Thank you for your email message. If you believe there are any factual inaccuracies on our website, we would be pleased to correct them. It would be my feeling that threats, implicit or explicit, are incompatible with the Catholic ethos. Thank you for helping bring extra attention to our organization through the wide circulation of your email message.
With best wishes for the new year, Patrick Whelan
What a tool!!
I mean... where would one begin to point out the factual inaccuracies?
The whole site is fraud....same mantra as the Klu Klux Klan:
"We are a group of committed Catholics who have responded to our faith tradition by speaking out against those politicians who hide behind religion while advancing policies antithetical to the call of conscience."
Authentic Catholics speak out against people who advance policies to the call of their malformed, immoral and amoral consciences.
two Boston area Republican surrogates
I'm not sure what party CJ registers as, but I know he is no fan of the Republicans. Most prolifers are unenrolled (as I am). We vote prolife...we vote radical prolifers.
Point in fact, names are being tossed around now and tested in the prolife community as "who" we'd accept, whose nomination we'd support in the Republican party. Having my finger on the pulse, there isn't a single candidate with a prochoice blemish that we would support. Ergo, a nomination for Romney or his ilk, would be met with prolifers rounding up a stampede against the Republican party. I can't say with complete conviction that Romney is out of contention, I'd say I'm 98% convicted that the candidate will be a radical prolifer - and in fact - my cards are on Sam Brownback.
Prolifers, in fact, forced Miers to withdraw from the Supreme Court Nomination as she did not have a radical record of supporting the constitutional rights of the unborn....and they went ahead and chose Alito.
We got our way...and I suspect we will get our way in 2008 if they want prolifers to be politically active for their candidate.
Won't the little piggies just go crazy?
the two activists falsely accuse Mayor Menino of being “pro-abortion,”
Menino, himself, has admitted he is a proabort and further said he is able to do so because he doesn't consider severing the spines of children in utero against Catholic doctrine.
Carol McKinley, co-founder of an organization opposing the lay group Voice of the Faithful, patronizingly wrote, “We request that you avoid further scandal and confusion to the faithful by insisting Catholic Charities disinvite Mayor Menino and find a suitable candidate to honor in his place on December 9."
I say a lot of things patronizing - but that wasn't one of them.
In other words, unless a Catholic public figure’s stance on abortion matchs the empty Republican rhetoric on the issue, these individuals feel perfectly comfortable dictating to Church authorities who should and who should not be included in Catholic events.
Strike the words "matches the empty Republican rhetoric" and replace it with "mathes the Catechism and Evangelium Vitae, Humanae Vitae rhetoric" and the statement then becomes accurate.
This was my personal favorite:
Curiously, the national Republican figure who started the ball rolling on this issue is Dr. Deal Hudson, a former Baptist minister turned Catholic philosophy professor who was fired from his faculty position at a Catholic university for sexually assaulting one of his students.
They are experts on Catholic Ethos!
How did they put it? Oh yeah...Apparently one’s rhetoric about abortion and gay marriage are more important to these individuals than actually doing what the Church teaches—namely caring for others.
They are "caring" for the Catholics who converted to our religion. This is their idea of "Catholic ethos"?
It's a diabolical twist is what it is.
First of all, the journalist did not "get the ball rolling". The ball was well rolling when we contacted him and told him what the story was. He did help us to gain media attention for which we continue to be grateful.
Regarding their "katholic ethos", they are missing a few facts, like the woman was out of money to pay her tuition bill - and while perfectly sober in the sweet pretense she was getting "homework help" she went to the barroom, swallowed the alcohol and dirty danced with men, and in fact, performed acts with her own free will, remembering every detail. The woman by her own story says what was "harrassing" actually, was the following day, when he said they acts they committed were sinful and he was sorry he committed them - this to her was "harrassement"...there was nothing "assaulting" about it.
She was a big grown up girl, perfectly capable and legally able to make decisions regarding sexuality for many years prior to her Jimmy Buffett evening. Just as college intern, Monica Lewinsky knew what she was doing. Only difference is, Clinton called Lewinsky a liar. She was never made out to be a "sexual assault victim", she didn't get any money... and quite frankly..I don't even think they had the decency to give her back her dress. Meanwhile Clinton, a Democratic hero, and was lifted onto a platform at their National Convention as a keynote speaker.
I have no intention of being politically polite about the facts.
It is what it is. They is messin' with the wrong lady if they think I'm not going to draw a line pointing to their duplicity.
The proabort Massachusetts schismatics, then have the unmittigated gall to post the following paragraphs after their "ethos" regarding Hudson:
One must wonder if these radicals really think that Boston’s mayor and the director of Boston’s Catholic Charities, an internationally known Catholic priest and scholar, are sinners of such notoriety that members of the Church should shun them. The whole effort has the flavor of one party’s efforts to label the other party as the party of sinners, rather than any effort to observe the Gospel. Even were it true that the Mayor is a formidable sinner, it’s worth recalling that Jesus sought out dinner companions who bore that label.
“The healthy do not need a doctor; sick people do. I have not come to invite the self-righteous to a change of heart, but sinners (Lk 5:32).”
They're sick all right. Somebody call the exorcist, it's completely diabolical.
This is about a man who repents vs. a man who leads into temptation....what is taught. Pilate was not the companion of Jesus. Nor was Herod.
One of the protest organizers, Carol McKinley, has been quoted as saying that she wanted to defund the work of Catholic Charities
Jim Post told us to do it. Shut off their oxygen, he said, withhold the money. Got a problem? See Post and Voice of the Faithful.
He (Menino) has worked tirelessly for the wellbeing of the poor in Boston, a cooperative effort with Catholic Charities that constitutes the most extensive and effective effort on behalf of those who are less fortunate among us.
So did Cardinal Law. That's not what any of this has been about. It's about the heart of the teachings of the Church...and "who" is in control of what gets proclaimed in the public square.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.
It's a gutter fight. Some of us are not afraid to get right down and dirty with them....chase them away from executing their "ethos" on prolife Roman Catholics, Christians and Jews.
By the Christ, they will stop doing it under the name "Catholic"...because we intend to expose them until the leprosy they crawl out of the gutter with makes them useless political tools.
"Open the eyes of my heart, Lord Open the eyes of my heart I want to see You I want to see You
To see You high and lifted up Shinin' in the light of Your glory Pour out Your power and love As we sing holy, holy, holy"