Prophets without a prophecy
By Diogenes (articles ) | October 19, 2004 6:10 PM
The advice of Cardinal Martino and Archbishop Parolin, voluntarily offered to US voters, that we be aware of the Church's social teachings, prompts me to ask a question: When one thousand Catholic political leaders met for four days in Bologna earlier this month to discuss the duties of Catholics in the public forum, why did none of the speeches or any of the messages from the Vatican mention abortion? If one wants to be a prophet, it helps to be prophetic.
An appeal from our founder, Dr. Jeffrey Mirus:
Dear reader: If you found the information on this page helpful in your pursuit of a better Catholic life, please support our work with a donation. Your donation will help us reach five million Truth-seeking readers worldwide this year. Thank you!
Our Fall Campaign
Progress toward our final 2013 goal ($21,448 to go, assuming receipt of matching funds):
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: -
Oct. 24, 2004 10:12 PM ET USA
Since when did socialism become the social teaching of the Church. All the politicians can do is take our money (that's theft) and turn it over to bureacrats (that's stupid and wasteful) who spend it on projects that the Federal courts approve of (that's immoral and anti-democrtatic). I do not recall one instance of Christ lecturing to the Romans on how to administer their empire! Ditto for the UN.
Posted by: -
Oct. 21, 2004 7:53 PM ET USA
I am convinced the pro-death media (all of it) cynically choose certain defenders of the Christian pro-life message who many would consider inept, at best. Donohue of the Catholic League and Falwell of the Baptists come readily to mind. Both are qualified to do little but shout and rarely express an serious logic. They make Chris Matthews look like Thomas Aquinas. Judy Brown, Abp Chaput, Abp Burke, Fr. Bill Smith - where are you?
Posted by: Pseudodionysius -
Oct. 20, 2004 11:47 AM ET USA
Not necessarily sinful, not necessarily wilful, not necessarily helpful, not necessarily awful, not necessarily slothful. A question: Does their public statement place them in "contact" with the US electorate? I believe Mark Steyn referred to Kerry as the "not necessarily" President -- a few prelates have now adopted and divided Christ's cloak to assume the mantle of respectability. They have "not necessarily" succeeded.