|
Previous Posts
Archbishop Chaput weighs in against "Obama Catholics"--and for...?
Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput combines an intellectual's depth with the doughty persona of a politicker, which is what he used to be--he worked for the RFK campaign and later, even as a priest, was a campaign volunteer for Jimmy Carter. Some say he's still a political operative, though for the
posted 11:18:53am May. 20, 2008 |
read full post
»
The Hagee-Donohue ticket: "Liberals' worst nightmare"
The elaborate courtship of Texas televangelist John Hagee--who is covering McCain's evangelical flank--and the Catholic League's Bill Donohue, who accused Hagee of anti-Catholicism for his "Great Whore" sermonizing and other standard anti-papist barbs, always seemed to hold about as much suspense as
posted 10:54:05am May. 19, 2008 |
read full post
»
An olive branch to divorced-and-remarried Catholics?
An item in the current edition of The Tablet of London hints at a possible opening for divorced and remarried Catholics to receive communion--even though many do, obviously, their ban from the altar under church law remains one of the sorest pastoral points in the US church. It is also a sore point
posted 6:00:00am May. 17, 2008 |
read full post
»
The key to Benedict...
It is summed up in a response recounted by Father Jim Martin, a Jesuit and author who posts (and edits) at America magazine's blog. Father Martin has a post on "Three Unreported Papal Stories" from last month's visit. The third is the payoff:
Third: Another priest friend serving as a secretary to on
posted 5:12:35pm May. 16, 2008 |
read full post
»
Guerilla tactics and the "Communion Wars"...Doug Kmiec is denied communion for backing Obama
It seems that the former Reagan adviser and Catholic conservative legal scholar from Pepperdine, Doug Kmiec--heretofore a man with impeccable judicial and pro-life credentials--has been barred from communion for his support for Barack Obama. In a posting yesterday, Kmiec did not give details, but wr
posted 12:37:21pm May. 16, 2008 |
read full post
»
|
posted April 18, 2008 at 6:27 am
I HAVE READ SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE IN 2IS SITE REGARDING PAPAL VISIT
THAT SEEMS WAY OF THE MARK IN MOST CASES AND CORRECTLY JUSTIFIED.
BUT 4 ANYBODY CRITICISING THE POPE’S COMMENTS,ON THE SEX ABUSE SCANDAL.
ANSWER ME THESE QUESTIONS:ARE YOU CRITICISING HIM 4 BEEN A NON-CATHOLIC
THEREFORE HAVE ISSUES TO GRIND, WITH THE DENOMINATION.OR 4 SAYING THE TRUTH FROM HIS AND SOME PEOPLES POINT OF VIEW
posted April 18, 2008 at 6:37 am
HI GUYS ITS ME AGAIN. I HAVE JUST REALISED, THE MISTAKE I MADE. WHEN I SAID THE POPE WAS NON-CATHOLIC. WHAT I MEANT TO SAY, WAS THIS. WHETHER THE PERSON CRITICISING THE POPE, WAS A NON-CATHOLIC. THERE4 HAS AN ISSUE, TO GRIND WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
AM SORRY FOR ANY CONFUSION,THAT THIS STATEMENT, MIGHT HAVE CAUSED.TO ANYBODY,WHO HAVE READ, THE INITIAL COMMENT. IT WAS A TYPING ERROR,FROM MY SIDE,.PLS ACCEPT MY APOLOGY.