A little … not so little… project for US Catholic bloggers

Under my entry about the group of political hacks, faux Catholics called Catholic Democrats (aka Sycophantic Toadies), I offered the following:

ALL: You will have read in the main entry that Sycophantic Toadies will even write your letter to the editor for you – 250 poisonous words designed to weaken Catholic identity in the public square by attacking strong bishops.

How about some of you posting here your own template? Or send them to me by email and I will create an entry from them?

Catholic Dems (aka Sycophantic Toadies) probably has … what … maybe even tens of readers. WDTPRS has thousands on a light day!

Bloggers UNITE! Let’s get the good Catholic blogosphere fired up.

Let’s get off the bench.

So… post away!

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to A little … not so little… project for US Catholic bloggers

  1. gloriainexcelsis says:

    To Whom It May Concern:

    The Catholic Church does not seek to impose any “political” ideology, Republican or otherwise, on the United States Government. If those who claim to be true Catholics were better educated in the eternal truths of their religion, they would realize that they are way out of line. Real Catholics do not pick and choose what they want to believe. The Eucharist, moreover, is not a weapon. “It” is not an inanimate object. It is the Body and Blood of Christ, Soul and Divinity. If a Catholic does not believe that, and does not realize that his/her immortal soul is in peril by receiving Christ while in mortal sin, then they need a Catechism. The individual’s duty to try to save his/her soul trumps any political idea. Abortion is an intrinsic evil. It is the murder of a human being. There is no argument, no matter how one tries to rationalize it. Eternal truths, moreover, are not changeable with the culture of the moment. Don’t bring up the death penalty. That may or may not be acceptable, depending upon circumstance. It is not intrinsically evil. I suggest that, not only Catholic politicians, but Catholic pundits on TV, get a better handle on their Faith. It is too obvious that they have some very skewed ideas about it, including views on homosexuality. The Church has done a very bad job of catechesis for a very long time. Now that Bishops are speaking out (it’s about time) and defending the Faith, they need to give the Faithful a comprehensive course in Theology. The days of “Cafeteria Catholics” must come to an end. How many souls have been lost in recent years for want of knowledge and a right conscience?

  2. Rellis says:

    Dear Editor:

    I write in support of Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence. In your recent article of DD/MM/YYYY, “Insert Headline Here,” you discussed how His Excellency suggested to Representative Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) that the Congressman should consider refraining from receiving the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist.

    Published media reports to the contrary, this was not an “excommunication,” or even a formal sanction. Rather, it is an appropriate and proportional action from a pastor to a soul under his care. As a federal elected official who can and does vote in favor of increased abortions, Congressman Kennedy was presenting a persistent and obstinate scandal to the 600,000 Catholics in the Diocese of Providence. Why should any Catholic in that diocese listen to what Bishop Tobin or any priest has to say when they can see Congressman Kennedy flaunting Church teaching at the highest political levels–and getting away with it?

    Besides these first two reasons for Bishop Tobin’s actions–care for Congressman Kennedy’s soul, and the desire to avoid further public scandal in the diocese caused by Kennedy–is the responsibility the bishop has. Under Church law, the bishop must teach that abortion is always intrinsically evil and carries a higher gravity than any other social question. Further, he must protect the Eucharist (which Catholics believe actually is the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ) from defilement by those in a probable state of mortal sin (which disqualifies them from receiving communion under Church law).

  3. William says:

    Gloriainexcelcis, you took the words right out of my mouth! And I thank you.

  4. I know that this is over 250 words, but here it is (edit if you wish): [You are your own editor until you send it!]

    Dear Editor:

    I am a Catholic who, like many of your viewers, is a Democratic sympathizer. However, moments such as this with Rep. Kennedy and Bishop Tobin remind me of why I do not ally myself with either party. This is because the Democratic party has veered far to the left from what it used to be based on: subsidiarity and solidarity.

    And this was something that was not seen that day. Instead, Tobin has upheld both of them by enforcing Canon Law to the lowest level of Congress and enforcing episcopal precedents in the cases of Sebelius and others who are in the same situation.

    As a Catholic who wishes to remain faithful to the Magisterium, I will not believe the notion that Catholicism is a right-wing religion. Actually, the Catholic faith is meant to be unbiased — which means that it sticks to Truth.

    That being said, I must condemn the opinion of many Catholic Democrats—and Democrats in general—that Tobin should’ve “stayed out of politics.” For Tobin had the right to deny Kennedy Communion precisely because his political positions were placing his soul in jeopardy.

    Is it not true that the Catholic Church states that supporting a pro-choice position is a mortal sin? And is it not true that one of the conditions for receiving the Host is to not have a stain of mortal sin? Clearly, one of the conditions was not met when Kennedy took Communion.

    So, it should be obvious that this was not a political but religious move in order to save his soul! Unfortunately, Kennedy and his allies have ballooned this into something more, saying that Tobin’s actions interfered with church-state separation. Thus, let us not do so, for that would then be politics interfering with religion. And that is also against the 1st Amendment, no?

  5. Scelata says:

    I am on the eMailing list, (essentially, as a non-dues-paying “member”,) of several organizations, both political and “Catholic,” whose opinions and aims I find generally abhorrent.

    But it makes it very easy to write a letter to my congressmen, or the editors of the most significant local paper , say, in support of the Stupak amendment.

    They are constantly providing handy links and addys and things of that sort, and urging me to write, so I do. [Fighting fire with fire, as it were.]

    In the box provided I simply write in support of what they wish me to protest, or to protest that which they wish me to support.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)