Who are you to say that course of action was not God's will in confronting pure evil?

    I'm beginning to think your views may be a result of your own self nihilism.

    December 9, 2009 at 9:10 a.m.

  • " they were forced into appeasement for its very survival"...

    Didn't they trust in God enough to "know" that He would help them?
    When a institution of God turns a blind eye to millions of suffering people, there is no God in that institution and might as well have lost it's survival.

    December 8, 2009 at 3:51 p.m.

  • Zorro, the Vatican did not turn a blind eye to Nazi atrocities during WWII, rather, they were forced into appeasement for its very survival. Recall, the Vatican is in Rome, has no Army, and Italy was a Nazi ally (even occupied by such) during WWII.

    December 8, 2009 at 2:25 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    December 8, 2009 at 9:39 a.m.

  • Reyrey

    I brought the Reichskonkordat up to exploit your flank after you proclaimed that the church believed in the "sanctity of life." If that belief is universal, it would therefore apply to all life, at all times. The Vatican choose to do business with the devil in NS Germany and turned a blind eye to the extermination of Jews, Communists and others. The Vatican did not make a treaty with Stalin.

    OLDRUSTYBUCKET1

    The fellow who writes letters to editor came up to me at a reception at Holy Family one day and asked me why I hated Catholics. He cares not that his remarks are callous lies. I sincerely believe he has some mental issues he needs to deal with.

    December 8, 2009 at 8:38 a.m.

  • Does this sign remind anyone of the fellow who writes comparable letters to the editor? At least he's restricted to submitting just one a month.

    December 8, 2009 at 2:43 a.m.

  • Zorro,
    You are bringing Germany, I will propose to you that you do some research on Jews in America and what they did for the Jews in Germany. I dont know if you recall how many people Stalin killed, so and although the church was not right by being more vocal about the Jews,well, what where the Catholics had to do with how many communists died? I mean, this posting is about a person who was outside the Church. You people make it sound like protestants have no sins, might I remind you about the genocide that happened here in America?

    December 7, 2009 at 10:16 p.m.

  • reyrey

    I should have seperated those ideas the crusades and 1300 afganistan had nothing to do with each other in my statement. I was illuding to afgans as still living in the 1300's today in mud huts thats all. Yes salladin did allow christians to enter jerusulum to visit the holy sites. But the church sent another 2 or 3 crusades that failed after his death.

    December 7, 2009 at 9:43 p.m.

  • Mike

    We all know that the numbers can be twisted to support all sides of an arguement. The true numbers would be ones that threw out the extreme left and right and then compiled results from whats left. I feel IMO that these numbers would truely reflect the majority of americans.

    December 7, 2009 at 9:31 p.m.

  • Holly,
    Now, I am know we are not going to start talking about the Crusades. Do you actually think the Taliban or for that matter, the regular Afghans know about America or knew before 9/11. There is like a 50 million reward for Osama Bin Laden and most people in Afghanistan do not know about this. Mmm, now, I can tell you that Radical Muslims do not believe that girls should go to school or show any part of their bodies. I believe that the Crusades was done back in the early 1000's. Saladin actually let Christian continue visiting the holy land. Although more crusades were planned, none of them were successful. So, I can assured you that they dont know what is going outside their little tribes and much less about Crusades. And as far the Church, I basically stated where the church is today. If you are going to use history, do keep in mind that our Constitution did not recognized black as humans, so are we going go after the Constitution? I mean, Roe v Wade was about privacy and not abortion but since we are using apples to compare to oranges...

    December 7, 2009 at 9:25 p.m.

  • The church didn't do much for "the sanctity of life" if you were a Jew or a Communist in NS Germany.

    December 7, 2009 at 9:25 p.m.

  • holly, it is not my call to make. I was not in their bedrooms, or know what they did to try and prevent pregnancy. I do not know if they were made to have sex by their partners when they didn't want to, so how can I judge them, or decide that they did anything wrong?
    This is my whole point. I cannot judge another human being when I don't know anything about them.

    December 7, 2009 at 9:24 p.m.

  • Suzy

    You still won't except responciblity for one's actions. Wouldn't It be great if women would stop and think about the pitfalls of getting pregnant? Be a little more grown up and not have flings with every good looker out there. Maybe young women should be less active and more inclined to save something for marriage.

    December 7, 2009 at 9:14 p.m.

  • Reyrey
    it seems you have forgotten the inquizition and the crusades. A lot of horrible things happened in the name of god back then. Part of the problem we are having in the middle east is a result of the crusades. The muslums still are fighting the crusades today!! They truely believe that we are trying to retake the holy land for christianity. Afganistan is living proof they are still living in the middle ages. You could go from the mud huts of today right into the 1300's and nothing would change except for the guns. The church has sanctioned a lot of death and destruction in the past. so as for the sanctity of life lets get real.

    December 7, 2009 at 9:05 p.m.

  • "I say"...there's the rub. It's none of our business what another woman does. It is ultimately between her, her doctor, and her God. It is no one else's business.
    All we can do as a society is to provide counceling in the hopes that they can be talked out of it, provide all the different options, and then it is still up to the mother. If abortions were made illegal, those who could pay, would still get their abortions. Those who couldn't pay, would still get their abortions, if they wanted one bad enough. You WILL NOT STOP ALL ABORTIONS. There are not enough people in America that will take in that many unwanted children, because the numbers would increase yearly, and the number of people wanting to adopt would get their babies and then the number of people who still wanted babies would start to decrease rapidly. Those unwanted babies would also be subjected to mothers who would decide to sell them, prostitute them out, and every other vile thing imaginable, or foster parents that could use them for their own gain. Sometimes, death is kinder.
    And, neither one of us know for certain what God's plan is for overpopulation.

    December 7, 2009 at 8:57 p.m.

  • Mike,
    The stand of the Church is and always been the same, the sanctity of life, whether is a fetus or a person on death row. Although some of us are "liberal" Catholics, the Church is clear where it stands. As far as Catholics, most of them are against abortion but sometimes we are willing to give something in order to get social programs going, however, with this new health care being proposed, I think that most of us are moving along with the church.

    December 7, 2009 at 8:45 p.m.

  • Suzy I am not a rabid anti-abortionist. I do believe in its use to save the mother or incest and the like but its time for people to be responcible for their actions as well and quit looking for the easy way out all the time. If a child is truely not wanted by the mother or can not be raised well by them then there are plenty of willing people who would. I say have the baby and give it to a loving couple who for whatever reason can not have children of their own. Maybe its time for a little compassion for the unborn and let them live with parents who truely want to be blessed with their little lives.

    December 7, 2009 at 8:29 p.m.

  • Mike you sure did open up a hornets nest with this one!! I hope the right wingers don't run you out of town.LOL! I find your ideas and positions to be left of mine but enjoy bantering with you on the issues you put up for debate in your blogs. Keep them coming, I look forward to reading and responding to them.

    December 7, 2009 at 8:22 p.m.

  • holly, you paint everyone that is not anti-abortion the same. That is where the problem is.
    Not everyone that gets pregnant didn't use birth control, and use it correctly. Whether you want to believe it or not, I know someone that got pregnant after a tubal ligation. This lady did everything humanly possible to keep from getting pregnant, except abstinance, and she still go pregnant. There are many such women out there like that.
    I bet you would hear one heck of an uproar is "every" woman decided to use abstinence when they did not want to get pregnant again. Can you guess who would be leading that uproar?

    December 7, 2009 at 8:20 p.m.

  • I think the main issue here is what are the rights of the fetus that is aborted. Every other section of our society has a court appointed voice except the fetus. I understand this is a hotbed topic that will never be solved here. If we are such a lofty society that we can save the whales and every other life form that we think are endangered, why do we leave out the unborn?? Is an unborn child worth less than some small fish somewhere?? I guess so to the pro choicers. They want to save every thing but the unborn child and will go to court to prevent powerplants and the like but not to save the child. Can you say hypocrite??? The true form of pro choice would be to not get pregnant to begin with. thats the choice. With modern birth control and the true form of birth control (abstenance) The true subject here is selfishness. Those that are pro choice don't want to be burdened with a child but did nothing to prevent that child from being conceived. Then yell freedom of choice to justify the murder of that child. If the pro choicer's had the same moral ideology they did for all the endangered species they would have a different position on the unborn. Save the children not the whales.

    December 7, 2009 at 7:49 p.m.

  • Interesting blog, Mike you do know how to get a lot of comments.

    Your statement "And as for Catholics supporting a pro life presidential candidate, are we supposed to be a single issue voter?" I believe if you asked the Pope this question, he would say yes.

    The answer about a single issue should be yes, IF it requires you to set aside one of your a moral value and belief position. If it is not one of your moral values and part of your belief system it should not matter. It is between you and God if you are right or wrong.

    Have you considered it is not always wrong to exclude someone, because of a single issue? For example, if I knew a convicted pedophile, no matter how much they have done for the community or the church or how nice they are, I could never support them for anything. And even if the general public or polls indicate others may support them, I could not lower my basic moral value and belief positions. I have lowed my value and belief position on some occasions, when I have been forced to choose between to evils. Sometimes one must pick the least evil.

    By the way, I disagree with his sign, I have not seen anything yet to suggest President Obama is a baby killer. However, I may just not have all the facts.

    December 7, 2009 at 7:47 p.m.

  • The Vatican has been on the wrong of history on numerous occasions in the past. The Inquisition and Reichskonkordat are but two.

    December 7, 2009 at 6:21 p.m.

  • Euthanasia,capital punishment,torture,abortion,and a war of choice are all condoned by the Catholic church but many play this "holier than thou" card on a single issue.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:47 p.m.

  • Johnny said "there are people out there who claim Obama is the second coming."...Yes, they are called wing nuts.

    You also said "You have been known around here for unquestionally posting verbatim party rhetoric d'jour, regardless that it may be in opposition of a position you previously took. That waffling behavior is definition number 1 of blind devotion.

    Is that your professional opinion or from a group you happen to represent? What do right wing conservatives think they speak for all?

    I think that is just an opinion and not a fact...Resorting to personal attacks; when they have nothing else.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.

  • Johnny, I am pro-choice. People have the choice of hating it, or letting a woman choose what is best for her own body and health.
    I am pro-choice because it is NOT my place to judge another human being. We are taught that in the Bible.
    Personally, I hate the idea of abortion and would never, ever, consider it, unless my life was in danger or I knew that the baby would not survive outside the womb. But that is MY CHOICE.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:31 p.m.

  • This comment was removed by the user.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:30 p.m.

  • PatB
    It was not WP Tasin...Follower? Priest allowed this?He was at the very bottom of the church property if he was sanctioned,it seems to me he would had a professional sign and the run of the church property..I don't think the church would allow the over the line message. But you could be right.

    You make a good point about obey or resign but I think that choice is between me and my maker; not some fundamentalist making it for me.

    You absolutely correct;no room for discussion.i.e. A poster said the sign-holder would get a pat on the back for a sign he thought was over the top...Huh?.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:23 p.m.

  • Calling the murder of unborn babies "Pro-Choice" is the ultimate mechanism for marginalization.

    The "Choice" should not be "should I kill my baby or not". It does not even take into account that the genetically independent, temporarily womb reliant human being has any value beyond the mother's immediate distressed mental state. If you support abortion, you are pro-abortion. The use of the term pro-choice in such form is a limp spined way of detracting from the core issue.

    Is not the very essence of a political party to "control human destiny"? You have been known around here for unquestionally posting verbatim party rhetoric d'jour, regardless that it may be in opposition of a position you previously took. That waffling behavior is definition number 1 of blind devotion. There are anti-abortion Democrats. It is these types of dissention that can be used to define the difference between a cause and a religion.

    BTW, there are people out there who claim Obama is the second coming. Then there are others who are to embarassed to say it, but act if it where true. God forbid they say anything against him, bolts of lightening might start raining down.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:13 p.m.

  • Johnny, you are nit-picking. That law has been in effect for how long? How many Republicans have been in office since then and have not changed it? The Supreme Court Justices cannot define law according to their own preferences. If that is the case, then the Supreme Court is bought and paid for...not a good thing for America.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:12 p.m.

  • Curiosity..was it WP tasin or one of his "followers"?
    I guess the priests allowed this.
    I can't see any room for discussion on the matter after 36 years since RoeV. Wade. It's too devisive an issue. BUT I do believe that if you are going to join the club-Catholicism-you should obey the rules or resign like i did.

    December 7, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.

  • Johnny
    The fact that I could convince you of anything would require (in the words of Hillary Clinton) a “willing suspension of disbelief.".. Believe what you wish; doesn’t count for much.

    Following a sports team or a political party has been called a religion but it does not lead to strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny. Most people are able to distinguish the difference.

    December 7, 2009 at 4:41 p.m.

  • Suzy
    If I were to take the sign literally; the sign-holder was placing the blame for abortion at the feet of President Obama and Catholics that voted for him…Why? Obama won 54% of the overall Catholic vote in the November presidential election. Weekly attending Catholics, who in recent elections have tended to support Republican candidates, were evenly divided between Obama (49%) and McCain (50%).

    http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=413

    Baby killers and pro-abortionist are just words that are used to try and marginalize those that claim to be pro-choice.

    December 7, 2009 at 4:24 p.m.

  • Granted his sign was over the top, but the message is fundamently correct: It is against the utmost tenants of the Catholic Church to be in support of abortion.

    Neither party is wholly anti-death penalty (although both have elements within that are). One is pro-abortion. I'm wondering if the guy pegged you specifically. I'm thinking that if I wanted to hold an abortion protest and get many many more people patting me on the back then arguing with me, I'd do it at the church doorsteps.

    Suzy, please. If a woman seeks out an abortion free and willingly, she has committed the act. Just as the Stormtrooper who rounded up the Jews is just as culpable as the guy who turned on the gas (that is NOT intended to suggest Obama or any Democrat is a Nazi, just a convenient internationally legally established example of culpability). As far as blaming Obama, that has to do with who gets to appoint Supreme Court Justices and what platform his party supports.

    Mike, you have hit upon one of the main reasons I am party neutral, cannot fully swallow the platform of either and still reconcile the very tenants of my faith. There are many parts of the Democrat platform which are strongly supported by the Church, and I find myself behind. Unfortunately, the pro-abortion support is so grevious in its very essence, it overrides the positives provided by the others.

    I read your posts. What repeatedly comes out is that your unquestioning promotion of the Democratic Party is clearly your true religion. I invite you to prove me wrong.

    December 7, 2009 at 4:24 p.m.

  • technically, the only one that can be considered "baby killers" are the one that actually did the deed.

    I would have a problem with that sign too, since the sign-holder was attempting to "play God"....and speak for HIM.

    And why blame President Obama? The law was written long before he came into office and he doesn't have the power to change it.

    December 7, 2009 at 3:59 p.m.

  • I do not have to be lectured on my Catholicism because the very same people that take this position are at the front of the line calling for the death penalty, even though the church is consistent with their views on death. I believe in the totality of the person.

    Then again (as Victore put it) if I would have driven by the sign toter, I might not have given it a second thought but I was a captive audience for his misguided message.

    I am not that presumptuous to think I have enough power in influencing or driving out a fellow parishioner or qualified to question his/hers beliefs. I did not question the man's beliefs; just is targeted message.

    I should've gone with my gut instinct by not posting this blog because the topic is just too emotional and you have to deal with sarcasm and people that think their views are definitive…Perhaps I should just delete this blog.

    BTW I have been a member of OLV for 56 years and I don't recall being put in the "Life of Roses" situation...I have received the literature on my windshield.

    December 7, 2009 at 3:52 p.m.

  • What do you do when the KoC hands out those little Life roses at mass? Say "No thank you, I don't follow that part of Catholicism", or wear it in hypocrisy while taking communion?

    The guy was at OLoV because eradication of abortion has been a central Catholic cause from day one. Heck, it was even a source of debate 2010 years ago (although the methods of such were different).

    I see bumber stickers that say "You can't be Catholic and Pro-Abortion". Would not go that far myself, as I would not want to drive a fellow from the flock based on what is likely underlying good but misguided intentions (ie: opinions can change with enlightenment). But, its not far from the truth of the matter either.

    December 7, 2009 at 3:17 p.m.

  • Victore
    To be perfectly honest; I can't say for sure but his message resonated...I am not saying that a house of worship was out of bounds; quite the contrary but he had a target for his message.

    December 7, 2009 at 2:51 p.m.

  • What if the individual was in front of the coffee shop, would you have had the same reaction?

    December 7, 2009 at 2:44 p.m.

  • Victore
    It's a two-way street... The individual questioned my motives without knowing anything about me or the other parishioners that read the sign. Convictions motives, intentions, are all subjective But the motives I question are real...Roe v Wade has been around since the 70s, many presidents have upheld the law, why call the Catholic voters that voted for Obama in the recent election "baby killers?"..Was he insinuating that Jews, Muslims, atheists that voted for Obama,are to be given a free pass?

    Why did the sign single out Catholic voters and President Obama?

    It's not really about me or the sign toter..It's about the message.

    December 7, 2009 at 2:10 p.m.

  • Mike, perhaps you should have had a cup of coffee with the individual, maybe his convictions are stronger than yours, and maybe he knows something you do not. How can you question his motives? You don’t know the man behind the sign.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:52 p.m.

  • I think the point is that abortion is such a travesty that it trumps all else. The ultimate sin you can commit against your fellow man is his murder. The other sins you commit against him really don't matter after you've killed him.

    December 7, 2009 at 1:25 p.m.