News & Views from 465 California Street

Theological McCarthyism

Clint Reilly
Apr
28
2009

Can we criticize the Catholic Church without having our faith and loyalty called into question?

It seems that the answer is “no.” A climate of theological McCarthyism has infected the institutional church, particularly around the issue of abortion.

Selective public condemnations by a handful of conservative bishops are a Sword of Damocles over Catholic leaders who have experienced drive-by denunciations from the pulpit.

It is unfair that a Catholic presidential nominee – or a Catholic United States senator or member of Congress – who personally opposes abortion but has genuine convictions that a blanket anti-abortion law would not work in a pluralistic society – can be randomly refused communion by any bishop who so decides.

A boldface example of the intolerance for alternative views in the public square that is emerging in the Catholic Church is the push to ban President Barack Obama from speaking at Notre Dame University because of his pro-choice position on abortion.

Great! Let’s not invite America’s first black president – elected with the enthusiastic support of the nation’s youth – to talk about the state of the world at our leading Catholic university.

John Quinn, the retired Archbishop of San Francisco, recently published a courageous article in the March 30 issue of America magazine severely questioning the wisdom of banning President Obama from speaking at Notre Dame:

“The demand from many Catholic bishops and lay leaders that the University of Notre Dame rescind its invitation to President Obama to deliver the 2009 commencement address is surely a critical moment in the relationship between the Catholic Church in the United States and the wider American society,” he writes.

He plainly implies that banning a U.S. President would actually set back the pro-life agenda: “If the President is forced to withdraw, will that bring about fewer abortions in America? Will it enhance the mission of the church? Will it be used to link the church with racist and extremist elements? Will this action be seen as proof that the bishops of the United States do not seek dialogue on major policy questions?”

Archbishop Quinn has it right. As a former Democratic political consultant, I have watched closely as Republican strategists like Karl Rove cynically manipulate the issue of abortion in campaign after campaign.

President Bush’s public courtship of Pope Benedict XVI in two orchestrated meetings in Washington and Rome was never without the subtext of Bush’s pro-life stance on abortion. Contrast these camera-ready official encounters to the Pope’s 15-minute meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at the Vatican. After a short cup of coffee, Pope Benedict released a statement with an implied criticism of Pelosi’s position on abortion. It is too easy to mistakenly infer that Pope Benedict blesses Bush’s entire Republican political agenda while rejecting the totality of Speaker Pelosi’s Democratic platform.

Second, pro-life politics have become the cultural dividing line in Republican campaigns to determine who is more authentically conservative. Look no further than the choice of pro-lifer Sarah Palin over more qualified pro-choice Republicans as the party’s 2008 vice-presidential nominee.

Third, Republicans have blatantly used abortion to court Catholic Democratic votes across the nation in the last two presidential elections, relishing the attacks by conservative Catholic bishops on Democrats.

But one thing is clear. Through all the television spots, brochures, speeches, photo ops and posturing by both candidates and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, there has been virtually no impact in making laws that have reduced abortion in the United States.

I believe that Catholic legislators who personally oppose abortion but acknowledge the right of others to disagree ought to be respected. Let the Church challenge them to support voluntary education campaigns that discourage abortion or to write laws that eliminate the most outrageous practices of abortion-on-demand.

The Church should redirect its massive powers of persuasion – now exclusively aimed at a failed and deeply divisive 30-year public sector campaign – toward public education and persuading pregnant women and their families, not targeting Catholic politicians.

Comments (30)

  • Just wanted to thank you for the column today. “Theological McCarthyism” seems to exist for nearly every discussion or critique of nearly every institutionalized religion, not just in the Roman Catholic Church. But it is so important to bring up the topic, so I thank you for doing it.

    The muddle that we’re in, where there is a very blurred line between Church and State, is quite a pickle. I hope that Obama’s presidency is able to increase the gap between the two.

    I enjoy reading your column. Keep up the great work.

    Warmest regards,

    Victoria M

    Posted by: Victoria | April 28th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

  • Dear Clint,

    I respectfully disagree re Obama at Notre Dame.

    I write as a native Irishman who, like most of my compatriots, would situate myself way to the left of the Democratic Party on almost all issues. Apart from that I am close to being a pacifist.

    Notre Dame should not give a doctorate to Pres. Obama for the following reason: at some future date (hopefully in the long distant future) Americans will elect as President a pro-war nut job Under pressure from right-wing Catholics, Notre Dame will feel constrained to offer him or her an honorary doctorate so as to appear ‘fair and balanced’.

    Thus the whole concept of an hon. doctorate from a Catholic college becomes totally devalued. Why in any case do we have to dispense such doctorates like hot cross buns? Better limit them to honour people (and if they are rare, so what?), who represent what Christ stood for and what Catholicism stands for at its best, namely, the principle that the solution to human problems is not the taking of human life.

    (Fr.) D.D.

    Posted by: D.D. | April 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pm

  • It is for reasons as discussed in your article today and in related articles you have written that people like myself, raised Catholic but non-practicing, have left the church. To hear from the church that condoms cause AIDS, to not be responsive to the needs of the people on such subjects as birth control, just reaffirms my belief that the church is totally inflexible and unwilling to deal with the issues of the real world.

    Specifically about your article of today, how ridiculous to try to ban President Obama from speaking at Notre Dame. This school allowed George Bush to speak. George Bush while governor of Texas authorized use of the death penalty, a practice the church also opposes. In fact, he authorized more executions than any other president in history but was still considered acceptable to speak at Notre Dame. This was in addition to the fact that he started an immoral war against a country for personal reasons.

    Just recently I was listening to NPR, and speaking was a young conservative black woman. She lamented that her party, instead of addressing the concerns of middle class people, continues to focus on guns and gays and abortions. Such is also true for the Catholic Church. By continuing to use the same priorities actually does damage to the mission of the church and plays directly into the hands of such strategists who are only concerned about religion when it comes to elections. I have often wondered how so-called Christians can approve of our war In Iraq, torture and other so obviously un-Christian policies.

    Church leaders should look at the results of our recent national election and note what states went Republican. Is that the group the church wants to represent? If so, then the Catholic leadership should continue with campaigns like trying to rescind the invitation to President Obama to speak at Notre Dame and see how that will sit with middle class America and the Black community. To me it just points out the hypocrisy of the whole situation and the Catholic leadership in particular.

    Thank you for your thought provoking articles,

    Gayle K

    Posted by: Gayle | April 28th, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  • I agree, let’s eliminate the “most outrageous practices.” This would obv iously include partial birth abortion.
    The child is fully formed at that point. Yet when the legislature of Kansas passed a bill to protect these babies – Mrs Sabellius vetoed it. This woman is personally opposed to abortion and a Catholic.

    Ditto Mr Obama with regards to infants BORN ALIVE while he was a member of the Illinois legislature.
    Blaming conservative Bishops or the Pope will not alter these facts. Lets call abortion what it is – carnage.

    Cathal G

    Posted by: Cathal G. | April 28th, 2009 at 12:51 pm

  • If I had the privilege, I would suggest to our new president that he
    wish the Pope good health and a nice day, politely declining offers
    to speak at any educational institution fostering blind
    single-mindedness among its students.
    Your article hits the proverbial nail on the head.
    Thanks

    Posted by: William | April 28th, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  • Your articles on the Roman Church are well taken. It is an anachronistic institution, rigid and intractable in its policies in an effort to maintain psychological and emotional control of its adherents, instead of providing general guide lines for leading improved lives.

    John S

    Posted by: John S. | April 28th, 2009 at 12:54 pm

  • CAMBRIDGE, Mass., April 28 /Christian Newswire/ — The following text is made available to the press by Susan Norton, assistant to Mary Ann Glendon:

    April 27, 2009

    Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., President
    University of Notre Dame
    400 Main Building
    Notre Dame, IN 46556
    FAX 574-631-2770

    Dear Father Jenkins,

    When you informed me in December 2008 that I had been selected to receive Notre Dame’s Laetare Medal, I was profoundly moved. I treasure the memory of receiving an honorary degree from Notre Dame in 1996, and I have always felt honored that the commencement speech I gave that year was included in the anthology of Notre Dame’s most memorable commencement speeches. So I immediately began working on an acceptance speech that I hoped would be worthy of the occasion, of the honor of the medal, and of your students and faculty.

    Last month, when you called to tell me that the commencement speech was to be given by President Obama, I mentioned to you that I would have to rewrite my speech. Over the ensuing weeks, the task that once seemed so delightful has been complicated by a number of factors.

    First, as a longtime consultant to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, I could not help but be dismayed by the news that Notre Dame also planned to award the president an honorary degree. This, as you must know, was in disregard of the U.S. bishops’ express request of 2004 that Catholic institutions “should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” and that such persons “should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.” That request, which in no way seeks to control or interfere with an institution’s freedom to invite and engage in serious debate with whomever it wishes, seems to me so reasonable that I am at a loss to understand why a Catholic university should disrespect it.

    Then I learned that “talking points” issued by Notre Dame in response to widespread criticism of its decision included two statements implying that my acceptance speech would somehow balance the event:

    “President Obama won’t be doing all the talking. Mary Ann Glendon, the former U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, will be speaking as the recipient of the Laetare Medal.”

    “We think having the president come to Notre Dame, see our graduates, meet our leaders, and hear a talk from Mary Ann Glendon is a good thing for the president and for the causes we care about.”

    A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision–in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops– to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.

    Finally, with recent news reports that other Catholic schools are similarly choosing to disregard the bishops’ guidelines, I am concerned that Notre Dame’s example could have an unfortunate ripple effect.

    It is with great sadness, therefore, that I have concluded that I cannot accept the Laetare Medal or participate in the May 17 graduation ceremony.

    In order to avoid the inevitable speculation about the reasons for my decision, I will release this letter to the press, but I do not plan to make any further comment on the matter at this time.

    Yours very truly,

    Mary Ann Glendon

    Posted by: KN | April 28th, 2009 at 12:58 pm

  • I cherish my memories from childhood in the Catholic church. Sadly the church is at odds with my core values and beliefs. Exclusion and judgement are not Christian values.

    Posted by: melinda maginn | April 28th, 2009 at 1:30 pm

  • My wife and I are lifelong Roman Catholics age 75 and 74. Two weeks ago (4-18-09) we attended a banquet at St. Monica’s Church in Santa Monica and my wife mentioned to the lady sitting next to her, whom she had never met before, that we had both voted for Obama. The woman from then on out many times declared, “Well then you are not a Catholic.”
    My wife protested, “I’m a daily communicant,” ,Reply “You are not a Catholic.” My wife told her “with a personal relationship with Jesus , this is how He leads Me” her reply “You are really misinformed”
    Later, the woman stated hat she had seven children, all by the same man and after twenty years of marriage to him got an annulment.

    An old (88 years old) Irish recently mentioned to me, “There are two things a Bishop never gets. A cold meal…and the truth.”
    Our Bishops are out of it.

    I believed the Roman Catholic Church needs one active Bishop who has all his financial needs safe from any outside sources, to stand up and speak out for those of us who support Vatican ll.

    Our two local parishes, St Philip Neiri and St. Albert’s in Alameda, which are now a cluster parish with priests from India, have ringing of the bells at some communions, many songs in Latin, adoration and Legion of Mary.

    Thank you for being a “breath of Fresh Air for us all, and may God continue to bless you. We need you and we need change, please God. In Him , Frank and Mary

    Posted by: Frank & Mary | April 28th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  • What is your definition of a conservative Bishop? Is it one who follows the teachings of the church?

    Posted by: Bob Kilmartin | April 28th, 2009 at 4:06 pm

  • I enjoy your “public service messages” in the CC Times very much.
    Thank you, Clint, for your insights published in the Times!

    Mary

    Posted by: Mary | April 28th, 2009 at 5:11 pm

  • Thanks so much for this article. Much needed. Keep them coming. If we are not careful our American Catholic Church will be taken over by such crazy thinking. What next? Torture???
    Vincent Boyle, Rhet 51

    Posted by: Vincent Boyle | April 28th, 2009 at 6:16 pm

  • Clint: As an Episcopalian in a community established as Roman Catholic here in North Beach, which I deeply respect, I appreciate appropriate challenges to orthodoxy, how about an active, green message from Rome?

    Posted by: Tony Gantner | April 28th, 2009 at 6:28 pm

  • “instead of providing general guide lines for leading improved lives”

    Well this is a watered-down perspective of the Gospel.

    It all comes done to abortion for some critics, though let us not forget the Church is at the forefront of speaking out for social just towards the poor, the immigrant, and those facing war and oppression.

    Posted by: dan | April 28th, 2009 at 6:49 pm

  • “Great! Let’s not invite America’s first black president – elected with the enthusiastic support of the nation’s youth – to talk about the state of the world at our leading Catholic university.”

    Is the uproar soley about the speaking invitation, or is more about the honorary degree? This distinction needs to be noted in our discussion about this.

    Posted by: Paxton | April 29th, 2009 at 7:12 am

  • I read Mary Ann Glendon’s long letter with interest and amazement, wondering how an intelligent mind can have been so traduced. Then I read the next post, from Melinda McGinn: “I cherish my memories from childhood in the Catholic church. Sadly the church is at odds with my core values and beliefs. Exclusion and judgement are not Christian values.”

    Well said, Melinda. Your sentiment entirely reflects my own, Scottish, experience and feeling. What a shame!

    Hugh (hmillar@lern.co.uk)

    Posted by: Hugh Millar | April 29th, 2009 at 10:42 am

  • Clint,
    The title of your piece does not help objective dialog of the abortion issue—-too emotional.
    Both sides of the abortion issue make persuasive arguments for their convictions. Whatever the argument, whatever the definition of life, the end result is either a live or dead baby. This is a reality.
    Because politicians have police power and The Church does not, its only means is to publicly hold politicians to their religious convictions relative to their politics. This is not only appropriate but its moral and spiritual duty to do so, especially where the Commander in Chief is involved
    Regarding politicians who personally oppose abortion but vote for it: Yes, one should be civil, but not “respectful” as you put it. Where life and death is at issue, political hypocrisy should not be respected. This does not mean abortion should be criminalized. It is now the law of the land, so decreed by the Supremes. This is why we now have abortion on demand where parents are aborting a baby because it happens to be female.
    Hank R

    Posted by: Hank R. | April 29th, 2009 at 3:47 pm

  • You obviously don’t understand Catholic teachings well enough to write about them. Abortion is considered a very serious offense against God (automatic excommunication) under Catholic teachings due to the sacredness of every human being from conception to natural death- a teaching that has no connection whatsoever to political leanings.

    Since Obama has no regard for unborn human life to the point of killing it, he should never be given a platform to speak in a Catholic institution which has very serious moral oblogation to show that it never has, is, or will participate in any way in the very cowardly act of killing an innocent unborn baby. Actually your article makes it clear to a Catholic why Obama should be denied speaking at Notre Dame.

    Posted by: Hudson | April 29th, 2009 at 3:56 pm

  • I applaud your use of resources inviting people to think.

    I agree 1000% with 4/28 commentary on “Theological McCarythism” and I am glad that you quote Archbishop Quinn. The U.S. Bishops are becoming myopic and appear “stupid” – the return of a Catholic ghetto mentality.

    R.

    Posted by: R. | April 29th, 2009 at 3:57 pm

  • I have admired many things both you and your wife have accomplished….especially Loaves and Fishes! I must, however, take issue with your stance on abortion. I believe it is quite clear how our Father views the murder of His children, without exception. There is no middle ground or any place for debate in the annihilation of His creation. All are precious in His eyes! Your statement “I believe that Catholic legislators who personally oppose abortion but acknowledge the right of others to disagree ought to be respected” (San Mateo County Times/April 28, 2009) is totally false! Catholic politicians who are in a position to validate or fund murder (yes, murder!) will be and should be held accountable for their actions. Without exception, ALL will someday stand before the one true Judge. May He have mercy on their souls!! This reminds me (so clearly) when satan said to Adam and Eve….”did God really say…….???”…All Christians (especially practicing Catholics who are true followers of Jesus Christ) know in their hearts that abortion is murder and there is NO justification in it. To receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord, Jesus Christ in the state of this mortal sin is heresy in itself. Until this sin is confessed and forgiven, Communion should be withheld. While we still have a breath in our body, we can still ask for forgiveness!

    Respectfully and God Bless,

    J.A.

    Posted by: J.A. | April 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  • Wonderful assessment of current mentality of the hierarchical Church. We couldn’t agree with you more. The Church is driving people away by the hundreds. Thanks for verbalizing the problem so insightfully. Dorothy

    Posted by: Dorothy | April 29th, 2009 at 3:58 pm

  • I read your “advertisement” in the Contra Costa Times and all I can say is “Thank God for you!” and the outing of this little sect of wing nuts. I know. I am a gay Catholic woman. I love my faith but the Church that is supposed to guide its flock on its best days is schizophrenic, completely insane the rest of the time.

    I find this sudden surge of “righteous indignation” patently absurd. Only a fool would not see what is truly happening.

    Bishops are now threatening politicians with excommunication? Bring it on. It only took the church like 600 years to apologize for Galileo’s excomincation. Were where these self righteous bishops when their priests were prowling about the parishes preying on truly innocents? But of course should you dare to mention that, oh, well you are attacking the church about something that happened a long time ago. They are nothing short of a bunch of blantant hypocrites.

    Their one sided rantings about President Obama’s appearance at Notre Dame verges on hysteria. Just about every day a new bit of “oh, Obama must be rethinking the invitation” because of [fill in the blank]. The fans of these flames are being orchestrated by Catholic radio. It is hosted by extreme conservative Opus Dei types who do not tolerate any kind of dissent, let alone open discussion. [I have found only 2 that seem sane and understanding of what the doctrine is about] If Obama ends up backing off, they will consider it a huge victory and they will be trotting it out at every opportunity. I hope to God he does not step away from this “challenge”. He is good man but you would never know it by the opinions expressed by these people. Because of one, well, truly two stances: he is pro choice and he supports stem cell research, he is vilified and demonized by the right.

    On the one hand, if this is truly their reason behind their upset, it is a thing to be admired that they want to stand up and be counted. After all this country was founded on dissent-something the Church conveniently forgets. However, I think your assessment is dead on as to the reasoning behind it. This is purely manipulation to cast dispersion on the man who is trying to hold this country together as best as he knows how. Every single one of our Presidents has committed some sort of “Catholic sin” but they have only targeted this President. Where was this outcry when President Bush sent our fellow Americans into the line of fire in Iraq- a war we know now that is based on a complete lie? Where was the outrage when President Reagan refused to acknowledge the AIDS epidemic while so many of my friends and acquaintences wasted away, waiting for help that never came. Reagan had many of his department heads outright lie about the funding needs, but I did not hear anything from my Church.

    The new Republican strategy rolled into place when Clinton was elected the first time. They were incensed from the moment he got the Demo nomimation and to this day, I am not sure why he lit such a huge fuse. Now they just keep hammering and hammering the same message out day in and day out whether or not the information is even remotely accurate or true. Attack, attack, attack. I notice they don’t offer any solutions either. Catholic radio hosts have mimicked this strategy about Obama’s appearance. This one note campaign of “pro life” is ridiculous. No amount of spin is going to change Bush’s abhorrent legacy. Karl Rove and VP Dick Cheney need to be told sit down and shut up. Their time is over. Obama is far better man than both of these men and their cabinet mates put together will ever dream of becoming.

    Are you aware that Newt Gingrich has recently converted to Catholicism? If that is not the ultimate cynical act, I do not know what is.

    Sincerely

    disgruntled Catholic but trying to hang in there.

    Posted by: K.P. | April 29th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  • Once again , in your typical manner , you use sophmoric logic to try to promote your dubious positions. Many , perhaps most , believe life is a gift which extends to the unborn and a significant majority of your fellow citizens think third trimester abortions are WRONG ! Those Catholic legislators you identify with have absolute abortion positions even tho the fetus is viable.The THE ANNOINTED ONE voted to allow a baby outside the womb to die if the mother’s intent was to have an abortion. Your position and their position is quite simply indefensible and not compatible with the Catholic Church’s and your own confirmation vows. Integrity is not yours and theirs strong suit ……….The reason Sarah Palin causes people like you lefties such angst is you look at her and realize your own frailties and shortcomings!!!!!!!

    Posted by: Schapelli | April 29th, 2009 at 4:00 pm

  • Theological McCarthyism, please! I am not one to use email to vent criticisms or insults to people I have never met personally. However, I just read your recent April 28th article with the above title in the Marin IJ. I must tell you that if you are indeed a Roman Catholic as I am, God help the American Catholic Church. Your partisan hyperbole not only disgusts me, but strikes me as obscenely disingenuous. To title your article as a Public Service Message, certainly takes a lot of guts or a gigantic ego. Of course living in Marin county, I’m sure you are a hero to many.

    Leon

    Posted by: Leon | April 29th, 2009 at 4:01 pm

  • Your argument against co-called theological McCarthyism only makes sense if one has already dissented from the teaching of the Church that 1) it is always wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being, and, 2) a human being is a human being from the first moment of its being. This requirement for prior dissent becomes evident if you simply replace your references to ‘abortion’ with ‘slavery’. Consider, for example, trying to defend a “…Catholic United States senator or member of Congress – who personally opposes slavery but has genuine convictions that a blanket anti-slavery law would not work in a pluralistic society…” Such a position could be defended only if one was already convinced that a slave is not fully human. If the slave is fully human, then that slave’s human rights must be defended no matter who is offended and no matter how many years it takes for those rights to vindicated. De Tocqueville observed that Catholics, with their commitment to a morality founded on objective truth, bring a vital counter-balance to the American democratic experiment, where people in the majority tend to think they can make up their own truth, often at the expense of a vulnerable minority. That is exactly the counter-balance the Church is exercising in defending the right to life of babies in the womb. If we silently allow a majority to restrict the definition of which human beings are really persons, we not only injure the innocent but we also diminish our own humanity.

    Posted by: Bill T. | April 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  • Your column was in the Vacavile Reporter’s April 28th issue. In my opinion, this is one of your very best efforts.

    What you said needs to be said again and again. As an 84 year old cradle Catholic, I find our bishops’ posturing more annoying than relevant to today’s issues.

    They emphasize the sacredness of human life and the horrors of abortion. Yet when George Bush prepared to initiate war with Iraq, instead of protesting in a public and meaningful way, they all got together and WROTE HIM A LETTER! Wow, is that ever taking a courageous stand!

    Please keep up the good work.

    Sincerely,

    Joe G

    Posted by: Joe G. | April 30th, 2009 at 5:36 pm

  • Excellent article. I’m a cradle Catholic, but agree
    completely with Archbishop Quinn. Also – the Vatican theory of when a
    fetus becomes a human being will never be accepted by the general
    public. Besides that, there are valid objections to the theory, such
    as why don’t the cells for twins split from the original fertilized
    egg until two weeks after conception ? (I am a ‘Gary Wills’
    Catholic).

    Posted by: Robert | April 30th, 2009 at 5:37 pm

  • One point you did not bring out is the potential effect of
    the bishops’ tactics on latent anti-Catholic bias. When Kennedy was
    running, I remember my generally tolerant mother saying that she
    would never vote for a Catholic, because “They take their orders
    from the Pope!” Kennedy did a great job of disposing of her kind of
    ignorant prejudice. However, the Church’s strongarming of Catholic
    politicians on matters of public policy is making it more difficult
    to dismiss that kind of thinking. I personally am generally
    suspicious of any politician who is blatantly religious, Catholic or
    otherwise. But I am absolutely opposed to any politician who can’t
    tell the difference between their religious beliefs and their
    obligation to serve the public. If the Church insists on theological
    conformity from politicians, I could easily become biased against
    Catholic politicians (or is it really bias if there is a reason for
    it?).

    Posted by: J. Christenson | April 30th, 2009 at 5:38 pm

  • I was raised a Catholic , attended parochial school to the 7th grade and received all the sacraments upto Confirmation. Although I’m not a practicing Catholic I have until now considered Catholicism to be a tolerant , inclusive, uniting and a forgiving religion. Lee’s rantings illustrate very clearly an element within the church that is intolerant, exclusive,divisive, vindictive and to be real honest down right scary.

    Posted by: Bob Snider | May 2nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm

  • Clint, I respectfully disagree with your position. Called by Jesus, we need to be in the forefront for life, the most basic human right. Providing a pulpit, with an honorary degree, to a politician who has the most pro-abortion voting record to date is not discourse. It is courageous for the bishops and Catholic Church to stand up for the truth. Over 4,000 lives are ended every day through abortion.

    Posted by: Mike | May 3rd, 2009 at 9:15 pm

Add a Comment

 

Home   |   Blog   |   Legal   |   Contact