John McCain has been told he is not invited to the Orlando meeting of the US Catholic Bishops. Attempts were made to arrange for McCain to speak or attend as a guest. The word from the Bishops: NO.
Instead, a small, right wing political group called "the Catholic Citizens Committee" will hold a secret meeting with McCain away from the conference site. Most bishops have turned down their invitation to the meeting though a small number say may attend. The general laity are barred from the meeting.
CCC actively exists only in Brooklyn and Queens and its leaders are all long standing GOP political operatives. Its chair is a wealthy New York City financier.
BREAKING NEWS: THE CCC MEETING HAS BEEN CANCELLED. IT SEEMS NONE OF THE BISHOPS ARE WILLING TO MEET WITH McCAIN.
40 comments:
Again, is this "Catholics for Obama" or "Catholics Against McCain"?
Why would the USCCB have him as a speaker, anyway? It's a conference for BISHOPS.
milehimama,
I cannot speak for Katherine, but speaking for myself, I am a Catholic for Obama; and I feel, by a seeming logical necessity, a Catholic against McCain. For that matter, I would be against McCain whether I were for Obama or not.
You're right, though. McCain should not be speaking at the bishops conference. That's not the purpose of the conference. The bishops were not making a political statement by turning down McCain's speaking proposal.
The fact that McCain proposed inject himself into this ecclesiastical event in the first place says more about him than it does about the bishops' decision. I am getting so tired of GOP politicians and political operatives trying to turn the Roman Catholic Church into the Republican Catholic Church. The country seems to have moved on from that. McCain, and other GOP politicians and political operatives, need to get the hint.
catholicsfordemocracy,
Actually it's anti catholic democrat policies on abortion and homosexuality that make Catholics a prime target for the GOP.
You say the country has moved beyond that, in November we find out.
most bishops are liberal weenies. they invite AFL-CIO labor bosses to speak at their meetings but not John McCain.
Bob,
This is what kills me. So many "politically conservative" folks call politically-liberal-leaning Catholics as "liberals" (meaning "dissidents") without studying the teaching of their own faith or the writings of their own popes.
Newsflash: I can name at least four Encyclicals where John Paul II defended unions. So... if you don't like unions, fine; unions are not only not in apposition to Catholicism, JPII promoted them.
That the Conference allowed "union bosses" to speak, but will not allow politicians to speak. That's ok. Read JPII's social encyclicals and you'll know why it's ok.
catholicsfordemocracy said, and I quote "This is what kills me. So many "politically conservative" folks call politically-liberal-leaning Catholics as "liberals" ...
Calling a liberal a liberal kills you. Kills me too.
Barry for Pres
Jim Johnson for VP
terrorists will kill you. But the bishops don't care. they would rather have union bosses speak than a true American war hero like John McCain.
Hey, what about Barry Obama? Is he invited to speak???
Maybe they can get the president and vice president of the Chicago Teachers Union to come and speak. You know, the ones who are being investigated for emptying out the union's coffers on drinks, meals and fancy equipment for their cars!
Pope Benedict, in a speech to European politicians in 2006, said: “As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, the principal focus of her interventions in the public arena is the protection and promotion of the dignity of the person, and she is thereby consciously drawing particular attention to principles which are not negotiable. Among these the following emerge clearly today: the protection of life in all its stages, from the first moment of conception until natural death; recognition and promotion of the natural structure of the family — as a union between one man and one woman based on marriage . . . ; and the protection of the rights of parents to educate their children.”
The Pope used the term non negotiable, except if you are a Catholic for Obama.
I hope John McCain learned a valuable lesson here. CCC, like many other conservative Catholic operations and figures ("Catholic" Answers, Deal Hudson, Bill Donohue, etc.) really don't enjoy much standing or respect from the bishops or the lay faithful.
He wasted a lot of time scheduling this meeting which fell flat.
If McCain is going to do any serious Catholic outreach, he needs to get a grip on reality and be careful who he takes signals from about the "Catholic vote".
"The bishops were not making a political statement by turning down McCain's speaking proposal."
Oh really? But if they'd turned down Obama it would have been political! Right?
So now we see. If a priest refuses Communion to someone who votes for McCain it's not a political statement, but if it's someone who votes for Obama it's a political weapon.
WE GOT IT NOW!
Logic from the left.
"...like many other conservative Catholic operations and figures ("Catholic" Answers, Deal Hudson, Bill Donohue, etc.) really don't enjoy much standing or respect from the bishops or the lay faithful."
The bishops are mostly liberal so why would they respect a conservative?
As to "lay faithful," that is what is called an ad populum fallacy. You liberals all like to pretend that everyone else agrees with you. Please rename that to "lay unfaithful."
so neither the laity nor the episcopate are faithful.Doesn't leave too much lefy.
I think this whole post is very interesting. It shows very dramatically that there are liberal staff inside the USCCB that have worked with this blog. So thanks for at a minimum showing your true colors. Now at least we know that staff at the conference want Obama to win. Something very few bishops want. And fewer and fewer staff at the conference want every year. The church is different now these folks are throwbacks to another era and probably wont have their jobs for much longer
Amen to that we are a different church. The Bishops are conservatives. And I think the staff needs to figure that out. That small faction of liberal staff is on there way out, there was some serious discussion about it in Orlando.
[the] liberal staff is on there way out
yes, listen carefully and in the background you can hear the conservative chorus singing "Tomorrow Belongs to Us".
You've been singing that tune for quite some time now and it never seems to happen.
"You've been singing that tune for quite some time now and it never seems to happen."
You must not be paying attention. During the 70s and 80s the liberals had their way. It started turning around in the 80s and now we have bishops who actually do their job (i.e., Abp. Burke). They have been enforcing the rules on refusing communion to pro-choice/abortion politicians. This is happening enough that you liberals are all up in arms about it.
So there.
Oh Katherine I would start working on the resume a bit. Everyone now has you number. Today belongs to the conservatives and the Bishops, yesterday belongs to folks like you. Your cooked and shilling for Barrack Obama will not change that even if he is elected. So I hope they are making some real commitments to you folks on the job front. Your day is gone. Thank God, this was your battle of the bulge.
Hey Katherine, don't you think Russy would look cute in lederhosen.
hahahahahaha
Rustler,
I asserted the bishops were not making a political statement by not allowing McCain to speak at the Bishops' Conference, but were ensuring the integrity of the conference. You should have simple accepted the gratuity of that statement; except it was not all that gratuitous, I was simply asserting a matter of fact.
However, you replied:
"Oh really? But if they'd turned down Obama it would have been political! Right?"
Again. I had asserted a matter of fact. The function of the Bishops' Conference is to address ecclesiastical matters among the particular churches in the United States. It is not the function of the Bishops' Conference to turn itself into a political rally.
I would have been just offended at the idea of Barack Obama speaking at the conference as I would have been at the idea of John McCain doing it.
The fact remains, however, Obama was not stupid or unethical enough to even try.
I look cute in cowboy boots and bluejeans. You'd look cute in jail.
DemoCatholic SAID: "The fact remains, however, Obama was not stupid or unethical enough to even try."
RUSTLER: Are you through whinning?
MAX SAID: "The Pope used the term non negotiable...."
To a liberal non negotiable is negotiable.
I look cute in cowboy boots and bluejeans.
Ooohhh, leather daddy. Yeah, I saw some of those types at the Pride Parade.
You'd look cute in jail.
Yummy. You bring the handcuffs and pretend you are the prison guard. Just like we did last night.
And just when I thought this thread couldn't degrade any more.
Russy and Bruce are quite a couple.
Rustler, you have to be careful how you joke in here. There's more perverts in the Obama crowd than you can shake a stick at!
Bruce, you must be Betty Katherine's son. No wonder you're warped.
And then there's Batty Betty, Katherine's alterego. She can't say anything without bringing up sex.
Yes. What is it with her and sex? Get over it already, lady.
Oh, wait. Just caught this one. From Rustler: "As to 'lay faithful', that is what is called an ad populum fallacy."
"To the people"? What kind of fallacy is that? Moreover, I don't know what you mean by, "To the people."
Or, am I suspecting correctly that you're invoking the theological principle that gained so much currency shortly after VCII? That would be "Sensus populorum"?
"To the people"? What kind of fallacy is that? Moreover, I don't know what you mean by, "To the people."
OH WOW! You mean there's actually something you don't know anything about? I am humbled.
I did explain it. It means that you pretend that the majority agrees with you when no such thing exists.
Rustler,
"OH WOW! You mean there's actually something you don't know anything about? I am humbled."
Don't be humbled. There's a lot I don't know. Just like there's a lot you don't know.
That's the whole point of dialogue. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you?
Wait... Rustler's bad grammar is rubbing off on me. Ad populum is not "to the people," though I'm sure that's what he meant. "Ad populorum" means to the people.
Just like dropping Aristotle's name seems to make him feel important; so, too, is making people think he knows Latin -- correct Latin grammar or no.
Hmmmmm.
Wait a minute! Before anybody says anything!
My grammar correction was incorrect. That's what I get for working long hours, then having a drink before making a correction, I guess.
But that still doesn't answer the question about what is meant by "to the people" and how that is relevant to the conversation.
Hey DumboCatholic, check it out. You just have to mouth off don't you?
Ad populum
Just what "ad stupidum" means?
Here ya go Mr. Know-it-all. That was funny. You had to blame your ignorance on working late and drinking. hahahahahahaaaaa
How about just accepting the fact that you're a dumazz.
Here's the whole thing. Read it.
An argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"), in logic, is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or all people believe it; it alleges that "If many believe so, it is so." In ethics this argument is stated, "If many find it acceptable, it is acceptable."
This type of argument is known by several names[1], including appeal to the masses, appeal to belief, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people, argument by consensus, authority of the many, and bandwagon fallacy, and in Latin by the names argumentum ad populum ("appeal to the people"), argumentum ad numerum ("appeal to the number"), and consensus gentium ("agreement of the clans"). It is also the basis of a number of social phenomena, including communal reinforcement and the bandwagon effect, and of the Chinese proverb "three men make a tiger".
Did you figure out "ad stupidum" yet Mr. Know-it-all?
Try wikipedia.com
That's funny! A philosopy major doesn't know what is meant by logical fallacies and doesn't know what ad populum means. DemoCatholic, you might as well have majored in Political Science for all the good it's done you.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAAA
Now, back to Aristotle. Tell us some more about him Dumbo. My Gramma wants to get another laugh. You shoulda heard her roar with this reply you did on ad populum!!!
She pert near fell right outa her wheel chair!!!
She wants to know if when I first brought up Aristotle if you went to Google to find out who he was!!!
Tell us some more Mr. Intelligent!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26084#continueA
Senator Obama's works, actions, statements and voting record have proved him to be opposed to the truth of God's Word and God's people. Is he now a Worthy candidate? "For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect." We are entering an era where deception will be poured out on those who do not love the truth. Protect yourself and your loved ones. Read the bible, fast, and pray that God will give you discernment.
Post a Comment