Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Flynn: Dems ignore Catholics
Boston Herald ^ | December 31, 2003 | David R. Guarino

Posted on 01/01/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by NYer

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 last
To: hunter112; Salvation
They still would have a massive problem with my three divorces!

The only way to know is to ask a priest. Remember the parable of the lost sheep.

Chapter 15
1 The tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to listen to him,
but the Pharisees and scribes began to complain, saying, "This man welcomes sinners and eats with them."
So to them he addressed this parable.
"What man among you having a hundred sheep and losing one of them would not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after the lost one until he finds it?
And when he does find it, he sets it on his shoulders with great joy
and, upon his arrival home, he calls together his friends and neighbors and says to them, 'Rejoice with me because I have found my lost sheep.'
I tell you, in just the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need of repentance.

Here is a place to start. Click on the link. ONCE CATHOLIC

41 posted on 01/02/2004 9:35:05 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
These men did not understand what a sin really is.

Yes, I realize that they were rationalizing it away like a pack of lawyers. But, they (and I) were just doing something that every other branch of Christendom, and most other world religions find responsible, they were taking effective means of limiting their family size to what they could afford.

The idea that we were put on this earth solely to be breeding machines, in a world of over five billion people already, was one of the thousand reasons I had to leave the Catholic church. The same kind of justifications those men made for doing what they did two decades ago, I have seen in the recent pedophile priest scandal, so the attitude that was displayed by the laity extends to the clergy.

42 posted on 01/02/2004 1:36:11 PM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Thanks, but no thanks, I got tired of being a sheep.
43 posted on 01/02/2004 2:08:35 PM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
You have posited a false alternative: a) either use contraception; b) be a breeding machine. The third alternative: Bring sexual activity under the control of reason.

Every single Christian church taught that the use of contraception is a species of sodomy, until 1930, when the Anglicans "approved" its use. Now they are ordaining sodomite bishops and persecuting those who resist.

44 posted on 01/02/2004 2:22:13 PM PST by Arthur McGowan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan
Bring sexual activity under the control of reason.

I guess that could mean letting one's marriage fall into being a sexless relationship, no thanks. How about the concept of bringing the consequences of sexual activity under control? That's all conception control is. Comparisons of contraception to sodomy are going to give sodomy a better name, something the gay marriage folks are already trying to do. I guess that's why the SCOTUS had to create privacy out of thin air, because the Connecticut legislature used religious thinking to define what a married couple could do in their own bedrooms. Now, we have that same privacy concept being expanded in ways that no one thought possible in 1967.

45 posted on 01/02/2004 2:55:43 PM PST by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mware
You only have to remember how Pennsylvania Gov. Bob Casey was treated at the Democratic Convention in New York. They would not allow a sitting Gov. to speak. They hate pro life candidates or supporters. I felt bad for Bob Casey because he was a decent man and he was treated like dirt.
46 posted on 01/02/2004 3:00:21 PM PST by oldironsides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle; mware; Bluntpoint; hunter112; onyx; NYer; Salvation

Ray Flynn was Clinton's only pro-life apointee as U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican from 1993-97 and was Mayor of Boston from 1984-93.

He supported President Bush in 2000 and will vote for him again in 2004.

What, I think, he was saying in the article was that he was chastizing Catholic Politicians for selling out their faith for votes and the democat party for ignoring the Catholics and the Catholic Vote, deep down he wants his party to be the way it was, pro-life, pro-Catholic, blue collar, etc.

And what he really wants, is a united Catholic Vote. He's got a lot of work ahead of him thanks to the liberal bishops and Catholics in general.

47 posted on 07/28/2004 9:43:29 AM PDT by Coleus (Brooke Shields killed her children?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Flynn: Democrats Exclude Catholics
Dave Eberhart,
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
President of Your Catholic Voice, former mayor of Boston, former president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican during the Clinton Administration, and author of “The Accidental Pope” and “John Paul II” - Ray Flynn is a man on a mission.

In appearances around the country, in articles on Your Catholic Voice (YCV) Website and in interviews on Meet the Press, Nightline, Face the Nation, This Week, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News, this man who describes himself as a “loyal Catholic American first,” wants to re-enfranchise the sixty-two million Catholics in the United States – too many of which he says have become “politically homeless.”

Unabashedly pro-life, pro-family and pro-needy, Flynn has been president since May 2003 of YCV, a non-partisan independent Catholic lay organization dedicated to “motivating, educating and activating Catholic citizens for political and social participation.”

His mantra: “Catholics have become spectators in American politics, not active players.”

Flynn is out to change all that, but suggests that he doesn’t get much help from the Catholic politicians. “Catholic politicians feel they have to compromise their Catholic principles and values to get ahead, he told NewsMax in an exclusive interview.

"The popular line of the day for Catholic elected officials on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage is, ‘I’m personally opposed, but I don’t want to impose my own values and beliefs on other people.’"

"Amazingly, this has become the political response that satisfies both Catholic voters and opponents to Church teaching."

Although not taking specific aim at the nation’s most prominent Catholic politician these days – John Kerry – the description fits. Kerry is the first Roman Catholic from a major political party to seek the presidency in 44 years.

Although Flynn has not formally endorsed Kerry, he has expressed the belief that Kerry’s campaign needs a Catholic movement - a reaching out to Catholic voters.

Flynn maintains it could make a deciding difference in battlegrounds like Ohio, Wisconsin and New Mexico – states with large Catholic populations. Nearly 20 percent of Ohioans are Catholic, and the ratio is higher in cities like Cleveland and Cincinnati.

Flynn suggests that Kerry could serve himself better by being more overt with his own faith. Instead, the candidate rarely gets personal about his faith on the campaign trail, stressing instead his strong belief in separation of church and state.

And Flynn’s complaint extends not just to the candidate but to the party he represents. “At one time, the Democratic Party fought for social and economic justice and was the party of blue-collar, working-class Catholic families," he said. "Today, the Democratic Party is controlled by wealthy, left-wing activists whose extreme political agenda, for the most part, excludes loyal, faithful and patriotic American Catholics.”

As president of a nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization, Flynn has been careful in choosing his words.

However, when Kerry last year suggested Pope John Paul II “crossed the line” by instructing Catholic politicians to block legalization of gay marriage, Flynn, a great admirer of the Pope, was pushed over the edge. “For Kerry to attack and address the Holy Father, the revered moral leader of over one billion Catholics worldwide, in that way was highly disrespectful and cynical.

"If a candidate for President does not understand that the family is the foundation and source of stability for society, I think he is out of touch with mainstream Americans.”

But candidate Kerry may just be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to defining the role of his faith in his candidacy. Flynn says, “It’s different to 40 years ago. JFK, as a Catholic, had to convince non-Catholics that he would not take orders from the Pope. The challenge for Kerry is to convince Catholics that he is faithful to the values and traditions of the Catholic Church.”

Although Flynn laments that instead of attending civic and church meetings, Catholics are shopping in the malls or watching athletic events on TV, he does see hope on the horizon.

“Much to my surprise, young adults are getting involved more than I’ve ever seen before. I’ve seen it in San Francisco, Boston and cities throughout the United States.

"I also see it on college campuses — like Harvard and the University of San Francisco. It’s truly amazing — the sense of commitment these young Catholics women and men have.

”These are young people who have been positively influenced by the moral leadership of Pope John Paul II and are not afraid to get involved.

"A positive movement of young Catholics is building, not only in the United States, but also in many parts of the world. I personally saw the impact that Pope John Paul II has had on young people in my many trips with him over the years.”

In the run-up to the November elections, these are some of the important hearts and minds that Kerry must capture, says Flynn.

48 posted on 07/28/2004 9:46:32 AM PDT by Coleus (Brooke Shields killed her children?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

One older guy at a Knights of Columbus after-meeting function (in the lounge of the local Mexican restaurant) acknowledged that a lot of the guys had rationalized it this way: better for them to commit one sin, one time, than to have their wives commit a little sin every day by taking the Pill. >>>

It's not a one-time sin, every snipped Catholic male or tied female commits a mortal sin each time they have sex since they are preventing procreation and going against God's will. Genesis 38:8-10

The Cathechism says:

"...every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil." CCC 2370

So basically, anything a person does to block the possibility of life-giving that occurs during the sexual act, is wrong. It inhibits the total giving of yourself to your spouse, and totally shuts the door on God's involvement in this aspect of your life, which might at some point, be to have another child.

It's also a matter of surrendering to God. It's like saying "God, you can have every aspect of my life, I give myself totally to you, except for my sperm (or ovaries and uterus) -- those are mine."

The Bible is very clear on this in Deut 23:2 St. John Crysostom said that said that it is a satanic mulitation that is a slander to God's creation and that preventing a human soul from ever existing is worse than murder.

St. Augustine said take from marriage what marriage is and preventing children creates spouses that are joined in seduction not love. If the deed is done and you didn't know that it was a mortal sin it isn't a mortal sin but you must do everything in your power to get it reversed now that you know. This is God's world and we are His people we have no right to alter His plans.

Encyclical of Pope Paul VI on the regulation of birth

Catholics "who, for serious reasons and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time," are permitted to use the Natural Family Planning (NFP) method (i.e., abstain from sex during fertile period).

See this web page to learn more about NFP:

49 posted on 07/28/2004 9:58:18 AM PDT by Coleus (Brooke Shields killed her children?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bump to the top

50 posted on 07/28/2004 10:02:33 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hunter112

As far as changes in the Catholic church go, do they still teach that people go to hell for masturbation? They still would have a massive problem with my three divorces! >>>

Ha, Ha, and the answer is Yes that it is still a mortal sin and as the church teaches one is judged by God after death and with mortal sin on one's soul we may be judged harshly. Genesis 38:8-10

Offenses against chastity

2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."138

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

2353 Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. It is gravely contrary to the dignity of persons and of human sexuality which is naturally ordered to the good of spouses and the generation and education of children. Moreover, it is a grave scandal when there is corruption of the young.

2354 Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials.

2355 Prostitution does injury to the dignity of the person who engages in it, reducing the person to an instrument of sexual pleasure. The one who pays sins gravely against himself: he violates the chastity to which his Baptism pledged him and defiles his body, the temple of the Holy Spirit.139 Prostitution is a social scourge. It usually involves women, but also men, children, and adolescents (The latter two cases involve the added sin of scandal.). While it is always gravely sinful to engage in prostitution, the imputability of the offense can be attenuated by destitution, blackmail, or social pressure.

2356 Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them.

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:159

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160

51 posted on 07/28/2004 10:07:34 AM PDT by Coleus (Brooke Shields killed her children?
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Of course they ignore the Bible-believing, faithful Catholics. They hold a worldview fundamentally opposite of what the leftists in the Democrat Party hold.

52 posted on 07/28/2004 10:09:16 AM PDT by Zack Nguyen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

On, wow! I've been looking for this ever since my computer crashed. Thanks everyone for bumping it up!

53 posted on 07/28/2004 10:14:26 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hunter112
I guess that could mean letting one's marriage fall into being a sexless relationship, no thanks.

I suppose it "could" mean that, but in reality having the proper attitude toward sex -- that it's sacred, not recreational -- means having a far better marriage, in the bedroom and otherwise, than most everyone else on the planet.

Given your three divorces, are you really in a position to lecture anyone on what makes a happy marriage? Maybe you should exercise some humility and accept the possibility that you might need to re-examine some of your assumptions.

54 posted on 07/28/2004 10:19:15 AM PDT by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Coleus

He supported President Bush in 2000 and will vote for him again in 2004.

This is GOOD.
I hope he is given a LOT of air time
between now and November's election.

55 posted on 07/28/2004 9:04:15 PM PDT by onyx (The FRENCH capitulate. Are you FRENCH or GOP? BUSH/CHENEY '04.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Campion; Coleus
Given your three divorces, are you really in a position to lecture anyone on what makes a happy marriage?

Nope, I serve only as a good example of a bad example, I'll admit it. I hope my kids all choose better, but their mother's second marriage was to a convicted child molester, so I'm afraid they have to look elsewhere besides their parents for a really good example.

By the way, talk about a blast from the past, my original posts on this thread are about six months old, you folks must have been looking hard to find this ancient buried stuff to upbraid me for.

I got tired of living with the guilt of being Catholic some twenty years ago, just about everything connected with sexuality carries guilt in that religion. I've been fruitful, I've multiplied, I'm done with it. You may continue to deal with the myriad rules of Catholic Christianity, I will defend your right to do so.

56 posted on 07/28/2004 10:56:24 PM PDT by hunter112
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: timestax


57 posted on 07/30/2004 11:43:49 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: timestax
bump to the top
58 posted on 08/01/2004 9:18:12 AM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: timestax

b t t t

59 posted on 08/01/2004 1:00:42 PM PDT by timestax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-59 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
Topics · Post Article

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