Skip to comments.DC Cardinal McCarrick: Church Will Push for Immigration, Gun Safety
Posted on 03/28/2013 8:30:55 AM PDT by haffast
A U.S. cardinal said he expects Catholic Church leaders to intensify efforts on behalf of a new immigration law and gun control measures as congressional legislation on the issues move forward.
Many undocumented immigrants are family people who came to make a contribution to American society, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, retired Catholic prelate of the nations capital, said in an interview on Bloomberg Televisions Political Capital with Al Hunt, which airs this weekend.
The nations Catholic bishops will back up their endorsement of a path to legal status for such immigrants with more action once legislation is introduced, he added.
Im hoping that when we get a bill, youll see how active theyll be, McCarrick said.
While the Catholic Church hierarchy has clashed with President Barack Obama over abortion rights and his health-care laws mandate for contraception coverage, the nations bishops are allied with him on his stance for an immigration overhaul and gun control legislation.
We obviously are against these heavy-duty automatic weapons; their place is in war, McCarrick said. At the legislative battles flash point, I think we will find that the church is speaking out.
McCarrick, 82, didnt participate in the election of the new pope because of a church rule limiting voting to cardinals under 80 years of age. He was part of a related conclave of cardinals summoned to Rome for meetings on church issues.
As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a civil-rights case for same-sex marriage, McCarrick said he has no problem with civil unions for gay couples that confer the same rights as marriage under a different name.
I certainly would prefer that to what I could call a marriage, in quotes, McCarrick said.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns
Catholic News Agency ^ | Feb 20, 2013 / 02:00 am | CNS
Getting involved in politics, wouldn’t that negate their tax exempt status?
You can bet big money that if the Catholic Church came out FOR gun rights and border security, Holder would have the IRS contact them immediately.
I’m Catholic and I totally disagree with this. They aren’t undocumented immigrants, they’re criminals. The Cardinal is also fine with “civil unions”. Just in time to air on Easter weekend...lovely.
Yet another leftist moron the Church refuses to kick out. Self inflicted destruction.
HEY CARDINAL.....STICK TO RELIGIOUS ISSUES!!!!
This is the first time I have to call a Catholic Cardinal dumb. The key word is WAR! War weapons have no place in any law enforcement agency within our borders so they are now at war? With who. Me?
I can except those agencies that are on our border because the war is with infiltrating America and many of these illegals could have war like weapons.
I give the rest to the Salvation Army and the Food Bank instead.
Why would they kick this Cardinal out? These are the Catholic Church's positions. Aside from a few things like abortion and gay marriage, the Catholic church is very liberal on everything from gun control, immigration, the death penalty, social welfare spending, etc.
I am Catholic too and this guy is a total lefty. He’s ok with civil unions for homos. WTF? I will greatly oppose all these measures.
Reading this article makes my brain hurt.
Fine. If the Church wants to weight in and advocate on political issues, they can start paying taxes.
They enjoy a tax free status as a non-political, religious institution. If they choose to be political, they can pay taxes like the rest of us.
Ping for later.
Actually, many people found it odd that McCarrick only served as Archbishop for five years. Benedict had been pope for less than a year and replaced McCarrick as soon as he turned 75.
“The Cardinal is also fine with civil unions. Just in time to air on Easter weekend...lovely.”
He never spouted this crap when he was our bishop in NJ. While not very vocal, I watched him loyally defend the celibate male priesthood, along the lines of: “The Holy Father has soken on this; there is nothing to discuss”. He didn’t even hold out hope that the Church would “evolve” in it’s position; it was a settled matter as far as he was concerned, and he wouldn’t discuss it further. I’m no fan of his, but he did institute a lot of safeguards against molester priests; for a large diocese he didn’t have half the legal issues Boston or LA did.
We’re freakin’ surrounded.
If the Catholic Church wants to help save the children, they should excommunicate abortion politicians and support the irradiation of dogs.
Another child was m ailed to deth by pits yesterday. Close to 50 children a year killed by them, and hundreds of thousands bitten, many of which are scarred and maimed for life. About 60,000,000 babies have been murdered in America since 1973 under color of law.
Gun violence? BS! It’s taking away our ability to defend ourselves against tyranny!
“Actually, many people found it odd that McCarrick only served as Archbishop for five years. Benedict had been pope for less than a year and replaced McCarrick as soon as he turned 75.”
You may be thinking of his role as Cardinal of Washington DC; he was the Archbishop of Newark in NJ (a larger, though less visible diocese) for much longer.
Maybe he’s just too old. People get a little “off” sometimes in old age. Cardinals are not exempt.
“Excerpts from the legal Settlement Documents include firsthand accounts that are also in the Newark Archdiocese records of an incident on a trip with McCarrick, then Archbishop of Newark, New Jersey, with a seminarian and two young priests when they shared a room with two double beds, it reads:
· McCarrick, wearing just underwear, got into bed with one of the priests: Bishop McCarrick was sitting on the crotch of Fr. RC As I was watching TV with Fr BL [full names appear in the documents], bishop McCarrick was smiling and laughing and moving his hands all over Fr. RCs body. Bishop McCarrick was touching Fr. Cs body, rubbing his hands from head to toe and having a good time, occasionally placing his hands underneath Fr. Cs underwear. [I was] feeling very uncomfortable while trying to focus on television, and Fr. B.L., started smiling. As I looked at the bed next to me, Bishop McCarrick was excitedly caressing the full body of Fr. R.C. At that moment, I made eye contact [with] Bishop McCarrick. He smiled at me saying, ‘Dont worry, youre next.’ At that moment, I felt the hand of Fr. B.L. rubbing my back and shoulders. I felt sick to my stomach and went under the covers and pretended to sleep.
“McCarrick continued to pursue the young man, sent him notes and telephoned him. Notes reveal that it was the custom the Archbishop McCarrick to call his protégés nephew and encouraged his entourage to call each other cousin and for them to call him ‘uncle Ted.’
“On another occasion McCarrick summoned the young man to drive him from the Newark Cathedral to New York City. He took him to dinner; and after, rather than returning to Newark as anticipated McCarrick went to a one-room apartment that housed one bed and a recliner chair. McCarrick said that he would take the chair, but after showering he turned off the lights and clad in his underwear he climbed into bed with his guest. Here is the account from the documents:
He put his arms around me and wrapped his legs around mine. Then He started to tell me what a nice young man I was and what a good priest I would make someday. He also told me about the hard work and stress he was facing in his new role as Archbishop of Newark. He told me how everyone knows him and how powerful he was. The Archbishop kept saying, Pray for your poor uncle. All of a sudden, I felt paralyzed. I didnt have my own car and there was nowhere to go. The Archbishop started to kiss me and move his hands and legs around me. I remained frozen, curled up like a ball. I felt his penis inside his underwear leaning against my buttocks as he was rubbing my legs up and down. His hands were moving up and down my chest and back, while tightening his legs around mine. I tried to scream but could not
I was paralyzed with fear. As he continued touching me, I felt more afraid. He even tried several times to force his hands under my shorts. He tried to roll me over so that he could get on top of me, but I resisted, I felt sick and disgusted and finally was able to jump out of bed. I went into the bathroom where I vomited several times and started to cry. After twenty minutes in the bathroom, the Archbishop told me to come back to bed. Instead I went to the recliner and pretended to fall asleep.
Things are not going well, but we need to remain resolute.
Can you provide a source please?
“Aside from a few things like abortion and gay marriage, the Catholic church is very liberal on everything from gun control, immigration, the death penalty, social welfare spending, etc.”
The Catholic Church does not outright prohibit the death penalty, and Popes have written encyclicals against socialism (which practically destroyed the Church in Europe in the early part of the 20th century). Distinctions should be made between the “Catholic Church” and the “American Catholic Church”.
The Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) continues to provide a steady stream of canonizations of martyrs for us; over 7,000 priests, 100 nuns, and a lot more lay Catholics were martyred by a socialist government’s policies.
Yes, but you’d expect an Archbishop of Washington DC to last a little longer. John Paul II probably would have let McCarrick stay on for a couple of more years.
“Yes, but youd expect an Archbishop of Washington DC to last a little longer. John Paul II probably would have let McCarrick stay on for a couple of more years.”
I don’t know the mechanics behind it, though some are quite content to retire. He certainly couldn’t have made the comments in the article if he was on the job.
"On 16 May 2006, Pope Benedict XVI accepted the resignation of Cardinal McCarrick as Archbishop of Washington, DC, upon the latter's reaching the customary age limit of 75, and appointed Donald Wuerl, Bishop of Pittsburgh, as the 6th Archbishop of Washington, DC."
McCarrick became known as an advocate for social justice, once saying, "[T]he Church cannot be authentic unless it takes care of the poor, the newcomers, the needy".
In 1988, he participated in an interfaith meeting with Fidel Castro to promote religious freedom in Cuba, the first meeting of its kind since the 1958 Communist revolution.
On 29 August 2009, McCarrick presided at the graveside service of U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) at Arlington National Cemetery.
The Creation of the Religious Left
When people reflect on the Christian church they generally picture a fellowship of believers whose focus is on *spiritual growth*, *spreading the faith*, and *good works*. These were the churchs primary goals until the last few decades. There is a wide gulf, however, between yesterdays goals and todays agenda. The American mainline churches the most prominent of which are the United Methodists, the United Church of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Episcopalians, the American Baptists, many Catholic leaders and orders, and the Lutheran Church in America - have realigned their priorities in a frighteningly *political* direction.
A growing percentage of Christian leadership has abandoned its role as *spiritual shepherd* because it no longer considers humanitys *spiritual welfare* its greatest concern. A great many bishops have rejected *winning souls* in favor of *influencing political issues*. Church bureaucracy now neglects traditional mission in favor of *lobbying for political causes*. In fact, certain sectors of the church now make it their primary business to manufacture, widely distribute, and finance a radical agenda by which they hope *to save the world*. In doing so, they have created the *Religious Left*.
Stop the Tax Exempt nonsense for everyone!
You mark my words,.....The new will wear off the new pope and he will come out for Hugo Chavez or Che, or some other commie murderer. The signs are already there. He's a Jesuit! He will win over the population with his "populism" and then hit us out of nowhere with "We need world taxes to support the worlds poor!" "If we could just disarm all the negative people that don't want to give their money to the Brazilian poor" or "Love is beautiful even between the same sex".
Don't think it can happen? Look at the Lutherans/United Methodists.
Illegal Alien Amnesty is not a Christian thing to do.
An absolute insult to American Christians....and legal immigrant Christians
OMG I’m going to throw up. My old high school is named after him.
Actually, Cardinal McCarrick’s resignation wasn't accepted for nearly 10 months, which was pretty typical under Pope Benedict, who seemed to accept bishops’ resignations far more speedily than Pope John Paul II.
And his replacement, Wuerl, is hardly any sort of improvement.
Protesters Question Clergyman’s Loyalty
At Archbishop Jose Gomez Residence
Dozens of protesters have shown up at Archbishop of Los Angelus Jose Gomez residence many carrying American flags and bearing signs questioning his loyalty to the US not Mexico along with many signs demanding equal rights for American citizens in Mexico.
The protest was apparently triggered by the clerics decision to push forward with his predesessors decision the disgraced Cardinal Mahoney with offering amnesty thus citizenship to Mexicans crossing the border illegally while thousands of Americans in Mexico suffer under 2nd class citizenship unable to own property and suffer indignantys let alone participate in Mexican elections while living there in Mexico.
A spokeswoman for the group, Harriet Hildegarden insisted her group consists of Catholics loyal to the church. “We will be protesting at other locations where prominent clergy of the church have sided with the Obama regime”Hildy” claims the church is supporting the democrat party which denied God at their convention and declared what she claims is war on the Catholics but would collude with i t on many issues including “amnesty” .
When asked if she may be denied communion for her activities her reply was “Well it’s been known that when that happens quicker when clerics get personally attacked than when some politican challanges the church on the grounds of faith and morals”
“Can you provide a source please?”
Certainly. The original source is:
The unsealed ‘MEDIATION DOCUMENTATION FOR FR. G.’ that involved McCarrick, the dioceses of Metuchen and Newark, NJ. (2006) A financial settlement was reached.
I accessed the excerpt at:
Thank you, I’ll read it over.
The reason Catholics are for illegal immigration is because they assume that the Mexicans will be catholic, and increase the money going into church coffers. Good luck with that idiots! The Mexicans will only send the money back home!
Back last year when the GOP was hanging itself over the birth control mandate, which is why Obama threw it out as bait anyways because he knew what they would do, the GOP thinking it was a an easy win kept on referencing the Catholic institutions employers and I didnt think it was very smart ,and then only days later Priests in the church are attacking those same GOP congressmen over the Ryan budgets.
GOP got nothing good from that whole episode.
The GOP didn't try very hard.
Catholics are a swing group. You want their votes? You gotta work for ‘em. Rightly or wrongly.
In ‘00 and ‘04, I was contacted personally by the Bush campaign and invited to sessions to hear about Catholic concerns. Why? I was identified as a parish leader, as a “persuader.” I didn't go to any, but I noted that the Bush campaign kept in constant touch with me from the late primaries through the generals both years, NOT ASKING FOR MONEY EVERY DAMNED TIME THEY REACHED OUT, but asking me as a Catholic lay leader, as a homeschooler, as a pro-lifer.
In neither ‘08 or ‘12 did I hear a peep out of the McCain or Romney campaigns about my issues. I received 3 - 6 phone calls per day begging for money, but no one asked my views on anything.
I still voted for McCain and Romney, but both campaigns took my vote - and the votes of a lot of other Catholics - for granted.
Not the way to win elections.
When were you baptized?
McCarrick is a liberal. And he has done a lot of mischief during the past thirty years. Owing to him and other bishops he has made the Bishops conference a tool of the Democratic Party. It would be good if he could be silenced but he will not shut up.
From Pope Leo XIII (1899): Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae (written to Cardinal Gibbons and the American Episcopate):
The underlying principle of these new opinions is that, in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions. Many think that these concessions should be made not only in regard to ways of living, but even in regard to doctrines which belong to the deposit of the faith. They contend that it would be opportune, in order to gain those who differ from us, to omit certain points of her teaching which are of lesser importance, and to tone down the meaning which the Church has always attached to them. It does not need many words, beloved son, to prove the falsity of these ideas if the nature and origin of the doctrine which the Church proposes are recalled to mind. The Vatican Council says concerning this point: "For the doctrine of faith which God has revealed has not been proposed, like a philosophical invention to be perfected by human ingenuity, but has been delivered as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully kept and infallibly declared. Hence that meaning of the sacred dogmas is perpetually to be retained which our Holy Mother, the Church, has once declared, nor is that meaning ever to be departed from under the pretense or pretext of a deeper comprehension of them." -Constitutio de Fide Catholica, Chapter iv.
We cannot consider as altogether blameless the silence which purposely leads to the omission or neglect of some of the principles of Christian doctrine, for all the principles come from the same Author and Master, "the Only Begotten Son, Who is in the bosom of the Father."-John i, I8. They are adapted to all times and all nations, as is clearly seen from the words of our Lord to His apostles: "Going, therefore, teach all nations; teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you all days, even to the end of the world."-Matt. xxviii, 19. Concerning this point the Vatican Council says: "All those things are to be believed with divine and catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."-Const. de fide, Chapter iii.
Let it be far from anyone's mind to suppress for any reason any doctrine that has been handed down. Such a policy would tend rather to separate Catholics from the Church than to bring in those who differ. There is nothing closer to our heart than to have those who are separated from the fold of Christ return to it, but in no other way than the way pointed out by Christ.
Seems to me that there are a whole lot of our shepherds who need to review the above document in its entirety.
Swing? Catholic voters supported the free Birth control more than most. The only way you can claim different is define only those Catholics who opposed it as REAL Catholics and then its such a tiny % its irrelevant.
Hispanics are a great example. They didnt vote for Obama because they were mad they were getting free contraceptives.
With all the hundreds and hundreds of things in Obama-care, picking the absolutely most positive handout in it and deciding that's your issue to highlight oppose is just dumb, or just a wish to lose which may be the case.
When you form the triangle with 3 corners together : ‘anti-abortion-anti-birth control-anti-welfare spending’ its pretty much a death wish.
At some point actually stopping things you hate (like losing marriage to gays) from happening needs to take priority over making voters made at you.
As they bless the host given to Joe Biden, abortion supporter extroadinaire.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I have met more than a few Catholics in Maryland who go to mass on Sunday, forget about birth control for a second, they lecture me on how they hate Republicans because they oppose abortion and gay marriage. Catholics are social liberals here in this Blue state.
The idea that Catholics would come out in mass and swing the vote for the GOP for opposing the free BC mandate (which they argue is reducing abortions) when the Catholic Church is trashing the GOP for positions on welfare stuff is ..... you know what I am getting at,.
I cant even date Catholic wimmin here as they are too liberal. Same sex marriage makes me ill to think about as does abortion.
With all the hundreds and hundreds of things in Obama-care, picking the absolutely most
positive popular handout in it and deciding that’s your election issue to highlight to oppose is just dumb, or just a wish to lose which may be the case.
The fact is, Catholics no longer vote as a single bloc. No longer can Dems count on Catholics voting for them like blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or even Jews. No one has won as much as 60% of the Catholic vote in a long time.
Even if one candidate or the other wins 51%, 53% or even 54% of the Catholic vote, it means the other guy got 46% or more.
A demographic that might vote 11 to 9 in one direction in one election and 26 to 24 in the other direction in another election is a swing vote.
You can drill down with the Catholic vote and see that generally speaking, the more observant a Catholic is, the more likely he will vote Republican, and vice versa.
And of course, if you look at non-Hispanic white Catholics, they vote solidly, but not overwhelmingly Republican most years.
Among church-going non-Hispanic white Catholics, there are multiple demographics, as well. My non-Hispanic white Pennsylvania in-laws will vote Democrat almost by default. Except the more devout can be persuaded by a serious social conservative. Not by someone who “runs as a conservative.” But the more-liberal, less devout are pretty much lost causes to the Republicans. But they've all been going to the episcopagan church anyway for 20 years, so I'm not sure why they still call themselves Catholic, which they do. And they call themselves CHURCH-GOING, religiously-observant, DEVOUT Catholics! They just don't say to which church they're going, LOL.
The white guys in my Knights of Columbus Council all voted for Bush, twice. Many voted for Obama out of disgust for the last couple of years of Bush. Few voted for Obama the second time, but many either didn't vote or voted third party, out of disgust for the guy who “ran as a conservative.”
The black guys in my council voted for Obama twice. At least most of them. I actually know some black Republicans in my council. They don't like Obama. Go figure.
The folks in Maryland Lt. Gov. Anthony Brown's Knights of Columbus council are all lost causes. But they've got a Democrat Lt. Gov. who is a member of their council.
Most Knights in Maryland lean Republican, and many Catholics in more conservative parts of the state lean Republican. Most of the folks in my territorial parish vote Republican. But my territorial parish is largely coterminous with a polling precinct that went 60% for McCain.
Where folks live is a better predictor of how they vote than whether or not they're Catholic.
All this demonstrates that Catholics don't vote as a bloc. Ethnicity is a far better predictor of how a Catholic will vote than is religious affiliation.
There are other reasons to be careful about how one looks at the Catholic vote. For one thing, the polls we see that tell us how “Catholics” vote treat Catholics as if they were Protestants. They are not. Catholics have a different sociology than Protestants that distorts the results of these polls.
Catholics in Maryland are likely more Democrat than in many other states, but as well, Maryland is 30% black (the rest of the country is around 12% black), and Maryland Catholics are more non-white than in other states.
Anyway, I didn't say that the Republicans are ever going to get a large margin with Catholics. Then they wouldn't be swing voters anymore, would they? But Republicans are competitive with Catholics, and when they work for the Catholic vote, come close to obtaining a majority of the Catholic vote, or even actually obtain a majority.
But if you ignore Catholic voters, which Mr. McCain did, which Mr. Romney did, expect to get 45%, 46% of the Catholic vote, or maybe a little better, not 51% or more.
The sad thing is that Catholics, in a general sense, are like salt that has lost its flavor. We no longer vote, or often live distinctly as Catholics. Our ethnicity, our geography, our education, our level of wealth, all these things often trump our Catholicity. We have been assimilated.
Not entirely. There's still a little bit that distinguishes us as a group. We still vote and live a little differently than the rest of the country, as a group. But we have mostly lost the things that distinguish us from others. A black Catholic is a black person, first. A non-Hispanic white Catholic is a white person first. A Yankee Catholic is a Yankee first. A Hispanic Catholic is a Hispanic first.
So, we tend to mirror the overall vote more than we represent a distinct Catholic demographic.
As for the hierarchy (bishops and priests), most of them are part-time Catholics and full-time Democrats. But as you point out, lay Catholics stopped taking guidance from them a long time ago. Most Catholics use the social bleatings of the bishops like a drunk uses a lamp post - not for illumination but for support of the individual’s already-decided views on various issues.
"We obviously are against these heavy-duty automatic weapons; . . . "
Well, what's that, 20mm and up or what?