Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Prelate says politicians who back abortion shouldn't go to Communion
Catholic News Service ^ | July 31, 2003

Posted on 08/02/2003 3:07:26 PM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-137 last
To: St.Chuck
Sorry, but Archbishop O'Malley's installation mass was not the time or place...

We, as Catholics, are instructed to live each day, as if it was our last; to be prepared for our final Judgement at all times.

If Kerry had walked out of that cathedral, and died on the steps from a sudden heart attack, what would you and Archbishop O'Malley say?

"Whoops! I wish I had disciplined him earlier"?

101 posted on 08/03/2003 9:19:24 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck; NYer
“Those who…obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion.” Canon Law 915
102 posted on 08/03/2003 11:22:46 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Yeah!
103 posted on 08/03/2003 11:26:33 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Land of the Irish; ultima ratio; Thorondir
Irish, you and UR ought to get married. You know each other's thoughts.

Careful now, deacon. Those of us without a sense of humour might think that you were endorsing homosexual marriage.

104 posted on 08/03/2003 11:51:28 AM PDT by Loyalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Loyalist
Those of us without a sense of humour might think that you were endorsing homosexual marriage.

Do you know something about your sidekicks that I don't?

105 posted on 08/03/2003 12:22:47 PM PDT by sinkspur ("Messina, Brad! Messina!" George C. Scott as "PATTON.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck; Land of the Irish
Archbishop O'Malley's installation mass was not the time or place to promote controversy

Precisely. The mass was about healing open wounds, and reassuring those who have lost their faith. He identified himself as a humble Franciscan servant, and drew much inspiration from the acts of St. Francis. Thank you, St. Chuck.

He said he was pleased that many victims were at the Mass. "The healing of our church is inexorably bound up with your own healing. You are the wounds on the body of Christ today," he said. "I am sure that many are skeptical and think that the church leaders are like Simon the Cyrenean who carried the cross only under duress and not from a genuine desire to help. Perhaps the journey began that way, but what we see in the community of faith today is a spirit of repentance and a desire for healing."

He said the crisis has forced Catholics to focus on what is essential: Christ, the saving power of the cross and their call to follow Christ's mission.

106 posted on 08/03/2003 12:23:29 PM PDT by NYer (Laudate Dominum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Dear St.Chuck,

"Sorry, but Archbishop O'Malley's installation mass was not the time or place to promote controversy..."

I don't see what would have been so controversial for the archbishop to personally call Messrs. Kennedy and Kerry to inform them that they are no longer welcome to approach Holy Communion as long as they remain public sinners.

It appears that Archbishop O'Malley may have already gone most of the way there, by at least informing them that they ought not approach, but that he wouldn't refuse them. Apparently, Chappaquiddick Ted, being a bit more of a man and a bit more of a Catholic than Comrade Kerry, took the hint. Without controversy.

I'm sure that the archbishop will do quite well in Boston. But setting the tone was precisely what he could have done. His installation Mass certainly was the place for it. He could have set the tone that, unlike his predecessor, he is serious about Catholicism and the practice of the faith.

Archbishop O'Malley, by the way, IS something of a fire-brand, having called pro-abort Catholic politicians in his previous diocese "KKK without the sheets". If you want to look for "controversy", "lighting the match", and "drawing blood", comparing a group of liberal politicians to the KKK seems to meet those criteria.

But the question will be whether he is all talk, or whether there is action that goes with the talk. Calling the pro-aborts "KKK without sheets" is emotionally very satisfying, but is he willing to follow up his brave words with actions that match? To have failed to do so from the very first is one small misstep on his part, and I don't despair of him for it. I expect great things from him. But I do believe that it is a misstep.

It need not have been done in an overly confrontational way. It would have set a wonderful, positive tone for Catholics who have longed for orthodoxy in this archdiocese. And perhaps, it may have even pricked the conscience of these evil men, perhaps to even get them on the road to repentance.

At the very least, give the benefit of the doubt to those here who disagree with you, that they do not disagree out of vain motives, but out of their own view of what would help heal the Church in Boston. Unfortunately, posts have been made comparing people to pharisees and the like. This, for merely wishing that an archbishop apply Canon Law. At least do not villify those who disagree with you. That would be better than some.


sitetest
107 posted on 08/03/2003 2:51:23 PM PDT by sitetest (As for lighting matches, when one compares one's opponents in debate to pharisees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
At least do not villify those who disagree with you.

Any disagreement we might have is in tactics. I think we share the recognition of the Church's teaching on this particular sin, and agree as to what the bishop's stance should be. I just think that the archdiocese of Boston has a greater priority right now, which is addressing those who have been turned away from the faith by abusive clergy and the church's inability to deal appropriately with abusive clergy. Those Catholics deserve O'Malley's attention more than a coupla renegade politico's. Archbishop O'Malley has set the right tone.

Kerrey and Kennedy are educated men, and are probably well-acquainted with the rules of the Church. That they choose to defy them is not the will of the church but rather a lack of will on the part of Sens. K&K.

Let's not forget, also, that these powerful lawmakers and aspiring president are the elected representatives that Boston area Catholics have supported for many, many years, and whether we like it or not, Kennedy's public values mirror the social values taught by the church. To publicly and imprudently shame these men, in my view, might needlessly repel them from future fruitful alliances with the Church.

108 posted on 08/03/2003 3:50:15 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
That is a bishop's duty: to be a good shepherd; to find that lost sheep and bring it back to the flock.

The good shepherd needs to nourish the entire flock, not the troublesome one who keeps slipping away. He will get to that sheep, but not to the detriment of the others who have been starving in recent years.

109 posted on 08/03/2003 3:55:47 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
If Kerry had walked out of that cathedral, and died on the steps from a sudden heart attack, what would you and Archbishop O'Malley say?

Well, I'm certain that Archbishop O'Malley would say the appropriate thing. I would just say, "Many are called, but few are chosen."

110 posted on 08/03/2003 3:58:08 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Unfortunately, posts have been made comparing people to pharisees and the like. This, for merely wishing that an archbishop apply Canon Law.

Well, sometimes, one does get the impression that some posters have missed their call to a vocation to the church.

111 posted on 08/03/2003 4:01:03 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
The good shepherd needs to nourish the entire flock, not the troublesome one who keeps slipping away. He will get to that sheep, but not to the detriment of the others who have been starving in recent years.

"4 What man of you that hath an hundred sheep, and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after that which was lost, until he find it?"

" 5 And when he hath found it, lay it upon his shoulders, rejoicing?"

" 6 And coming home, call together his friends and neighbours, saying to them: Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost?"

" 7 I say to you that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance."

Luke 15:4-7, Douay-Rheims Bible

I suggest you study your own religion, before you continue your feeble attempts to be an internet preacher.

112 posted on 08/03/2003 4:36:42 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Dear St.Chuck,

"Any disagreement we might have is in tactics."

Then the disagreement should end at that point, rather than deteriorating to vicious name-calling.

"and whether we like it or not, Kennedy's public values mirror the social values taught by the church."

Maybe once upon a time, they did. But the fact is, the political programs effected by Chappaquiddick Ted and his comrades have failed abysmally to achieve the social goals set by the Catholic Church. It is more likely that the social programs endorsed by many conservative Republicans will better achieve many of those goals than the tried-and-failed, morally-, socially-, and economically-bankrupting programs and policies of liberals.

That many Catholic clergy and prelates are unable to distinguish between Church teaching, and failed liberal programs to achieve these teachings, doesn't mean that Chappaquiddick Ted's "public values mirror the social values taught by the church", just that the clergy and prelates are partly blind. They confuse their politics, often deeply held, with Church teaching.

"I just think that the archdiocese of Boston has a greater priority right now, which is addressing those who have been turned away from the faith by abusive clergy and the church's inability to deal appropriately with abusive clergy."

I think that the exclusive focus on abusive priests and execrable bishops covering up for them is wrong. I read the posts here of many Catholics, and I think that a lot of the folks in the pews hold similar views and questions. The abusive priests and bad bishops are only part of it. As Fr. Neuhaus has said, the issue is, "Fidelity, fidelity, fidelity."

There is a core of Catholic laity who yearn to see their bishops stand up for the FAITH. To exercise fidelity to the FAITH. I think that must be part of the healing process, as well.

"Those Catholics deserve O'Malley's attention more than a coupla renegade politico's."

Starting to deal with the pollution of the Church by men like this is part and parcel of what the bishops ought to be doing, now. I think that regular Catholic layfolks are looking for this, wishing for this. Thinking that the predator priest problem is separate from the problem of tolerating anti-Catholics within the sanctuary is, I think, a mistake. Tolerating the likes of Chappaquiddick Ted and Comrade Kerry are part and parcel of the lack of fidelity shown by our bishops, priest, and by, also, our Catholic laity, who have voted for these perverse moral monsters.

The guilt for the situation in the Church today does not belong only to Paul Shanley, Rudy Kos, Bernard Law, Rembert Weakland, & Co. The guilt, the moral guilt, lies also with laity who have voted for Chappaquiddick Ted, Comrade Kerry, Bill & Hill, (in my own state) Parris Glendenning and Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. The guilt for the degraded life of the Church in the United States, and I suppose in all the West, lies as well with layfolks who have voted in this sort all throughout the First World. The guilt lies with rank and file Catholic, folks in the pews, who have divorced, contracepted, and aborted with the best of the pagans. Who have compromised, over and over, fidelity to Catholic truth and faith.

I think that a large number of Catholics sense this in their souls, if they haven't precisely formulated in their minds. I think that a large percentage of Catholics are ready for priests and bishops who begin, again, to act like Catholic priests and bishops, and I think a large percentage of Catholics are ready to follow such men.

I'm sure many may resist at first. I suspect most will resist for a while, and then will realize that what is happening is to the good. Some may leave. Fewer than many suspect, I think. I believe that within the soul of every single baptized Catholic is the soul of a sheep who can hear his Master's voice. I think that when the bishops and priests start speaking again with that voice, that part of each Catholic soul will re-awaken, and many, most, will follow.

Pope John Paul II is such a man who has spoken this way through his pontificate. He awoke the docile sheep within my own soul, I heard the voice of my Master, and I have been trying to amend my life since.

But when bishops trim their sails, hem and haw, try to avoid the tough dialogue, I don't hear that voice. When Archbishop O'Malley says that pro-abort politicians are "KKK without sheets", I hear my Lord's voice. When he says that it is up to the individual pro-abort Catholic politician to decide whether or not to receive, I hear an ecclesial politician.


sitetest
113 posted on 08/03/2003 4:43:14 PM PDT by sitetest (As for lighting matches, when one compares one's opponents in debate to pharisees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Inappropriate analogy.
114 posted on 08/03/2003 4:44:05 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Dear Land of the Irish,

"I suggest you study your own religion, before you continue your feeble attempts to be an internet preacher."

I suggest that many of the good things that you have to say would be better received if you did not poison them with thorn-ladened comments like this.


sitetest
115 posted on 08/03/2003 4:45:07 PM PDT by sitetest (They shall know you by your LOVE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Thank-you for your very charitable advice, sitetest.
116 posted on 08/03/2003 4:53:36 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Then the disagreement should end at that point, rather than deteriorating to vicious name-calling.

That's the second time you have alluded to that. What's your motivation? I have only been complimentary or gently corrective on this thread. Afraid I'm gonna blow up? LOL. Surely you're not getting overly sensitive on us.

117 posted on 08/03/2003 4:56:19 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Dear St.Chuck,

I allude to what is posted on this thread. Not all who have taken your position have acted, at all times, anywhere near as charitably as you have. Not all you have taken my position have acted charitably, at all times, either.

I've personally been attacked in this thread as one who "would like to strike a match and light the kindling under the cauldron in Boston". Others who take my position have not posted charitably, as well.

I suppose it's a pet peeve of mine. It seems that we ought to be able to air our disagreements without being disagreeable. It seems to me that one may have the faith to move mountains, but that if one is without charity, one is worse than useless.

I'm willing to denounce what you think. I'm willing to denounce what you say. I'm willing to denounce what you do.

I'm unwilling to denounce you.

It seems that folks get mixed up about this stuff, and I don't like it.


sitetest
118 posted on 08/03/2003 5:03:00 PM PDT by sitetest (They shall know you by your LOVE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
I suggest you study your own religion, before you continue your feeble attempts to be an internet preacher.

Here, I'll throw a wrench into your circuitry. How do you square Luke:15 with Luke 9:5?(Douay Rheims)

119 posted on 08/03/2003 5:27:59 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
I'm willing to denounce what you think. I'm willing to denounce what you say. I'm willing to denounce what you do.

I'm unwilling to denounce you.

That's a nice sentiment, but I guess it doesn't apply to "Chappaquidick Ted and Comrade Kerrey."

It seems that folks get mixed up about this stuff, and I don't like it.

120 posted on 08/03/2003 5:37:08 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
Dear St.Chuck,

"That's a nice sentiment, but I guess it doesn't apply to 'Chappaquiddick Ted and Comrade Kerry.'"

It certainly does apply to them. I certainly denounce what they have done. In calling him by this moniker, I remind all what Chappaquiddick Ted did - murder. It is relevant, because what he most ardently works to protect in law is murder. Chappaquiddick Ted continues his murderous actions. I denounce it. I denounce it.

As for Comrade Kerry, perhaps you haven't read his totalitarian remarks about the appropriate nature of Church/State relations. He has denounced the pope for saying that Catholic politicans who work for creating legal homosexual "marriages" sin gravely. He has said that the pope has violated the principle of separation of Church and State. That is the totalitarian point of view. It elevates State to the highest place in the society, to the position of privilege. All else must fall under it. Church is merely tolerated as long as Church doesn't get uppity, and disagree with the party line. That is the totalitarian impulse. I denounce it. I denounce it.

But read what I've posted. As much as I revile all they do and stand for, I fear for their souls, and do not wish for them to be damned. I regret Archbishop O'Malley's inaction as well because it was a missed opportunity to try to draw these men to repentance.

Their actions are evil and perverse beyond description. They share the guilt for the blood of forty million innocent victims. They have shown by their actions that they embrace the sacrament of death, the sacrament of abortion. They have shown by their actions that they worship at the altar of Baal, the high places once torn down, now rebuilt, sacrificing anew to the pagan lusts of infanticide.

The evil they do is beyond any words I can muster. And they proclaim their filthy works, they proclaim their filthy love of their sacrament as the good, as the moral, as the sacred and holy.

Yet, God wishes all men to be saved, even these two. So do I. I am disappointed with Archbishop O'Malley's failure as well because these men, drowning in evil, at ease, comfortable with their horrible evil, need someone to shake them up, to say, "Repent before it's too late!"

I haven't said that it would be necessary to publicly call these men out and hold them up for humiliation. I've said that Archbishop O'Malley could have done this privately, a private call to each man, to say.

He could have said something like, "Your actions are those of a public sinner. You ought not approach for Holy Communion. You will be refused. The reason why I am doing is this is because your insistence on protecting in law the slaughter of innocents is gravely evil, and you likely are in mortal sin, and in danger of losing your soul. I encourage you to repent, to confess, to amend your life. The time for salvation is now."

I'm sure that Archbishop O'Malley could have said it ten times more elegantly, gracefully, and persuasively than that.

THAT's what I wished for these men. Perhaps it may have fallen on deaf ears. Perhaps not.

But that is one of the tasks of a bishop.


sitetest
121 posted on 08/03/2003 6:19:59 PM PDT by sitetest (They shall know you by your LOVE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
AS I see it, the arrival of Archbishop Sean Patrick O'Malley in Boston is a reason for celebration. Let’s not foul it up by focusing on the sins of Kerry and Kennedy.

In the context of history, things are changing rapidly for the better. For the sake of all that is good, let’s have patience.

122 posted on 08/03/2003 7:52:17 PM PDT by Barnacle (A Human Shield against the onslaught of Leftist tripe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Barnacle
“Those who…obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Communion.” Canon Law 915
123 posted on 08/03/2003 8:15:24 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
I know, I know, the law is the law. But there must be room for discretion. Let’s keep things in perspective. If not, we’d all get speeding tickets on a daily basis.

I believe Archbishop Sean Patrick O'Malley is a good and wise man. And, I’m certainly willing to give his rationale the benefit of the doubt.
124 posted on 08/03/2003 8:40:33 PM PDT by Barnacle (A Human Shield against the onslaught of Leftist tripe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
"He could have said something like, "Your actions are those of a public sinner. You ought not approach for Holy Communion. You will be refused. The reason why I am doing is this is because your insistence on protecting in law the slaughter of innocents is gravely evil, and you likely are in mortal sin, and in danger of losing your soul. I encourage you to repent, to confess, to amend your life. The time for salvation is now." "

Living across the pond, I am not that familiar with K&K, but do you think that he might indeed have contacted them privately about this?

If Kennedy left without receiving communion, then this may indicate that words have been spoken. Is he known to have attended Mass without receiving communion before?
125 posted on 08/04/2003 1:37:02 AM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Dear Tantumergo,

I think it is reasonable to believe that he told them this:

http://www.rcab.org/News/ForTheRecord/ftr030729.html


sitetest
126 posted on 08/04/2003 5:38:41 AM PDT by sitetest (To permit them to receive is to reinforce the delusion that they may endorse the murder of innocents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Tantumergo
Just as a general observation, I don't believe Kennedy and Kerry attend Mass except when it is "high profile." I remember that John Kerry married Teresa Heinz after he was divorced and before he had an annulment from his first marriage (which he applied for two years after the second marriage). I'm sure the annulment was granted (hey, we're in Massachusetts!) although I don't remember reading about it in the papers.
127 posted on 08/04/2003 6:08:51 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: american colleen
Dear american colleen,

I can't say that it is still the case, but I seem to recall that Mr. Kennedy has been for many years a regular church-goer at Holy Trinity in Washington, DC.


sitetest
128 posted on 08/04/2003 6:48:41 AM PDT by sitetest (To permit them to receive is to reinforce the delusion that they may endorse the murder of innocents)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
Could be... I am only going by what happens in Massachusetts.
129 posted on 08/04/2003 7:18:17 AM PDT by american colleen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
Love those signs. I've seen Bill Kotter holding those signs at a lot of pro-life marches.
130 posted on 08/04/2003 7:33:45 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
I read an article on Canon Law 915, it argued that an Extraordinary EM has an obligation to deny communion, if the priest does not. What do you think?
131 posted on 08/04/2003 7:37:37 AM PDT by StAthanasiustheGreat (Vocatus Atque Non Vocatus Deus Aderit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: sitetest
The bishop OWES THEM THE OBLIGATION of calling them out, publicly, to turn away from their sin.

Yes. You're right. It's a charitable act.

132 posted on 08/04/2003 7:38:09 AM PDT by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: presidio9
Dear presidio9,


Regarding what Archbishop O'Malley tolerates, he has posted his policy on the Archdiocese of Boston website.

http://www.rcab.org/News/ForTheRecord/ftr030729.html

Here is what it says:

"July 29, 20033 - Response to the Boston Sunday Globe, July 27, 2003, pp.B10-11, “For roiled parish, uneasy compromise,” by Jack Thomas.

"In the story, Shirley Gomes, a then pro-choice candidate for the office of state representative recalls a conversation that she had with Bishop Sean: 'he assured me that if my position on abortion was an act of conscience, then I would not be denied Communion.'”

"Archbishop O’Malley wishes to make clear that there was much more to the conversation with now state representative Gomes. In particular, Archbishop O’Malley made it clear to her that a Catholic politician who holds a public, pro-choice position should not be receiving Communion and should on their own volition refrain from doing so. The Church presumes that each person is receiving in good faith. It is not our policy to deny Communion. It is up to the individual."

There it is. Though the archbishop believes the person ought not receive Holy Communion, the archbishop will not order that he or she be refused.

You may wish to look over this thread, which is largely about the dispute about this question.


sitetest
133 posted on 08/04/2003 4:15:17 PM PDT by sitetest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: NWU Army ROTC
I am not familiar with the article you mentioned, but from what you say about it, I think I would be inclined to agree with it.
134 posted on 08/04/2003 7:42:52 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: St.Chuck
I suggest you study your own religion, before you continue your feeble attempts to be an internet preacher.

How do you square Luke:15 with Luke 9:5?

Waiting. Waiting. Waiting.

135 posted on 08/04/2003 9:08:59 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
#135 was meant for you.
136 posted on 08/04/2003 9:10:34 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Vatican - Considerations regarding ... homosexual persons

CONFUSIONS ABOUT POLITICAL JUDGMENT AND THE MORAL LAW

Prelate says politicians who back abortion shouldn't go to Communion

Bishop draws fire for targeting Chrétien

Kennedy likens Vatican stance on gay unions to 'bigotry' (oh, go get a job, you little creep)

Ignorance or Malicious Intent? "No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to..."

George Weigel on Authentic Catholic Citizenship, and the Duty of Catholic Politicians to Behave as Catholics

Conservative Catholics urge Church to challenge "dissenters"

[Robert F., Jr.] Kennedy to speak at Festival of Faiths (Environmentalism as religion)

Faithful Catholic Politicians

Catholic Bishops Eye Possible Crackdown of Pro-Abortion Pols

PETITION TO EX-COMMUNICATE PRO-ABORTION CATHOLIC ELECTED OFFICIALS

It is Time to Excommunicate the Politicians

137 posted on 11/25/2003 7:02:10 PM PST by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-137 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson