Catholic chaplain delivers politically-charged prayer before Kansas legislature


It was just supposed to be a normal non-political prayer delivered by a guest invited by Republican Rep. Mike Kiegerl, but it didn’t turn out that way at all. When Father James Gordon of St. John Vianney Catholic school stood in front of the Kansas House of Representatives, he gave a highly political prayer that sounded distressingly like something that would come out of the mouth of a conservative extremist waging a culture war.

Father James included topics such as abortion, same sex marriage, and religious freedom in his prayer, and angered many in the statehouse, including Republicans. Here is the relevant part of the prayer, via the Lawrence Journal World.

“We ask you to strengthen our understanding of traditional marriage: one man and one woman. We ask you to bring us back to virtuous morals in society, morals that kept us from killing a child in the womb through abortion. We ask you to defend us now in the fight for true religious freedom and freedom of conscience, that seems to be threatened now in the public sphere.”

Members of both parties felt the prayer exceeded the boundaries set by the House, as invited guests who lead the daily prayer are supposed to be neutral and deliver prayers that are free of politics and not devisive. The Journal World reports that “House Speaker Mike O”Neal, R-Hutchinson, said Gordon’s prayer “arguably went beyond” those guidelines,” while “House Minority Leader Paul Davis, D-Lawrence, said the prayer was inappropriate” and “needs to be ecumenical,” which means the prayer is supposed to be a general prayer that unifies. But apparently Catholic leaders didn’t get the memo.

Read more.


  1. Oh my, it’s hard to get past the egregious bigotry of the author.

    Interesting that he doesn’t feel the need to hold Hollywood or teachers’ unions to the same standards he holds the “child molesting Catholic Church.” If he could only see beyond his bigorty, he might realize that one of most the safe place in America for kids now IS the Catholic Church.

    I say hats off to Father Gordon; a refreshing breath of courage and honesty, regardless that many are offended by truth. If we have any chance of surviving as a culture, it will require a lot more Father Godon’s, especially before the next election.

  2. Speak truth to power.

  3. deacon john m. bresnahan says:

    So much ignorance, so much stupidity, so much bigotry in such a short article. But that is what the Church is up against in trying to protect Our Founding Fathers’ First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.

  4. I generally disregard anyone who ends an opinion piece (this is clearly not a news piece) with the phrase “The fact is.”

    We can pray for his and others’ minds to open.

    God bless

  5. We can pray for his and others’ minds to open

    Easier said than done Dcn. Don. For Lent, my biggest challenge has been to pray (a daily rosary) for every person that I find terribly hard to like.

    In addition to knowing that is what Christ asks of us, I also try to image how nice they could actually be if only they had the love of God within them, and of course, that God loves them as much as He does any of us.

    I’m sorry to report that I have not been very successful, but I keep trying. I actually made a list of my “least favorite people” (soon to add this guy). It has truly been one of my most difficult Lents , and of course, beyond humbling to recognize that I come up so short.

  6. To the author of that biased report: I guess the truth hurst. Too bad.

    “We ask you to strengthen our understanding of traditional marriage: one man and one woman. We ask you to bring us back to virtuous morals in society, morals that kept us from killing a child in the womb through abortion. We ask you to defend us now in the fight for true religious freedom and freedom of conscience, that seems to be threatened now in the public sphere.”

    What is even in question? Those are clearly Church positions. All the Democrats have to do is start supporting real marriage, end this atrocity, this war, this slaughter against the unborn, and allow for freedom of conscience. Is that too much to ask?

    What I don’t understand is why people in this day and age think a priest supporting Conservtive cultural issues is a surprise. I’ve said this numerous times here, but over the last thirty years this nation has evolved to where one party supports religious and traditional principles (albeit not always perfectly) and one party is anti religion and tradition. It is very clear. People just need to be honest with themselves. Every priest I know has sympathies with the Republicans on most issues. Kudos to this priest (Fr. james Gordon) for being open about it.

  7. naturgesetz says:

    It was the wrong place to make those explicit petitions. He could have prayed for enlightenment to understand and promote the common good of society and the rights of all. God knows what they are.

  8. Last time I checked, this was still a free country. Presumably Kansas as well :-) Simply don’t comprehend the furor over three sentences of a much larger prayer.

    The complaints come from people who seek to “ghettoize” voters animated by their faith. By “ghettoize” I mean the notion that we should contain ourselves within the walls of a church sanctuary — and only on a Sunday, mind you :-(

    The priest was asked to say a prayer and he asked for God’s favor on a number of things. Three of those things included the defense of marriage, the rights of the unborn and religious freedom. No one complains (and no one should) when a cleric prays in the public square for an end to wars, racism and poverty. So why complain when a cleric prays for families, human life and freedom?

  9. I agree—that is the problem today, we want everyone to say what we want to hear not what the truth is

  10. Just to shed some light: the Church/school that the priest is from has priests from the Fraternity of St. Peter. Per the website( all of the Masses at the Church are in Latin.

  11. Janet, that’s an excellent way to express it!

  12. naturgesetz says:

    He should have given the prayer in Latin.

  13. Setting aside the very unfortunate prejudices of the author, yes there is a time and a place for pointed sermons (including those thinly disguised as prayer). I don’t think this was it. To me the bottom line is one does not accept an invitation given in good faith and then insult one’s hosts. In such circumstances the truth or lack thereof gets lost in the broader point of good manners or in this case the lack thereof. Everything the good priest said may be as valid and true as gold money. But no one is going to care or notice because of the rather glaring bad form he demonstrated.

    Great prayer/sermon. Lousy choice of venue.

  14. I agree. Fr Gordon was invited to address God in prayer, not the House of Representatives in a sermon or speech. It’s not compromising Catholic teaching to pray, as naturgesetz suggests, for God to strengthen the legislators to uphold the common good and the rights of all. Presumably God does need instructing on how to do that.

  15. Deacon, you missed the most important part of this Catholic bashing story you linked to, the outright lies of the author
    Lie 1. “the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is already waging religious warfare against the United States Government over “birth control.”

    No, as the Bishops have stated very clearly, it is not about birth control, but religious liberty.

    Lie 2. “Catholic leadership is under the impression that since the government won’t ban birth control like they want them to do, it violates their religious freedom.”

    Catholic leadership never asked government to ban birth control.

    Lie 3. “They are also under the impression that freedom of conscience means only the Catholic belief system applies.”

    No, the Catholic leadership has state repeatedly that this is about everyone’s religious freedom and they have been joined by many other Churchs which are not Catholic in the fight.

    Turth 1. “Sad, I know. Don’t you just want to give them a quarter so they call someone who actually gives a damn?”

    I agree, the authors hatred of the Church is truly sad and his lies to bash the Catholic Church seems to be something one would expect this site would have pointed out if they were posting only selected parts of this hatred and distortion. How about a note on that Deacon.

    Truth 2. “The Catholic Church has also been very vocal about the sex lives of consenting adults, opposing same sex relationships and women having sex outside of marriage.”

    What does the author think the Catholic Church should be vocal about if not moral depravity and grave sin? My guess is he is a democrat and his only problem with the prayer is that it did not make issues like jaywalking, clearly a proportionate reason to support abortion mills and Nazi death camps, the focus on the prayer.

    Lie and clear Catholic bashing duluxe which is supposed to be banned on this site— “But officials of the Catholic Church shouldn’t be whining about what consenting adults do in the bedroom considering the fact that many Catholic priests are fond of raping defenseless non-consenting little boys. Until the Catholic Church appropriately deals with this scandal instead of harboring pedophiles in Jesus’ name, they shouldn’t be allowed to speak about the sex lives of the American citizenry”

    Here is the message of this secular atheist and what he really wants to see in this country— “The fact is, prayers shouldn’t even be allowed in legislatures in the first place.”

    This fool does not seem to know why they have prayer at each session of the Congress even in Washington. It was established as the first right in the first amendment to the Constittuion. The founders had entire religious services conducted on Sundays in the Congress attended by those supposed haters of religion like Thomas Jefferson. Now this fool does not even seem to understand the critical role that the Founders saw in religious liberty as essential to hold up the very foundation of the entire government. As they said, the government we have created was not meant for a country where religious beliefs were not strong and protected from government. And by the way, Christian beliefs were the religion that this country was built around.

    Deacon, I am kind of surprised you would choose to bring this type of lies, bigotry and Catholic bashing to your site and then selectively quote it.

    As to the priest having a discussion in prayer in front of the legislature about grave evils destroying the country, I think it would have been a crime for him not to do so. Ever see the prayers of the varous ministers when slavery was a grave evil and running rampant. Bringing the word of God to the heathens is in fact something I would hope the ministers would do to try and remind the legislators that we are a nation Under God and all our rights come from the Creator, not government.

    What was probably the most amazing and idiotic thing this fool said was “When you step into a legislature you should leave your religion at the door because it is your job to represent everybody.”

    If you are forced to leave your religious beliefs at the door, then you are in fact bringing only a state secular atheist religion to the government as the state religion being forced on everyone else. That of course is what the Constitution first amendment was supposed to separate us from. The prayer is rotated to all the various denominations so that they are in fact not promoting one religion. Since this author insists only his atheist religion is the selected government relgion, it shows even more his bias.

    Imagine for a moment that he spoke about helping the poor in his prayer and the Republicans protested it being a political statement promoting big government failed solutions to poverty.

  16. Oh no, masses in Latin..Wow, that means they have to be bashed on every front.

    I think it is more relevent that this author is a Catholic bashing bigot who does not deserve to have his lies and distortions spread around without air sick bags.

  17. No, it was the right place. This is the state that elected partial birth abortion protector and now HHS own Kathleen Sebelius who is out to end our religious liberty. With that crawling out of kansas, the priest should expect other critters inside their congress that are in need of prayers that are clear and powerful about grave evil.

    Maybe what they need is an excorcist after producing that heathen.

  18. Care to guess what topics have been included in prayers befor the Congress of the USA?

    Racial Segregation
    Need for increased aid to the poor
    War Crimes

    Human dignity and life
    religious liberty

    As to the thought of addressing God in prayer before a large group of people in Congress or in any other seeing and not even considering the needs of those in the group we are placing before God makes little sense. In fact, I think it would be fairer criticism if there was something major going on the country and the chaplain in prayer failed to even mention it.

  19. Whoa Ad Orientem: “No one is going to notice or care?” I think not, plenty noticed and plenty care.

    Who do you think the priest, who was approved for “prayer”, had more of an obligation to, God (as in honest prayer against the sins of our times), or the “politically correct” legislature?

    Like Santorum, who gets blasted every step of the way for merely living out his faith, this priest was no different. Again, to be as Christ asks, “radical and counter cultural”, is so rare, that when a devout and courageous soul does act “truly Catholic”, it puts the average person into hysterics.

  20. Richard Johnson says:

    I have to wonder…had the priest prayed regarding the preferential position of the poor, against our current armed conflicts, and chastising the legislature for favoring corporations over real people, would there still be resounding support among traditionalist Catholics for his statement? Or would he be lambasted as “liberal” and bashed.

    Be careful, folks, that you do not become that which you despise.

  21. What if it were an episcopalian priest arguing FOR same sex marriage and birth control? What would the people who support the priest be saying? What if it were a Hindu calling to end consumption of beef in Kansas? This is why separation of church and state should ban these prayers all thogether. Ptherwise, whose religion is suposed to be “in charge” and prevail?

  22. Irish Spectre says:

    Hmmm…traditional marriage, anti-abortion and religious freedom.

    Those Catholics who would defend the sick premise that the foregoing should not be addressed by a Catholic priest in prayer before a legislative assembly are really all that one needs to consider to understand how Nazism was able to insinuate itself into the German culture last century. Your polite society apologies and excuses are shameful, frankly.

  23. @Mark
    “Care to guess what topics have been included in prayers befor the Congress of the USA?

    Racial Segregation
    Need for increased aid to the poor
    War Crimes

    Human dignity and life
    religious liberty”

    Right on! Apparently only the left gets to make religious speeches in front of legislatures.

  24. Where is the “left” in these topics?

  25. Klaire, it’s hard to imagine. So if you have not been successful in imagining these people being nice, I don’t think it means you come up short. You’re just trying a new approach. I dislike a few people and I think Christ asks us to love them in the sense that, a, if one of these dislikables comes up to me I will treat them with respect, and b, in a matter of life and death, I would try to save them the same as I would try to save my favorite person. Read Christ’s woe passages again when you’re on your last nerve. They do help.

  26. Richard Johnson says:

    Interesting, Manny. Are you suggesting that “the right” would speak in support of slavery, racial segregation, war and war crimes?

  27. There normally are guidelines that the chaplains agree to stating that the prayers can not be denomination specific, and should be as inclusive as possible, in order to avoid controversies that could lead to the total elimination of the prayers. This was a hard-line homily disguised as a prayer. There is a time and a place for everything, and I do not think that the priest chose an appropriate moment to proselytize, especially choosing the hot button issues meant to incite. Can’t take us Catholics anywhere.

  28. Ditto!

  29. irishsmile says:

    I disagree. It was the right place! Father Gordon’s comments reflect the stance of the Catholic Church long before America was a nation. His statement were not political; they were Catholic to the core. Now we, the laypeople and the bishops need to throw our support behind these brave priests like Father Gordon.

  30. irishsmile says:

    Absolutely nothing wrong with the Fraternity of St. Peter; they are in full compliance. Perhaps you may resent the Latin or the Traditional Mass at that parish. The answer is simple; don’t go!

  31. irishsmile says:

    I disagree. Catholics have been backing off so long in their defense of Christianity that we have become ineffective. As the mother of a priest, I disagree with you completely. How many priests are being accused of ‘bad form’ when they are required by their vows to stand up to those who abuse the church? How about some backbone transplants.

  32. I do not plan to go because it is nowhere near me. I was just surprised that they only have Masses in Latin. I am sure that Father Z is happy.

  33. Richard, I would hope there would be support for him, because there have been papal statements on all of the above. Mind you, the criticism is of conflict, not one side or the other.

    The preferential love of the poor loomed large in addresses by Blessed John Paul II and finds roots in Lumen Gentium: “The Church encompasses with her love all those who are afflicted by human misery and she recognizes in those who are poor and who suffer, the image of her poor and suffering founder. She does all in her power to relieve their need and in them she strives to serve Christ”

    On the issue of financial responsibility, Caritas in Veritate is a good read: If profit, the Pope writes, “becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty”. In this context he enumerates certain “malfunctions” of development: financial dealings that are “largely speculative”, migratory flows “often provoked by some particular circumstance and then given insufficient attention”, and “the unregulated exploitation of the earth’s resources”.

    Pretty clear. Not sure anyone is in a good space if they start lambasting and bashing the Holy Father as a liberal.

    God bless

  34. naturgesetz says:

    “His statement … were Catholic to the core.”

    But it was not a Catholic event.

  35. pagansister says:

    Amen to that, naturgesetz! There is a time and place and that wasn’t it! Neutral prayer? No. Perhaps they won’t ask him again. :o)

  36. The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, and that the time of the Lord’s favor has come (Luke 4:18-19)

    If anyone needs to hear the word of God it is the politicians who have the government power to make the laws.

    At mass, we seek God’s forgiveness for what we have done and what we have failed to do; for what we have said and what we have failed to say.

    If this priest had not spoken about the horrible attacks on God’s natrual laws and also essential in the Catholic Church so closely tied to these laws, he would have had to ask for forgiveness for what he failed to say to those who can have influence on government need to keep with that which God created.

    I think that it shows how far we have gone in the attack on the word of God to think it has no place in our national debate in the halls of the lawmakers. People need to go back and read the founders and stop supporting the lies that are hurting this country. We were not founded to have the state establish it state religion of secular atheism and force it on the people, but in fact the exact opposite.

  37. Will what did you mean that this should shed some light?

    I am sure many are happy to see this option many Catholics have been incorrectly denied for a generation.

  38. DcnDon, it is also not quite complete as he spent a whole lot of time bashing the socialist form of government and in fact spent a lot of his Papacy on ending it in him home country. He was also very concerned about the holocaust of babies being killed in the womb.

    Can you quote me a line anywhere that he favored big government programs delivered by a secular atheist state as the solution to poverty. How about taking on the challenge of what government program has actually dramatically reduced poverty while spending trillions and increasing government controls over freedom. Which of those despite bankrupting the country are even solvent? The thought that the democrats are somehow for the poor is a fabrication. They are in the pocket of the wealthy as much if not more that the Republicans. When did you last see a person who works with the poor in the streets brought in and given a cabinet position? I can name a lot of them from Goldman Sachs or other wall street firms and banks.

    I can name a heck of a lot of Republican proposals that would actually help the poor that the democrats have rejected because it does not in the end keep them poor and in need of the government, a clear democratic requirement to keep power with the impression of caring for the poor that never escape this new plantation power in Washington. If they did want them out of poverty, why would they spend the last 30 years fighting every effort to allow them to get out of the failed public schools with vouchers or other means? Why are porgrams to help the poor so bad on those who first get some kind of a job to escape. People stay on the government programs because they lose them if they start to make a positive move of independence.

  39. What if an athiest just stopped allowing prayer…of wait, that is the godless secular state religion now being forced on everyone else. I love this argument that is thrown out. We have to accept a godless state religion because some hindu might get up and speak their faith. That is what happened for a lot of years until those who hated God and wanted him put in a closet and have no influence on our society or government came along and we managed just fine. I do not remember in history where someone was forced into a church, forced to stand and say a prayer or be hauled off to the gulag.

    We have four choices that I see.

    An Islamic type of state relgion that removes all freedom but the one faith with brutal force

    A state named religion like Catholic or protestant that the founders had witnessed in religion leading to wars between denominations between Christians.

    A god less state like China, or the Soviet Union, or the distorted German church under hitler that removed the cross and put up his picture and swore allegience to him, not God. All of these have been brutal from forced abortions in one child policy to the killing of all in totalitarian states. This one appears to be the worst of all with Islamic a close second.

    the best of all is what our founders gave us which is a government behing a wall and prohibited from passing any laws to infringe in anyway anywhere on the free excercise of our religious beliefs and also one that forbid the government from naming on state religion be it Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, or aethist. Not allowed. The first thing a state religion will do is start to remove freedom and that is what happened when the USA violated the Constitution and named its secular atheist state religion. God was removed from first the classrooms so the atheist could have control of the environment. This of course meant history had to go for anywhere they talked about our founding there is clearly the free excercise of religion and since 99% of the country was Christian, it was mentioned a lot. However, no one was forced to believe and no check of religion was required to take an office. It was the best and we have given that away by one court decree and law after another in direct violation of the constitution and its clear intent. We are all paying the price for this loss of freedom and we need judges to correct this wrong.

  40. Bonhoeffer calls it cheap grace and said it was the enemy of every religion and of mankind as a result. today it is called the religion which one commandment and that is there is no good or evil, all must be tolerated as being equal.

  41. Manny, I do not present these as topics of left or right, but simply showing that what many consider politics if abortion or gay marriage are mentioned. I note Richard mentioned right away “had the priest prayed regarding the preferential position of the poor, against our current armed conflicts, and chastising the legislature for favoring corporations over real people, would there still be resounding support among traditionalist Catholics for his statement? Or would he be lambasted as “liberal” and bashed.”

    That is what is such a joke about the left when they see a priest dare to mention abortion or gay issues, they lose it. They are the ones that list the democratic talking point excuses so that the abortion mills and other evils can be supported with a tsk tsk. We are pro life, but we have found proportionate reasons in poverty, war, or being allowed to wear a red shirt on Tuesdays to continue to vote the abortion mills partners into power.

    Not one has taken up a list that we could see that is proportionate reasons to support the holocaust killing of 54 million babies. Not a single one will provide the list that justifies this. At least Hitler did everything possible to hide his evil from the voters until he had full control and was into the war. American today, even Catholics, go and vote for the party of death and will not list what could possibly be what the Church indicates one would need to support this known massive evil of killing 54 million babies. Not one.

  42. No, I don’t think they would speak in favor of those issues.

    But lets see who did speak in favor of them, voted to keep them, and fought a war to stop attempts to end them..

    Democrats for 150 years fought a massive war to keep blacks slaves, from voting, from having laws passed to stop their terror wing of the party the KKK. So as far as slavery and racial segregation richard, there is 150 years or more of this evil on that party.

    Guess who spoke about ending the war crime trials. You got it, the left wing nut jobs.

    Guess who gave this country every war we have been in by being in power and if not in power voted for it and voted to fund them? You got it, Democrats. Name what you would call a Republican war started without democratic strong votes in congress to approve it and fund it? Your guy Obama has used military in Libya and increased strikes in Pakistant and increased troops strength in Afghanistan and pretty much kept with the W. Bush withdraw plan in Iraq with minor changes. he also still has Gitmo open. But if you want to try to make war a Republican issue, please start to provide some lists.

  43. What was denomination specific about these prayers? I guess you could say they don’t include atheist who love abortion mills killing babies. I would bet that these views are held by most religions of the country today. Yes, some have changed thier tune on gays, but the majority of religious of all denominations have issues with these issues. If they do not, they are seeing those in their pews growing smaller.

  44. You go, mom!

  45. I should note that she’s not my “mom” in an actual but more in an inspirational sense.

  46. naturgesetz says:

    Nonsense. All we are saying is that there is a time and a place for everything.

  47. naturgesetz says:

    A prayer in some provincial German legislature would not have mattered. What would have helped would have been a united front of the German episcopacy against the evils of Nazism, such as we are seeing, finally, in the American episcopate against the violation of religious liberty.

    The prayer in Kansas is unlikely to have converted any hearts; it may have hardened some. What we need is effective catechesis of the faithful to stand up for what is right, not priests throwing stink bombs.

  48. naturgesetz says:

    The problem is that for a lot of people it is a matter of feeling good because we have been in other people’s faces with the truth. They don’t care one whit whether the bold proclamation actually does any good. All that matters in that they can consider themselves holier than those others because they have said something. Eric Voegelin identified it as an error of liberalism that they considered statements to be action. This liberal error pervades out culture to such an extent that even orthodox Catholics consider it more important to make statements than to consider pragmatically what will actually have a good effect.

  49. Catholics have two options on the Mass. (Actually they have more than that). Each person can decide what they prefer.

  50. Irish Spectre says:

    You make it sound like the man gave the legislature a treatise on transubstantiation or something!! The ideas of traditional marriage, anti-abortion and religious freedom are simple civil rights.

    If you are a Catholic, you really need to stop allowing the mainstream media to govern the template of your profoundly simplistic way of thinking.

  51. “I have been griping that Latin is becoming isolated in the Extraordinary Form. It must not be. It must be used all the time, everywhere, in the Ordinary Form.

    The language of the Latin Church’s worship is Latin. What does it mean for our identity if we don’t use Latin?”

    The above is from Fr. Z on March 19, 2012. It sounds like he wants to eliminate the Mass in English. I do not agree.

  52. Richard Johnson says:

    Interesting, Mark, that you would take my disagreement with Manny to mean that I somehow am a supporter of Obama (I have never voted for him, and never will), that I am a Democrat (I have never been, and will never be) and that I am somehow connected to the KKK, which I am not.

    As for opposition to the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, your clear ignorance of history outshines your tribalist approach to the issue. Certainly there were Democrats who opposed the trials, but they were joined by staunch Republicans of their day, including Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone. But of course, we can’t let facts prevent a good rant from taking place, now can we. No, it’s better to be partisan than factual in one’s criticism, and thereby allow jackassery to be the hallmark of such discussions.

  53. Richard Johnson says:

    54 million deaths, and yet you still support the Republican Party, Mark? Why? What substantive move did they make during their many times in power since 1973 to actually advance the HLA? Yes, the Democrats did nothing, and were blatant in their disregard for the unborn, but other than the tokenism of the PBA ban what has the GOP done other than convince the gullible that they take the pro-life issue seriously?

  54. Well said.

  55. Mark, I’m not debating political positions nor will I do so. I’m talking about philosophical first principles, and it is unreasonable to expect the Holy Father, for his part, to do otherwise. If a priest chooses to make a statement to resonates positively with what the Holy Father has said as the Vicar of Christ on earth, I would expect faithful Catholics to recognize that connection. We may disagree on one or another point, but it is the family we have chosen to be part of.

    God bless

  56. Mark Greta says:

    Richard, you are kidding me right? “, the Democrats did nothing, and were blatant in their disregard for the unborn”

    Why is it every time there is a nomination to the court, the pro life groups work with the Republicans to try to get a Supreme Court justice through and every time the abortion mills work with the democrats to try to block anyone who might not fully support the aborton mills onging desire to continue their murder of innocent children.

    The pro life groups watch every vote by every person in congress and the white house. Democrats are about zero and most republicans continually are rated near the top based on real votes.

    To say the Republicans have not done anything since 1973 is flat our wrong and if it were even partly true, the pro life groups would be all over their case.

    Richard, if you are pro life as some Democrats claim, list those pro life actions of the party? When the few remaining had to vote for the ObamaCare abortion bill, the democrats gave them a fig leaf of exec order which has shown its worth during the scandal of the attack on religious liberty.

    Try to list the things that come close as I asked rather than trying to duck on anything proportionate reason to overcome 54 million murdered infants by the Democratic Party. That is what should be discussed as part of a Catholic debate for those who care about Catholic teaching. I suspect there will be no list just as their really is no reason anyone can come up with that is even close. So those who vote next time do so with the understanding that they are doing so without what the Church gave as its only excuse for supporting the holocaust. At least then there will be honesty that the vote is for abortion and nothing can change it.

  57. Mark Greta says:

    Where does it say anything about your vote or support in my comment. I am commenting on your comment above which seems to suggest this as a left right issue and that the “right” in some ways in not on the correct side of those issues. Only pointing out that the left owns the issues wyou named.

    As to my so called ignorance of history, many on the far left did oppose those trials and even more the sentences. But unlike Stone and many otherswho objected to the method and manner of the trials, those on the left wanted no trial at all. One book on Eisenhower covering tranistion from war years to presidency had a lot about those on the left on this issue and it was the beginning of his decision to become a Republican. I will get quotes and links on this.

    Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone objections were based on two issues. He did not care about the fact that the winner in war often made the loser pay, he objected to it being given legitamcy as a court where there was no precedent. He believed that the correct legal court to handle this type of issue was a military tribunal as was set up in the Pacific. His reasoning is that the military often has a better understanding of wartime issues and chain of command. During the Nuremberg trails, many of our military in fact gave supporting evidence on military personel being tried and they also thought the setup of the civilian court was very wrong.

    His other reason had to do with internal politics on the Supreme Court. FDR, as he was prone to do, had dangled the Cheif Justice position to Justice Jackson to try to move him more in line with other new deal Justices. When he then appointed Stone as Cheif Justice, it then involved the court in controversy that was already tense over the Hugo Black issues with Justice Jackson. When Stone died, both Black and Jackson had developed a deep hatred and both informed Truman that they would resign if the other was named. Truman named Vinson instead.

    Next time you grab a name from Google, try to dig a little deeper and maybe next time don’t accuse the other of not knowing history. I have loved history for most of my life and lived during this time of turmoil.

    So you are wrong in total first on what I wrote and second on you charge of my being historialy incorrect when you had your head buried in goggle. Just a word of advice. google is wrong about as often on history as Wikipedia.

    As as for Will, you comment well said shows what you know as well.

  58. Mark Greta says:

    And the time for a religious prayer that brings up issues like the holocuast of babies which the politicians have a role in is not the time for this to be brought up when given the opportunity by a Catholic priest?

    Sorry, but to not speak to this issue when you have the opportunity is far worse than maybe offending those who prefer moral issues be isolated from poltical life.

    I think people need to get used to the new JPII priests speaking out on these essential moral issues of our time. We cannot let the Church be silenced to the altar of secular atheism.

  59. Mark Greta says:

    My poiint DcnDon is that there is nothing in what the Pope said that in any way tie his concern for the poor to actions to help the poor as big government socialist style solutions. So when someone is making a point that the left or democratic side is more concerned for the poor, it is flat out not true. If they say instead that they are in favor of socialist style big government soultions for poverty, then the Catholic position would part way with them as neither JPII or Benedict XVI would be in support of that any more than the support liberation theology.

    Church teaching is often hijacked when it takes the Catholic teacing on helping the poor and translates it to government action as the solution. I think that this point should begin to be challenged by all Catholics based on the huge negative impact it has had on the poor since the big socialist government concept was developed as a solution. In fact, taking a fraction of those dollars and putting them in the hands of private groups such as Catholic Charities or others would do far more for the poor. the other solution would be for the government not to take the trillions in the first place and encourage donations to help fight poverty by groups with the tools to make a real impact on the poor. That would be far closer to Catholic teaching and therefore is much more in line with the Republican Party program suggestions over the years.

Leave a Comment