Top Vatican Official Slams Choice of Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health and Human Services

All these self professed "catholic" politicians that support the murder of innocent unborn babies need to leave the catholic faith---good bye and good riddance!!!!

No, Fumler. You need to read the Bill of Rights and accept that there is to be no governmental interference in the practice of religion. You also don't appreciate that privacy is respected here, and that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a medical decision to be made by a woman, and assisted by a doctor.

Archbishop Naumann is misguided and he is trying to bully the governor. The American people--and that includes American Catholics--won't stand for it.

The more I read about stuff like this, the more I understand actor Mel Gibson's decision to build his own church.

Did you read the article, If she is Catholic and she parades it around and presents herself as a Catholic. She can continue with her support of her position but she is being asked not to present herself for communion because she has not done anything to admonish herself from that sin. She isn't worthy of the consecrated body and blood of Christ. If she repents for her sin then she is worthy. She is a hypocrite and in that lies a misrepresentation of the Catholic doctrine.

thank you igoforo---she can do whatever she wants---I'm not calling for her to leave politics or our government---I'm asking her to leave the Catholic church.

No, Fumler. You need to read the Bill of Rights and accept that there is to be no governmental interference in the practice of religion. You also don't appreciate that privacy is respected here, and that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a medical decision to be made by a woman,

Does the bill of rights give her the right to remain a member of a religious faith that doesn't want her to participate in the mass anymore?

---And murdering an innocent baby IS NOT a "medical decision"!

---And murdering an innocent baby IS NOT a "medical decision"!

According to the Catholic church (just to be precise)

Regardless, abortion is a form of killing that is legal in the US, and I see no reason that it should be made illegal.

While she might be a hypocite in terms of disagreeing the Pope, how many Catholics use birth control? Should the church stop giving communion to everyone that uses a condom or birth control bills? Or people who think that the non-religious can go to heaven? There are literally hundreds of creeds in the Catholic church, and sense I've lived with Catholics and been educated by them I know that many don't follow the strict edict of the church. Should they all be removed?

@Fumler

So in your opinion.. it's ok to invade the wrong nation killing countless human beings. Yet, when it's an unborn fetus that cannot breath or breath.. bad bad bad! So what if the unborn fetus was the anti-christ? Would you ok the abortion? Oh, no.. that's wrong in your views and God told you must push your religious views upon people till the convert. Get a life and stop pushing your idiocracy upon the general pupulation. This is the country of "FREEDOM!"

The Catholic Church needs to stay out of politics and everyone else's business.

Pro-lifers care nothing about the life of the mother or the fetus. Soon as the baby is born they don't give a @!$%# anymore. All the pro-lifers care about is forcing their beliefs on others.

God gave us freedom of choice, meaning we can choose our lifestyle and faith without having to worry about being harassed by religious fanatics or "pro-lifers".

These would be the same pro-lifers who are against abortion but support the death penalty. It's all bull.

And the people who hold up signs and or make children wear shirts that say, "God hates fags"?

And murdering an innocent baby IS NOT a "medical decision"!

What if the mother's health is in danger? A 9 yr old in Brazil was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins, and the doctors had to perform an abortion otherwise she would have died from pregnancy complications.

Or what if the mother has some illness that could spread to and kill the baby?

Or what if the baby's health is in danger? My friend's friend had an abortion because the fetus had a hole in its stomach, and she couldn't bear to bring that baby into the world because it would have only lived for twelve hours and have been in pain till it died.

What if the person was raped? Do you know of the psychological trauma a person can go through if they're forced to carry on a pregnancy created by rape?

what about the fact that adoption/foster care agencies in the US, China, Russia, and on, and on, and on can't even afford to properly care for the kids they have now? How would we be able to care for all those kids? Where are the supposed to go if their own mother can't handle them?

Religious bigots should be able to realize that throwing kids in an overcrowded adoption system would end up killing a lot more

The religious bigots and fanatics don't own the woman's body or her choices and rights.

There are thousands of homeless children on the streets in the world, does the church acknowledge them?

Does the church acknowledge the children who are abused - physically, verbally, and sexually - day after day?

Does the church acknowlege the children in foster care, or the children who are sick, or the children who cry out for help?

of course not

(felt like it needed to be said :P )

ok so mat, let's execute the rapists; that's more ok than abortion

also, giving everyone a pistol would end up killing more innocent people than actual rapists

But will the woman have the courage to pull the trigger? And more importantly, will she know who to pull it on?

The rapes may go down but the murders will go up.

also, mat, how can you consider a handful of cells a body? Does it think, does it feel, can it even live outside the mother? No, no, and no

You can kill more cells with the alcohol than an abortion

Anyone who claims to own a woman's body other than herself is probably a rapist.
But here, we're talking about the child's body.

MatB, Where, pre-birth, does the mother's body end? At the uterus? Is it the mother's placenta or the "baby's"? Is it the mother's umbilical or the "baby's"?

Don't answer that here because this isn't an abortion thread (though I'd be HAPPY to meet you there.) Just think about it.

Genesis 2:7 might be food for thought.

I don't support the death penalty because I feel the death penalty is "too easy'. What do we learn from it? Nothing. Life in prison with no friends or family to hold you I find to be much worse, because one of the things we humans can't stand is to be alone for long periods of time.

"The cells killed by alcohol are your own. The fetus is it's own"

Honestly, that is the dumbest thing I've heard today!

Where do those cells come from!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THE MOTHER!!! (well 1 from the father lol)

Wrong again Jane. Only 3% or so, maybe 5%, of violent offenders in jail are women. Guns don't kill people, women don't kill people, MEN kill people!

That whole sentence is bull@!$%#.

Yes, if you give all the women in the world guns to defend themselves there would be more murders than rapes and there would be a lot more women in jail. There is no way in any century that the "self defense" excuse would stand in trial against all those murders let alone go easy on them because they're women.

The cells have their own DNA.

All cells have their own DNA.

Maybe if the church wasn't so wilfully ignorant about science and how things ACTUALLY work, they wouldn't be so ignorant to topics like this. Their parishioners included...

they most certainly do not...50% of their DNA is from the father, and the other 50% from the mother, occasionally there's a mutation that gives them unique chains of amino acids

@ MatB

You are so beyond wrong. I'm a woman, I'm Native American with African American roots, 19, single and in school and I'm middle class.

And you are the only "simple fool of a man" here. You are nothing but bull@!$%#, you're full of it.

why do you think genes can trace ancestry....because most genes stay constant through generations...if all DNA was unique to each person than hair would come in every colors, as an example, and there would be no similarities between humans.

A gene mutation only occurs during i think 1 out of every 10000 replications, and a mutation normally involves only 1 amino acid change

Every one of us has unique DNA.

LoL MatB - you're so uneducated it's sad. But that's okay, education isn't for everyone, especially people who choose to live their lives in the dark because they were told it's what God prefers.

Every one of use shares certain base charactericts called chromosomes that make us all human. There are 24 distinct human chromosomes that we all share, the 22 that are autosomal, and the two that determine sex. Genes are what make us different within our own higher level traits.

And I've got news for you...we've proven our evolution through understanding the science of our bodies - and there was no Adam and Eve...

unique in some ways yes; completely unique no

you change your arguments as they get shot down...at first it was were are completely unique now its well we have somethings that are different

Mat, quit while you're ahead.

You know nothing of human life nor do you care for it, you know nothing of how things work and can't keep a conversation going straight.

LMAO he keeps getting it wrong.

Twins, resulting from the fertilization of a single egg that splits during the first stage of fertilization would end up genetically and chromosomally alike.

@MatB

Those adoption agencies deserve better funding. Also, start executing rapists. Better yet, give every woman in the country a .30 caliber pistol, and a box of ammo for it. Rape will disappear.

So most christian conservatives have hatred upon welfare. Yet, as long as it's for an a baby taken from it's parents they deserve more funding. Hypocrisy guys? So what about the kids that get raped. We should give them guns to?

Also, yes, the churches acknowledges child abuse. Hell, I think it's a death penalty warranting crime. Then again, the scum of earth, bigots like you, probably want to stand in the way.

This is the same church that say's if your husband beats a woman.. she should forgive him since she promised till death do we part. So maybe we should kill all wife beaters. Oh wait.. is that not against the policies of Jeebus? If you "think" it's a death penalty warranting crime.. where's your evidence upon this religious law?

Wrong again Jane. Only 3% or so, maybe 5%, of violent offenders in jail are women. Guns don't kill people, women don't kill people, MEN kill people!

• Women were 12% of the local jail inmates in 2002

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

The cells killed by alcohol are your own. The fetus is it's own. Also, Jane, for someone who professes to care about women, you don't seem to when it comes down to their right to self defense.

So God says it's OK to kill living brain cells that can die from being frozen. Yet, an egg which can be frozen and still live is just evil and wrong.

Most criminals fear death, however.

How can a killer fear death? That's their living!

• nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

Really? Defending yourself against someone you believed was a rapist won't hold up in court? Pathetic. Lemme guess, you're white, upper-middle class, and married.

So now you promoting a law to be enacted in which a woman can shoot a man who possibly did not rape them. Think of all the false rape reports to get back at an ex-boyfriend or organized retaliation?

Source: http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/nelsonnews/Nelson-woman-behind-bars-after.4809053.jp

The cells have their own DNA.

Well.. semen has it's own DNA so I guess your submitted to preserve every ounce of it or have it protected by your wife by swallowing.

Doesn't it say in the bible if a man rapes a woman, he must pay her father money and marry her?

i give up.....religious bigots are the more stubborn idiots i know......

"(Exodus 21:1-11). If a man rapes an unbetrothed virgin, he must pay her father 50 shekels of silver and then marry her."

And Don't be bringing the Jews into this.

Jane, who exactly do you think believes in the Old Testament???? Jews!

Anyway, who cares what the old fart in a dress thinks? He supports child rape.

My synagogue doesn't support the old testament, nor do any of the Jews I know.

@MatB

Your post is full of crap. I said VIOLENT offenders, I.E. people a gun should not be trusted to. Not embezzlers. We should be mean to wife beaters. Criminals fear their OWN death.

I have sources which are very credible.. so who's pulling claims out of their rectum? As to being mean to wife beaters.. the US law protects women and your bible protects men. Walk up to a gang member and ask them do you fear death. He will tell you I'm ready to die for what I believe in.. sex, drugs, money, & power which is the way of life being in poverty due to racial stereotyping.

Actually, do what ya want with your DNA, which sperm is. Well, it's only half of yours, but it's not it's own either.

My argument was the fact if you want to protect unborn babies.. you must HAVE to also protect sperm. Sperm is capable of moving to find the egg and fertilize.. so It's a living being. How is it only half of mine? Is it God's? Your moms on the corner?

*shakes his head* Silly bible thumper.. religion is for those who want all the answers given to them without questions. Doesn't that sound like Hitler?

It is truly a source of great embarrassment to me that I ever belonged to that patriarcial religion and that I ever went to the convent before I learned. In the not so distant past, the church and the gall to take babies away from unwed mothers in Ireland and then shipped them to Australia for adoption where some of them wound up as slaves and indentured servants for life. Some of those mothers still have not located their children.

Then there is that 9 year old girl who doctors aborted twins. The girl, and the doctors were excomunicated. For shame on the church!!! I hope that little girl and those compassionate doctors are now counting their blessings.

They embarrass me. How dare they claim to care about children considering their record on sexual abuse. "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Hooray for Sebelius. If she can stand up against 6 bishops and the Vatican on this then she won't bend in the wind while working for our benefit. Kudos.

: Nice making *&^%$#@ generilizations.

A recitation of facts can hardly be called "generalizations".

Ok, I'm back. First off, gangsters do fear death. They talk tough, but almost unanimously, when faced by a SWAT team or a lethal needle, they cry for mercy.

If they feared death they would not be shooting at the swat.. so your full of hot air again.

Hashi, your sources are for ALL offenders, not violent ones. Only about 4% of violent offenders in prison are women.

• nearly half were sentenced for a violent crime (49%)
• Women were 12% of the local jail inmates in 2002

So let's do some math.. 49 x .12 = 5.88%

Oh my.. your wrong! 1% of a million is a big difference upon head count.

Also, sperm aren't humans because they don't possess our DNA. They possess one half of what makes us human. So they're not on the value level of embryos.

An egg only carry has half of DNA so it's not a living being either. The fact is we can freeze both and still use them for future use. So killing either one should not be counted as a living being.

Also, gangsters aren't poor due to racial profiling. Their dad was a crook, so they decide to become crooks, they go to jail, and it's all over from there.

Prove that.. theirs a bunch of bad apples raised by good parents. So stop stereotyping an entire group when you are just speaking bs. The biggest problem with gangs is the only way to get out is getting killed or flee the state. When you are unfortunate monetary wise to escape the lifestyle yourself.. what can you do?

@consultant

Also, do the words @!$%# off or we Christians may have to fight for our rights, and just ask the Romans how well that goes sound to you? - MatB

If the law set a minimum requirment IQ to have a baby we wouldn't be in this argument with this un-intelligent debate blindly bashing without evidence to back his words.

@MatB

Sperm- 1/2 of our DNA.

Egg- same.
Embryo- 100%.

So if Sperm is able to swim around and find the embryo.. How is it not a living thing? God says you must protect all living things.. start your collection in the fridge or else by God's law says you will go to hell. ;)

Come on you cowards, go petition Congress. Go put everything on the line for righteousness. Then, I'll respect ya.

So you want us to petition to support your views which you force upon us. Then you will respect us? Wow buddy.. why would I even want your respect? Are you even a logical intellectual argument?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8203212340782420167&ei=1Iy9SZLGO6aKrQKAhPjjBQ&q=idiocracy&hl=en

This video describes what happens if we follow your ideological views.

Also, do the words @!$%# off or we Christians may have to fight for our rights, and just ask the Romans how well that goes sound to you?

What an absolutely moronic thing to say. Done with ya MatB. Be well, grow.

The world would be a whole lot better if Christians stopped shoving their noses up people's asses.

But who created the "Laws of Nature"?

Humans evolved from apes, not an invisible man in the sky.

I won't argue this time, MatB. You know your relatives better than I do...

Jane, if you were Jewish you would know that the Old Testament is also known as the Tanach or Tanakh, and it is the Jewish Bible.

Why the lie?

My synagogue doesn't support the old testament.

Second, we're reform Jews. We don't follow or celebrate many of the old traditions.

Um. I'm being serious. On a biological scale, we're apes.

LMAO. If you're uneducated about a subject MatB, why even bother faking the funk...you have to know that at some point someone more educated and/or intelligent will call you on your general "wrongness".

If 1500 genes separate us from every other animal in the animal kingdom, including Apes, then how can we be "on a biological scale" (whatever the hell that is...you made it up) apes?

Stick to religion bro. It's all you know.

We're animals but we don't need to keep all our animalistic qualities or tendencies or instincts.

Some just can't help it Jane. I know, it's pathetic, isn't it?

Guess the scientific community disagrees with you...

Humans are classified by the genus HOMO - and all species of Homo are extinct except homo sapiens.

Please just shut up.

Guess the scientific community disagrees with you...

Sorry Blizzy that really isn't the case. You see in taxonomy Apes (AKA Hominds) is really a family of species and yes Homo sapiens do belong to that family.

BTW, just a point of clarification... just because MatB happens to be right about the whole ape thing doesn't necessarily mean that the rest of his arguments have any sort of credibility...

BTW, just a point of clarification... just because MatB happened to right about the whole ape thing doesn't mean that the rest of his arguments have any sort of credibility...

MatB seems to go out of his way to make that REALLY clear! Thanks.

Superfamily = Hominoidea

Family = Hominidae

Sub-Family = Homininae

Tribe = Hominini

Genus = Chimpanzee belongs to Pan, Humans belong to Homo.

Research it for yourself. He remains wrong. Humans are classified separately and are not a type of Ape. source

From wikipedia: An ape is any member of the Hominoidea superfamily of primates.^[1] In less scientific language, it has various meanings, although it often (but not always) excludes humans.^[2] Due to its ambiguous nature, the term 'ape' is less suitable as a means of describing taxonomic relationships.

Species are defined by their genus...not their superfamily or family. If a biological scale existed, humans would be considered separate but related to apes. That's the point. source

Lord we need better science education.

No - your point was that we are apes, nothing more. Science would tell you you're wrong, and so am I.

However I guess your acceptance of evolutionary theory while still being a religious zealot should be considered a victory for the rational populous.

Ok Blizzy, you are arguing semantics here, i.e. apes vs. great apes. Humans are in the family of "great apes" (AKA Hominids, Hominidae).

Also from wikipedia:

The Hominidae (anglicized Hominids, also known as great apes^{[notes 1]}) form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.^[1]

Colloquially speaking the general public generally equates apes and great apes. That's really fairly valid as the term "apes" is really not scientific at all. By your reasoning chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans would not be apes either.

Lord we need better science education.

If you are directing that at me don't even go there dude...

Rather than saying we evolved from apes... it would be more correct to say that we evolved from a common ancestor of the chimpanzee species.

Some just can't help it Jane. I know, it's pathetic, isn't it?

Yeah, but what can you do?

You just admitted my point. You may now kiss my converse!

How the f*** did I end up on the same side of the argument with this guy???? I'm outta here. You guys can hash this out on your own from here on out...

Kiss my converse... What the hell does that even mean?

Last Dragon was @!$%#.

Religion may have had a place in politics and the government in the earlier days - 18th Century and below to the Stone Age - but it has no place there.

"Something has to stop the government from enslaving us."

That something would be our intelligence that allows us to think, not a religion that tells us what to think; Religions have enslaved more than governments over the course of history

No, it does have a place. Something has to stop the government from enslaving us.

That will CERTAINLY NOT be religion!

And what about religion enslaving us?

People have been slaves to religion for years, they still are. Where does religion give us freedom or even a choice to think for ourselves?

IMHO religion was created to explain the unexplained...as our knowledge grew religion changed to incorporate it; but now religion tries to deny what most already believe; they still try to get people to buy into an infinite universe revolving solely around mankind, and that a mysterious being; unseen and unheard guides our every move

Who made the stand against slavery? Abraham Lincoln
Hitler? The Allies
Stalin? The US

Who fights against the horrors of Darfur now? The US

It's David, if you don't mind.

What else can turn the tide against tyranny?

The Constitution of the United States of America

Who made the stand against slavery?

Lincoln

Hitler?
Stalin?

The Allies

Who fights against the horrors of Darfur now?

Nobody is doing much as far as I can tell.

Churches comfort souls. Maybe even save them (he said, conceding the benefit of the doubt.). They have neither capability nor business beyond that.

The allies weren't motivated by religion...they were motivated to stop Hitler from taking them over....Abraham Lincoln aimed to keep the union together....and the US hated communism so tried to contain Stalin, and no one actually stopped him either!

LIFE ISN'T ABOUT BEING CREATIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And the Christians who brought Africans to America as slaves? The Christians who enslaved the Native American Indians and stole American Indian children from their families and forced them to become "white" [Christian]?

LMAO, according to MatB Churches are their own countries with militaries and strategic operations now...

Life is about the truth.

I do get it MatB. I'm just not so arrogant as to to say that only *I* and those that agree with me know the truth. You live as wish, Sir. Just keep it off my porch.

The church didn't fight Hitler..............

and how did the Church battle slavery, it was most certainly indifferent to the outcome of the civil war

also no one stopped Stalin, he lived out his life in power of Russia, and communism continued for decades more, leading to the death of millions along the way

Weren't there reverends who had slaves and promoted racism?

Didn't Christians also create the KKK?

Didn't Christians also create the KKK?

If I remember correctly, they do prefer the same outfits, colors, and pointy hats...

Who's still around, the USSR or Christianity?

What's your point? The USSR was a country...Christianity is a religion. Get the difference? A better point to argue is, who ultimately won the debate? Great Britain (through Elizabeth I) or the Vatican? Hmmm.

This lesson in contrast brought to you by the letter B.

"No, it does have a place. Something has to stop the government from enslaving us"

And something has to stop religion from enslaving us.

the USSR collapsed because of poor money management by the Kremlin, and modern day Russia is as close to communistic as it can get without a new cold war erupting, and again you changed your argument-----you said they defeated Stalin not the USSR----which again was proven wrong

also, all you proved was that some priests and people don't fall in line with the majority

How could the Jews have fought when the Nazis beat them or raped them, and then later gassed or shot or worked them to death?

The bible practically santions slavery.

Below government? Wow is that where we are now. Give me an anarchy, where freedoms abound rather a democracy where morals are obsolete and considered dangerous. To the atheists I am holier then thou and will carry myself that way. I am not holier then those who believe and not holier then clergy and many others who are committed the ways of Christ. I am but a servant of God and will carry his message where ever he sees fit. Yes, this women is an embarrassment to the catholic church. She isn't an embarrassment to her family or society or amongst her coworkers. She is an embarrassment to her church and if she can't she fit to seek repentance for a grave sin then maybe she should think seriously about finding a church she could find comfort with. Her soul is considered important and if she a true catholic she will have to seek repentance for her sins and you are right that will eventually be between her and her God. Being Catholic and being out in the public eye her beliefs that are counter to those of the church will be called out and she will be continually remind of her sins by the churches clergy. Even after being admonished by the church she continues to take communion and that makes her contemptuous and nearing blasphemous. She's an embarrassment to the church and that is what is said in the article

no this is about the Church trying to be part of something they are not. They are unhappy that she was nominated, and are attacking her and Obama for it.

And also; morals come for society's collective beliefs; they exist and are changed by society's will, independent of religion and can exist without it; for morality has existed before religion

“The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be
the hijacking of morality by religion.”-Arthur Clarke

I admit as a child I was foolish enough to believe in God, however I expanded my horizons and came to understand the true purpose of religion...why don't you also challenge your beliefs---I've read the Bible, both testaments and find it a fictionalized account of history; or keep living in your world of nonsense

here's a couple links showing that morality is independent of religion

http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/relmor.htm

http://www.newsweek.com/id/158760

the second is actually an extremely good article; in fact i'm going to check and see if anyone seeded it here

It's funny the Bible preaches creationism.. how do you explain which one came first the chicken or the egg? Or how do you explain staph bacteria EVOLVING to MRSA!!! The "Book of Christ" is based on concepts thousands of years ago. Science has factual evidence to back up it's claims.

Aww, you're mixing up Catholics with evangelicals and fundamentalists on creationism.

Not that I don't believe in evolution, but your point about staph bacteria doesn't explain homosexuality...

MatB, you'll understand then when the Christian culture that you spawn so much hatred for, is targetted for destruction, right?

@fawls

Not that I don't believe in evolution, but your point about staph bacteria doesn't explain homosexuality...

Homosexuality is genetics.. you show a gay man pictures of nude women and he won't get hard. Show him men.. he gets hard. It's installed into his brain by genetics.. the same as a African American being born Black! Sorry your too thick headed to understand the truth.

@Consultant

It's invention of a dead Jew on a stick turned god is a hidden ritual of cannibalism where they consume the blood and flesh of a Dead JEW turned god!!!!!!!

I literally rolled on the floor laughing!

@MatB

If all that costs us is a priest who embezzles, I'll take it.

Your still forgetting the priests who molested little boys. Aparently that's all good to you and God said it's ok.. as long as it's on Tuesday's & he'll forgive you.

Animals have been engaging in homosexual activities since the dawn of time and before humans came along.

Though, if there is a gene for homosexuality who's to say it wouldn't lead to over religious parents abandoning their children or getting abortions?

Josef Ratzinger was compelled to join, as were all boys his age. When he served as a young man in uniform he deserted from the service as soon as he could. He was a P.O.W. and his own family suffered under the Nazis, including his young cousin with Down Syndrome who was murdered in the Nazi eugenics program.

I suggest you read up on Mr. Ratzinger before you repeat your claims.

Why - you did not deny his claims - he was a member of the Nazi Youth Movement. Period.

Then shouldn't he agree that the Holocaust happened? It's easy to cover up things when you threaten to Excommunication anybody who sees otherwise.

Your right he doesn't believe it happened. He knows it did!

Didn't Dylan embrace Christianity at some point (dirty anti-Semite)?

57
Unfortunately for them, they no longer can minister only to their people. Reason: many of their own people have given them up as no longer applicable.
How can anyone respect a church who has allowed for years the rape of young boys by their own priests?? And then when finally found out, just removed the priests to a far away location!!
Or how about condoning only abstinance?? Many churches around the world refuse to acknowledge, much less help in distribution, condoms. And those who don't promote them, actually promote the spread of AIDS!! Why? Because those not permitted condoms still have intercourse, often with several partners, and infect them and their children are born with AIDS!!
Yes, they give money to help those; but the money they give could be better spent if the problem was diminished at the start instead of the finish!!!
More children born out of wedlock, born unwanted, born with disease!! More children, period!!! Why is God's world becoming harder and harder to live in??? It's called overpopulation, period!!!
No wonder religion is losing so many!! We cannot take care of everyone anymore, but the hard right WILL not acknowledge this!!! God said " Go forth and populate the earth"; he did not say overpopulate and destroy it!!!!

So if that is true then she can't present herself as a catholic to continue to misrepresent to doctrines of the church. She must no use the church for her advantage and then misrepresent it without admonishment

Did she use the church to attain the nomination? I didn't see that in any article or newscast about it. The first I knew she was Catholic was this article.

Unless she used being Catholic as a reason to have this job, then her status as a Catholic is no one else's business.

Even if people voted for her because she was a Catholic doesn't mean she campaigned on that detail.

and if people did vote for her solely because she was Catholic well then they're idiots anyways

This isn't a position we vote on. This is between Obama and her. I seriously doubt he cares what religion she is for this position.

it's not so much that you did, but it is about how there are some people, somewhere that vote solely on things such as religion

I mean geez just look at elections and look at how many people vote solely for a party rather than a person

those are the idiots

How come everybody is missing that the media approached the archbishop and asked him how the church felt. The archbishop passed along the feelings of the church and you know something this person already knew how the church felt and I also will bet she had already informed the media that this is what the church would tell them. This is just another created attack on organized religion and its a bit hokey at best. This is just crappy journalism creating a story where isn't one.

Right on Agent 57! We should all remind the Catholic Church as well as other Churches.

In America the separation of Church and State is our LAW: the Democracy we created when we left Europe to come to America.

Kathleen Sebelius is a perfect nominee/candidate for Cabinet Head of HH

Bravo I say! Amazing woman she is...heck, she was the Governor of the State of Kansas amazing there too! Catholic in Kansas wow...Kathleen can cross all religious boundaries with her desire to help ALL people...

Arlene in Seattle

Thank goodness that the anti-religious views of our founding fathers continue to be fulfilled today. Any reading of their writings and their views clearly, overwhelmingly, proves that, almost to a man, they had absolutely NO belief in God! If they had not all been the atheist they were we would not have the freedoms we possess today!

Agent 57...The source of greatest embarrassment to the Catholic Church,, is the Catholic Church. I respect their position, but please stay out of politics.... stick to ministering to your people.

They do represent a huge segment of the population and have the same right as every other group to voice an opinion. Does the opinion of a Rush Limbaugh have more value to the public?

While I disagree with the position of the Church about a woman's right to choose I do agree with their opposition to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) for a long list of reasons tied to her unwavering support of corporate interests and promotion of biotech crops that deny all consumers a right to choose what food they will swallow.

To me the fact that Kansas is moving this week to strip away the right of dairy farmers to label their milk as free from Monsanto/Lily's rBGH hormones is a better indicator of what she's protecting.

In a Nation where corporate media don't report on the issues that affect their balance sheets it is no surprise that the only part of Sebelius views that are examines are ones where the public debates the morality of individual action and her corporate allegiance never becomes part of the debate. That's the real embarrassment.

Mars..We posess too many freedoms today.

Turn off your television.

We posess too many freedoms today.

May I suggest you try a little self-bondage, MatB? That was absolutely the silliest thing Iv'e ever read on newsvine. I'm sorry, I take that back. It's the sillest thing I've ever read anywhere.

What freedoms would you remove that would categorically prevent any of those things?

Minimum sentences to not limit freedom until AFTER the harm is done.

Higher regulations? On what? I asked you to be specific since you seem to have the answers.

Good luck with getting priests polygraphed! What questions would you ask them? Can we get the pope polygraphed too? Before they're appointed or after? How often?

I'd add minimum sentences, higher regulations, and have priests get polygraphed.

You do understand it's "WE" the taxpayers to jail them/regulate/polygraph. So just remember you gotta be ready to cough up a couple extra dollars/year. Or we could just tax the church's which you believe they need to be tax-exempt.

My own personal belief... eye for an eye. Have someone like Bubba & Tiny rape the pedophile and he'd remember what happens if he follows through again.

Corporate regulation.. *shakes his head* fines don't really make people change views upon CEO's making millions. EX: UBS, a swiss bank, being fined 700+ milliion for aiding tax evasion. In all honesty.. if they didn't comply.. Freaking threaten to invade on a global scale the tiny spec of a country Swiss for hoarding majority of global wealth. You do understand that top 1% hold 40% of the nation's wealth not even including off-shore accounts.

As to Priests.. they are the best liars in the world. What good is polygraph to paid professional liars? You might as well get financial advice from Bernie Madoff.

Yes, as well as some of their own Cardinals and Priests!

geez.....When in Rome, do as the Romans do ... When in America, live in 2009!

You go Kathleen, move HH into the 21st Century!!

Arlene in Seattle

Realist wrote:

Doesn't the Vatican has it's own country to worry about?

Yes, it does. Bill Baird, the birth-control and women's rights activist, posed an interesting question at a lecture I attended recently. Since the Vatican is a geographic national entity, and the US posts an Ambassador there, &c &c... why are Catholic priests not required to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938? In preaching directly to the issue of Catholic politicians and reproductive rights, they are engaging in political activities, representing the interests of, and engaging in public relations for, a foreign principal.

you mean like the millions of murders committed all in the "name of god"....yeah you're right! We can't ignore murder, let's indict the church!!!! It's about time the ICC got around to doing something anyways.

(sarcasm)

but at the same time the church didn't consider blacks people either, nor muslims...it was actually the churches that caused most of the problem, preaching about how whites were superior and given infinite wisdom by God............

the Catholic church didn't.....and that's what this article is about...no one really cares about the religious sects that had 100 members

the Catholic Church definitely did not...look at the Crusades and the witch hunts along with Catholic nations being the first to export slaves...the Church was a corrupt institution, especially during the Holy Roman Empire and also the Church believed women were inferior for the longest time, also, as much as I hate to bring this up, look at Hitler even, all in the name of God; isn't it ironic how the Pope was part of the Hitler Youth

First off, which hunts, not morally wrong. Satanic serial killers hunted down, good thing. Now, intellectually, satanic serial killers, are you kidding me, but morally, not so much.

I can't believe anyone with the capacity to read could say such a thing.

Prattle on...

first of all you are misinterpreting my comment; slavery occurred after the crusades; no duh, what I was saying was that the crusades and slavery are examples of the church's hypocrisy; they hated Muslims so much that they couldn't stand them being in the holy land, so millions died in futile battles trying to eliminate muslims

also, Hitler also believed Protestants were superior to all others; Other Christian faiths, and other faiths in general, all wound up in concentration camps (to some degree) that is a fact; Hitler also believed that Germans/Aryans were hand picked by God to rule the world

also, with hunts weren't about serial killers; they were about women who were considered "too radical" by the church, and the Salem witch trials were caused by Ergot poisoning (caused by improperly baked bread)

and the Salem witch trials were caused by Ergot poisoning (caused by improperly baked bread)

Well, what good is a woman who can't cook? Still not morally wrong, right MatB?!!

From wikipedia:

The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. Crusades were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols, Cathars, Hussites, Waldensians, Old Prussians, and political enemies of the popes.^[1]vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins.^[1]

Well, maybe it wasn't ALL about protecting unarmed Catholics from the mean Muslims... Orthodox Christians aren't Muslims. Cathars weren't Muslims (ht epope had a WHOLE different reason to be pisses at them!) Political enemies of the pope - not THAT sounds familiar!

And who wouldn't join the fight if they were guaranteed a free ticket to heaven?! Sounds a little bit like '72 virgins', doesn't it?

no it wasn't; the Church was angered that they were defeated by muslims who were "inferior in the eyes of God", they were acting like a child who had his favorite toy taken away; the only difference is that the Church uses the innocent people it preys upon to do its dirty work

and thanks david, you saved me some time, I was going to do the same thing XD

people need to realize that religion is the most corrupt institution in existence. What has it done for us? Killed billions, excommunicated progressive thinkers, force its views upon others? Think of how much better the world would be if people weren't arguing about which God was the right God.

Wrong again. Wrong, wrong, so wrong.

Rotflmfao!

MatB obviously believes whatever he's told by his church. We're talking about a religion that worships false idols - which the bible says thou shalt not do...

They can be just as bad as the Taliban, and have been in the past. Their pointy hats don't impress at all.

Abortion, in this country, is not a question of morality it's a question of legality and a question of freedom. Here we say a woman has a right to choose, and that's between her and God - no one else. In this country, we look at people as individuals, not subjects or "the flock".

Blizzy to Vatican: get over yourselves. Clean your own house of the homosexual pedophiles and militants before you start trying to clean the houses of others.

Consider the source. Those that wear their religion on their sleeves aren't necessarily nice or good people. Some of them are real @!$%#s.

Peter,

I can't agree totally with your assessment of the Catholic Church, I assume you got a little carried away or are quite angry about some perceived wrong it's done you. Criminal enterprise, hate group - no. Condone molestation of children...well not officially and certainly not coming from the Vatican. The Catholic Church's structure is fairly complex and it is a giant organization, a bit like the Federal government in some ways.

However, I am as puzzled as anyone by the antics of the American Bishops and their 'handling' of known cases of child molestation. I'm more puzzled by the government's response, or lack thereof. If a large corporation had employees who they knew were molesting children in their offices and they failed to report it and simply moved the employees to different offices wouldn't the officers of that corporation be liable for criminal charges? It's my understanding that by law suspected child abuse must be reported or there is a liability.

I'm not sure why there hasn't been criminal prosecution of the Bishops involved. At best they had strong suspicions about what was going on, in some cases they likely actively covered it up. Maybe I am wrong in my understanding of the government's ability to prosecute but it seems like there ought to have been some legal response.

On the Sebelius issue the right to criticize one of it's members is one held by any organization. Ms. Sebelius chooses to be a member of the Catholic Church. She chooses to ignore the rules and standards of that organization in a public and open way. Unless you want the officials of the Catholic Church, or any other organization, not to have the right to criticize their member's public behavior "their [sic] is no debating point to be made on the subject'.

As far as there being no debating point on the subject of abortion, I think my blurb above outlines a few that are worth discussing.

MatB :

Idiot.

Thank you for sharing the entire content of your intellectual arsenal with us!

While there is only one Roman Catholic Church, there is no question that there are those in leadership positions who think that they run their own brand of catholicism; be it American, European or whichever other you want to point to.

The dogma is indeed consistent and is really where the guidance ought to be looked for. There's a lot of hoo-haw about infallibility and the Catholic Church being against scientific progress. The facts are that infallibility has rarely been invoked, the Catholic Church has provided science and other education through it's universities for centuries and religious orders, the Jesuits in particular, count important scientists among their members. Gregor Mendel, 'the father of genetics', was a priest.

What you've written seems like you recognize that the teachings and dogma of the Catholic Church are consistent, true and logical, but the people who carry them out are all too human. You are not the first to realize that or to react as you have to that discovery. There is a little more respect here for you than for those 'cafeteria catholics' who pick and choose what they will adhere to. Although I disagree with your conclusion that you had to 'recover' from Catholicism I give you credit for putting the thought into it rather than simply playing the hypocrite and remaining in an organization and ignoring it's principles.

fawls13:

While there is only one Roman Catholic Church, there is no question that there are those in leadership positions who think that they run their own brand of catholicism; be it American, European or whichever other you want to point to.

Christianity has had several scisms, the Eastern Orthodox and Protestant Reformation both come to mind. I just wonder if this is not what is happening to Catholicism now, and that the participants are just in denial.

It may well be what is happening. A fear of that may well be why there does not seem to be much action by the Church as far as asking people like Gov. Sebelius to leave the organization. On the other hand there has long been internal dissension within the Catholic Church and in some cases arguments have festered for centuries. I suspect you are correct in your assessment that the participants may be in denial. I also think that to leave an organization you have grown up and believed in is not easy thing.

Never in the history of the catholic church has a woman felt the calling to be a priest? This statement is put forth by a woman or a man?

a man, as usual

We have female pastors, why can't there be female priests?

Cuz the Pope don't roll like that!

The Pope's an old man, he's going to die soon. Who really pays attention to the Pope anyway? A woman could do a better job than him.

ROFL! You should check out Bill Maher's "Religulous"

@MatB

Look in the MIRROR! Your bashing anyone who does not accept your views!

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offence to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

Well.. that covers everything about your views. You wish to enforce your Christian views upon us or else. If Bill Maher is a PETA whore.. then Jeebus is a pimp and you're his whore on the corner willing to convert people at any cost.

I don't want to make you all believe Jesus is God.

So why are you bashing people for being pro-choice? Is that not forcing your view upon people?

Bill Maher wants you all to stop eating meat.

Is he bashing or forcing people to see his views? No!

When was the last famine that you heard about? To blame famine on overpopulation is to ignore the political and economic factors that are the true causes of any starvation now occurring in the world. There is more than enough food available in the world. There will remain more than enough food available in the world. Perhaps if we look at the whole of Christian and/or Catholic teaching and doctrine we would see that it does not center around the accumulation of material goods or restricting other's abilities to obtain the necessities of life. Those restrictions generally come from human greed and governments which do not attempt to fulfill the basic needs of all their people.

Similarly, to blame the AIDS crisis in Africa or anywhere else on the Catholic Church is laughable. Unlike many diseases, we know the cause of AIDS and we know how to prevent infection and spread of the disease. Because the Catholic Church does not veer from the ideal way of dealing with this disease does not make it in any way complicit in the spread of AIDS. I haven't heard the most liberal of the Catholic hierarchy advocate free sexuality with no regard for infecting others with a terminal disease. Again, the complete message is not 'don't use protection'. The entire Catholic message is that sexuality is a gift from God and ought to be treated as a gift and not thrown away at the first opportunity. It is a gift that is given within the context of marriage and is given for the creation of children to be brought into a loving family. It also allows for and promotes the use of natural family planning (NFP).

The fact that individuals make a personal choice to reject these teachings does not seem to me to be cause to blame the Catholic Church for AIDS.

As a side note, and to pre-empt some of the knee jerk commentary about NFP let me make one point. Oddly, the high dollar industry around helping people become pregnant is viewed as advanced and technology driven while NFP is snickered at. Many of the methods used in trying to help couples become pregnant are piggybacked on research done within NFP. The same rules apply as far as the way the female body works in getting pregnant as in avoiding pregnancy.

Your statement "When an issue like abortion is politicized, it becomes cloaked in principle and emotion and the truth becomes obscurred [sic]." would read more accurately if it read that "the ability to see the truth becomes obscurred [sic]." Truth remains truth. Our ability to perceive it may be impeded by emotion or desire, but the truth is still there.

During the 20th century, an estimated 70 million people throughout the worlddied from famines. 30 million died during China's famine 1958-1961.

That aside, this article does not imply that the Catholic Church is responsible for the aids epidemic. It simply suggests that the church's stance on birth control is too dogmatic and unforgiving, which places devout followers at a disadvantage in making decisions of how to deal with the complexities of life, family, and sexuality. My central point is this: if an individual or organization establishes a trusted relationship with a person, and that relationship directly influences how that individual lives his or her life, then the mentor must assume some degree of responsibility for adverse consequences which occur as a result of those teachings. Church dogma is what it is but it sometimes conflicts with the best interests of the faithful. People have many influences in their lives and if they are expected to follow a strict regimen of behavior, then conditions must be conducive to extricating that behavior.

The famine in China was not caused by overpopulation. The Great Chinese Famine, or Three Years of Natural Disasters as it's officially called by the Chinese government was not 'natural' either. It was caused by governmental policies. In fact, it was created by the policies of an atheistic government that forbids freedom of religion and to this day actively represses religions. At the most basic level, was there a shortage of food in the world, was there a logistical inability to deliver food to the people of China during this famine? Was overpopulation the cause of this famine? Is the current situation in Darfur caused by a lack of resources? Is it caused by overpopulation?

I never made the claim that the article implied that the Catholic Church was responsible for the AIDS epidemic. My point revolved around your statement:

"When religious leaders opposed birth control they created an environment in Africa which permitted the spread of AIDS and other infectuous diseases. Restricted birth control also lead to overpopulation like that seen in Mexico and other regions of the world. Today these regions are facing rampant poverty, hunger, disease, and conflict. It is irresponsible and inhumane to encourage unrestricted population growth without providing relief from it's consequences."

I don't think that there is a lack of understanding the issues around abortion. Nor do I think that unrestricted population growth is encouraged by the Catholic Church or religions in general. It is religions that teach and work for caring family structures and self control and caring for your fellow human being. What are the structures/organizations that encourage and promote the messages of instant gratification, freedom from responsibility, and the things that really lead to unrestricted excess in any venue? It's not the Catholic Church, or even most other churches or religions; even non-Christian religions don't tend to teach that excess is a good. I would suggest looking in other places for that message.

Your sentiment that, "This is not to suggest that abortion be used as a means of birth control but for every action there is a reaction." is one that is fairly commonly heard from people who support abortion. The world is not perfect, it never will be. What most religious people believe is that it can approach perfection and that it is our responsibility to continually work towards the ideal of the perfect. All but the most radical abortion supporters agree that it is not the best solution. Many of the comments throughout these postings indicate areas where there is much common ground between abortion supporters and pro-life supporters. Prevention of unwanted pregnancies is a common aim; the desired methods may differ but who is saying that unwanted pregnancies are desirable?

It's easy for me to have a knee-jerk reaction and say or think that everyone connected with abortion or the pro-abortion movement is 'evil'. However, it's simply not true. The act is evil but I would bet that most of the people having abortions are no more evil, or good, than the rest of us. In the same vein, it is easy to bash religion; and quite honestly the Catholic Church takes the brunt of that bashing precisely because it does not change it's interpretation of truth with the times. Whether it be on abortion, divorce, or any other doctrinal item it is unable to change for the simple fact that truth does not change. Unfortunately, it is run by human beings and there are bad decisions made by those people at times, but the teachings are not the shortcoming. Without the 'rigid' structure 'truth' would become whatever is convenient. We see that all around us. The Catholic Church stands as an island amidst this constant change and it has stood for over 2,000 years; despite bad men and bad implementation at it's highest levels. It is as easy to point to the good it has done as at the bad. However, when it's teachings and beliefs are looked at holistically there is no comparable system of belief or organization that encompasses the breadth and depth of it's wisdom regarding the human experience.

This entry was made in response to the Vatican's condemnation of Kathleen Sebelius' appointment to Obama's cabinet. The Vatican has no right to criticize the political appointments of this government just as I have no right tell the Catholic Church to conduct their affairs. This is to illustrate the push-back that occurs when one entity attempts to impose a given lifestyle or philosophy on another. I have no direct interest in the abortion issue, believing only that it is a personal issue that must be dealt with on a personal level. But this issue does show how people dig in their heels and close their minds when they feel they are being confronted. It is exactly the kind of confrontational rhetoric that must be overcome if we are ever to exist as a cohesive nation again. As you indicated, there are many reasons why a famine might occur, over-population being just one, but more often than not the cause is a combination of interrelated factors, but the result is the same. The interrelationships between governments, religion, corporations and the people is even more complex so that if one or the other engages excessive or irresponsible behavior, the consequences can be devastating. In cosideration of the Catholic Church and all of the good that they do, I just thought that if millions of their followers are suffering from the torment of poverty due to over-population in predominantly Catholic locales, it would be in their own best interest to intervene in some way. It is very easy to lose faith once you've lost everything else.

The Vatican has no right to criticize the political appointments of this government just as I have no right tell the Catholic Church to conduct their affairs.

I disagree onforall. The Vatican absolutely DOES have a right to criticize. They can criticize political appointments; They can criticize homosexual marriage; They can criticize the amount of pressure in my tires. They just DON'T have the right to expect that anyone gives a rat's patoot (sp?) about what they think!

Stats show that more and more are choosing not to listen. Catholicism has one of the largest migrations to agnosticism in it's history.

Frying pan or fire?

Wait, I thought the new guy's name was Ben something.

Thank you. That was a poor choice of words. I was attempting to make the point that: aspersions cast for the cause of an extreme point of view tend to incite retaliation in the form of words or action and that perhaps it is not in the Catholic Church's best interest to conduct themselves in that manner. It is also not the best way to handle conflicted issues like abortion. The Catholic Church has a long and storied history of human rights abuses and like the USA's legacy of slavery, it is a stain that can only be erased with time and resolve.