These two sisters both have a solid voting record of supporting abortion rights and homosexual rights. At the 2000 Democratic Convention in Los Angeles, Loretta vehemently fought to keep a fundraising party at the Playboy Mansion over the objections of fellow party members. They are both welcome in their parishes at home and in Washington D.C. and can receive Holy Communion with no fear of refusal.
It would be hard to find a more staunch supporter of abortion rights and homosexual rights than Senator Edward Kennedy. The irony is that when several Catholic nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court appeared before him for questioning on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kennedy had no qualms about grilling them over their lack of support for "choice". Of course, Kennedy is always welcome in any Catholic Church in Massachusetts or D.C. and has never been denied Holy Communion. When you have a congregant as wealthy as Kennedy, you don't risk angering him.
For sheer chutzpah, you cannot beat Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi not only supports abortion and homosexual rights, but has lied about the writings of the Church Fathers on national television as well as mis-represented Church teaching for a generation of confused Catholics whose only catechism was a book with butterflies on the cover. Yet, Pelosi insists that she is an "ardent Catholic". Her Archbishop at home in San Francisco, George Niederauer, evidently agrees. He supposedly met with her to privately discuss her open support of abortion, but nothing more has come of the meeting and she is still welcome at the Communion line of any Catholic Church (I was going to say "Communion Rail", but we all know that Catholics like Pelosi kneel for no one).
Of course the mayor of San Francisco supports abortion rights, but Newsom really made his name by insisting that The City start performing homosexual marriages. This has put his archbishop Niederauer in a bit of a predicament, since as a member of the California Catholic Conference, Niederauer had to at least NOMINALLY support Proposition 8, which outlawed homosexual marriage. But it obviously hasn't bothered Niederauer too much, since he is still quite comfortable hobnobbing with Newsom (far left in the picture below) and other wealthy Catholic donors.
Bill Clinton? A Catholic? Well, not exactly, but he IS an ardent supporter of abortion rights and, as president, made reversing the Mexico City Policy (that restricts abortions overseas) one of his first acts in office. Yet on March 29, 1998, President Clinton received Holy Communion while attending Mass as a guest in Johannesburg, South Africa. Now as politically charged as South Africa is, are we really to believe that the priest did not know that: a) Clinton was not a Catholic (and non-Catholics are not permitted to receive Holy Communion)? or b) Clinton was the world's leading proponent of abortion rights at the time?
Clinton scores as a good Catholic by virtue of the new ecumenism.
But give Clinton credit: At least HE understood that the norm for receiving Holy Communion is not in the hand.
Come on, you say--Barney Frank is JEWISH!
And he is openly homosexual!
So what? In 2008 NETWORK, a Catholic "Social Justice" lobbying group, gave Frank a 100% approval rating (are they funded by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development?). Doesn't social justice trump moral theology and "denominational boundaries" in today's "New Church"?
As Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1836 to 1864, Taney wrote the infamous Dred Scott decision, upholding the legality of slavery and stating that black people were "of an inferior order and altogether unfit to associate with the white race". Yet he remained in the good graces of the Catholic Church. It seems that in Taney's time, even though the popes condemned slavery, many U.S. bishops looked the other way--sound familiar?
William Brennan distinguished himself in 1973 by being the only Catholic on the Supreme Court AND by voting in the majority of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. His bishop never censured or disciplined him in any way for his vote, even thought he is complicit in the deaths of more than 50 million unborn children (to date).
Saleem "Sam" Dennis is one of Valdosta's most prolific and successful attorneys. He is also the president of the parish council at St. John the Evangelist Church. A man with a tireless work ethic and a strong knowledge of the law, Dennis did a masterful job in January 2007 of making sure that the temporary restraining order taken against me would become permanent. Particularly noteworthy was his condemnation of my freelance journalist work as he said with disgust: "He gets paid by the piece!" (I guess that means I'd be more respectable if I were given a retainer?) Thanks to Sam, he can discuss me freely and openly and I am restricted in multiple ways from telling my side of the story. But to Sam's credit, he is a generous donor and not just to the Catholic Church. In March 2003, he gave $2000 to the presidential campaign of pro-abortion Senator John Edwards (another attorney who specialized in malpractice cases). If someone who gives as much to the Church as Mr. Dennis says that I'm dangerous, the bishop is certainly going to believe him!
ME!
YES! Guilty as charged! I have done everything I can to defend the Church's position on moral issues such as abortion, artificial contraception and embryonic stem cell research. I have openly declared my support for the Holy Father and his program to restore the Church to Her former glory, especially the right of ALL Catholics to worship according to the Church's ancient tradition. I have investigated and reported on scandals in the Church, even for newspapers and websites that don't enjoy mainstream "respectability". I love my Church. I homeschool my children. And I am banished from my own parish that is a five-minute drive away from my house. I'm not even allowed to communicate with my own bishop.
Why?
Because in the upside-down logic of today's world, I'm not just a Bad Catholic--I'm "dangerous".
0 comments:
Post a Comment