Bill Press misrepresents Catholic bishops

Bill Press is a fool. Not only is he a fool, he's a disrespectful ignoramus. He calls himself a Catholic yet he spins the words of an Archbishop into a misrepresentation of the facts regarding voting for so-called Catholic pro-choice politicians. Everyone who understands the teaching of the Church knows full well that Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver is doing exactly what he should be doing in speaking out against abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, human cloning and gay marriage. And Chaput never said, “don’t vote for Kerry.” Apparently Press is so badly catechized that he doesn’t even know who gives the Archbishop the authority to speak out on such matters. Memo to Bill Press, it's the Pope. Remember him Bill? Apparently he does not.

The fact of the matter is, it's people like Bill Press that can't stand the fact that poor little Senator Kerry is being outed as a Catholic who either doesn't know about Catholic Doctrine or doesn't care. Kerry not only doesn't support the Catholic Church, he goes out of his way to oppose and undermine it. And the Bishops shouldn't say anything? Give me a break. Bill Press' article Catholic bishops declare war on John Kerry is not only disrespectful to the Archbishop, but it's full of inaccuracies and is merely propaganda in what has been Kerry's attempt to hoodwink Catholics into believing that he is one of us. It’s been a long, long time since Kerry's been an altar boy, and boy it shows. Bill Press hasn’t got a clue and he’s desperately trying to push his liberal agenda on not only the country but also the Church. He talks about separation of church and state yet he continues to perpetuate this misrepresentation of the facts. Bill Press should stay out of such matters, as it is abundantly clear he knows nothing about Catholicism and the Church’s responsibilities in the United States of America. His last paragraph is quite telling of how little respect some Catholics have for the very Church they claim to be loyal to.

Fr. Basil Cole Clarifies Heresy Responce

Fr. Basil Cole issued the following clarification to his responce to Marc Balestrieri regarding a heresy question. Story beow.

Several weeks ago, Fr. DiNoia, the undersecretary for the Congregation of Doctrine and Faith, asked me to communicate with Marc Balestrieri about a question concerning abortion, excommunication and the like. I was neither delegated by the Congregation to speak for it, nor was I in any sense a "consultor" to the Congregation. I was simply someone trying to help someone understand the gravity of the evil of abortion and the possible penalties associated by formally and publically teaching that abortion was not per se a grave sin. Both Fr. DiNoia and I assumed that the person was a student wanting to understand the Church's teaching. I was told he was seeking to do a JCD degree by the person in question. Neither Fr. DiNoia nor I had any knowledge that he was going to "go after" Kerry or any other Catholic figure for their public stance concerning the evil of abortion. So, in my letter to Marc Balestrieri, I began by mentioning that my letter is a personal and private opinion to him about anyone who would publically and persistently teach that abortion is not morally prohibited. It in no way is authoritative from the Congregation nor was I representing the Congregation. It's only weight is that of a priest and a theologian who appeals to sacred sources. I was helping out Fr. DiNoia who asked me to do this for him. 

Fraternally in St. Dominic, Fr. Basil Cole, OP

Kerry "Heresy" Case Takes New Turn

When it comes to making excuses about his stance on abortion, I do believe that Mr. Kerry will no longer be able to pass off the tired old “I oppose… but” argument any longer. Nor will other pro-choice Catholic politicians for that matter. Not if Marc Balestrieri, head of a conservative Catholic group called De Fide, has his way. That’s because Marc has cleverly obtained a letter from Canon Lawyer, Father Basil Cole, at the request of Father Augustine Di Noia, third-ranking official in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which unofficially confirms the Churches position of excommunication because he supports a woman's right to an abortion. Fidele Ecclesia reported the Heresy charges Marc Balestrieri filed with Archdiocese of Boston back in June here. Ruters reported today that Balestrieri had hoodwinked the Church by misrepresenting himself.

Balestrieri told Reuters he wanted to point out "the growing misunderstanding by Catholics that they can publicly call themselves Catholics and support the right to choose abortion."

This really quite serious and I can’t imagine how Kerry and other so-called Catholic politicians are going to wiggle out of this one. US Bishops have been reluctant to call these politicians on this issue for many years. I remember Democratic Governor Mario Cuomo, and Vice Presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro under tremendous scrutiny from Cardinal O’Connor back in the Eighties. And it‘s gotten progressively more prevalent today. It now seems the rubber has met the proverbial road. Also reporting this story is Lifesite.net.

Fr. Cole’s complete response to Marc Balestrieri’s query
http://www.defide.com/resp/response.pdf

The third presidential debate verdict.

When it comes to commentary about the last presidential debate, the following comments from protein wisdom are by far the best.

John Kerry: 'Whatever you need, it's yours. Need a job? You got it. Need a higher living wage? Done. Need cheap, universal healthcare? I'm your man. Need a better education? Have at it, paid in full. Relying on social security for your retirement? I'll put it in a lock box. Tax relief? I can give you that, too. Want to lose your virginity to a teenage Mexicali hooker and a donkey? I'll print coupons. And the best part is, every single one of my plans comes with free cole slaw and a plate of homestyle biscuits!'

George Bush: 'Anybody who believes this guy can deliver on even one percent of his promises deserves four years of John F'n Kerry. God bless, and good night.' "

Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry

Yesterday the New York Times ran a story entitled “Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry” by David Kirkpatrick and Laurie Goodstein. In it they criticize Archbishop Charles J. Chaput for speaking out to a group of Catholic college students gathered in a sports bar in Denver regarding Senator Kerry's support for abortion rights.

Why is it, when the secular media reports about a Catholic bishop leading his flock in the way he should be leading; on ecclesiastic matters, the have to spin it into a negative story? This depicts them picking on poor Senator Kerry, thus supporting President Bush in the process. That is not the case. The fact is, if Kerry did not go against the teaching's of the Catholic Church, certain bishops in this country would not speak out against his support for abortion, gay marriage, fetal stem-cell research, human cloning and euthanasia, would they?

If so many bishops were not luke warm on this matter it would not seem so political. But you can’t dismiss the fact that according to Church teaching and Canon Law, bishops like Charles J. ChaputIf and Raymond Burke of St Louis, are right on this issue. If these bishops were criticizing other matters, then we could make a case for "using influence to oppose Kerry." Why can't people like David Kirkpatrick and Laurie Goodstein understand that this is not about Kerry and Bush, or support or opposition? It's about the body of Christ and the assault on humanity, Catholic morality and the Church. If Kerry was as good a Catholic as he claims to be, he would be compelled to let his faith influence and guide his decisions on such matters instead of pandering to voters and going against his own convictions. I don’t buy the “I oppose but…” argument, never have. I see it for what it is…pandering.

It seems to me that they (David Kirkpatrick and Laurie Goodstein) are politicizing this issue, and trying to sway voters into siding with Senator Kerry. Thus using their influence of the media to oppose Bush. That’s what’s really going on here. They would have you think the big bad Catholic bishops are unduly criticizing the Senator for political reasons and undermining him. In reality the opposite is true. The bishops are not criticizing Kerry for political reasons; they are trying to save his (and everyone’s) soul. That’s their job; remember?

When certain bishops looked the other way during the sex abuse scandal, the media was quick to jump all over them and report how they were neglecting their duty and ultimately their flock. Now they’re spinning this story into a negative one, when all they’re guilty of, is doing their duty and leading their flock on matters of the Church. This is hypocrisy at the highest level. Which is it? Should we slam them for not doing their job, or for doing their job? The media can’t have it both ways, and as a practicing Catholic, frankly I’m getting tired of it. The Church has gone to great pains to correct the problems of the Church going forward and I applaud the bishops for protecting the Church in this matter. The Church has a right to protect itself and lead their flock in communion with what they believe to be objective truth. If the Church is mandated to stay out of the state, then the state (and the media) should stay out of the Church as well.

I like the direction the Church is going here. I also like the trend the laity is going as well, to a more conservative view, both spiritually and politically. Liberalism has not been good for the Catholic Church and it’s not consistent with objective truth but rather more in line with subjective relativism, but that’s another story.

Group of Bishops Using Influence to Oppose Kerry

What I Really Said About Iraq

My comment: I criticize the Old York Times a lot for being a left-wing democratic operative, however I must give credit when credit's due. Today the New York Times published this Op-Ed from Paul Bremmer, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, and it must be noted they actually were fair to President Bush. Miracles never cease.

The Op-Ed:
October 8, 2004
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

What I Really Said About Iraq
By L. PAUL BREMER III

In recent days, attention has been focused on some remarks I've made about Iraq. The coverage of these remarks has elicited far more heat than light, so I believe it's important to put my remarks in the correct context.

In my speeches, I have said that the United States paid a price for not stopping the looting in Iraq in the immediate aftermath of major combat operations and that we did not have enough troops on the ground to accomplish that task. The press and critics of the war have seized on these remarks in an effort to undermine President Bush's Iraq policy.

This effort won't succeed. Let me explain why.

It's no secret that during my time in Iraq I had tactical disagreements with others, including military commanders on the ground. Such disagreements among individuals of good will happen all the time, particularly in war and postwar situations. I believe it would have been helpful to have had more troops early on to stop the looting that did so much damage to Iraq's already decrepit infrastructure. The military commanders believed we had enough American troops in Iraq and that having a larger American military presence would have been counterproductive because it would have alienated Iraqis. That was a reasonable point of view, and it may have been right. The truth is that we'll never know.

But during the 14 months I was in Iraq, the administration, the military and I all agreed that the coalition's top priority was a broad, sustained effort to train Iraqis to take more responsibility for their own security. This effort, financed in large measure by the emergency supplemental budget approved by Congress last year, continues today. In the end, Iraq's security must depend on Iraqis.

Our troops continue to work closely with Iraqis to isolate and destroy terrorist strongholds. And the United States is supporting Prime Minister Ayad Allawi in his determined effort to bring security and democracy to Iraq. Elections will be held in January and, though there will be challenges and hardships, progress is being made. For the task before us now, I believe we have enough troops in Iraq.

The press has been curiously reluctant to report my constant public support for the president's strategy in Iraq and his policies to fight terrorism. I have been involved in the war on terrorism for two decades, and in my view no world leader has better understood the stakes in this global war than President Bush.

The president was right when he concluded that Saddam Hussein was a menace who needed to be removed from power. He understands that our enemies are not confined to Al Qaeda, and certainly not just to Osama bin Laden, who is probably trapped in his hide-out in Afghanistan. As the bipartisan 9/11 commission reported, there were contacts between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime going back a decade. We will win the war against global terror only by staying on the offensive and confronting terrorists and state sponsors of terror - wherever they are. Right now, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally, is a dangerous threat. He is in Iraq.

President Bush has said that Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. He is right. Mr. Zarqawi's stated goal is to kill Americans, set off a sectarian war in Iraq and defeat democracy there. He is our enemy.

Our victory also depends on devoting the resources necessary to win this war. So last year, President Bush asked the American people to make available $87 billion for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military commanders and I strongly agreed on the importance of these funds, which is why we stood together before Congress to make the case for their approval. The overwhelming majority of Congress understood and provided the funds needed to fight the war and win the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan. These were vital resources that Senator John Kerry voted to deny our troops.

Mr. Kerry is free to quote my comments about Iraq. But for the sake of honesty he should also point out that I have repeatedly said, including in all my speeches in recent weeks, that President Bush made a correct and courageous decision to liberate Iraq from Saddam Hussein's brutality, and that the president is correct to see the war in Iraq as a central front in the war on terrorism.

A year and a half ago, President Bush asked me to come to the Oval Office to discuss my going to Iraq to head the coalition authority. He asked me bluntly, "Why would you want to leave private life and take on such a difficult, dangerous and probably thankless job?" Without hesitation, I answered, "Because I believe in your vision for Iraq and would be honored to help you make it a reality." Today America and the coalition are making steady progress toward that vision.


L. Paul Bremer III, former chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism, was the administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq from May 2003 to June 2004.

Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties -- 10/04/2004

In a story you’re not likely to hear about on the CBS evening news, documents detailing Saddam Hussein’s efforts to target Americans, as well as proof of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program, were documented today when CNSNews.com published an exclusive report by Scott Wheeler.

It is my opinion that more proof such as this is forth coming, as well as further proof of scandals alleging prominent world leaders refusing to thwart the efforts of Saddam Hussein’s evil regime because of it’s self interest and greed in various programs like “oil for food.” Thus vindicating President Bush, and his administration of all the unfortunate allegations of misleading the American public, and enduring rhetoric such as “wrong war, wrong place, wrong time” and the Democratic Party’s rush to war theory.
Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties -- 10/04/2004