Catholics admit being the force behind Stupak. Have Hall of Shame for those who voted against it.

[madfloridian]

This website is openly admitting that their church is trying to control the health care reform process, and they commend two good Catholics. Bart Stupak, Democrat and Chris Smith, Republican.

They admit the amendment was "forced" to a floor vote by "the heroic perseverance of the US Bishops and the hard work of faithful Catholics in the Democratic Party like Bart Stupak and faithful Catholics in the Republican Party like Chris Smith."

Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to recall that religion is not supposed to be injecting itself so openly into government.

If the church is a tax-exempt institution, then isn't this a little bit against the rules? Should they be bragging so openly about their conquest to control women's medical decisions?

The 'Catholic Hall of Shame’

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Catholic Online) – Legislation purporting to reform health care in the United States has passed the House of Representatives. However, it did so only after it was amended by way of the “Stupak/Pitts Amendment” which was forced to a floor vote by the heroic perseverance of the US Bishops and the hard work of faithful Catholics in the Democratic Party like Bart Stupak and faithful Catholics in the Republican Party like Chris Smith. My purpose in this article is not to discuss whether that legislation will ever make it through the Senate, how it may be amended in the process or whether the effort to federalize the delivery of health care services is even prudent at all. I, and many others, have addressed - and will continue to address - the ongoing serious moral concerns raised by this legislation as it relates to the authentic application of Catholic Social Teaching and the principles of authentic social justice.

Did you read this part: "the ongoing serious moral concerns raised by this legislation as it relates to the authentic application of Catholic Social Teaching and the principles of authentic social justice."

This is government business, not church business. Someone is confusing the two.

They are proud of having "forced" the vote to the floor.

Actually we should not be surprised because BOTH parties credited the Catholic bishops for the big Stupak amendment win.

Both sides credited a forceful lobbying effort by Roman Catholic bishops with the success of the provision, inserted in the bill under pressure from conservative Democrats.

....""We did not want this legislation to be a vehicle for expanding abortion or for changing federal policy on abortion in the wrong direction," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of the secretariat of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The abortion issue was at the center of last-minute wrangling in the House. A bloc of Democrats, backed by the Catholic bishops, threatened to scuttle the House health bill if leaders didn't take up the antiabortion measure. In an unusual show of influence, Mr. Doerflinger and other representatives of the bishops on Friday met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to broker an agreement. Ms. Pelosi, who favors abortion rights, reluctantly agreed to bring the measure to the floor, and it became part of the broader bill that passed in the House late Saturday.

Pelosi's late meeting with the Bishops and the call from Rome helped push the deal forward.

In the Catholic Hall of Shame article the writer goes on to list the names of every Catholic in the House who voted against the Stupak amendment. They are listed on the 2nd page of the article.

I don't know their reasons for their vote against that amendment, but maybe just maybe they stopped to consider that they should not impose their religious views into what should be secular in nature.

The article is stunning to me in how openly it is condemning those Democrats who are Catholic and voted their conscience. An ending paragraph is even more ominous in tone.

Some of my readers will find the action of listing them and calling them “unfaithful” to be “harsh” or even “uncharitable”. However, I list them to invite our readers to specifically pray for their conversion, their return to the truth. I also list them in order to empower those in their Districts to use their vote and influence to defend the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death effectively. If these faithful Catholic constituents cannot help these unfaithful Catholic representatives to return to the truth, they need to vote them out of office and replace them with others who will defend the Right to life. Even if that means running for public office themselves. This fundamental human right is not conferred by a civil government and it cannot be abrogated by a civil government. Killing is not health care.

In that one paragraph there is a scary mixture of religion and government, the spiritual and what should be secular in nature.

There are many kinds of advocacy. This appears to be an advocacy for the Catholic view toward women's rights. The post even infers that a "civil" government does not put forth the Catholic view. I would hope it does not. Government is not supposed to work that way.

The website thinks it should.

[NRaleighLiberal]

1. Do they have pics of all of the abusive priests? N/T

[47of74]

3. I doubt it

[baldguy]

2. How about for Catholics who support the death penalty?

[madfloridian]

4. I commend those this website condemns. Names.

"The Catholics in the US House of Representatives who voted against the ”Stupak/ Pitts Amendment” which tried to protect the lives of our first neighbors in the womb from being killed with tax dollars under the profane cover of the delivery of “health care” are a veritable unfaithful Catholic Hall of Shame. Here are their names:

Reps. Michael Arcuri (D-N.Y.); Xavier Becerra (D-Calif,); Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.); Robert Brady (D-Pa.); Michael Capuano (D-Mass); William Lacy Clay (D-Mo.); Gerry Connolly (D-Va.); Joe Courtney (Conn.); Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.); William Delahunt (D-Mass.); Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.); Anna Eshoo (D-Calif.); Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.); Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.); John D. Hall (N.Y.); Phil Hare (D-Ill.); Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.); Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.); Mary Jo Kilroy (D-Ohio); Ann D. Kirkpatrick (D-Ariz.); Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio); John Larson (D-Conn.); Manuel Luján (D-N.M.); Edward Markey (D-Mass.); Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.); Betty McCollum (D-Minn.); James McGovern (D-Mass.); George Miller (D-Calif.); Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.); James Moran (D-Va.); Patrick Murphy (D-Pa.); Grace Napolitano (D-Calif.); Frank Pallone (D-N.J.); Bill Pascrell (D-N.J); Ed Pastor (D-Ariz.); Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.); Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.); Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.); Jose Serrano (D- N.Y.); Joe Sestak (D-Pa.); Jackie Speier (D- Calif.); Mike Thompson (D-Calif.); Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.); Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.); Peter Visclosky (D-Ind.) and Diane Watson (D-Calif.). "

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34849&page=2

[47of74]

7. I commend them as well.

They tried to do right by this country, placing the needs of the country and her people first.

[madfloridian]

8. I think that may have been their thinking.

That hall of shame article is very hard to read. There is such a feeling of condemnation toward those who don't vote with the church's teachings.

It was not a nice article, but everyone should read it.

[skepticscott]

44. I have a hard time commending anyone

who supports the Catholic church financially, or in any other way.

[DonCoquixote]

69. In other words

These are people we need to send our support to for standing up for REAL virtue.

[Solly Mack]

5. K&R

Thanks, MadF. :)

[madfloridian]

13. From JFK in 1960

"While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida; the humiliating treatment of our president and vice president by those who no longer respect our power; the hungry children I saw in West Virginia; the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills; the families forced to give up their farms; an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues — for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected president, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured — perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600

[madfloridian]

6. The 64 Yes votes for Stupak were 62 men, only 2 women. My own Hall of Shame.

Thus reinforcing my belief that it is a power thing...men's power over women, the church's power over Congress thus the country.

Stupak amendment Yes votes

Altmire
Baca
Barrow
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Boccieri
Boren
Bright
Cardoza
Carney
Chandler
Childers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cuellar
Dahlkemper
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Driehaus
Ellsworth
Etheridge
Gordon (TN)
Griffith
Hill
Holden
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Langevin
Lipinski
Lynch
Marshall
Matheson
McIntyre
Melancon
Michaud
Mollohan
Murtha
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Perriello
Peterson
Pomeroy
Rahall
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Shuler
Skelton
Snyder
Space
Spratt
Stupak
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Wilson (OH)

[Tommy_Carcetti]

51. Let's see, from that list:

Drawing the line at 95% party vote:

Baca 99.2%
Bishop 96.9%
Cardoza 96.9%
Costa 95.6%
Costllo 96.2%
Cuellar 95.9%
Doyle 98.7%
Driehaus 95.2%
Etheridge 97.7%
Gordon 96.2%
Holder 96.1%
Kanjarowski 97.1%
Kaptur 96.5%
Kildee 98.9%
Langevin 99.3%
Lipinski 97.2%
Lynch 98.3%
Michaud 95.0%
Mollohan 98.0%
Murtha 98.9%
Neal 98.9%
Oberstar 97.5%
Obey 98.5%
Ortiz 98.7%
Pomeroy 97.7%
Rahall 96.9%
Reyes 99.2%
Rodriguez 98.2%
Ryan 98.7%
Salazar 97.5%
Skelton 95.8%
Snyder 96.8%
Spratt 98.0%
Stupak 96.1%
Wilson 97.8%

So you can take your own little Madfloridian Hall of Shame list and shove it, well, you know the rest. And frankly, I don't envy the list.

[madfloridian]

70. "take your own little Madfloridian Hall of Shame list and shove it"

Really now?

[Ignis]

90. Pretty classy. (nt)

[NoSheep]

72. You lost me there. What are you getting at? I'm not sure I understand the

percentages...are you saying all those people vote with their party that much of the time? And then what does that have to do with Madfloridian? I'd just like a clearer explaination of your point.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

85. That's the percentage they've voted with the Democratic Party on bills.

Now, to be fair, there were some in that list with a significantly lower voting percentage than that (for example, Bobby Bright of Alabama), and for those you can make an argument that they are DINOs.

But if you look at the voting records of many of those representatives on that list, you'll find they are not DINOs but rather good, solid Democrats who just so happened to vote on a single bill pertaining to a single issue that many here may feel differently on. But there's an absolute perverse mob mentality thinking that because of this single issue those representatives are secret Republican infiltrators bent on destroying the party from within, when that's just simply not true.

And I'm telling you now, if people are stupid enough to try to recruit primary candidates to challenge these representatives, and as a result it either fractures the party in that district or results in a weak candidate that the Republicans can trounce, we are totally cutting off our noses to spite our faces. And as a result, we'll lose representatives in Congress who can almost always produce a dependable Democratic vote.

[NoSheep]

86. Okay. Now I understand exactly what you meant. Thanks for clarifying.

[Ignis]

89. "many here" -- wrong, DUers are overwhelmingly pro-choice

All previous polls that I've seen put DU firmly in the pro-choice camp.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary? :shrug:

[Tommy_Carcetti]

91. Many, most, overhwhelmingly, etc....

...whatever word you want to use, does it really change the fact that just because a representative may differ with the DU majority on the issue of abortion, that alone does not make them a DINO subversive GOP operative who needs to primaried out of office on that basis alone?

You're missing the point.

[Ignis]

93. The point is that women's rights are a core part of the D platform.

To work against women's rights is anti-Democratic as well as anti-democratic.

Yeah, yeah, it's bare-knuckle politics, we get that. And yes, politics is the art of compromise.

But just how much more realpolitik pandering to the religiously unhinged are we expected to stomach when we control both houses of Congress and the Presidency?

[Tommy_Carcetti]

94. That only really works if...

....you consider the area of womens' rights to encompass only the issue of abortion rights and abortion rights alone. And that's just not the case. Women's issues encompass a broad spectrum of issues and legislation, most of which do not deal with the issue of abortion. (Take, just for example, the recent Lilly Ledbetter Act.) And I suspect--and a visit to www.ontheissues.org would confirm this--that a vast majority of those representatives I listed would be highly supportive of women's issues as a whole. Some of them may have actually voted with the Democratic majority on other abortion related issues, and that the Stupak amendment was the exception, not the rule.

But their vote concerning a single issue should not be reason alone for DUers to break out the pitchforks and torches.

[Ignis]

96. YOU may frame it that way, if you like.

Most of us are quite able to see abortion rights as a single facet of the larger women's rights plank. That's a very important plank of the Democratic party platform, as are all of our commitments to equal rights.

So to see our (D) Congresscritters kowtowing to the religious right on such an important issue--while we hold the majority!!!--turns our stomachs.

That doesn't make us single-issue voters. That makes us good Democrats, holding our party to its own platform.

[aero56]

56. The "64"

I wonder what their stance would be if their mistresses became pregnant?

[imdjh]

9. I heard Trudy Lieberman say that Stupak works for the Catholic Bishops.

http://www.cjr.org/index.php

[Maraya1969]

10. You can report tax fraud and I think we should make a conserted effort to do so

Unfortunately you have to send it by snail mail but you can send the latter one by fax.

http://www.irs.gov/individuals/article/0,,id=106778,00.html

How Do You Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity?


If you suspect or know of an individual or company that is not complying with the tax laws, you may report this activity by completing Form 3949-A. You may fill out Form 3949-A online, print it and mail it to:

Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, CA 93888

If you do not wish to use Form 3949-A, you may send a letter to the address above. Please include the following information, if available:

*
Name and address of the person you are reporting
*
The taxpayer identification number (social security number for an individual or employer identification number for a business)
*
A brief description of the alleged violation, including how you became aware of or obtained the information
*
The years involved
*
The estimated dollar amount of any unreported income
*
Your name, address and daytime telephone number

Although you are not required to identify yourself, it is helpful to do so. Your identity can be kept confidential.

Frequently Asked Questions - 1.13 IRS Procedures: Reporting Fraud

How to Report Abusive Tax Promotions and/or Promoters:
Complete the referral form which documents the information necessary to report an abusive tax avoidance scheme. The form can be mailed or faxed to the IRS address and fax number on the form.

[madfloridian]

11. Very upsetting tone in that article at catholics.org.

"Procured abortion is an objectively evil act, a violation of the Natural law. It is an intentional killing. It must not be protected by the positive law of our Nation or any Nation.

In fact, no one can claim to care about the poor and support intentional procured abortion as a “choice” and defend the unconstitutional action of a Court which ruled that it was a “constitutional right.” We all know the truth now. We operate on these same children in the womb and place them back in their first home. We prosecute people who in the commission of another recognized crime kill them. Our medical science has confirmed what our conscience and the Natural Law written on every human heart long revealed, these are our neighbors and it is always and everywhere wrong to kill our innocent neighbors. And we all know that Mother Teresa was absolutely correct in reminding us that they are the “poorest of the poor”. Anyone who claims to care about the poor and supports the killing of these poor by hiding behind the lies of the Orwellian language which has hidden this evil - such as “choice”, “privacy”, or “personal decision” - is a liar. They should be ashamed. What this reveals, the disintegration of a Nation, was astutely summarized by the late John Paul II in these words taken from his extraordinary Letter entitled “The Gospel of Life” (Par. 20):

“This is what is happening also at the level of politics and government: the original and inalienable right to life is questioned or denied on the basis of a parliamentary vote or the will of one part of the people-even if it is the majority. This is the sinister result of a relativism which reigns unopposed: the "right" ceases to be such, because it is no longer firmly founded on the inviolable dignity of the person, but is made subject to the will of the stronger part."

http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=34849

Where are the Democratic men who are not afraid to stand up and say that women's rights are being trampled in the name of religion.

A no vote on Stupak is a start, but why are there no voices on the side of women.

[defendandprotect]

37. Very few Americans understand that the Vatican opposes democracy . . . "equality for all" . . .

But that was the battle by first the French and then the Italians which

finally freed the Jews from the 1,100 year grip of the Vatican upon them --

and which moved the Vatican back into the one acre/ALL MALE area it now occupies!

This pushback by the Italians was what caused the Pope to go into seclusion and

then to announce his INFALLIBILITY!!!

The Vatican does not acknowledge the full personhood of females as it acknowledges

the full personhood of males. It's a male-supremacist society!

And it is a Vatican with a long list of enemies . . . nature, women, Jews, homosexuals,

Africans, Native Americans, pagans -- and we are all still fighting the Vatican for our

freedom from them.

[madfloridian]

12. Comment from insurance rep....this would mean nearly no coverage of abortion.

Thanks to McJoan at DKos for keeping on about this.

Insurance Industry Expert Says Stupak Would Practically Mean No Abortion Coverage

Once the dust settles on the legal issues of what this bill does, you have to look at the practical results. Even if insurers participating in the exchange can find the needle to thread to offer abortion coverage, would they? No, says one industry expert.

"I really think it would be impractical," says Robert Laszewski, a health insurance industry consultant....

Laszewski says the problem is that by all estimates, the vast majority of people who will be shopping in the new exchanges will be getting subsidies, so they won't be allowed to get abortion coverage. Thus, if a health insurer did offer a separate plan with abortion coverage, it would only be available to a small universe of buyers, and it simply wouldn't make much business sense.

"It's not an ideological issue, it's not about abortion or not abortion," Laszewski says. "It's about what is administratively simpler, easier to administer. It just adds a level of complexity they will likely avoid."

Again, may I ask where are all the male Democratic leaders out there protecting women's rights? Why are they not on TV saying we are equal in our ability to choose our medical care?

Are they all in hiding? Hiding their heads in shame for getting to this point?

[mdmc]

14. thanks for the post

peace and low stress

[Rectangle]

15. Why isn't the IRS looking into this?-Talk about Religion butting its nose into politics!! n/t

[Blue State Blues]

16. If they're so keen on "natural death"

isn't all health care an abomination?

The women who will die from complicated pregnancies or from unsafe abortions can be greateful to the Church for defending their right to natural death.

[Odin2005]

17. Tax these fuckers!

[Liberal In Texas]

20. Agreed. They've crossed the line. Tax the crap out of them.

[defendandprotect]

38. Agree -- and they crossed the line long, long ago --

[WillyT]

58. Agreed !!!

:kick:

[Initech]

66. Absolutely tax the fuck out of them. They've gone too far.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. What next? Excommunication for Catholics who don't fall in line?

[madfloridian]

23. Could be unpleasant for them.

The writer sounds very angry at those who did not fall in line over Stupak.

[provis99]

28. Patrick Kennedy has already been threatened with excommunication.

These Catholic bishops are so extreme, they want to throw out the most well-known Catholics in America. They're every bit as stupid and Christian-kooky as the Protestants like Sarah Palin are.

[Prism]

19. It wasn't much a secret

During a recent walk around the neighborhood, I wandered into a local Catholic church to look at the art. They had all kinds of Stupak related literature on tables near the door. Letters from Catholic bishops, numbers to call, names of Congressmen, resources for sending form letters, etc.

I couldn't tell you if they were preaching it from the pulpit (I'm no longer a Catholic), but they certainly weren't shy about this initiative.

[madfloridian]

21. The DNC platform promised to stand up for women's right to an abortion...

even if they could not afford it.

"We oppose the current administration's consistent attempts to undermine a woman's ability to make her own life choices and obtain reproductive health care including birth control. We will end health care discrimination against contraception and provide compassionate care to rape victims. We will never put ideology above women's health."

I notice abortion is not mentioned, yet it is mentioned under the section called Choice.

"The Democratic Party strongly and unequivocally supports Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay, and we oppose any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right."

http://www.dnc.org/a/party/platform.html

They are going against a promise made.

[autorank]

22. More delusion from the masters

The grandiosity of this article and those who support it is tedious. If there's any shame, it belongs to the hierarchy and members who use single issue politics on abortion to support the stingiest, most uncharitable political hacks. But here's the good new. They've now part of that 33% of the public willing to support Sarah Palin for president but not part of the 62% who would never do it.

They wanted a smaller church with only the true believers. Fine. There are consequences and one is political. Less people, less power.

[madfloridian]

24. "The Bishops' Huge Financial Stake in Stupak-Pitts"

Read the whole post, most interesting.

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/11/13/the-bishops-huge-financial-stake-stupakpitts

"The justifiable anger at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for lobbying on the Stupak-Pitts amendment overshadows what is possibly the bigger motive for the Vatican: the billions of dollars at stake for the church's hospitals.

The scale of the church's involvement in the rapidly growing $2.5 trillion dollar American health care industry is staggering.

What the Stupak-Pitts amendment does for the Catholic health care system is omit a competitive advantage secular and other religiously-affiliated hospitals without doctrinal restrictions can use to simultaneously market their services to both the expected influx of newly insured patients and the outpatient medical professionals who will treat them.

By restricting insurance coverage of women's reproductive health care, the competitive barriers faced by Catholic institutions will be eliminated — provided the amendment is not stripped out of the final bill that emerges from House-Senate health care reform conference committee. Which is why pro-choice advocates should expect nothing short of a full-frontal attack by the Vatican on conservative Senators."

[defendandprotect]

34. Their house of cards is also falling re birth control and abortion . . .

to have government backing birth control, condoms, sex education -- all the

avenues that the Vatican made a one-way street which they directed -- is fatal

to them. The WALL is reinforced by their stopping abortion. When they can no

longer stop abortion, most everything else goes.


EDITED to add --

Catholic women have the same number of abortions as any other women.

And, the church cannot control them any longer. Catholics are using birth control

and don't give a fig what the Vatican thinks. Needless to say, the Vatican continues

to try to not only control their own members with their illegal influence upon

government, but also to control the rest of society!!

These are Catholic extremists, of course, who have the power -- evidently -- to

make all women into followers of their religion!!!

[madfloridian]

25. A must read: "How the Stupak-Pitts Amendment May Change Our Politics"

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=7215&Itemid=48

"Last Friday night, when House Speaker Nancy Pelosi decided to allow a vote on the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, she may have unwittingly altered the direction of the Obama presidency and the Democratic Party.

For the first time in a long time, the pro-life issue is setting the agenda for the national debate on a major piece of legislation. Even more startling is the fact that the impetus for this inversion results from the courageous efforts of a pro-life leader in the Democratic Party, Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI)."

[ChadwickHenryWard]

26. It's an open attempt to force the government to adhere to Catholic doctrine.

It's really scary. When JFK got elected, a lot of excitable people were worried that the Pope would be dictating American federal policy. It think that's exactly what we're seeing here. Couple this with their threat to abandon charitable services in the District and we are seeing a very alarming attempt to control America from Rome. This is all happening in an era controlled by Democrats, both Congress and the White House. Conservatives are continuing to gain ground ever in the era of liberalism.

[madrchsod]

27. you forgot the majority of the supremes are Catholic

[chrisa]

31. This is different.

The JFK "Romanist" fear was born from bigotry.

What you have here is a bunch of backwards people trying to bully their way into politics, attempting to use religion to justify what they're doing. Hardly brought upon by control from Rome.

[defendandprotect]

40. Well... the inherent fear has always been of a RCC which is a DICTATORSHIP . . . .

There is NO right to personal conscience in the Catholic church -- !!!

That's why you have Protestants!!

Pope John XXIII did create Vatican II which gave Catholics the right to free thought,

personal conscience and free will and he told them to use it to decide for themselves

re birth control. Pope John XXIII gave the church a humane and compassionate face.

And he pretty much kicked Papal "infallibility" in the ass.

Pope John XXIII supported a church which was a democracy --

THAT IS WHY THERE WAS AN IMMEDIATE RIGHT-WING COUP ON VATICAN II -- !!!

[olegramps]

46. You are right on!

Unfortunately, far too many Catholics are wholly uninformed that their Church was hijacked by a throw back to the Middle Ages who was firmly opposed to the reforms of Vatican II. He was fully supported by the Opus Dei ultra-tradionalist secrecy cult and was their most powerful advocate.

John Paul II was stealth candidate that during Vatican II was a back slapping opportunist who played the role of a progressive. After he was elected pope he quickly revealed his true colors and under took a campaign to purge every prelate that supported the reforms of Vatican II and replace them with bishops that were emphatically opposed to any progressive concepts. He silenced any dissent by theologians and was determined to turn back the clock to the Pius XII era of a church of lockstep non-questioning zombies. It is only a matter of time before the American Catholic Church goes the way of the European Church to a state of virtual non-existence. It cannot help to do otherwise when the laity and the hierarchy share diametrically opposing views on real life issues.

[defendandprotect]

36. Well...think upon the fact that W came thru with $$$$ for the Church via "faith-based"

religious organizations -- the majority of which are Catholic Church related --

almost in response to their need for $$$$$$$$$$$$$ to pay off the priest-pedophile

LAWSUITS!!

Indeed, there is an investigation now into whether or not they used those monies

to pay off the lawsuits!

[ColesCountyDem]

29. I think the amendment is ridiculous, but I also think the Catholic Church has a right to...

... use its right to free speech to speak out on the subject. When we attempt to stifle speech we disagree with, we start down a very slippery slope.

[madfloridian]

30. They have free speech. As a woman I have a right to speak...

against their desire to make women have inferior roles in society.

The Catholics in my family are open-minded on abortion, gays, and highly respect women and the separation of church and state.

When the Southern Baptist Church started preaching about Iraq as a holy war, we left the church. We moved on beyond their narrow ideology.

[defendandprotect]

39. Then you don't understand Separation of Church & State . . .

They have a right to preach to their own members ---

they do not have the right to influence a people's government with money or

by any other means to bar birth control, condoms, or abortion for any one else!

Again . . . those who speak for "god" are difficult to argue with --

People fear "god" speakers and a vengeful "god" -- even if only imagined!!

So, debate is not possible with a "god" says argument --

THAT is why our founders separated Church & State -- and their evidence of this

was the spilling of blood which soaked the soil of Europe!

From Crusades to witch hunts, to the continuing war upon women and homosexuals --

this "god-football" has to be contained!

[skepticscott]

43. It seems to be you that doesn't understand

the separation of church and state. Nothing in that principle (or in the First Amendment specifically) bars the Catholic Church or any other religious organization from speaking out on issues that are part of their doctrine, or protesting against things they don't like. This is primarily an issue with their tax-exempt status, which would be violated if the RCC as an organization directly lobbied Congress or endorsed or supported candidates for partisan political office. Urging their members as individuals to contact their elected representatives in an attempt to influence legislation is not a violation.

[madfloridian]

50. You need to read the whole article I posted. Way more than about "issues"

Read both pages. It is a hate-filled screed that is threatening and pushing parishes to defeat the ones in the list.

It goes way beyond just issues.

[skepticscott]

59. How they speak out is their business

If they want to exhort their flock in a way that sounds hateful (nothing new for the Catholic Church), that's their business, but involvement in issue politics, however distastefully done, violates neither their tax-exempt status nor the First Amendment. That it may violate almost everything else that they claim to stand for is, again, their shame, but not illegal.

[madfloridian]

61. If they want to be exempt from taxes they don't get that much power

over our bodies.

They should be investigated but they won't because they are far too powerful

Soon they will have women barefoot, pregnant all the time with no rights of their own.

[skepticscott]

71. So you say and think

but that doesn't make it the law, and in this country, we operate (hopefully) by the rule of law, not just what seems wrong to some people. Can you cite any specific provisions of the law regarding tax-exempt organizations that were violated by specific actions of the RCC as an organization? If so, let's hear them.

[immoderate]

64. They can't act as a lobbying organization and expect a tax exemption.

In fact, I get taxed and that doesn't interfere with my rights. Churches should be taxed for services that they use.

--imm

[defendandprotect]

52. No Church is permitted to be POLITICALLY ACTIVE and tax-exempt . . .

they have a choice . . . one or the other --

RCC has always lobbied Congress -- for simpler things like money to rid their schools

of asbestos --

They were also assisted when possible --

THIS is different -- this is intrusion in state affairs.

Secretly running campaigns to defeat the ERA, to put Prop 8 in play, or to finance a campaign

in Maine against homosexuals -- THAT is what we are talking about.

Pelosi holding meetings with Bishops is certainly not what the Founders had in mind --

not taking phone calls from the Vatican in regard to legislation.

If you want democracy, you're not going to get it from male-supremacist churches.

[skepticscott]

60. Sorry, but you're wrong

Try actually reading the tax law before you say such silly things. The restrictions on political activity by tax-exempt organizations are very specific, and are there for particular reasons that have nothing whatever to do with religion. To say that tax-exempt organizations are prohibited from ALL political activity is just blatantly false.

[madfloridian]

62. They can push issues.

They are heading into the realm of controlling the congress.

Keep on defending.

It is just wrong, and our party is cowardly indeed.

[skepticscott]

73. "They are heading into the realm of controlling the congress"?

WTF does that mean? And where in the tax law does it prohibit "heading into the realm of controlling the congress"? Why don't you take the extreme measure of actually reading the tax law on this subject, and THEN tell us what the RCC did that violated it?

[FLDCVADem]

65. Thank you

I've said this numerous times in the past, but to no avail.

We don't have to like what the Catholic church says, stands for or did, but they haven't done anything that would merit them losing tax exempt status.

[madfloridian]

68. They are pushing their agenda almost forcibly.....

They are taking away women's rights in the name of the Catholic church. I left the Southern Baptists when they starting preaching war from the pulpit.

I will leave the party if it turns itself over to the Catholic church or any church.

Fed up.

[defendandprotect]

75. I have an internet friend in the South who says that the Catholic Church there

has been doing this a long time --

Then again, how long were they preaching that "Jews were an abomination" before

they were forced to stop . . . if they have?

And, how long have they been preaching intolerance for and hatred for homosexuals!!!

[defendandprotect]

74. A church isn't a typical "tax exempt organization" . . .

When Church ventures into State affairs, then their tax-exempt status should be

suspended and/or ended --

[skepticscott]

84. And what do you base that on

other than a purely emotional reaction? What specifically is there in the written law that would justify removal of their tax-exempt status?

[defendandprotect]

88. Were our Founders "emotional" . . . ??? The Founders understood the dangers of

a "god" threat to democracy --

they had seen it in Europe - many came here to escape it --

And they gave us ways to control it --

All we have to do is use those means --

and subsidizing the RCC church's "faith-based" organizations is NOT one of those ways --

NOR permitting the church to run heavily financed campaigns against women or homosexuals

or anyone else!

Unless you want a theocracy!!??

[skepticscott]

97. Gee, hyperventilate much?

I suppose it would be a waste of time to ask you again for some factual basis in the law?

[defendandprotect]

98. Let's try this . . . are you saying we're defenseless against theocracy? Or that you want one?

And let's cut the crap about everyone being "hysterical" --

and try to stick with the information --

[KakistocracyHater]

32. the hypocrisy, "killing isn't healthcare(unless it's only a woman)"

I am not surprised.

[defendandprotect]

41. "killing isn't health care" . . . but "Pro-Lifers" have a pass to kill doctors -- !!!!

[KakistocracyHater]

57. in CHURCH!! even

I forgot momentarily about the doctors, those & women & girls are not respectable, they're expendable.

[defendandprotect]

76. Anyone who ever had an illegal abortion understood immediately that their lives

were being valued as less than a fertilized egg!!

And think of how long the Catholic hospitals went on pretty much killing women . . .

in order to save the baby!!

Men told that their wives were dead . . . but we saved the baby -- !!

[defendandprotect]

33. Male-supremacist Vatican has plenty of $$$$ for game-playing + Americans are subsdizing them!!

[seafan]

35. The other contribution to this hijacked health care bill is the rise of the evangelicals.

Thom Hartmann: 'The rising influence of evangelicals in the Democratic Party has blindsided many.'


Author of The Family, Jeff Sharlet, discussed with Thom Hartmann that Joe Pitts of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is one of the long-time bulwark evangelicals in the anti-abortion movement, going back decades. Funny, how he's managed to do so much damage from the shadows on this bill.


But, then, The Family operates in secret, and Pitts is just part of The Machine.



Sharlet thinks the Evangelicals have now overtaken the Catholics in the push for this fanatical ideology of Christian domination.


Either way, we've got a monumental battle underway for the soul of America.


And, the question for the Democratic Party is, 'Will the evangelicals be allowed to take control over it and its platform, against the will of the people?'

[defendandprotect]

42. The right wing religious movement in America is also financed by RIGHT WING . . .

GOP gave start up funds for the Christian Coalition --

Scaife and other wealthy Repugs financed Dobson's organization -- and Bauer's --

It's all fake --

Yeah, some of the peons involved at the bottom might not get it --

but the right wing understands that without organized patriarchal religion, patriarchy

itself is doomed.

This blowback was in response to the civil rights movement -- and the 1960's Revolution

which was a threat to patriarchy and all authority -- especially anti-war!!!

[DesertFlower]

45. i'm not surprised. nt

[Nikki Stone1]

47. Time to take away the non-profit status of churches.

Especially the Catholic Church.

[Angry Dragon]

48. The Catholic Church is a government

They are in a war with us. They trample on everyone's constitutional rights

[mudplanet]

49. The day the Catholic Church institutes a program

that provides housing, employment and/or school for expectant mothers and programs for long term support for their children (or adoption) I'll begin to feel I can have some respect for their anti abortion position. I won't agree, but I'll have some degree of respect.

[brendan120678]

95. There's quite a few organizations like that around...

many run by Catholic Churches at the local parish or diocesan level.

[joeglow3]

53. Sadly, their tax exempt status cannot be attacked

501(c)(3) allows organizations to influence and politic for/against issues, but not candidates.

[madfloridian]

63. Read the article in the OP. They are advocating getting rid of the ones who voted no.

[joeglow3]

82. Good point, but...

...who is advocating this? I cannot see who is behind this website:

http://www.catholic.org/about/

I do know it is not the official website of the church:

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

Thus, it comes down to if this is a official church website or simply someone using the name to push an agenda.

[madfloridian]

92. Relax, nothing will be done. They have the power over women.

So sit back and relax. Just allow this woman the luxury of getting angry with a church that is against women's rights.

They are too powerful to be stopped. So relax.

[defendandprotect]

77. If the public became aware of the $$$$$$$$ these churches are thowing into these

campaigns, I think things would be changed fairly quickly!!!

Especially since we're now subsidizing the Catholic Church's "faith-based" organizations!!

[madfloridian]

54. Faith communities coalesce against Stupak.

From McJoan at DKos who is staying on top of this issue:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/11/16/804491/-Faith-Communities-Coalesce-Against-Stupak

"Catholics for Choice, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Clergy Network, the Religious Coalition on Reproductive Choice, and the Religious Institute on Sexual Morality, Justice, and Healing represent more than ten thousand religious leaders and tens of thousands of people of faith who believe that abortion must be safe, legal, and accessible. We come together to condemn the passage of the Stupak amendment, which if passed by the Senate will effectively deny coverage for abortion services to women covered by the new federal health care plan. We are appalled that religious leaders intervened to impose their specific religious doctrine into health care reform, not recognizing that women must have the right to apply or reject the principles of their own faith in making the decision as to whether or not abortion is appropriate in their specific circumstances. Further, we decry those who sought to use abortion as a way to scuttle much needed health care reform. We call on the President and the United States Senate to ensure that the final bill that passes does not include any specific prohibition on the use of federal funds for reproductive health care services. We pray for a renewed commitment to relational and reproductive justice for all."

There is more at the link.

[aero56]

55. Church and State

The Catholic church or any other "church" needs to stay out of this! Not only because there is seperation, but because women don't want or need the "church" in their body business! Stay out!!

[defendandprotect]

79. Also because it's a male-supremacist outfit -- !!! People rarely seem to notice that, somehow...!!!

[mmonk]

67. Remember this, when you say

"I don't know their reasons for their vote against that amendment, but maybe just maybe they stopped to consider that they should not impose their religious views into what should be secular in nature"
that traditionally, Catholics have been in the past some of this country's most prominent Liberals. We American Catholics are no more prone to force our religion on others than the Protestants of the Religious Right. However, with Ratzinger becoming pope, the Church has become more sharply right and vocal. And with the rightwing Christian movement becoming more prominent in the political process since the age of bush/Cheney and Blue Dog Democrats, we need push back now.

[defendandprotect]

80. The Vatican was opposed to democracy and "equality for all" from the first ...

it heard the words -- from the French and then from the Italians as they

freed Jews from the Papal Ghettoes -- and moved the RCC back into the space it

now occupies in Italy.

The Pope then went into seclusion and when he came out, he announced that he was "infallible."

Vatican II by Pope John XXII kicked Papal infallibility in the ass --

Made the church a democracy -- told Catholics to use their own free thought and personal

conscience to decide for themselves on birth control.

THAT's what this whole blowback over 45 years has been --

JFK and the Pope John XXII and Kruschev -- all together were a huge threat to TPB.

The right wing coup on Vatican II hasn't ended yet --

THIS Pope is moving the RCC into Evangelicalism!!!

The Vatican now finds its fortunes rising in China and Africa --

they've written off America, Europe, Canada --

but they will keep trying!!!

Lots of $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ involved --

and wasn't W nice to provide a lot of it for them thru "faith based" subsidies . . .

just when they really needed it to pay off priest pedophile lawsuits!!!

[mmonk]

83. I don't think the hierarchy has given up on here. They are aggressive

here for the first time. We need more JFK's to stand up. We also need to bring back liberation theology.

[defendandprotect]

87. They won't totally give up -- they will keep hammering at it --

but that costs money for campaigns --

and yes they are very "aggressive" -- I'd say potentially violent as all of

the right wing is.

IMO, the right wing of the RCC have the same interests W had in seeing Iraq/Muslims

overcome. 1.5 Muslims killed now and who's complaining?

"Liberation theology" has long been gone -- the CIA Pope got rid of that as I recall.

And brought back Opus Dei!!

[HughMoran]

78. Bad Catholic!

No biscuit.

Jesus hates you.

[defendandprotect]

81. k i c k