WHEN WILL THE MEDIA DISCUSS THE SEXUAL DISORDERS BROUGHT ON BY ORIGINAL SIN'S CONCUPISCENCE AND ACTUAL SIN THROUGH FULL CONSENT OF THE WILL?
Other Today Show hosts are stunned. Will they gloat over this as they did over fallen priests and the disappointment and grief Catholics experienced over revelations?
Will they continue to blame celibacy and the Church's repression of sexuality?
But more importantly, when will these reporters who work for Fox, Universal and Time Warner (Fox, NBC and CNN) face up to the smut their companies create and disseminate, such as hard and soft core pornography, that degrades everyone, male, female and child and all for profit.
The executives, producers, directors, writers and everyone else with a sophomoric mentality who manipulates and corrupts those who watch, should be held accountable and yes, fired.
43 comments:
I doubt you can show where Today Show hosts, or any news people, "gloated" over the Catholic Church scandal.
Your habit is to effectively dismiss the global abuse scandal by positing that the church's critics are as bad or worse.
Let it go, please.
Reform only comes with true contrition.
Excuse me? When one couches concupiscence, no matter the type, within the context of the disorders of Original Sin and thus the actual sins which the sinner is responsible when there is full consent of the will, it is thus implicit and explicit that this is also a religious issue that needs sorry, apologies, repentance,penance and an intention to amend one's life that leads to forgiveness. This goes for the executives of institutions that looked the other way or were complicit, like bishops as well.
And yes, in their shock the two female anchors this morning said that they were shocked and felt devastated by the news because they know and love Matt, thus trying to get empathy from the audience. There was none of that for lay Catholics and brother priests of the accused and guilty who had the same sentiments offered by the New York Time which owned the Boston Globe and other media outlets.
They're just Democrat operatives with bylines - good riddance to two smarmy members of the Abortion Party, formerly, the Democratic Party!
By the way, when is the Media going to demand that the unions remove all of these public school teachers in the news recently for abusing kids?
So where was the gloating?
The two women you cite made personal statements reacting to complaints against a man who was, presumably, a friend.
One would hardly expect the same from news reporters discussing priests accused of molesting minors. (While Lauer's actions may be disgusting or sinful -- we don't know yet, because we have no details -- there's no indication yet that he committed any crime or abused children.)
Again, you apparently aim to normalize the abuse scandal by arguing that every sexual-harassment is as bad as, or worse than, a ring of pederasts, protected for decades by the Church and its cardinals.
It just ain't so.
And where was the gloating?
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like since Pope Benedict's reign, the number of homosexual abuse scandals involving clergy (spare me the pedophile crap, unless you're talking about Bill Clintoon's to Pedophile Island) have plummeted. It sounds like the Church, albeit belatedly, has restored decency within the clerical ranks
I think the bishops are handling accusations much differently and zero tolerance is assisting in this, whereas therapy and restoring a priest was the priority--with little thought to the victims and their families and more demonically, potential victims in the future. Of course I am speaking of non-consensual sexual deviance or using one's role of trust to abuse.
Gloating in the sense that only the Catholic priesthood (which the media hacks say is caused by celibacy) seems to be their primary concern and for political reasons. Pederasty is so common in families and especially now with lax sexual morals where women now bring their new boyfriends into the home regularly.
I would suggest you visit your local jail and prison and see just how many marry men are in prison for pederasty and compare that to the priest population there.
Families, schools and other institutions where children and teenagers are have the same rate of molestation. But you would not know that because the press seems only concerned about protecting Catholic children from priests.
There was no gloating, so Fr. McDonald cannot produce any evidence.
He is overly sensitive - somewhat understandably - to reports of the fact of sexual abuse by priests. That being said, he does go overboard in these rants about "When will they this?" and "When will they that?"
Shooting the messenger - his berating the "media" for reporting the facts is how it is accomplished here - doesn't change the message.
There are numerous media reports on sexual abuse by people other than priests. If you have followed the news you have seen the abuse by the USA Gymnastics doctor all over the place.
There are also reports of priests receiving justice after false allegations have been made against them. Just yesterday SNAP apologized for false accusations made against a priest in Missouri.
If you haven't seen any coverage of child abuse or molestation outside the Church, I suggest you broaden your reading and viewing habits.
However, you will never see a case where cardinals and bishops, over a period of years, shuffled dozens of priests from parish to parish, evading criminal charges, paying millions in secret settlements, keeping victims' families -- and families in a new parish -- in the dark.
If violations on that level happened in a government agency, a school district or a corporation, its leaders likely would have gone to prison.
These cases came to light due to brave Catholic families, who were often discouraged by people like you from coming forward -- to avoid "embarrassment" to the Church, of course.
Obviously, you're still embarrassed, which is every new sexual-harassment case is an occasion for you to harp on the unfairness of it all.
The blame game, casting aspersions on the victims and those who told their stories, trying to "normalize" abuse and bearing false witness -- none of these reflects well on you or the Church, and it illustrates why many still doubt the hierarchy's sincerity.
Time to let go your grudges & resentments. This one's not going to get any better.
This is a strange situation. The enemies of the Church did indeed leap on the opportunity to mock the Church and clergy. But we brought that on ourselves to a large degree by assuming that confessing a sin made us immune to it. There was, and is, cover up of misdeeds. But the part that is hardest to deal with is the fact that we are faulted for being weak in the face of temptation only because we want to avoid it. The people who mock us embrace Satan’s call and therefore assume they are no longer at fault because they have not violated their personal value system. This is prevalent among progressives because it buys a mutual pass for each-other’s sin as tolerance. The equally evil sister of tolerance is hypocrisy who attacks the liberal spleen if tolerance faulters in the least. The individual can then hide in the pack behind the skirt of tolerance to avoid standing alone and walking against the crowd. The attack on the individual is the best weapon of progressives because it not only carries the best leverage for victory, it also makes an example of the hypocrit for the rest of the herd. So the sin of hypocrisy for the good man is a display of natural human weakness; hypocrisy for the progressive man is the intolerable show of strength in the face Satan’s Law.
But this spectacle is strange because the Bolshevic methods are in full force among the progressives like piranhas eating each other. But they are not eating each other for being hypocrites, but for being piranhas.
Bee here:
When the media reported the sexual abuse of minors within the Church, they painted with a very broad brush, and the result was they suggested by implication that there were many more hidden cases than were ever discovered. I was outraged at the implication that priest = predator.
I have 5 brothers. We attended the Catholic parish school and they were all altar servers, and we went to Catholic high school. I have asked them, and none of them ever had any priest, all through their lives, approach them inappropriately.
However, as an adult, there was a priest at a parish I attended who seemed to act strangely, and seemed to do things with the boys of the parish I had never known priests to do, such as take them on camping trips alone, or invite them into his private quarters to "play video games." When the clergy sexual abuse scandal broke this priest was one of those charged and found guilty of molestation. It was hard for me to believe other priests at the parish, and especially the pastor, did not suspect him of inappropriate contact with boys, since even casual exposure to his behavior sent up a red flag in my own mind.
When the media reported the clergy abuse scandal they also suggested the bishops closed ranks and acted to cover up the crimes. The bishops, on their part, claimed they acted out of discretion and charity for all involved. But I don't believe them. I think that the bishops for the most part acted like businessmen protecting the assets of the "company" and did damage control of the "brand." I believe this because I believe any Catholic person should be quick to react to anyone hurting a child in any way, and I would have expected a bishop would be so scandalized by reports of such behavior, he would investigate promptly and remove that priest from service immediately. So I was outraged when the press reported a bishop's typical stance was denial and stonewalling and lawyering up, and priests were simply moved around rather than removed. I find this unconscionable. It showed me the bishops acted like the "hired hands" Jesus speaks of in the Gospel, the ones who let the wolves ravage the sheep. And am willing to bet if the issue had been money missing from the collections, the guilty priest would have been removed faster than he could say a Hail Mary, and never placed in a position of fiduciary trust again. So I ask myself, what are these bishops really?
(cont. next post)
Bee here: (part 2 of 2)
On the part of the press, however, I did sense quite a bit of glee on the faces and in the tone of voice of the reporters; a sort of happiness someone expresses when they find some dirt on their enemy and can expose them. They seemed to be mocking the hypocrisy of the Church, and as a member, I was ashamed our leaders let us down. What could one say to defend such heinous behavior, especially because the Church claims moral authority?
Jesus once said what you say (and do) in the dark will be brought to the light, what is whispered in an inner room will be shouted from the housetops. Isn't this what happened in the sex abuse scandal? It is actually a mercy for us this was brought to the light. But it is a shame our clergy, from priest to cardinal to Pope, did not practice what we already know and teach, that unrepented mortal sin will destroy you, both here and in the afterlife. And I tell you, the hidden homosexual behavior of priests now, even in the Vatican, is another time bomb waiting to explode. When it does the faith of many will be shaken and even destroyed. God only gives us so much time to clean up our act privately before He allows our outrageous sins to be exposed publicly.
In the end I am left with the question, how could a pastor or bishop, as gatekeeper, allow these sick men to go out among the people who trust them by virtue of their priestly office? How could these sick men be allowed to operate with impunity under the protection of the Church?
No one seems to want to answer that question, because I suspect the answer is not a pleasant one.
God bless.
Bee
Bee here:
Anonymous at November 29, 2017 at 12:27 PM said:
"There are also reports of priests receiving justice after false allegations have been made against them. Just yesterday SNAP apologized for false accusations made against a priest in Missouri."
That is fine and well, but you cannot unring a bell. SNAP's spokespersons are often quite publicly vitriolic and hyperbolic, and it would have been better would be more measured in their language and careful in their claims, since once a reputation is damaged, any apology makes no repair.
God bless.
Bee
I can support Father McDonald's claims in question about the media treatment of Holy Mother Church.
I can point, for example, to the Daily Show hosted by Jon Stewart. Mister Stewart and guests mocked the Church, priests...gloated...in regard to the scandal in question.
There are Daily Show clips of such Jon Stewart having granted a platform to Louis C.K., who, in turn, mocked...offered vile, filthy comments...about Pope Benedict XVI and the child abuse scandal.
By way of media outlets, platforms were available to people who attacked and gloated about the Church.
Father McDonald's comments in question are valid.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Comedy Central had granted for years to Jon Stewart (The Daily Show) the opportunity to mock Catholicism in regard to sex abuse scandal.
Here is an analysis of Mister Stewart’s nasty tone in regard to Catholicism:
http://www.politicaltheology.com/blog/from-the-outside-jon-stewart-satire-and-the-catholic-church-lorraine-cuddeback/
"If 9/11 changed how Stewart criticized politicians, the sex abuse crisis breaking in 2002 changed how he spoke of the Catholic Church and clergy. In May 2001, Stewart offered (relatively) lighthearted jokes about John Paul II’s visits to Syria, Greece, and Malta.
"By April 2002, Stewart and then-correspondent Rob Corddry were skewering Cardinal Law. The change in tone is significant. In the shift from overdone jokes about the Crusades to the line, “If a priest molests you, for God’s sake get a receipt,” the church moved from being an old institution of minor social interest to an institution that is colluding with the powers and principalities we are meant to resist.
"Stewart’s coverage of the unfolding abuse cases was harsh, at times angry. Later, Corddry and Stewart would do a segment simply titled “Stop Fondling Kids.”
"The harshness carried over throughout most of Benedict XVI’s papacy, and the objects of critique expanded, including politicized threats of excommunication and the initial objections to the HHS mandate.
"But the scandal remained a touchstone of Stewart’s coverage, limited it may have been, of Benedict XVI’s papacy."
======================================================
In regard to the sexual abuse scandal, and even beyond that, CBS permitted David Letterman to have offered the following nasty remarks:
https://www.catholicleague.org/letterman-press-releases/
NBC permitted Jay Leno to have offered the following:
https://www.catholicleague.org/jay-leno-crosses-the-line-2/
The Today Show, 2007 A.D., and Robin Williams' vile anti-Catholic jokes related to the abuse scandal.
https://www.today.com/news/robin-williams-backs-offensive-catholic-joke-1C9013924
Pax.
Mark Thomas
NBC fired Matt Lauer. Conservatives & evangelicals about to vote sex abuser Roy Moore to the Senate. Who's more moral????
Father McDonald's statement was this:
"Other Today Show hosts are stunned. Will they gloat over this as they did over fallen priests and the disappointment and grief Catholics experienced over revelations?"
Prodded several times to give examples, he gave none
In response, Mark Thomas cites several so-called comedians -- not the New York Times, or "the media" or the New York Times or the Boston Globe.
False witness!
The Catholic Church has been the butt of many comedians' jokes. That is not gloating.
If Jon Stewart offered "harsh" and "angry" criticism of the way too many sex abuse claims were handled - mishandled, rather - by too many bishops, that harshness and anger were entirely justified. I've heard and you've read very harsh and angry criticism from within the Church, including from clergy and religious.
Regarding Cardinal Law: "Law was the Archbishop of Boston from 1984 until his resignation on December 13, 2002, in response to the Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal after church documents showed he had extensive knowledge of sexual abuse committed by dozens of Catholic priests within his archdiocese. One priest alone was alleged to have raped or molested 130 children over decades, while Law and other local officials moved him among churches rather than going to the authorities."
He is lucky he was only "skewered" and not imprisoned.
Daniel,
First of all Roy Moore's accusers lack credibility and there is no solid evidence of ANYTHING - other than a political hit job.
But let's take a trip down the memory lane with liberals (Dems) elected to office and for which no price was paid:
Ted Kennedy - killed a woman under very questionable circumstances
Jerry Studds - Congressman from Mass had anal sex with an underage male page
Barney Frank - gay boyfriend ran a brothel out of their DC apartment
Bill "Horndog" Clintoon - settled sexual harassment cases with his victims, was credibly accused of rape, and molestation (interestingly by all Dem woman)
Al Franken - Molester
Conyers - Molester
All of the above are Dems, who were either re-elected or never resigned.
So why don't you grow up
Anonymous, you left out Cardinal "Roger Dodger "Mahoney (liberal) who had a far worse record than Law and even lied under oath. He should be in prison. Mahoney received less bad press because he supported many of the Abortion Party's pet causes
Comedians joke about things. It's what they do. It's pretty much their job description.
15 years ago, they were skewering Cardinal Law, tonight Matt Lauwer.
In any case, it's a desperate stretch to conflate them with the journalists who exposed the church scandals, who (judging by their work) were honest, fair and respectfully done. They did God's work in protecting children and their families. Would that our church leaders had as much integrity.
Anonymous said..."In response, Mark Thomas cites several so-called comedians -- not the New York Times, or "the media" or the New York Times or the Boston Globe. False witness!"
Please note that Father McDonald offered the following:
" Like priests, celebrities and politicians are falling like flies!
"WHEN WILL THE MEDIA DISCUSS THE SEXUAL DISORDERS BROUGHT ON BY ORIGINAL SIN'S CONCUPISCENCE AND ACTUAL SIN THROUGH FULL CONSENT OF THE WILL?
"...when will these reporters who work for Fox, Universal and Time Warner (Fox, NBC and CNN) face up to the smut their companies create and disseminate, such as hard and soft core pornography, that degrades everyone, male, female and child and all for profit."
"The executives, producers, directors, writers and everyone else with a sophomoric mentality who manipulates and corrupts those who watch, should be held accountable and yes, fired."
===========================================================================
Father McDonald's above comments are valid.
Via powerful media corporations, platforms were provided to people who attacked and mocked Catholicism in regard to the microscopic percentage of priests who abused minors sexually.
Anonymous, you said: "In response, Mark Thomas cites several so-called comedians -- not the New York Times, or "the media" or the New York Times or the Boston Globe."
Sorry, but it is a fact that "the media" attacked, mocked and gloated in regard to priests, the Church, and the abuse scandal.
It turned out that such men as David Letterman and Louis C.K., who were among those who mocked and gloated over Catholicism's sex abuse scandal, engaged in vile sexual misconduct.
The men in question did so via "the media."
Father McDonald made valid points, Anonymous.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Anonymous said..."If Jon Stewart offered "harsh" and "angry" criticism of the way too many sex abuse claims were handled - mishandled, rather - by too many bishops, that harshness and anger were entirely justified."
Jon Stewart trafficked in foul, obscene anti-Catholic "criticism" in regard to the manner in which certain Churchmen handled the sexual abuse scandal in question.
Jon Stewart promoted lies against Pope Benedict XVI when Mister Stewart claimed that Pope Benedict XVI had covered up the abuse scandal.
===============================================================
Additional information that supports Father McDonald's comments in question in regard to media outlets:
In regard to Jon Stewart's Daily Show and anti-Catholic mockery and gloating...from 2010 A.D.
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/06/28/comedy-centrals-anti-catholic-bigotry/
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Father McDonald has noted the two-faced manner in which news/entertainment organizations promote immorality while gloating in regard to sexual abuse cases that have involved priests.
Here is an example of the above:
Actor Mark Ruffalo starred in the move Spotlight, which glorified The Boston Globe's "investigation into cases of widespread and systemic child sex abuse in the Boston area by numerous Roman Catholic priests."
========================================================
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-me-spotlight-protest-downtown-la-20160228-story.html
Mark Ruffalo, 'Spotlight' creators join Catholic sex abuse victims' rally in downtown L.A.
"About 20 protesters who rallied against sexual abuse in the Catholic church in downtown Los Angeles were joined by "Spotlight" actor Mark Ruffalo, the film's director Tom McCarthy and its writer Josh Singer on Sunday.
"Protesters, many of whom identify as victims of abuse by Catholic priests, marched and brandished banners outside the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels Sunday morning.
"Ruffalo, Singer and McCarthy, who were invited by the group to appear, joined them in calling on the church to take greater action against sexual abuse and release the names of known abusers.
"The "Spotlight" creators each held a section of a banner printed with the victims' childhood photos and addressed the protesters before heading to pre-Oscar parties and the red carpet.
"I'm here to stand with the survivors and the victims and the people we've lost from Catholic priest childhood sex abuse," Ruffalo told protesters.
"The protest, organized by the group Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests..."
=============================================================
Actor Mark Ruffalo Proud of His Mother for Aborting His Sibling
http://www.lifenews.com/2013/08/20/actor-mark-ruffalo-proud-of-his-mother-for-aborting-his-sibling/
"Actor Mark Ruffalo is causing a stir with a column he wrote defending abortion. But Ruffalo goes further than merely defending legalized abortion — he apologizes for and defends his mother getting an illegal abortion of his own sibling.
=========================================================================
Abortion is the ultimate molestation/abuse of a child.
But abortion is acceptable to certain folks who lead the charge against priests accused of sexual abuse against minors.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark, Mr. Ruffalo's protesting sexual abuse of children is not "gloating."
This discussion shows how the sex scandal led Catholic conservatives into some sick & creepy places.
15 years later, we are still playing "See? Not so bad!"
Peace
Mark Thomas - We all know that some comedians make the Church the butt of their jokes. This is nothing new.
And it is not gloating.
That some harbor an anti-Catholic bias is also nothing new. And it is also not gloating.
You have posted:
"Protesters, many of whom identify as victims of abuse by Catholic priests, marched and brandished banners outside the Cathedral of Our Lady of Angels Sunday morning.
"Ruffalo, Singer and McCarthy, who were invited by the group to appear, joined them in calling on the church to take greater action against sexual abuse and release the names of known abusers."
There is nothing inappropriate in this. While it may make some people very uncomfortable, it is an acceptable response, one that should come as no surprise to anyone.
Referring to Stewart's comments as "foul and obscene" pales in comparison to the harm done by those who abuse others sexually.
The fact of the matter is that the press did not do its job or go after other child and teenage sex abuse cases in other venues, like the public school system because it did not fulfill their agenda, for which they gloat over, and that is promoting a culture of abortion, sexual license, artificial contraception, same sex unions, euthanasia and other hot button issues.
Percentage of child sexual abuse and other kinds of abuse is staggering in our society today and most of it happens in the home. Any news on this? NO!!
Why? Read my first paragraph.
And when the press saw that it could sink the Church on this awful issue, which the Church is only part of the problem, because the Church can have her dress sued off, while public and governmental organizations can't, all the more reason to single out the Church for political reasons.
Daniel,
I see you ran away from my response because you can't respond in a credible manner, or maybe because they are members of the Abortion Party, so in your mind, they get a pass
Daniel said..."Mark, Mr. Ruffalo's protesting sexual abuse of children is not "gloating."
Daniel, via interviews of Mister Ruffalo, I have encountered a man/actor who has a decent sense of social justice for oppressed people. I say "decent" sense as he lacks a powerful sense of social justice. His support for abortion demonstrates that he lacks a full and powerful sense of social justice. After all, abortion is the ultimate molestation/abuse of a (defenseless) person.
But despite his decent sense of social justice, Mark Ruffalo has demonstrated that he possesses a smug, superior attitude in regard to his attitude and view of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
He lectures to the Catholic Church not only in regard to the issue of priests who abused minors sexually.
Mark Ruffalo also lectures Holy Mother Church in regard to Her holy teachings.
Mark Ruffalo possesses an arrogant, smug, anti-Catholic attitude.
Example:
http://people.com/celebrity/mark-ruffalo-talks-hypocrisy-of-catholic-church-at-spotlight-premiere/
Mark Ruffalo Slams 'Hypocrisy' of Catholicism: It 'Chilled My Relationship' with the Church
Pax.
Mark Thomas
P.S. Father McDonald's comments in question are valid...100 percent valid.
"But despite his decent sense of social justice, Mark Ruffalo has demonstrated that he possesses a smug, superior attitude in regard to his attitude and view of the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church."
If, unlike too many American bishops and priests, Mr. Ruffalo has not abused minors or covered up that abuse, then his position IS superior to that of members of the One True (sic) Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
"And when the press saw that it could sink the Church on this awful issue,..."
There you go again.
Blaming the messenger doesn't change the message. It is not the "press" that is sinking the Church, it is the behavior of Bishops and Priests.
Hey, Daniel, still waiting for your insights on your Dem heroes I referenced here!!
TJM, I'm not getting paid to explain history, the American legal system and differing types of sexual misconduct to the willfully clueless. Not today
What's the problem here?
Mark Ruffalo's "arrogant, smug" attitude?
Or an international scandal & coverup, reaching up to the cardinal level and the Vatican, that has cost the Church billions in settlements to victims?
Yes, people like Ruffalo are obviously the real problem here.
Daniel,
Deflecting because your statement was ridiculous about Judge Moore and the people of Alabama. The reason you can't address the real examples I gave is because you are a witless supporter of the Abortion Party. You would have been the perfect little German in Hitler's Germany.
TJM, no, you're wrong, I am not a Republican. I am a member of the only party with a track record of reducing & preventing abortions.
Daniel,
Thanks for the laugh. The Democratic Party supports intrinsic evils such as abortion and gay marriage. Hildabeast Clintoon said a child has no rights until they draw their first breath and was in favor of late term abortions. Abortion King Obama when he was a state senator in Illinois voted against a bill that would require healthcare providers to save the lives of an infant that survived an abortion. Obama through an executive order authorized the feds to pay for abortion. Did you fail logic? Need I go on or are you going to stick with your intellectually ridiculous argument. I am still waiting for your comments on Senator Oldsmobile Kennedy, Horndog Clintoon, Bawney Fwank, Gerry Studds (aptly named) and Conyers!
TJM and Daniel (and everyone else):
There are two words in the Catholic lexicon that should be our guides in assessing any of the hot button issues that get debated on this Blog, including the allegations of sexual misconduct against Roy Moore, President Trump, Al Franken, or the Catholic Church; various claims and other statements made by President Trump or other politicians; or indeed anything else. Those two words are honesty and integrity. We should seek to instantiate these two foundational virtues in our own lives, including when we debate political issues with one another, and we should demand that others, especially our political, intellectual, and spiritual leaders, seek to instantiate them in their own lives.
Without these foundational virtues, the other virtues have little meaning. And without them I believe we are doomed. In the dreadful era in which we now live in which lies and falsehoods are normalized and are accepted if perpetrated by our own tribe, the dystopic world of 1984 is just around the corner. Unlike Winston Smith we do not have an O’Brien torturing us physically. Instead we are being psychologically mugged – by politicians and by the media (including social media). But the result will be the same. When the tribal authority figure holds up four fingers and asks us how many fingers there are, we will say five because that is what the tribal authority figure expects of us. Even worse, we will really believe there are five fingers, just as Winston did, and we will no longer be able to tell the difference between lies and falsehoods. And, of course, worst of all, we will love “Big Brother.”
So, it is vital that we all try to rise about our petty tribal partisanship and stand for honesty and integrity. This means that we should not tolerate lies and other falsehoods, by whomever uttered, and we should not tolerate hypocrisy, by whomever displayed. Facts matter. Truth matters. Honesty matters. And integrity matters. This – and not tax reform, not immigration, not sexual misconduct per se, not North Korea, not even abortion as such – is the great calling of our time. I hope and pray that all Catholics (and many others) will stand up and be counted in answering this calling. Unless we do so, none of the other issues about which we care can be properly addressed and things will go very badly for the Republic and for the Church.
Anonymous 2, honesty and integrity can't be found in Catholics who support the Abortion Party. They are trying to square a circle. They are not good people, but they are masquerading as good people by through their silly virtue signalling on non essential causes. If you can't be born, nothing else matters.
P.S. Correction -- In the penultimate sentence of the second paragraph of my previous post the clause “and we will no longer be able to tell the difference between lies and falsehoods” should of course be “and we will no longer be able to tell the difference between lies and truth.”
TJM:
I agree that Catholics should display honesty and integrity when addressing the abortion issue. I also agree that Catholics should recognize abortion as an intrinsic evil and should not do things that are intended to “support or promote” abortion. This is a teaching of the Church. I do not agree that Catholics must always vote for the Republican candidate in an election just because that candidate says, and I repeat says, that he or she is opposed to legalized abortion. The call to honesty and integrity also includes a call to honesty about the guidance the Catholic Church provides on voting—specifically, in the United States, the guidance provided by the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship.” In the matter of voting, integrity as a Catholic consists in conscientiously following the guidance given.
TJM:
Also, would you agree that a Catholic is not justified in lying or uttering falsehoods, or in propagating lies and falsehoods uttered by others, provided he or she is opposed to abortion?
Post a Comment