Bp. Jenky (D. Peoria) required all priests to read letter from pulpit before election

The McClatchy newspaper group has not been, to my knowledge, very friendly toward the Catholic Church. At McClatchyDC we find this:

Bishop orders priests to read anti-Obama letter at Sunday sermons

The Episcopal Backbone Award

CHICAGO — Joining the chorus of Roman Catholic clergy in Illinois criticizing President Barack Obama before next week’s election, Peoria Bishop Daniel Jenky ordered priests to read a letter to parishioners on Sunday before the presidential election, explaining that politicians who support abortion rights also reject Jesus.

“By virtue of your vow of obedience to me as your Bishop, I require that this letter be personally read by each celebrating priest at each Weekend Mass,” Jenky wrote in a letter circulated to clergy in the Catholic Diocese of Peoria.

In the letter, Jenky cautions parishioners that Obama and a majority of U.S. senators will not reconsider the mandate that would require employers, including religious groups, to provide free birth control coverage in their health care plans. “This assault upon our religious freedom is simply without precedent in the American political and legal system,” Jenky wrote.

“Today, Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord,” Jenky added. “They are objectively guilty of grave sin.

Earlier this year, Jenky delivered a controversial homily criticizing the contraception mandate. The bishop included Obama’s policies in a list of historic challenges the Catholic Church has overcome in previous centuries, including Hitler and Stalin’s campaigns.  [And the left went bananas.]

Jenky is the third Illinois Catholic leader to offer pointed guidance for Catholic voters in recent weeks. Last month, Springfield Bishop Thomas Paprocki offered a commentary on the Democratic and Republican parties’ platforms that he said wasn’t intended as instruction, but guidance.

“There are many positive and beneficial planks in the Democratic Party Platform, but I am pointing out those that explicitly endorse intrinsic evils,” Paprocki explained in the Springfield Diocese newspaper.

“Again, I am not telling you which party or which candidates to vote for or against,” he said. “But I am saying that you need to think and pray very carefully about your vote, because a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”

Furthermore, in the Rockford Diocese, Vicar General Eric Barr compared Obama’s support of religious freedom in Muslim countries to his lack of support for Catholic liberty.

“Meanwhile, Obamacare marches on, steamrolling Catholic morality and the First Amendment under its weight. How can that be tolerated by citizens?” Barr wrote.

“Nothing justifies this peculiar and unreal stance of the president,” he said.

Spokeswoman Colleen Dolan said she doesn’t expect Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George to issue any statements before the election.

It would be interesting to have reports of how many priests – and their names – who refused to carry out the bishop’s instructions.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in "How To..." - Practical Notes, New Evangelization, Our Catholic Identity, Religious Liberty, The future and our choices, The Last Acceptable Prejudice and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Phil_NL says:

    It would be interesting to have reports of how many priests – and their names – who refused to carry out the bishop’s instructions.

    Hopefully, very few. But I daresay that a lot would have stressed, at considerable length, that the bishop required them to read this under their vow of obedience.

    Two additional observations:
    – In a way, the letter is still a bit unfocussed. Judging from the press reports, it spends a lot of time on the sins of politicians, and just one line on the fact that voting can become corporation in that evil. The first one is irrelevant (the election is for POTUS, not sainthood; there are a whole lot of grave sins that a president can exhibit without it detracting from his job, plenty of examples all around, starting with heresies), but the latter is crucial.
    – I daresay we found yet another bishop who Fr. Jim wouldn’t get along with.

  2. Phil_NL says:

    addendum: should have been ” without it detracting from his job, or making his voters complicit;”

  3. Liz says:

    God bless him!

  4. frjim4321 says:

    Once again, regarding Jenky, I don’t know if it is smart to impose unenforceable requests upon his priests.

  5. William Tighe says:

    Unenforceable? Hardly — seek assurance from the priests concerned that it was read at all Masses, and if there are reports (which should be encouraged) that it was not read, then demand an explanation and, if none is forthcoming, then suspend the priest from his office until the bishop receives a satisfactory explanation.

  6. acardnal says:

    frjim, aren’t all of a bishop’s requests “unenforceable” despite the subject matter? Shouldn’t the priests comply with their solemn promise of obedience to their bishop?

  7. Tim Ferguson says:

    What jumped off the page for me with this is the first phrase quoted from the bishop, “By virtue of your vow of obedience to me as your Bishop…”

    Diocesan bishops do not make a vow of obedience to their bishop, they make a promise of obedience. Those in religious orders take vows. It may seem like a small matter of semantics, but there is an important distinction here. By using the phrasing he did, Bishop Jenky inadvertently gave all of his priests an excuse – “Since I didn’t take a vow of obedience to you, I don’t have to do this.”

  8. Phil_NL says:

    @Tim Ferguson:

    I’m pretty sure that very few of the priests involved would have realized that, and if they know now, that might give them an incentive to study canon law a bit better. On the whole that would be a good thing, I guess, given the type of priest we’re likely dealing with.

    Anyway, easily corrected for the next editions in 2014 and 2016, I’d say.

  9. frjim4321 says:

    Tim, interesting point, thanks! f/j

  10. DisturbedMary says:

    Depends on the meaning of the word “is”?

    Good or evil tomorrow. That is the vote.

  11. Random Friar says:

    So Father followed the letter, not the spirit of the bishops’ instruction?

  12. Varda says:

    In Northern Virginia Bishop Louverde’s letter could either be read aloud or put in the bulletin. In my parish they read most of it after communion. It was pretty powerful, it addressed abortion and also the HHS mandate. I hope it helps people make a good decision. Last election there were lots of Obama-Biden bumper stickers in the parking lot. This time there are still some but not as many.

  13. frjim4321 says:

    Last election there were lots of Obama-Biden bumper stickers in the parking lot.

    Around here I see very few bumper stickers either way. I had two magnetic stickers on my car but strangely one of them disappeared over the weekend.

  14. MKR says:

    The spine-crozier image made me think the bishop mentioned in the article was spineless. I was wrong! God bless him.

  15. catholicmidwest says:

    Catholics need to focus. I’ve heard more “wading through the weeds” in the last year than I ever thought possible. Many Catholics, perhaps more than half (!), have no idea what the Church really teaches on pretty much everything. It’s astonishing. They don’t know what’s in the CCC; they don’t know what’s in Scripture. It makes this election even more interesting than it otherwise would have been. If Romney wins, the Church better take this as a warning and get busy straightening this out! If Obama wins, I expect we’re going to get a lesson in history pretty quickly when the HHS mandate kicks in. If that happens, people are going to be shocked, and Catholics will be the most shocked. Many of them are either not taking it seriously or they don’t think it can happen. Au contraire. If Obama is re-elected, it WILL happen.

  16. Sissy says:

    “I had two magnetic stickers on my car but strangely one of them disappeared over the weekend.”

    I thought you told us that you are very careful not to let your flock know about your political views, Father Jim? If I saw an Obama sticker on my pastor’s car, I’d find a different church before the sun went down.

  17. Southern Catholic says:

    Diocesan bishops do not make a vow of obedience to their bishop, they make a promise of obedience.

    Of course, a vow is a promise made with God, so a vow can never be made to another man. He meant promise, but the words are synonyms, so yes you are basically arguing semantics.

  18. acardnal says:

    frjim, I hope both of the bumper stickers on your car were from Fr. Z’s store: “Save the Liturgy, Save the World” and ” Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.”

  19. frjim4321 says:

    If I saw an Obama sticker on my pastor’s car, I’d find a different church before the sun went down.,

    People come and go for a variety of reasons … participation/attendance seems to be up here so I’m grateful.

    I appreciate your comment in a limited sense because I agree that pastors should have a better idea about what motivates the comings and goings. It’s easy to see when new people register, there’s a paper trail. But when people disappear there’s no notification.

    Friend of mine, a pastor, has a great letter he sends out to the “dissappeared” with a response card asking if they want to remain on the list or not, and if they would like a phone call or if they have concerns or questions. It’s a great instrument.

  20. Sissy says:

    “He meant promise, but the words are synonyms, so yes you are basically arguing semantics.”

    Progressives think: “Silly old Bishops, thinking that a promise is a promise!!” A priest who rebels against his Bishop and flouts his guidance in a matter of this importance is in an open state of flagrant disobedience. I wouldn’t have any confidence in such a man to be my pastor. I hope Bishop Jenky disciplines any priest who defied him, and finds a more faithful pastor for the parish.

  21. Sissy says:

    acardnal said: “frjim, I hope both of the bumper stickers on your car were from Fr. Z’s store: “Save the Liturgy, Save the World” and ” Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.”

    I think we can surmise not. After making claims here that he keeps his Progressive views undercover in his parish, Father Jim now admits that is he is openly supporting the most radical pro-abort in American political history, a man bent on depriving Catholics of their religious liberty.

  22. Michael_Thoma says:

    I support Bp. Jenky, but I am not in his diocese. Why is it that these voices only make appearances during the election cycle? If our bishops were consistently speaking to these things, it wouldn’t come off as an anti-Obama rant, rather than what it is – a pro-life message… Bishop Thomas Paprocki is a great example, he has been calling out anti-life politicians for years – in (election) season, and out of season. Our latest prison-inmate #2 ex-Governor is the latest example: Bishop Paprocki called him out on his anti-life “choices” in the pulpit with the ex-Gov. and his wife sitting in the pews. The Serbian Orthodox bishop in Chicago did the same in the Gov.’s parish!

  23. Kathy C says:

    The new bishop of the Diocese of Baker in Oregon distributed a letter that was read at the pulpit by my pastor. It referred specifically to Respect Life month, but included the following paragraph:

    “In 2012 Respect for Life month falls right before the national elections. In light of the national party platforms the issues could not be more clearly drawn. One party proposes to extend the intrusive pressures of legalized abortion and force the consciences of those who appose it; the other party would limit abortion’s corrosive reach. One party would risk the unprecedented social experiment of same-sex marriage; the other party upholds the marital union of man and woman as virtually every society has understood it. The issues are as fundamental as the choices are clear. The decision is in our hands. ”

    My pastor read it, but that’s exactly what I’d expect him to do. I am very proud of our newly created Bishop Cary.

  24. Del says:

    “It would be interesting to have reports of how many priests – and their names – who refused to carry out the bishop’s instructions.”

    I hope this went well.

    I doubt there were many priest who failed to comply. I’ll bet there were many priests who were happy to have this order from the Bishop, so they could say what needed to be said without fear that their parishioners would begin to “murmur” about the pastor.

  25. Peruvian says:

    Michael_Thoma, I am in the good Bishop’s diocese. His voice is heard often on these issues but few outside of the diocese pay much attention (too few in the diocese as well) until an election comes around. Such is the nature of newsworthiness.

    BTW, our pastor read the entire letter then preached on its importance at our weekly TLM.

  26. SonofMonica says:

    Father Jim now admits that is he is openly supporting the most radical pro-abort in American political history, a man bent on depriving Catholics of their religious liberty.

    One might say, hell-bent.

  27. Imrahil says:

    Very well… it may be not best style to recommend to another country what is standard practice in one’s own country, but…

    it should be made a nationwide policy to issue and read a Pastoral Letter before any national election in every diocese. (This is the case in Germany, hence both my hesitation and also the fact that I’m less surprised about such a move as I probably should be).

    Interesting observations by dear @Phil and dear @Tim Ferguson – bishops should get their terms straight. However, finding out the limits of obligations (which I often argued for in this combox) is one thing, and tricksing about letters to free oneself (outside a case of conscience) from the obvious sense of an order quite another.

    Reverend dear @Fr. Jim, unenforceable? why?

  28. irishsmile says:

    I am astounded that anyone claiming to be an ordained Catholic priest would dare to publicly support any pro-abortion politician; that is scandalous. As the mother of a priest, I know the difference between issues of prudential judgements: i.e poverty approaches, immigration, just war, etc. and the 5 non-negotiables: abortion, euthanasia, stem cell, cloning and gay marriage. I can’t believe that any priest doesn’t understand this.

  29. Hidden One says:

    It’s not clear to me that Fr. Jim in fact has openly admitted support for a particular candidate in this thread. There is more than one way to read his comments.

  30. robtbrown says:

    BTW, Bp Jenky is a member of the religious order that runs Notre Dame.

  31. Alice says:

    I live in the Peoria Diocese and the letter was read both at the church where my husband fulfilled his Sunday obligation and at the church where I fulfilled mine. (We had sick children at home.) At the Mass I attended, someone started applauding the letter and other members of the congregation joined in. My husband said no one applauded at the Mass he attended, but no one walked out either.

    As Peruvian already said, this is not really anything new for Bishop Jenky and it is certainly nothing new for Peoria. In fact, this year marks the 20th anniversary of Archbishop Myers’ pastoral letter on the same subject, if I remember correctly.

  32. frjim4321 says:

    I am astounded that anyone claiming to be an ordained Catholic priest would dare to publicly support any pro-abortion politician; that is scandalous.

    Hello, irishsmile, I don’t think I’ve seen you on here before but at the risk of boring the regulars, I feel that neither candidate is perfect but that the President is the best alternative. I am aware that he is pro-choice, but I don’t see the actual rate of elective abortions decreasing if the challenger is elected. Further I see a very serious issue of dishonesty on the part of the challenger and his running mate. Thus even their claims around being pro-birth are suspect. And they don’t rate the moniker “pro-life” because in my estimation they fail on several life issues post-birth.

    Thus I am supporting the President not because I think he is perfect but because I think he is the best between two imperfect choices, and I think the dichotomy set up between the two on the basis of so-called “non-negotiable” issues is narrow, erroneous, misleading, and false.

  33. benedetta says:

    frjim4321, Abortion will surely increase under a vehemently, voraciously, the most voraciously in history pro abortion president and vice president. Do you not care that prochoice has been radically expanded to mean, more and more abortion, and provided freely?

    Certainly if the number of abortions stayed the same that would be a lesser evil than the greatly expanded free abortions offered and pined after in this administration.

    VP Biden could have been merely neutrally prochoice, same as Obama. Instead, they are voraciously in favor of expanding abortion, so much as possible. Not safe legal and rare. More of it and they attempt to justify it constantly.

    Lives in being do matter, before and after birth. They matter to God.

  34. benedetta says:

    With respect to the betterment of the situation of the poorest already out of the womb, President Obama has made their lives just a cycle of dependency on the government by wrecking the economy so horribly these past four years. It is far from clear that obamabiden is truly on the side of the poor and the hardworking in this country.

  35. Curley says:

    I live in the Peoria Diocese. I attended mass somewhere other than my home parish this Sunday, which made me curious about the letter being read, as our pastor has refused to recite the St. Michael prayer that Bishop Jenky asked be prayed at all Masses during the intercessions, instead asking for a generic intercession of St. Michael for religious freedom.

  36. frjim4321 says:

    benedetta, I don’t see evidence of that.

  37. benedetta says:

    There is evidence frjim4321. I think you see what you want to see. And I don’t fit politically into one of your foxnews stereotypes. Abortion proponents cause terrific harm to women, especially the poorest. Wake up. Do you really think all the people on this blog are just hypnotized by hannity and company? I don’t watch tv, don’t care. I have my own evidence. I have worked alongside the poorest and the homeless, especially mothers and I know what poor women want and need and they don’t need more big abortion to go with what the government has to offer to see them through. Anyone who sees death as a solution to the poor in reality despise and hate the poor, especially their children. Abortion has only made things worse for the poorest of this country.

    You dismiss everything that good people here say but I think you have to get off your righteous high horse and acknowledge that an expansion of freebie big abortion isn’t going to help anyone.

    But even with your pro death criterion, clearly, the poor haven’t been helped truly under obamabiden these last years. You want to sacrifice how many million to pay for food stamps? Does that really make sense in your heart of hearts?

  38. paladin says:

    Frjim, with all due respect: the “I don’t see abortions going down under a GOP administration” argument is simply puerile. Surely you can see that the abortion numbers will go UP under an Obama administration (especially under the abortion-friendly Obamacare), that Obama SCOTUS (and other judicial) appointments will go a long way toward cementing abortion into the landscape (and crippling the pro-life efforts to stamp it out), and that efforts such as the HHS mandate will only repeat themselves and increase? Even if we grant your spurious premise that things “won’t get better” under the GOP (and I do wonder whether abortion factors into the “get better/worse” idea at ALL, in your mind–you really don’t seem to care about it, very much), I fail to see why the aggressive PROMOTION of abortion by the current administration (and their ilk) wouldn’t strike you as relevant. I’d rather have an incompetent fireman than an arsonist, if the decision had to come to that.

    Honestly: I really don’t know whether you’re a troll, or not; no sane priest could believe the bilge that you’ve espoused, here.

  39. frjim4321 says:

    paladin, I guess we just disagree, and as far as SCOTUS is concerned I believe if it is not brought back to the center the democracy itself is in jeopardy. Case in point, Citizens United is bringing the practice of democracy in this country to its knees, which will ultimately result in a greater marginalization of the middle class and a “champagne glass” economy in which human tragedies such as abortion will skyrocket as never before.

    So yes, SCOTUS is very much a part of my calculation.

  40. wmeyer says:

    …as far as SCOTUS is concerned I believe if it is not brought back to the center the democracy itself is in jeopardy.

    frjim, we agree. If the court skews any further left, our country is on an irreversible downhill slide.

  41. frjim4321 says:

    wm, we do agree from time to time

    i suspect we have a few common interests

  42. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    paladin, I guess we just disagree, and as far as SCOTUS is concerned I believe if it is not brought back to the center the democracy itself is in jeopardy. Case in point, Citizens United is bringing the practice of democracy in this country to its knees, which will ultimately result in a greater marginalization of the middle class and a “champagne glass” economy in which human tragedies such as abortion will skyrocket as never before.

    The Citizens United decision merely ended the necessity of big money being funneled to political causes (incl campaigns) through various neutral sounding committees whose revenue sources are difficult to track. Still big money contributors like George Soros indirectly pour millions into those organizations.

    I agree about the marginalization of the middle class, but the cause is neither tax policy nor campaign financing. Rather, it is technology, which has replaced middle class jobs with machines and facilitated outsourcing.

  43. paladin says:

    FrJim wrote, in reply to my comment:

    paladin, I guess we just disagree

    (*sigh*) My dear fellow, that sounds very handsome… but you must be brought to realise that Catholicism (which you profess) and moral relativism (which you embrace) are utterly contrary to one another. You might just as (un)intelligibly say, after I claim that 2 + 2 = 4, that “you just disagree”. That sort of comment makes good sense when speaking of one’s tastes in recipes for chicken, or for style of shoes… but the intrinsic evil of abortion (and you’ve given no evidence, whatever, to show that you’re even aware of the intrinsic nature and gravity of child-murder such as that) is not one of those… nor is the plain fact that Obama has furthered the cause of abortion (within the limits of the system) more aggressively than has any other USA president in history, both in official actions and by political statements.

    I’ve had almost this identical discussion with a (well-meaning but misled) fellow on another forum–where he was convinced that, in light of (quote) “no clear evidence that either side cared much about abortion, given the lack of progress toward ending it when the GOP was in power” (I’ll address the clear lapse of logic in a moment), he was justified in voting for Democrats, since they (quote) “have made real progress toward helping the poor, at least” (I’ll address the multiple lapses in logic in a moment). Bunkum!

    First (although–forgive me if this sounds haughty, but it’s not so much a boast of my own meagre abilities as it is a rebuke of your lack of them–an understanding of Catholic moral teaching and principles are necessary to understand this): sins reside not in the outcomes of actions, but in the will–the INTENTION of the agent. Obama is undeniably and aggressively promoting abortion by every apparent vehicle available to him–even to the extent that he tramples the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Constitution, as well–Obamacare, as a “tax”, is constitutionally required to have originated, as all taxes originate, in the House of Representatives [Article 1, Section 7]… whereas Obamacare originated in the Senate, as it was originally put forth as a “purchase”). You seem particularly oblivious to this fact… which is bizarre.

    Example: if a mad gunman spent the entire day shooting at you, reloading, emptying his gun again, and so on, but was so poor a shot that he hadn’t yet hit you, would you be completely indifferent to the fact that he was TRYING? I, for one, would have the poor, hapless “poor-shot-Sherman” arrested for attempted murder… whereas you would apparently shrug and say, “What difference has it made thus far? Let him alone; I have more important concerns, such as buying a new Obama bumper sticker!” You seem insensate to the fact that our current president is so morally corrupt that he PURSUES the deaths of children, by the millions, in the name of “sexual freedom”; you, ignoring the gravity of this monstrosity, think it a trifle which you can neglect in favour of promoting a particular social welfare programme, etc. It’s positively stunning.

    Second: you’ve all but said that you’d seek to be as disobedient as possible to your bishop, were he to order you to read such a missive as described in the original post; you’d apparently seek to exploit every loop-hole and social dynamic by which you could dodge the reading of it, or portray it in the least favourable light, or some other such act of disobedience. Even if you have no awareness of the Catholic Faith’s insistence upon priestly obedience to your bishop in all matters which do not clearly and provably violate a higher moral imperative (and not simply a sacred cow of your own choosing): doesn’t even a shred of personal integrity rebel at the idea of being so duplicitous? It’s a hard thing to say that a particular person (much less a priest) would be better suited to a non-Catholic ecclesial community–especially given the risk to their soul–but surely you see that, if you were to join the Episcopalians, etc., you would not need to plot and scheme against your lawful superiors, since they would think as you do? Why do you not do so?

  44. frjim4321 says:

    rb, that doesn’t quite agree with my impression, but I would agree that technology also plays a role

  45. The Masked Chicken says:

    “Rather, it is technology, which has replaced middle class jobs with machines and facilitated outsourcing.”

    I think the tide will turn on outsourcing just as soon as the poorer countries get a taste of wealth and start making demands.

    The Chicken

  46. robtbrown says:

    It is well known that scads of American manufacturing jobs have been lost to nations with cheaper labor (and less restrictive environmental laws). In fact, a few years ago it was announced that Mercedes was opening a factory (or assembly plant) in Viet Nam. The hourly salary for a German worker was equal to the daily salary of one in VN.

    Before I decided to study in Rome, I spent 7 years in computers, working finally for one of the top 3 consulting companies in the world (EDS and CTG were the other two)–and we were the only one of the 3 that also produced software products. Anyway, I saw what computers had done to clerk jobs (lower middle class): Rooms of clerks were eliminated. I also saw what word processing did to typing pools–all but eliminated. And anyone who has been to a modern supermarket has seen that checkers’ jobs, once unionized, are not low pay, party time because of bar code readers (which of course also enable online inventory, which is very important).

    I am aware (but not a personal witness) that auto manufacturers had to make a choice between industrial robots and 3rd world workers–in either case, US workers would be eliminated.

    Later, fewer Middle Management positions were needed because much of that work was able to be done by powerful PC’s.

    Consider the differences in books vs ebooks. With the latter there are no people involved in selling and buying materials, printing the books, warehousing then transporting them. Similar situations exist for music than goes straight from the seller to and IPOD.

    I am entirely in favor of technology, but it’s naive to ignore the effect on middle class employment.

  47. The Masked Chicken says:

    I’m not ignoring the effects on the middle class. This problem has been going on since the 1950’s with the rise of automation. All I was reporting is that a few American companies are starting to open production facilities in the U. S., again, because it has become the most cost-effective thing to do. Eventually, places in India, Brazil, etc., will reach at least a Second-world status and this might make outsourcing less palatable to some businesses.

    The Chicken

  48. I voted earlier today; I chose to vote for a third-party candidate, who–as far as I can tell–endorses the least evil, and thus asks me to cooperate with that evil, by my vote.

    I obviously could not support Mr. Romney, although in saying that, I am not attempting to provoke a fight with those who do. I make that statement to make clear that what follows, about Mr. Obama, is not motivated by being a Romney partisan.

    Mr. Obama is campaigning as the candidate of dead babies, closed Catholic institutions, and government-redefined pseudo-marriages. These are not “oh by the way” stances, but things he has actively, adamantly, campaigned on.

    So even if I somehow brought myself to vote for him, I cannot imagine publicly identifying myself with him.

    How Father Jim can do so–without fear of giving scandal–is more than I can comprehend. I won’t attempt to explain it.

    Recently, a group of self-described Catholics published a full-page ad in our local paper, endorsing Obama as the best reflection of the Catholic values. On my blog, here, I asked those Catholics, considering how bad Mr. Obama already is, in light of Catholic values, what exactly would have he have to do before they’d say, “that tears it, he’s gone too far?”

    Just to be clear what I mean, not only is he pro-abortion, all nine months, and pro-redefined-marriage, and pro-coercion of the Catholic Church over contraception, and pro-coercion of insurance-premium-for-abortions…in addition to all that…

    He’s also pro-war; he started a new war in Libya, disregarding the War Powers Act…

    And he’s got his kill list in his pocket–he claims the power, as President, to order the killing of anyone he dubs an “enemy combatant”; anywhere in the world is a battlefield, and even American citizens can be so targeted. No judicial process or check on this power whatsoever.

    So, Father Jim, I’ll ask you. Just when would President Obama go too far? Does he actually have to commit an abortion, or padlock a Catholic hospital, or press a contraception into the hands of a religious sister, or does he have to personally pilot a drone that kills civilians?

    When, for you, would Mr. Obama go too far?

  49. frjim4321 says:

    Fr. Fox – – –

    I’ve heard the arguments pro and con regarding whether a third party vote is or is not a wasted voted. With all due deference to the “con” arguments I believe that a third party vote is indeed a wasted vote, mainly because no third party candidate will ever be elected, thus the vote is wasted. Anyway, I already know the argument in opposition.

    For those who believe a third party vote is wasted it only makes sense to vote for one of the two top contenders. In other words the only real choices is between RNC and DNC.

    As I have stated before, I don’t think the President perfect, not by a long shot. On the other hand I have never seen any evidence that the challenger is any better. He has flip-flopped on Rowe-vs-Wade, and even his running mate recently changed his mind about rape and incest.

    With respect to your question, I think the real issue about a prospective president “going too far” is much more realistic with regard to the challenger sanctioning a nuclear attack on Iran.

  50. Johnno says:

    I suspect that for Fr. Jim, Obama will have gone to far, once Obama comes for him… Of course by ‘Obama’ I don’t refer only to Obama, but for the kind of government Obama represents. The same evil can always be carried on by a new face.

    Actually the same agenda will be carried on regardless of which of the two parties are in power. Both are for Agenda 21. Both are for depopulation. Both are for war. Both are for murder. Both are for the establishment of a New World Order. Americans choices at the voting booth are merely a formality.

  51. Imrahil says:

    Reverend dear @Fr Fox,

    great comment. Thank you!

    Concerning jobs and middle classes, etc.: Well, for just these reasons, I do not know whether I’m entirely in favor of technology.

    Ipod aut idem depend on MP3 or similar compression techniques, which is basically bad-quality music. (Don’t believe that “you don’t hear the difference”. I once compressed Baba O’Riley with the result that the bass was taken out of it; that makes the song basically unhearable.)
    And ebooks… seriously… pace dear @Fr Z… doesn’t one just feel the cultural loss that is implied in losing the book from written paper?

    It is a question of moderation, but I’d not totally exclude even government action as justified to preserve the book of paper, and some music of quality.

    Concerning low-paid outsorced jobs: There’s an easy measure against them: protectionism, possibly with customs depending on the tariffs paid to the workers. – I do not say this way should be taken. (I do say that it should not be excluded from the possibilities by a free-trade dogma without further thinking.) We are told so often that we on the whole profit from free-trade that I’m inclined to believe it. (And this, quite different from a free-trade dogma, is a good reason for free-trade!) But we should remember that there is an alternative; and if it is not taken for greater total profit, then those that suffer from it not being taken should get their share.

  52. Varda says:

    Dear Fr. Fox, you summed up all my questions with your post. I can understand having views in line with the Democrats with regard to a lot of policies, but I just don’t understand how a party that is supposed to be for the little guy is also for abortion on demand for any reason and making other pay for it. I just don’t understand it. I try but i don’t get it. I was hoping Fr. Jim would at least explain how he squares it in response to your question but his answer still doesn’t make sense to me. I think if the democrats had all the same policies except they believed in strict racial segregation, no one would vote for them, so it’s clear there are issues where people draw the line. I just don’t understand why abortion isn’t one of those issues. I wish I could at least understand it.

Comments are closed.