By Diogenes (articles ) | September 23, 2005 8:17 AM
Mark this one down for the archives. A staff official of the US bishops' conference has criticized Sen. Ted Kennedy by name.
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!
Progress toward our March expenses ($27,157 to go):
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: -
Sep. 23, 2005 8:47 PM ET USA
I wonder if the good Sister has ever chided Kennedy about his support forabortion and partial bith abortion.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Sep. 23, 2005 6:55 PM ET USA
But frjimc, here we're talking about something IMPORTANT: MONEY.
Posted by: Fiducia -
Sep. 23, 2005 11:02 AM ET USA
I'd be curious as to what Bill Clinton's position would be, as he has said on many occasions that his mother was so grateful for the Catholic parochial schooling he had during her struggles with single motherhood.
Posted by: -
Sep. 23, 2005 9:37 AM ET USA
I am shocked! shocked! that Senator Kennedy would oppose Catholic schools.
Posted by: Vincit omnia amor -
Sep. 23, 2005 9:21 AM ET USA
Sometimes it takes a woman to show a man a bit testicular fortitude. God Bless you Sister!
Posted by: frjimc -
Sep. 23, 2005 8:43 AM ET USA
So there ARE some things that can be singled out as being incompatible with the "consistent ethic of life." I'm SHOCKED! The USCCB has consistently maintained that one may only look at a legislator's overall concern for human dignity, not his/her stances on specific issues. After all, isn't that the reason for not publicly denouncing Kerry, Kennedy, Cuomo, et al for their public pro-abortion positions -- because they are "right" on the overall majority of life issues? Seamless garment indeed!