Skip to comments.William A. Donohue: Catholic Left Hangs Itself (5/22/08)
Posted on 08/21/2008 1:17:19 PM PDT by kellynla
The Catholic Left is hanging itself right before our eyes. Having never come to grips with the Church's teachings on sexuality, they are now tightening the noose on themselves in public. It is not a pretty sight. This month alone they have embroiled themselves in a debate with three separate archbishops, with no end in sight.
Archbishop Joseph Naumann of Kansas City recently rebuked Catholic Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius for vetoing a bill imposing new restrictions on abortion providers. Indeed, he publicly urged her not to go to Communion. The archbishop was not shooting from the hip: He has met with Sebelius on several occasions regarding her pro-abortion position.
Catholic Left apologists like Catholic Democrats have blasted Archbishop Naumann for doing his job. But in doing so, they have exposed themselves as lining up behind a public official whose record on abortion makes a mockery of their game plan to reduce abortions.
When pressed on the subject, the Catholic Left likes to say that the best way to reduce abortions is through education and adoption. But the bill that Sebelius vetoed mandated that doctors using ultrasounds or monitoring the heartbeat of unborn babies had to make the information available to women at least 30 minutes prior to the abortion. That was not the kind of education that Sebelius had in mind. Looks like some on the "pro-choice" side really would prefer to narrow choices for women.
Another "choice" that Sebelius made for pregnant women was her decision to veto a grant-matching program for crisis pregnancy centers in 2003. Yet all we hear from the Catholic Left is their support for abortion alternatives.
(Excerpt) Read more at insidecatholic.com ...
Catholic left? Shouldn’t that be an oxymoron like Christian Communists?
Hey Cathoic and pro life ping I think we are seeing demise of Cathoic left as we know it
Actually, the first Christians were also the first Communists:
“32All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had. 33With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. 34There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales 35and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.”
Just sayin’. ;)
I really don’t get why these people don’t seem to understand that nobody is forcing them to be Catholic. Those days are long past.
Communism deliberately requires that one not believe in God, so while the early Christians were communal, do not mistake this for Communism.
I prefer the term "Commie Catholics".
I am not Catholic. But I don’t see why the Church suffers disobedient pro-abortion Catholics. Here is an excerpt from the Examination of Conscience in Preparation for the Sacrament of Penance.
The Fifth Commandment:
“Thou shalt not kill.”
Have you in any way caused the death of another by neglect or by positive act? Have you unjustly wounded another by word or deed? Have you struck another in anger? Have you born a grudge, hatred or malice toward another? Have you been purposefully unkind? Have you, by word or deed, caused anyone sorrow in order to protect your own interests? Have you refused to forgive? Have you refused to apologize to those whom you have unjustly wounded by word or deed, or make other acts of reparation to them? Have you ridiculed others who did not want to commit a sin or were sorry for their sins? Have you respected the health of others by avoiding contact with people when you are sick? Have you coerced anyone, assisted at or sought to procure a medical or self-imposed abortion of an unborn child?
And they were 'communists' (holding all their goods in community) strictly by their own choice, and their God was the Only, True God - and not the god of the State, or man-centered government...
Depends on what you mean by Communist. Typically, when one uses that term, it refers to a system of government where people are forced to 'share'. If that is what is meant by the term, then it certainly doesn't fit those first century Christians.
It is a common confusion with a vow of poverty.
The “christian left” is communists who are atheists willing to lie about their religious position.
This is like the liberation theology of south america which was just bloody marxists lying in order to coopt christianity.
The first Christians were NOT communists.
No, what I mean by “communist” is one who lives in, or supports living in a communal culture. And if perfectly applied, it would be totally voluntary, as it was with the early Christians.
But I don’t think Communism would work unless the “leader” were God himself. In fact, in a way, heaven is closer to communism than capitalism, at least as described in the bible.
One thing it aint is a democracy. I do not expect to be voting for “God” for a term.
>>It is a common confusion with a vow of poverty.<<
What I was reading in Acts 4 had nothing whatsoever to do with a vow of poverty.
I see heaven as very, VERY communal.
>>The first Christians were NOT communists.<<
Acts 4: 32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.
According to Dictionary.com’s first definition (before the word “or”) they kinda were, actually:
1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
There have been "many" reasonably successful religious "commune-ist" groups. Successful at least for a while. The early Puritans tried it, the Shakers tried it, the Amana communities tried it, and, as mentioned above, the "first Christians" tried it. Eventually, though, they all failed and dissolved. The only difference between religious "commune-ists" and political Communists, is that the death toll is a LOT less with the religious groups (not zero, though---I think that Jim Jones thing down in Central America was one of the religious "commune-ists").
>>Depends on what you mean by Communist. Typically, when one uses that term, it refers to a system of government where people are forced to ‘share’. If that is what is meant by the term, then it certainly doesn’t fit those first century Christians.<<
I agree with that. When I use the word I usually think of the root word, as a social order, as opposed to a form of government. All the “Communist” governments I know of were actually socialist.
I have no objection if a group of like-minded people wish to form a voluntary association to care for the needy, pool their wealth, smoke bongs or whatever. Some take it a step further to communal living and having all things in common.
This has been tried numerous times in history including the early church, as you point out, and it has usually failed. Examples abound even in American history-- the Jamestown Colony, the Mayflower settlers, the Icarians, the Mormon United Order, the Oneida Colonies, even the modern Amish Communities to some extent, etc.
Communism is not based on voluntary association where people are free to join or leave the order. It is based on force and compulsion. It is the antithesis of Christ and Christianity. Even an apostate Baptist like Mike Huckabee understands this, so he has to cloak his message in populism and high sounding talk about responsibility to the planet and to our fellow men.
“...Actually, the first Christians were also the first Communists...”
Yo, Robbie Roy...
NO ONE was holding a spear/arrow/gladius to their heads and forcing them to share hard-earned wages with anyone...
They did it because they wanted to, out of decency, charity (and probably economic necessity), from their hearts. But you know this!!!
By the way - “Rob Roy” was a GREAT movie!!!!!
Liam Neeson was excellent, and was it Tim Roth as the villain???? Great swordplay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.