Where is your sarcasm tag? :-)
Democrat FIRST......CAtholic SECOND!!!
As I saw on a car recently, you cannot be Catholic and Pro-Abortion at the same time.......I suppose that goes for gay-marriage, too......
This is a disgrace.
The K of C is shocked that there are many “Kennedy Catholics” in Massachusettes?
“Cafeteria Catholics” comes to mind. They pick and choose which things they want to embrace
The Knights should tear off their epaulets and break their swords.
But you can decide whether or not to kick someone out of the Knights. What's stopping you?
KofC ping!
I don’t care if they were Knights of Columbus or Knights of the Round Table,the fact is they effectively took away our right to decide with a vote the fundamental definition of marriage and that totally pissed me off !!!
There is never any question that evil is in the world.
The only question is how do good men respond do it.
Ok Knights, the ball is in your court. What are you going to do?
The KoC has a real opportunity here.
They can stand up and censure/eject those “members” who obviously don’t share their values, or they can suck it up and continue to reap PR advantage by having “nominal” members who are legislators.
Belonging to the Catholic Church is a choice that involves personal commitments and beliefs. The doctrines of the Church are not optional.
Catholic politicians need to be able to reconcile their religion with their political positions. To do otherwise is blasphemy. If they are unable to reconcile their beliefs, the honest and decent thing to do would be to either leave politics or leave the Church.
Hey, I’m sure this cuts both ways and it all balances out. For every Knight of Columbus who votes for abortion and/or same-sex “marriage”, there’s probably a legislator who belongs to the ACLU, NARAL, or GLAAD and votes conservative on those issues.
Yes, I’m being sarcastic. The thing is, no self-respecting conservative would stoop so low as to even pretend to agree with an abomination like NARAL to win an election. But the Knights are a wholesome, family organization, so plenty of politicians pay lip service, or even join, the group. It looks good on their resume when courting the votes of normal people.
Conservatives would feel they were crawling into the sleaziest gutter in town to join GLAAD, even as a pretence. We couldn’t live with ourself being so hypocritical. But to a “liberal” such double dealing is just a typical day’s work. It’s why politicians often turn out to be more “liberal” than expected, but never the opposite.
Here’s something from the latest Crisis Magazine about Rick Santorum discussing life (when it starts) with Barbara Boxer, an (automatically) excommunicated Catholic...
“Santorum is the one guy who is willing to pull the trigger. Other people talk about it, but he does it.” The senator projected the power of this new pro-life offensive in a 1999 Senate debate on partial-birth abortion. There he dueled with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California), creating a dramatic moment of intense political theater:
Santorum: What we are talking about here with partial birth, as the senator from California knows, is a baby is in the process of being born—
Boxer: “The process of being born.” This is why this conversation makes no sense, because to me it is obvious when a baby is born. To you it isn’t obvious.
Santorum: Maybe you can make it obvious to me. So what you are suggesting is if the baby’s foot is still inside of the mother, that baby can then still be killed.
Boxer: No, I am not suggesting that in any way!
Santorum: I am asking.
Boxer: I am absolutely not suggesting that. You asked me a question, in essence, when the baby is born.
Santorum: I am asking you again. Can you answer that?
Boxer: I will answer the question when the baby is born. The baby is born when the baby is outside the mother’s body. The baby is born.
Santorum: . . . But, again, what you are suggesting is if the baby’s toe is inside the mother, you can, in fact, kill that baby.
Boxer: Absolutely not.
Santorum: OK. So if the baby’s toe is in, you can’t kill the baby. How about if the baby’s foot is in?
Boxer: You are the one who is making these statements.
Santorum: We are trying to draw a line here.
Boxer: I am not answering these questions! I am not answering these questions.
The higher the Catholic population of a state, the higher the number of offices filled with Democrats.
Yes, it would be unreasonable to expect the Knights to expel pro abortion/homosexual advocates. It would offend too many Bishops, apparently.
“As for me, I think it’s about time the Knights change their by-laws for those knights who choose to enter public life!”
Sorry to disagree. Here’s the essential quote:
“’We as laymen do not presume to decide whether other laymen are Catholics or not,’ he said.”
As a past and current Grand Knight of my Council, I don’t have any interest in being the arbiter of the Catholicity of individual Catholic men in my Council.
It's an untenable situation for a layperson with absolutely no special competence in dealing with this issue.
sitetest