Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:20 AM By charlio
Funny, I thought it was the opposite proposition that is controversial: That the Bishops DID support Obamacare or, as one commentator put it, over many decades, subordinated the Church’s moral teaching on human sexuality in favor of the earthly kingdom of the administrative entitlements state. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:18 AM By OSCAR
In the USA, and in accord with the Church’s definition of “SUBSIDIARITY’ the Bishops never should have supported “Universal” Health Care. The USA had Medicaid for the poor, Medicare for the elderly, Private Insurance for the majority. We only needed to tweek the system for those who fell through the existing safety net. When Bishops (who are not qualified) get involved in politics – an area in which they have little knowledge, we all will suffer. “Universal” health care will not only bring about taxpayer paid abortion, but also euthanasia of the physically disabled, mentally disabled, and the elderly due to rationing / costs. The Bishops should never forget that the government should only help those unable to help themselves, and due to their constant nagging they have helped to make the Government a god – over who will live and who will die. (By the way, even illegal aliens were and are taken care of at hospitals for free if they could not pay. My daughter-in-law is an OBGYN and she had to work for free a few days each month to take care of indigents as part of the requirement for her hospital priviledges) The Bishops don’t know a false political maneuver when it hits them over the head with a baseball bat. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:07 AM By Juergensen
“The [USCCB] opposed the final legislation” ~ EWTN News Chief Raymond Arroyo stated after the 2008 election: “The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops, if not more, voted for Obama.” Obama was a known abortion absolutist, so the bishops at least indirectly are responsible for Obama’s legislative enactments. Indeed, between their silence on Obama, their “Faithful Citizenship” giving Catholics license to vote for Obama, and their actual election day votes for Obama, it’s a bit much for them to now claim opposition to Obama’s legislative enactments. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:18 AM By Ted
The White House lied. This is news ? |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:26 AM By Prof Helen
If you dance to the Piper’s tune din’t be surpprised when he wants payment. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:01 AM By respectlife
At many of our Mass services we offered prayers for our leaders to support “social justice, “affordable health care” and for the “common good”… What many of our clergy and parishioners did not realize that government “common good, affordable health care, and social justice” from our government may not necessarily align with Catholic teaching. Yes, it sounds good but the evil one is a master of confusion. We need to be careful what we pray for and we need to offer prayers for religious freedom and the sanctity of life at each and all Masses.. May God Have Mercy on us all. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:16 AM By Juergensen
Query: If Catholic voters, as per Section 34 of the USCCB’s “Faithful Citizenship,” can vote for Obama by simply “intending” not to support abortion, why can’ the USCCB comply with Obama’s mandate by simply “intending” not to support contraception? Alas, the fruits of “Faithful Citizenship.” |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:20 AM By JLS
OSCAR, what do you mean that bishops are not qualified to get involved in politics? Your Bible must have a page or two missing … hints: Great Commission, Jesus constantly talking about such stuff to the rulers, Church tradition for twothousand years, etc. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:22 AM By JLS
Better late than never. Hopefully the bishops now spouting will make it so clear that they will not be able to backtrack or compromise later. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:22 AM By Life Lady
This poor man is thinking that the secular media, and especially the white house secy is going to correct themselves/himself in the interest of the truth. Sorry to say, but some of us already know the outcome of that wish. It is well documented what the bishops have been asking for, for years, but it is also well documented how the powers that be either listened and then acted, or ignored and then acted. I think the last president that listened to them was Eisenhauer. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:40 AM By JMJ
Before that horrible Hillary Clinton got into office as assistant president; my company had about 5 different health programs to choose from, including Blue Cross/Blue Shield Master Medical, which now most of us can’t afford, but, those overpaid criminals in D.C. have at our expense, by the time that Bill booted her out, she became very rich from the insurance companies donations, but, we, as most Americans, lost out in medical care. THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEALTH CARE AND OBAMACARE and very little difference between the other evil that was shoved down our throats here in Mass.: Romneycare which is almost as bad as Obamacare. I can’t believe that the White House would mislead (they mislead, we lie) anybody nowadays. Ok, I need to go to confession on this one. +JMJ+ |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:43 AM By Juergensen
When you dance with the devil . . . |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:03 AM By JimAroo
Archbishop Dolan said that Obama Care was just what the Bishops had been working for – with the exception of the abortion and conscience errors. That is kind of like saying you want lights and appliances in your house but you don’t want to use electricity. With all due respect, Archbishops, you can’t have one without the other. If the government controls healthcare, they will tell you how it works. Wake up and smell your socialist coffee. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:10 AM By Camille
Is this a cover-up or an expose of what the Bishops have been doing? |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:39 AM By goodcause
This is a sad lesson for our US Bishops of what happens when they support a confirmed liberal President who does not hold common ground with the Church. Obama won this round because the Bishops had already signed off on Obamacare, which Obama cleverly maniputed to tuck in the birth control mandate. Our Bishops were naive if they thought Obamacare would resepct our religion and never challenge sacred teachings. What were the Bishops thinking? |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:58 AM By John F. Maguire
Since it is a customary norm for bishops NOT to disclose how they exercised their citizens’ right to vote (one reason: to forfend against embittering parishes by dividing, or unduly dividing parishioners along partisan lines; another reason: to forfend against ad hominen attacks when these same bishops as bishops come to articulate voting ethics, voting ethics as non-partisan/supra-partisan teaching); since then it is a customary norm for bishopos NOT to disclose how they exercised their citizens’ right to vote, whatever might have been said to Mr. Arroyo was not only off-the-record but, as Mr. Arroyo’s interviewer immediately pointed out, it was hearsay. ~ In short, the report in question is NOT cognizable news and therefore its repetition by a website using the Catholic name — and using the Catholic name to convey “news and information” — is, I submit, a violation of the professional and Catholic norms of journalism. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:06 AM By Anne T.
Well, they never supported this kind of healthcare and rightly so, at least I hope not. The bishops need to look to the lessons learned from the pagan Roman Empire and from the “rights” of the kings over the Church. President Obama evidently thinks he is a king and thereby opposes the King of Kings, the Lord Jesus. He can change but will he? I for one do not trust him. Some people have just caught on, and some saw what was going on from the beginning. They heard and read all the promises he made to Planned Parenthood and saw it on videos. Some in this country are more prone to worship the goddess liberty in her most extreme forms than they are the Lord Jesus Christ or the God of the Old Testament. Liberty in the Judeo-Christian sense of the word is one thing and the liberty of the goddess of the enlightenment is another — licentiousness. One only needs to know what happened during the French Revolution to realize that fact. Remember when the Revolutionaries enthroned a prostitute in Notre Dame and put in a pagan calendar??? Even our Founding Fathers, some of whom were Masons, were appalled by that. As for me, I do not worship the goddess liberty but the Lord Jesus Christ. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 11:48 AM By Brian S.
Thomas Jefferson wasn’t appalled by the French Revolution, and he was quite anti-Catholic, even if I don’t know his position on prostitute-enthronement. But he certainly didn’t oppose the “pagan calender”, and he was so infatuated by the revolutionaries’ similar subordination of geography to man-made lines, installed for the same “rational” reason, that its legacy is written large over all the territory west of the Mississippi River today, at his insistence. For this reason the Grand Canyon, among other geographic features, divides a single state and not states, despite their obvious boundary value. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:00 PM By Juergensen
John Maguire once again seeks to suppress truth. This time he seeks to suppress the words of EWTN News Chief Raymond Arroyo in an interview he gave to Laura Ingraham after the 2008 election: “LAURA INGRAHAM: ‘Here is the problem, how many of the bishops voted for Obama?’ RAYMOND ARROYO: ‘The bishops I spoke to say that maybe half of their brother bishops, if not more, voted for Obama.'” This is empirically consonant with the fact that slightly more than half of Catholics – 52% – voted for Obama. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:20 PM By Anne T.
Brian S. and others, I should have put the words “the Enlightenment” in quotes as faithful Catholics and some others know that that title is just another one of those euphemisms.as the so-called Enlightenment was anything but enlightening. The Revolutionaries ended up turning on each other for power and destroying themselves in the process, along with many innocent people which included priests and nuns. Brian S. I have no doubt that what you say about Thomas Jefferson is right or mostly right as he tore up his Bible, rearranged it and threw out much of the text and came up with the “Jeffersonian” Bible. He certainly is not to be commeded for that. In most cases his influence on this nation has not been good. It was probably by his influence that many of our states courts have a statue of the goddess Liberty in them instead of the Ten Commandments. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:42 PM By Anne T.
Brian S., if you really want to be enlightened about “The Enlightenment”, read “The Guillotine and the Cross” by Warren H. Carroll. It is one of those old Tan Books that is well worth reading. One of the reasons the king of France lost his throne is because he depleted his coffers in helping the American Revolution, that and some excesses on the royal family’s part. By the way, Marie Antoinette never said, “Let them eat cake.” Her cooks served food to the poor at times, and it was one of the kitchen workers who said that since that was all that was left one time. I am not totally defending what she did, but she has been made out to be far, far worse than she was. She also had many worthy charities she funded. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 12:57 PM By Anne T.
It might have been one his ancestors who funded the American Revolution thus depleting his coffers. I am just writing from memory but it is on line too. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 1:39 PM By John F. Maguire
Journalistically, there is nothing “empirical” about hearsay except the bare fact that the hearsay statement, in point of fact, has been stated — let alone, Mr. Juergensen, is there anything empirical about a hearsay statement (however often it is repeated) where, as here, the hearsay statement quotes unidentified sources. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 2:58 PM By St. Christopher
Bishop Blaire is a somewhat odd guy, as are many of the bishops. Regardless of how many bishops actually voted for Obama, many clearly did. And, all literature on the 2008 election noted that “Catholics” voted in the majority for Obama. Having spoken with many “Catholics” about this voting pattern, all but very few noted that they voted consistent with their “conscience” as was “permitted” by the USCCB as acceptable. By refusing, yes refusing, to stand up and say that the Democratic Party and their candidates stand for activities that were not morally permissible, the bishops were an important source of support for the election of President Obama. Bishops in America, in the main, are liberal in almost all respects, including the use of contraception, homosexual relationships and sex, women priests, the liturgy, and, sad to say, abortion. It is only now, with maximum embarrassment and public pressure, that even an appreciable number of bishops oppose abortion, stand up to homosexuals demanding marriage (although not Archbishop Dolan, who virtually permitted the adoption of NY’s homosexual marriage law by his utter refusal to take even a token role in opposing it, personally), and protect the rights of children to be safe. History to be written about the Church in America will describe the devastation wrecked by its bishops to the institutional Church. And, there is Bishop Blaire saying, “yup, we always wanted it and tried to get it”. Simply amazing. In any other line of work, such leadership would have been sacked. One can only hope. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:31 PM By Dana
…Be subject to your bishops and obey them whom the Holy Spirit has established to rule the Church of God. Your salvation is entrusted to them and they will some day have to give account to the eternal Prince of shepherds. Therefore, it is their duty to watch over you and work so that they lead you to the path of salvation. They should strengthen the weak in truth and in suitable teaching. They should also put together the things torn apart, convert the wicked, and distribute the word of life in the food of eternity. Therefore, listen attentively to the voice of those bishops and to their authority. None of you should ever resist his bishop or want to impose any law on him, especially in all of those things which pertain to the episcopal ministry and authority. from Pope Pius IX, 1854, written to the persecuted Armenians Pray for your Bishop! Stop looking back…look ahead and remember who the enemy really is! |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 3:38 PM By Nan
Now the Bishops know how those who fought so hard against this bad law feel – to be completely ignored. I suspect the next vile thing that the WH will say about the Bishops and those who oppose this unconstitutional mandate, will be……………wait for it………………..they’re racists. Welcome to the wonderful world of community organizing, a la Saul Alinsky, as supported and promoted by past Bishops and one Cardinal Bernadin. Their chickens have come home to roost. The faithful, once again, have to clean up the mess made at the hands of some of our Bishops. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:53 PM By OSCAR
JLS, please quote the exact section number of the Bible where Jesus told his Apostles to get involved in Government Politics. You make comments but rarely back them up with documentation that everyone can check out.. Next – read CCC 2245 & 2246 which limits the Church’s participation in politics – to the fundamental rights of all men or the salvation of souls and only in accord with the Gospel (Mt, Mk, Lk, Jn). For example, freedom of religion is for the fundamental rights of all men; Universal / Socialist medicine for all is not. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 4:56 PM By Juergensen
Maguire: When you turn moral issues into legalistic issues, you lose. When are you going to learn this? |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:06 PM By PETE
Dana, you are partially correct. We must follow our Diocese Bishop but only when he is in full in adherance with the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” in entirety. If a Bishop is not in accord with the CCC, he is in error. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion.“ – Pope John Paul II. (pg 5). In addition to ‘subsidiarity’, and against socialism (which includes socialist medicine), there are many things that the Church. No Bishop’s conference or individual Bishop is the Magisterium. We have an obligation to learn and know our Faith. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 5:26 PM By John F. Maguire
No, I don’t agree with your reductionist reading of my posts on the legal order and the normative order as “legalistic.” Besides, Mr. Juergensen, your own initial post in this thread already opens up the general question of law by its reference to President Obama’s “‘legislative'”enactments. For an informative discussion of the tendency of political questions to morph into judicial questions, see M. A. Graber, “Resolving political questions into judicial questions: Tocqueville’s thesis revisited,” 21 _Constitutional Commentary_ 485 (Summer 2004). |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:26 PM By JLS
I still have not found an explanation of “following a bishop”. What’s to follow? If you live a Sacramentally sound life, then why would you have to “follow the bishop”? Where are these bishops going that we should go there also? In other times there were bishops who shepherded their flocks in such ways that the flocks followed … ain’t happnin’ today folks. There are some exceptions, but there really is not any great movement of holiness among bishops today, even though the Pope has called for it. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:29 PM By IJD
If you play with the devil,your gonna get burned. |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:30 PM By Cody in Tucson
Nan – If you look up in any reputable source the words “Saul Alinsky”, “community organizer”, “Cardinal Bernardin award recipient”, one picture will appear ………. the Bishop of Tucson! |
Posted Thursday, February 16, 2012 9:11 PM By Mary R.
I just read these posts in this publication for the first time. It is so refreshing to hear people speak truth for a change, although I sense a little fanaticism occasionally in here. But you all sound so intelligent and educated and Catholic. Thanks be to God. We should really try to not be contentious, though. It is an effort we need to make. |
Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 4:54 AM By MIKE
JLS, good question. Our Bishops are part of the Apostolic Tradition as instituted by Jesus. Even 1 of the 12 Judas was a traitor, and as humans St. Peter as well as the rest sinned. That is why we must ‘know our Faith’, to insure we do not follow blindly and wrongly. That is why the CCC is a great gift from the Magisterium – to preserve the Faith accurately. When our particular Bishop is right regarding Faith and Morals it would be wrong on our part not to follow or adhere to his words. CCC: “938 The Bishops, established by the Holy Spirit, succeed the apostles. They are the visible source and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches” (LG 23). I’m sorry if your particular Bishop does not teach according to the CCC, but please do not lump 100% of the US Bishops into the same category. |
Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 5:04 AM By MIKE
We must all remember that neither the USCCB or individual Bishops are the MAGISTERIUM. We all have an obligation to form a correct conscience. And this can be done by studying the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”, and checking out the public actions and voting records of politicians on the internet.. CCC: ” 1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.” CCC: “1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin. In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.” It is a Mortal Sin to Vote for a pro-abortion politician when there is another choice. There is nothing proportionate to the murder of over 1 MILLION babies annually in the USA. This is true not only on a Federal level, but State and Local as well. |
Posted Friday, February 17, 2012 9:41 AM By AA
As it is widely reported that over 90% of Catholics use artificial birth control how will they be supporting the Bishops stance against Obama. The Bishops clearly have to take the stand as a moral principle but will it lead to a polarisation of Catholics? Perhaps a schism in the Church! Intense prayer is needed at this stage in support of the USCCB |
Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:14 PM By MIKE
JLS, I was watching EWTN, and the answer to your question of 2/16 6:26pm, including a former question of why we MUST follow everything in the CCC were both answered. Fr. Tragilio pointed us to Code of Canon Law # 750, and Lumen Gentium # 25. Both can be found on the Vatican web site, and it’s stonger than has been expressed by me over the last several months on this web site. We are bound, under pain of being a heretic regarding all matters of Faith and Moral as expressed by the Magisterium (which is the CCC), plus much more. Please read for the exact wording. Hope this helps. |
Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 8:57 PM By JLS
MIKE, the CCC is not Jesus Christ. We follow Jesus Christ. But if you prefer to follow a book, that is your choice. |
Posted Saturday, February 18, 2012 9:00 PM By JLS
MIKE, if you follow a bishop only when he is right, then you are not really following him; rather you are following what you believe to be true. |
Posted Sunday, February 19, 2012 9:48 PM By JLS
MIKE, here is a stunner of a question. See if you can provide a good answer: What does “follow” mean to you? What do you mean by “follow the CCC”, or “adhere” to the CCC? This question is somewhat critical to Catholicism, since “following” a book (the Bible) is a Protestant idea. What should be the object of “follow”? Are Catholics “people of the Book”, as are Jews and Muslims according to BL JP II? Does a “yes” mean that there is not more to the story? Is “the Book” the summit of Catholic authority or not? What about the pope? Can you distinguish following the pope from following a book? Is a book ever “persona cristi”, as is a pope, a bishop, a priest in certain situations? Can you follow something that is not capable of acting on its own, such as a book? “But the Bible spoke to me”: Right, and if God can speak to you through the Bible, what is to prevent God from speaking to you through a pope or through a slice of toast or a pattern in a tree? What, MIKE, do you mean by “follow”? |
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 11:11 PM By Abeca Christian
The Magisterium is not the CCC. We have to watch how we word things. Someone will misunderstand this. The Magisterium came before the CCC, how do you explain that. We can use the CCC as a tool to learn the faith and teachings of the faith, which is important to our faith, but not all is covered in the CCC, not all, we can not neglect the other portions of the faith that have made our faith what it is since the beginning of time in Christ! |
Posted Monday, February 20, 2012 11:15 PM By Abeca Christian
MIKE I do agree with your comments as well on what you stated “We all have an obligation to form a correct conscience. And this can be done by studying the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition”. I agree but that is not the only tool we can use to help form a correct conscience in Christ! You are absolutely neglecting other important elements/ portions/ forms/tools etc of the faith that help gear us towards those necessary graces that leads to truth. |
Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 12:34 PM By Anne T.
JLS, we are to follow our bishops in matters of the Faith, except in sin and error. That has been stated over and over in the Bible, by popes and in Catholic literature. I will give you an example. We are to follow the norms for the liturgy that our bishop puts in unless they contradict what the Vatican has clearly stated. We are to follow them on the moral issues unless what they teach clearly contradicts what the Magesterium (the Bible, the official catechisms and documents), teaches. |
Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:16 PM By JLS
Anne T., what do you mean by follow? The matters of faith are written down. In your example, if you are the one deciding which norms are valid and which are not, based on what you read in a book, then how exactly is that following a bishop? Now, please realize, that I’m not disputing your intent at all; rather, I’m challenging anyone up to it to put it into words that would make sense to those who do not understand or who oppose episcopal hierarchy. I’d like to get off the legalist level and on to the religious level … that is what attracts people to Christ. |
Posted Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:45 PM By Dana
That is true, Pete, about having to know our faith and relying on the CCC. Every Catholic should have a copy in their home. It is very interesting as well as being informative. My point was, too many people do nothing but criticize. It can become habitual and thus ineffective and pointless. If your bishop is in real error you should act. Do you know what the procedure is if a bishop speaks or acts in grave error? If he is just weak or ineffectual, he needs your prayers and support…if he’s incredibly gifted and strong, he needs your prayers and support. And Abeca, I agree.We can become legalistic and fail to heed the Holy Spirit’s leading. I’m not sure what you’re all talking about as to the development of conscience though, as I’ve seen too much damage done in protestant-land because they ALL act according to their consciences. That can be a real slippery slope. Actually, typing one’s thoughts is a real pain, isn’t it? I’m too lazy to respond properly as I’m always having to make corrections, etc. and then I”m tuckered out |
Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:13 AM By Anne T.
Well, JLS, the Muslims do not call Jews and Christians the people of the Book for nothing. (Lots of laughs.) I have to admit that I am a little like John Mcguire on that point. After all, the Irish — and I had a few such ancestors — saved civilization by copying some of the books others were burning, such as “Plato’s Republic”. |
Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 7:32 AM By Anne T.
And, JLS, I know you would probably like to burn down Mcguire’s library at times, but the law forbids it. (Some more laughs.) To other posters were are joking, so please do not take us seriously and send out the arson inspectors to Mcguire’s house. We do not even know where he lives. |
Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 11:30 AM By Abeca Christian
Hi Dana! We’ve missed you, glad you are here! |
Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 3:06 PM By Dana
Hello Abecca! Thanks so much…I come in peace. laugh |
Posted Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:45 PM By JLS
Anne T., no, not at all would I like to delete Maguire’s library … no no no. What I would recommend is Maguire making it available to people who have the time and drive to make good use of it. Problem with Maguire is the use he makes of it is not quite as good as it ought to be. I do not know why people read the same materials and some make false conclusions and others valid conclusions. |
Posted Friday, March 02, 2012 8:02 PM By R.M.
The Bishops should start re-reading the Bible and stick to the Word! They should practice what they preach. . |
“This is not the case,” said Bishop Stephen Blaire, chairman of the Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. 
Leave A Comment