My name is John Williams. I can trace my roots back to my great, great grandfather who came to this country because it offered religious freedom. I am a devout Catholic. Read more
But far from forming any unified bloc, the justices would represent the vast diversity of American Catholics, from weekly churchgoers to the occasional attendee.
Sotomayor, a parochial school graduate, has said nothing since her nomination about how she practices her faith.
The White House said: “She currently does not belong to a particular parish or church, but she attends church with family and friends for important occasions.”
That would make her what religion experts call a “cultural Catholic,” someone who identifies with Catholicism and its traditions but is not active in the church.
More than half of U.S. Catholics rarely or never attend Mass, and they tend to have more liberal views than frequent churchgoers on abortion, gay marriage and other issues.
On the high court, Sotomayor would join a group of regular Mass attendees: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
“Cultural Catholic”? I have been Catholic all my life and I didn’t know we had two kinds, “cultural” and what … “actual”? I must say I am baffled. But it does explain a lot when I read polls that say half of all Catholics are pro choice or 50% of Catholics voted for Obama, despite his past stance on not just abortion but also late term abortion … real late.
But I have to ask, unlike Judaism, Catholicism is not defined by heritage. How does one call themselves Catholic if 1. you never attend mass and 2. Do not believe in Church dogma much less doctrine (please don’t ask me to explain the difference and if you consider yourself Catholic and don’t know the difference, I rest my case). Quite simply you are not. You can call yourself a rose all you want … but if you are a daisy … that’s what you are.
As for Catholics on the Supreme Court, I wonder why Americans are not saying something about the fact that soon they will make up 6 of the 9. Is that diversity? I am Catholic and I am not so sure this is a good idea … or for that matter … that it even makes a difference.
Maybe that’s what Bill Press meant when he said this:
The Catholic church is once again under fire from House Bill 899. In a letter received by a Knights of Columbus member from the Connecticut State council of Knights of Columbus dated April 13, 2009 , states that they are very concerned over House Bill 899.
The full context of the letter can be found here.
Bill 899 is of the same Judiciary Committee co-charimen [sic] who just a few short weeks ago tried to push through Bill 1098 which would of removed administrative authority from the Catholic Bishops and Priests.
This Bill would set the stage for legal attacks against any person, associating, business or church that does not accept and celebrate alternative sexual lifestyles. The lawsuits that this bill authorizes would have serious financial consequences.
The values held by a vast majority of Connecticut’s citizens are being challenged right now at the State Capitol in Hartford.
In the next few weeks, members of the legislature will vote on a measure (Bill 899) that:
- Allows the promotion of homosexuality and bisexuality in our schools
- Allows Connecticut to condone homosexuality and bisexuality as state policy.
- Allows the establishment of quotas and goals for the employment of homosexuals and bisexuals
- Establishes members of the “gay community” as a privileged class in our state civil rights statutes
Bill 899 shreds our First Amendment protection of religious liberty.
Being a person of an alternate life style I personally find this to be offensive. No more than I personally would force my lifestyle upon any person, I would not expect any church to be legally forced to break any of their doctrine or dogma on which their faith is based.
If you wish to let your Legislators know how you feel then pelase visit http://www.actnowct.org/
… then you surely would have more members. This is the kind of tripe Phil Donahue serves up these days.
Fox brought Phil on to debate Father Jonathan Morris on President Obama speaking at America’s premier Catholic University, Notre Dame (sorry BC). But Phil didn’t want to talk about why a Catholic college would honor a man who has no respect for a child at any point in the womb (and in some cases just outside).
Instead you will notice he never addresses that. Phil wanted to argue the Church itself. .It’s a 3 and a half minute whimper on his divorce, why he can’t go to communion, why the church is out of date and why it would have so many more members if it was just a little more hip. Blah, blah, blah.
If it’s members you’re looking for … why stop there? My guess is if the Church dropped that crazy stance on adultery, theft and coveting your neighbor’s stuff, and maybe even dropped that silly attend church on Sunday thing … wow then you might really have something.
This is the post I read on the air today. Ed Morrissey brings the Archbishop’s Speech to a wider audience … and the questions he addresses will make some Catholics and other people of religion, more than uncomfortable.
Archbishop of Denver Charles J. Chaput delivered a speech on Saturday reflecting on the significance of the November 2008 election. Warning that media “narratives” should not obscure truth, he blamed the indifference and complacency of many U.S. Catholics for the country’s failures on abortion, poverty and immigration issues.
It’s a hard hitting no nonsense speech and whether you are Catholic or not you will find it more than enlightening … in light of the results of the 2008 election and how “Catholics” cast their vote.
and here’s what I had to say on the subject today. Click here.
(Posted by Tom Hynes)
The outcry from Catholics all across the county at the Democrats thinly veiled attempt to reorganize the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Connecticut continues to produce blow back.
Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) and Sen. Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford) have been quickly trying to distance themselves from a bill and lay all the blame on a group of Darien parishioners … but the Republicans won’t let go and they shouldn’t. This e-mail from House Republican leader Larry Cafero arrived this afternoon. Fair warning.
This afternoon I joined Senate Republican Leader John McKinney (R-Fairfield) in presenting unified opposition to SB 1098 …
The bill, which was introduced by the Judiciary Committee Co-Chairs, Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) and Sen. Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford), would take financial control of parishes to boards of directors, taking away the clergy’s ability to direct the use of funds. The measure applies only to Roman Catholic Churches. This bill infringes on religious rights and is unconstitutional.
Yesterday Lawlor and McDonald took great pains to distance themselves from the proposed bill, saying they were asked to introduce the measure by a group of Catholic parishioners from Darien who had been victims of financial malfeasance by a member of the clergy.
Today news circulated around the capitol that the public hearing originally scheduled for tomorrow on the bill was suddenly cancelled.
House Republicans feel that the people who are impacted by this bill still deserve a chance to be heard on it. That is why tomorrow at noon in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building they will hold a hearing on the proposal. Sign-up for the hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m.
Rep. Larry Cafero
Here’s video of the Republicans today.
Update (Jim): I would like to welcome Tom as a new contributor to Radioviceonline.
The Hartford Courant has just posted a news item concerning SB 1098 here. The hearing scheduled for March 11 (tomorrow) has been canceled.
The Courant has more.
A controversial bill that would change the way the Catholic church governs itself has been pulled and a public hearing planned Wednesday on the issue postponed until its constitutionality can be determined.
The hearing had been expected to draw hundreds of people, many of whom where angry about what they view as the state’s inappropriate and perhaps unconstitutional incursion into church affairs.
At a press conference this morning at the legislative office building, Tom Gallagher of Greenwich, who has long advocated that lay people be given greater responsibilities within the church, said he has asked Rep. Michael Lawlor and Sen. Andrew McDonald, co-chairmen of the legislature’s judiciary committee, to put off the hearing until Attorney General Richard Blumenthal has reviewed the matter.
Update: Morrissey at HotAir reports.
Well, it seems as if President Obama isn’t the only one who wants to reshape our institutions in new and “progressive” ways. The Judiciary Committee of the CT General Assembly will hold a public hearing on March 11 at noon in Room 2C of the Legislative Office Building in Hartford concerning Raised S.B. number 1098.
Update: The hearing scheduled for March 11 concerning this bill has been canceled.
This bill would require Roman Catholic parishes to elect Boards of Directors from its lay community who will govern financial and budgetary matters, long-term capital improvement and outreach to the community among other responsibilities. The archbishop or bishop can send ex officio (non-voting) members and the pastor must report to the Board with respect to administrative or financial matters. In other words, the pastor works for the Board.
Of course, there is the obligatory – this act shall not affect the clergy’s power in matters exclusively to religious tenets or practices. Nice. I guess the Legislature believes that sticking financial bureaucracies between the clergy and its parishioners does not affect the Apostolic nature of the Catholic Church.
Also of particular interest is the final section that gives the Attorney General the authority to investigate a parish if “Any person having reason to believe that monetary contributions” are being misappropriated and not being used for the purposes given. I suppose the Attorney General will be able to read the minds of the parishioners to know why they were giving their hard earned income thereby knowing if the funds are being misappropriated relative to the purposes given. (But that’s probably why we have all of those multi-colored donation envelopes).
I suppose this is all part of the “change” that Obama voters were looking for and the Legislature is just following suit. After all Socialism abhors Religion, so let’s try to tear that apart shall we?
Update (by Steve): Morrissey over at Hot Air picked up on this topic this morning, as did Jack Fowler over at The Corner. More than 75 percent of Americans associate themselves as Christians, and Roman Catholics make up more than 20 percent of the population.
These groups are quite vocal. I have a hunch we’ll be hearing more about this subject not only in Connecticut, but nationwide during the next few days.
Update (by Jim): The hearing is set for Wednesday at the LOB at noon and Parishes across the state are sending bus loads of people to the hearing. Representative Lawlor told us yesterday that he’s not sponsoring the bill … he just wants to give it a hearing. Well it looks like that’s just what he will get … from a lot of folks.
Presumably this bill just sprung up from some concerned Catholics … and presumably this bill just suddenly got a hearing. I would presume that this bill has some backing in the legislature … or it would not be there. Don’t buy into the “it’s an orphan bill” bit. It’s got a Daddy.
During the Aug. 24 “Meet the Press” show on NBC, Tom Brokaw asked Nancy Pelosi – the Democrat leader of the U.S. House of Representatives from San Francisco – when life begins. Her answer was political of course, as she tried to cover all bases.
The discussion for conservatives is not necessarily if life begins at conception, but why Roe versus Wade is bad law. Don’t be afraid of the topic; you can be pro-life or pro-abortion and still believe that the Supreme Court got it wrong, and probably should have refused to hear the case. Read more