Concerned Roman Catholics Call on Knights of Columbus to Expel Pro-Abortion Politicians

These people should be taking the Bishops to task for supporting this perversion.

How do you know that they aren't?

The Knights of Columbus do not represent the Corporation.

The Knights of Columbus control who is and isn't a member of their organization.

**why do Catholics vote for the most ungodly of men?**

My dad, aged 95, is a staunch FDR democrat. He just doesn’t understand how much the dimocrats have changed. Don’t think he will vote for Obama, however.

**Expel Pro-Abortion Politicians **

Could that mean Obama, Hitlery, Pelosi and all the dimocrats?? LOL!

Mobilize hundreds of new pro-life volunteers... Help post-abortive women find healing...

http://www.40daysforlife.com/about.cfm

>> “They don’t. They [Catholics who vote for the unGoldy] live in areas dominated by liberal Protestants and non-religious types” <<

Wow. How dare you rewrite my sentences like that! That is in no way at all what I meant to say. And if I had meant that, I’d’ve written it.

>> Actually, the stats overall say otherwise. The places where Rome reigns are overall manifestly more liberal than where their evangelical counterparts do <<

WHERE ROME REIGNS? Are you serious? Besides, if you actually READ what I wrote, instead of presuming what you THINK I wrote, you’ll note that I stated that Catholics live in areas dominated by liberal Protestants and non-religious types. By liberal Protestants, I’m not calling Protestants liberals. I’m referring to those Protestants who are liberals, such as the Episcopal Church, The Presbyteraian Church USA, The United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church, the American Baptist Church, and The National Baptist Church.

While Catholics live in areas with high numbers of such liberals, they do not vote like such people.

“The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people, the Anglican church will do.”

-Oscar Wilde

“How dare you rewrite my sentences like that! That is in no way at all what I meant to say.”

Sorry. Your post was in response to the statement (post #2), “why do Catholics vote for the most ungodly of men”, and my bracketed interpolation was to provide that context, but should have said, Catholics who are said to vote for unGoldly men)

“While Catholics live in areas with high numbers of such liberals, they do not vote like such people”

But your statement is consistently and abundantly refuted by statistics, unless you want to disallow as members the majority of Catholics who live in predominately Catholic areas and overall elect liberals, such as men like Catholics Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, etc. etc.

The K of C has a way to go, I (as well as a few others) boycotted an award called the “Lantern Award” here in Mass last year because it was given to Lori of New Haven.

How I/we saw it, as he was a member of the Connecticut Council of Bishops and they issued a joint statement allowing the Abortofacient “Morning After Pill” to be distributed by Catholic Hospitals in that state he was unworthy of the Award by virtue of his complicity in the Culture of Death.

A couple guys listened.

>>Sorry. Your post was in response to the statement (post #2), “why do Catholics vote for the most ungodly of men”, and my bracketed interpolation was to provide that context, but should have said, Catholics who are said to vote for unGoldly men) <<

Including the question, you’d have:

Q: Why do Catholics vote for the most ungodly of men?
A: They don’t. They...

“They” could never refer to “Catholics WHO vote for the most ungodly of men.”

>> But your statement is consistently and abundantly refuted by statistics <<

No. Just for argument, let’s say Catholics are the majority in Massachusetts (they’re not, but just for argument, let’s say they are). If the majority of Massachusetts voters vote for liberals, it does not follow that the majority of Catholics vote for liberals.

Massachusetts Catholics tend to vote Republican in state-wide and national elections. They often vote Democratic in local elections, but these are often more conservative than their Republican opposition. And this is referring to Catholics overall. Churchgoing Catholics are every bit as conservative as evangelical protestants.

Glad to know your dad is still in good enough shape to VOTE. Blessings. FDR and JFK would NOT be in today’s Dem party.

“let’s say Catholics are the majority in Massachusetts (they’re not,”

Where do you get your statistics? Do you suppose Protestants are the majority religion? In any case it certainly is not evangeical Christians.

The religious affiliations of the people of Massachusetts, according to a 2001 survey, are shown in the table below:

* Christian – 69%
o Catholic – 44%
o Protestant – 22%
+ Baptist – 4%
+ Congregational/United Church of Christ – 3%
+ Episcopal – 3%
+ Methodist – 2%
+ Pentecostal – 2%
+ Other Protestant or general Protestant – 8%
o Other or General Christian – 3%
* Jewish – 2%
* Other Religions – 6%
* Non-Religious – 16%
* Refused to answer – 7%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts#Religion

Ten States With the Highest Percentage Catholics,
2000 & 1990
1. Rhode Island 51.7 % 63.1 %
2. Massachusetts 48.7 % 49.2 %
3. New Jersey 40.4 % 41.3 %
4. Connecticut 40.3 % 41.8 %
5. New York 39.8 % 40.5 %
6. New Mexico 36.9 % 30.8 %
7. New Hampshire 34.9 % 26.8 %
8. Wisconsin 31.6 % 31.8 %
9. Illinois 31.2 % 31.6 %
10. Pennsylvania 31.0 % 30.9 %
http://www.glenmary.org/grc/RCMS_2000/Catholic%20rankings_tables.pdf

“it does not follow that the majority of Catholics vote for liberals.”

As the most Catholic states tend to be among the most liberal, thus the casual connection, and what is lacking is consistent evidence that Catholics overall seek to elect conservatives. And the polls show Catholics in general typically have liberal views and support such causes (gay unions, etc.) more than they oppose them.

“They often vote Democratic in local elections, but these are often more conservative than their Republican “opposition.

Even if the latter is true, they are both usually left wing liberals, because that is what the majority will elect, while conservatives (such as at least oppose the homosexual agenda, including marriage) are a rare and endangered species here.

“And this is referring to Catholics overall. Churchgoing Catholics are every bit as conservative as evangelical protestants.”

Well, the latter seem to have higher percentage who go weekly (60% vs. 45% - Gallup, though both figures may be inflated), and while i have no figures of moral and doctrinal views that are restricted to weekly evang. attendants, all surveys i have seen show them overall much more conservative than Catholics in general, while 31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly) say abortion should be legal either in “many” or in “all” cases. (2004 The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics)

“Predictably, Catholics who frequent the sacraments regularly are more likely to accept the teachings of the Church. But even among those who say they attend Mass at least once a week, only a minority support Catholic doctrine. In that category, even when those who “mildly” agree are included in the calculations, only 46 percent accept Church teaching on abortion; 43 percent accept the all-male priesthood; and a mere 30 percent see contraception as morally wrong.”
http://www.adoremus.org/397-Roper.html

1.21 pm! Past my bedtime

From another article (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/jul/07070605.html):

“Although the open rejection of Church teaching by its members causes embarrassment to the order, Korten says the Knights can really only employ “fraternal correction” and prayer for these Knights. Membership in the Knights is conditioned on being at least 18 and a “practical Catholic”, which Korten says means a “practicing Catholic who is recognized as such by the local Church where he goes or the ordinary of the diocese.”

“Unless and until the diocese or local parish or someone in the hierarchy decides they are no longer Catholic, that is not our determination to make,” said Korten. “We as laymen do not presume to decide whether other laymen are Catholics or not.”

“We pray for them and we pray that their minds become one with the Church on this and other issues, because these are so fundamental to the right ordering of society and the common good. These are such fundamental matters to the Catholic faith, it is critical for every Catholic to take them seriously.”

However, Korten reaffirmed that “unless or until [the Church] define this individual otherwise, our rules give us no foundation to expel anyone.”

When pressed by LifeSiteNews.com what it would take to determine an individual otherwise, Korten responded, “I think it would take excommunication frankly.””

Not what I’d like (expelling a person for a private sin is one thing...inappropriate in a “fraternal” setting, a public scandal is another issue altogether IMHO), but the above is the position they take.

>> As the most Catholic states tend to be among the most liberal, thus the casual connection, <<

Do you mean causal, or casual? Because “casual” doesn’t make any sense, and I can’t believe that any reasonable, educated person would ever state explicitly that a tendency towards a correlation demonstrates a causal connection.

Now, do you want to know why heavily Democratic states tend to have more Catholics? Notice that they are all northeastern, Industrial states. Those are the states where Catholics were admitted to and permitted to seek work. Those same states also attracted blacks during the era of racial discrimination, and because they were industrial, evolved into large urban centers. And those last two reasons are why those states are so liberal now.

>> In any case it certainly is not evangelical Christians. <<

Do you have any reading comprehension at all? We both agree that white, evangelical Christians are very conservative in their voting patterns. Does that mean that there’s superior theology among evangelical churches? Hardly. Blacks are about 90% evangelical or born-again Protestant, and 95% Democratic. Yet amazingly, a huge portion of socially conservative blacks are Catholic: Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Michael Steele.

So why are WHITE evangelical churches so conservative?

Because “evangelical” has come to mean “politically conservative” among white Protestants. So the incredibly liberal PCUSA members don’t poll as evangelicals, but the PCA members do. National Baptists don’t poll as evangelical, but the Southern Baptists do. Episcopalians don’t; many Anglicans do. United Methodists don’t; Southern Methodists do. Inactive Christians don’t; many active Christians do.

As for your polls:

If Roper polls were real, Kerry would be president, (No, Gore would be in his 2nd term!) and there’s be 85 Democrats in the Senate.

The truth is that 100% of Catholics believe abortion is morally wrong, because if they don’t, they’re not really Catholic. Barring a conversion, Ted Kennedy is going straight to Hell, and all real Catholics can tell you that. See, that’s the real difference between Catholics and Protestants. You can only tell what a Protestant church considers doctrine by polling their congregants. The bible doesn’t mention abortion. Most in the PCUSA thinks abortion is wonderful, most in the PCA thinks it evil. Most in the United Methodists think it’s wonderful, most in the Southern Methodists think it’s evil. Who to believe?

One can deduce from the values expressed in the bible that abortion is evil, thus the Catholic Church may proclaim that abortion is evil. Even if lots of Irish and Italians like the trappings of religiosity, but reject Christ, the world still knows the proclamations of the Body of Christ through the Catholic Church that abortion is wrong. Sure, Protestants say that the Holy Spirit guides the Christian to such correct interpretation to know that abortion is wrong, even though it’s not explicitly mentioned in the bible. But who can call the sinner to repentance that they may receive the Holy Spirit?

You want to compare Protestants and Catholic countries? Go to Europe. Maybe you know abortion is illegal in Ireland and Poland. Did you know it’s also illegal in Italy? Courts have mandated exceptions to the ban, but it’s still quite rare, compared to America. Or Protestant countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden. (France has formally been anti-Catholic for two centuries, yet the abortion rate there is still half that of the US.)

Abortion rates per 100 million people

CATHOLIC SUPERMAJORITY
Italy: 200,000
Austria: 28,000
Poland: 1,000
Spain: 200,000
Ireland: 116,000 (largely obtained in Protestant UK)
Portugal: 10,000

CATHOLIC PLURALITY
Germany: 142,000
Belgium: 157,000
Switzerland 140,000
Netherlands 200,000

PROTESTANT MAJORITY
United Kingdom 350,000
United States 430,000
Denmark 280,000
Sweden 400,000
Norway 300,000

CASE STUDY: The Baltic Republics
These three nations are very similar in size, wealth, location, and were liberated from the Soviet Union simultaneously. All have sizeable, but similar Russian minorities:
Lithuania (Catholic): 283,000
Latvia (Protestant): 520,000
Estonia (Protestant): 700,000

SPECIAL CASE:
The religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries devestated Christianity in France. For the last 200 years, the government of France has been officially anti-Christian. While Protestants are very rare, Catholics are also now a minority. Practicing Catholics are a tiny minority
France: 300,000
Compare to US: 430,000

“Do you mean causal, or casual? Because “casual” doesn’t make any sense”

I meant “casual,” as opposed to “formal,” such as is sometimes used to describe a suggested but unverified connection between symptoms and disease, etc. Thus no explicit correlation is stated.

“And those last two reasons are why those states are so liberal now.”

Certainly the heavily Catholic populations of NE states are much due to historical factors (which factors also placed Protestants and blacks more in the South), and other environmental factors also come into play, but that, and the urban centers they contain does not negate the fact that such Catholics tend to vote in decidedly liberal candidates on the local level, and overall favor such things as acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage, and abortion (in most cases), etc.

“Do you have any reading comprehension at all?”

Yes, i comprehended your statement that Catholics were not the majority in MA, to mean they were not the religious majority, but which they are. But the absence of Evangelicals is more distinctive in the NE (10%) than is the absence of Catholics in the Midwest, the South (24%) or the West (23%).

“Does that mean that there’s superior theology among evangelical churches? Hardly. Blacks are about 90% evangelical or born-again Protestant, and 95% Democratic.”

While not all blacks (or even perhaps even most) are part of evangelical churches, the fact is they do overall vote liberal. Before he was elected, principal black evangelical pastors in Boston even laid hands on (deliver us from) Deval Patrick, in support of him, the super liberal Governor of MA, indicating that race and liberal promises largely trumped conservative moral positions. And whom this State overwhelmingly voted for.

While “historically black churches” (60% of which are in the South) and more conservative on societal acceptance of homosexuality (46% oppose, vs. 30% of Catholics), and much higher in such things as church attendance, frequency of prayer, the Divine inspiration of Scripture, etc., they are very close to Catholics in views on abortion, and to tend to vote liberal, with an even greater percentage (66% versus 37%) being Democrats.

But as for your position on a connection between theology and liberal voting, the failure of those who belong to black evangelical churches (if indeed most historically black churches are) to manifest conservative theology in the voting booth does not impugn the theology, it would simply mean that they really do not effectually believe it, and are disobeying Rm. 12:1,+2, in a lack of surrender and thus are conformed to this world. The devil has much worked though liberals to promote the “victim mentality” that was seen in embryo in Gn. 3, in which the subtle serpent attributed malice to the Almighty in seeking to convince Eve God was holding back from her that which she ought to have, thus making her a victim of God’s malevolence, and then to appeal to this sense of being wronged to entice here to take by rebellion that which is hers. The liberal today will not accept the default sinful nature of man, and thus rebels by nature against the idea that children must sometimes by spa”Do you mean causal, or casual? Because “casual” doesn’t make any sense”

I meant “casual,” as opposed to “formal,” such as is sometimes used to describe a suggested but unverified connection between symptoms and disease, etc. Thus no explicit correlation is stated.

“And those last two reasons are why those states are so liberal now.”

Certainly the heavily Catholic populations of NE states are much due to historical factors (which factors also placed Protestants and blacks more in the South), and other environmental factors also come into play, but that, and the urban centers they contain does not negate the fact that such Catholics tend to vote in decidedly liberal candidates on the local level, and overall favor such things as acceptance of homosexuality and gay marriage, and abortion (in most cases), etc.

“Do you have any reading comprehension at all?”

Yes, i comprehended your statement that Catholics were not the majority in MA, to mean they were not the religious majority, but which they are. But the absence of Evangelicals is more distinctive in the NE (10%) than is the absence of Catholics in the Midwest, the South (24%) or the West (23%).

“Does that mean that there’s superior theology among evangelical churches? Hardly. Blacks are about 90% evangelical or born-again Protestant, and 95% Democratic.”

I am not sure if most blacks belong to evangelical churches, the fact is most blacks in churches do overall vote liberal (77 percent of Black Protestants said they vote Democratic, whether they attended weekly services or not).

While “historically black churches” (60% of which are in the South) are more conservative on societal acceptance of homosexuality (46% oppose, vs. 30% of Catholics), and higher in such things as church attendance, frequency of prayer, the belief in the Divine inspiration of Scripture, etc., they are very close to Catholics in views on abortion, and to tend to vote liberal, indicating that race and liberal promises and emphasis upon social care largely trump conservative moral positions. Almost twice as many blacks than Catholics are Democrats 66% versus approx. 37% (27& of Catholics are Republican).

But as for your position on a connection between theology and voting, the failure of souls who belong to black evangelical churches to manifest conservative theology in the voting booth does not impugn the theology, it would simply mean that they really do not effectually believe it (which would apply to Catholics as well), and are disobeying Rm. 12:1,+2, in a lack of surrender and thus are conformed to this world.

The devil has much worked though liberals to promote the “victim mentality” that was seen in embryo in Gn. 3, in which the subtle serpent attributed malice to the Almighty in seeking to convince Eve God was holding back from her that which she ought to have, thus making her a victim of God’s malevolence. He thus entice here to take by rebellion that which she supposed she ought to have.

The real liberal today essentially will not accept this rebellion was wrong, nor thus disallows the resultant default sinful nature of man, the rebels by nature against idea that children must sometimes be spanked, that wars sometimes are just and necessary, and the necessity of laws such as regulate sexual behavior, and they see most felons as victims of an evil moral authority. They rebel against God’s moral absolutes (which work for our benefit), and the consequences of disobeying them, and promise a type of paradise based on rebellion against God, and promote their agenda by inculcating a victim mentality among the masses (as did Communism), and the black culture has largely bought it and suffered for it.

“So why are WHITE evangelical churches so conservative?

Because “evangelical” has come to mean “politically conservative” among white Protestants. So the incredibly liberal PCUSA members don’t poll as evangelicals,..”

This would seem to contradict your statement that blacks are 90% evangelical (more on that later), but the term “evangelical” was and is principally derived from conservative theological distinctives, of which political ideology is a result. In addition to holding the Bible to be the ultimate authority, and tightly holding to historical Christian creeds (beliefs which “mainline Protestant” churches have effectively liberalized), evangelicals are manifest by their emphasis upon the necessity of the new birth, by repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His sinless shed blood, not on the basis of any merit of their works or church, and which things mainline Protestant churches do not typically emphasize.

In fact modern evangelicalism was a result of a reaction against the liberalism that mainline churches manifest. While the contemporary usage of the term “evangelical” sometimes denotes a theological middle ground between the liberalism of Mainline (Protestant) denominations and the stricter cultural separatism of Fundamentalist Christianity, the latter are easily classified as evangelical while the mainliners are not.

Like their evangelical activism, which is abundantly manifest in radio and print, the political activism of evangelicals is an outgrowth of their esteem and typical literal interpretation of Scripture. One can be a conservative and not be an evangelical, but it is rare for churches such as Southern or Fundamental Baptists, Assemblies of God, or Calvary chapel types to be liberal in moral views, which declension is usually concomitant with that of theological liberalism, such as the Episcopal Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), and the United Methodist Church manifest.

What then are we to make of black Protestants? A key question is how evangelical are these churches - in doctrine and in emphasis. The majority in the Pew survey were Baptists, mostly in the National Baptist Convention, which can be either rather liberal (as the Progressive National Baptist are) or more fundamental. Much less prevalent are Pentecostal Holiness. But in all churches, what a church believes is not evident but what it says but by what it effectually conveys, and this is usually manifest in it’s it’s adherents beliefs and lives.

“As for your polls: If Roper polls were real, Kerry would be president,” it was close, but Kerry was a bit too much for the some liberals. Paradoxically, if MA had not reversed 6k years of marital normalcy, and joined together what God has (sexually) placed asunder, i think Bush would have lost.

“The truth is that 100% of Catholics believe abortion is morally wrong, because if they don’t, they’re not really Catholic. Barring a conversion, Ted Kennedy is going straight to Hell,”

The problem is that Rome evidently disagrees. While it may be said that those who disagree with officially defined Catholic teaching automatically excommunicate themselves, what is conveyed is that they are accepted as Catholics, as rarely is any Biblical discipline realized by such. Are fornicators and the like actively disfellowshiped and shunned 1 Cor. 5), as well lay persons who obey not Bible teaching (Rm. 16:17; 2 Thes. 3:6.14). I agree Ted Kennedy is lost, unless he can repent by God’s grace, but he can easily get communion and fellowship with his Catholic brethren, and i expect he will get a grand and laudatory funeral when he dies, and in which good hope of his eventual acceptance into glory will be conveyed, due to his infant baptism and the power of Rome. And by such, multiplied daily is similar persons, does Rome largely convey what she believes. As James says, “I will show thee my faith by my works” (Ja. 2:18), and Rome rarely actually disciplines her members who disagree with her Sacred Magisterium.

“and all real Catholics can tell you that” [Teddy K is Hell bound].

What you have done is disallowed the vast multitude of souls, such as support homosexual and abortion rights, from being members. But where do you begin or stop? The official canons on excommunication are open to some interpretation. Do you those disallow who question teaching by the Ordinary Magisterium Magisterium? As for the Sacred Magisterium, will you disallow the 50% of Catholic priests who do not agree with Human Vitae? If that is indeed an infallibly defined teaching. Is there a infallibly defined list of infallibly defined teachings so that we may be sure?

“See, that’s the real difference between Catholics and Protestants. You can only tell what a Protestant church considers doctrine by polling their congregants.”

Beside congregants usually manifesting what their church really effectually conveys, which for Rome is far more liberal views than evangelicals, the latter actually define what they believe far more abundantly than Rome. All major evangelical denominations have statements of faith, part of which or along with such affirm the Nicene Creed, and which things may be said to correspond to doctrines Rome requires full assent of faith for, and in addition they regularly teach on far more of the Bible than Rome has officially defined, which is very little. The fact that evangelicals do teach overall uniformly and authoritatively on salvific principal doctrines is also manifest in their effective combat with heretical groups, such as cults which deny them. Meanwhile, a limited amount of disagreement is allowed in peripheral areas, while Rome allows for some dissent in teachings of the Ordinary and General Magisteriums.

“You want to compare Protestants and Catholic countries?”

No. Institutionalized religion is much the same. But even in Catholic countries liberal moral and theological views are often the much the norm.

Sorry for the redundancy and typos! The PC got shut off and i thought i lost what i had typed, and reposted it and it went on again from “children must sometimes by spa,” but evidently Firefox saved what i had typed. I was very tired and did not read it though from the beginning.

I was a delegate at the Supreme Convention of the Knights last week in Quebec City. Supreme Knight Carl Anderson gave a very passionate speech on making the right choices in this election year in the US. He focused on making sure we knew the candidates positions on important issues and voted for pro-life and pro-family candidates. I am surprised there are inconsistencies in the candidates supported by Brother Knights as we should all be pro-life.

I am pro-life and have voted for candidates who support life and traditional marriage. I cannot understand how anybody could vote for pro-”choice” candidates and I pray that McCain will make the right VP choice of a person who is strongly an advocate for life.