-
Website
http://www.americablog.com/ -
Original page
http://www.americablog.com/2008/12/calif-priest-tells-obama-supporters-to.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Rob Mule
3337 comments · 78 points
-
Steve_in_CNJ
3119 comments · 727 points
-
tlsintx
4299 comments · 283 points
-
Indigo
5434 comments · 587 points
-
John Aravosis
2689 comments · 933 points
-
-
Popular Threads
-
Obama admin's OPM, headed by a gay man, reportedly blocks lesbian from getting health benefits
10 hours ago · 62 comments
-
A criminal conspiracy of pedophilia called "the Catholic Church"
11 hours ago · 41 comments
-
Carmela vs. my nephew Anthony
3 hours ago · 8 comments
-
Is it time to abolish the filibuster?
14 hours ago · 41 comments
-
Obama, African-Americans, and gay marriage
14 hours ago · 39 comments
-
Obama admin's OPM, headed by a gay man, reportedly blocks lesbian from getting health benefits
Ratman is nothing more than a very bigoted, warped, twisted, vile, hypocritical old man, greedy for power, wealth and the good things in life. He has lied repeatedly, and apparently does so as easily as Bush. The bullshit about the homosexuals being to blame for the child molestation scandals. I had a coworker who was raped and her priest was not a gay. Ratman also lied when he said that condoms don't prevent AIDs or pregnancy. I am very puzzled about the behavior of his Cardinals. Mahoney was a very good liberal bishop, but when he was appointed Cardinal, he instantaneously flipped and supported California Proposition 187. While he has moved left slightly on immigration, he has lied, and concealed evidence and continues to do so in the child molestation cases and about homosexuals.
This current priest's motivation is racism since he kept his mouth shut when Kerry was running and that is very crucial as Kerry was an active Catholic. He also has kept his mouth shut about the child abuse scandals another very, very obvious hypocrisy.
PS: always run spellcheck on new post. :)
Even my parents now regret sending us all to Chatholic school. It is detrimental to a childs growth.
Fully half of the Brothers that taught at my high school were dating students at the time. After coming out in my 30's in DC, I ran into many of my my classmates, who quite unintentionally and independently corroborated each other's stories.
The tragic first...Two molesters, a priest running the extracurricular Outdoors Club (enjoy the fun of a camp out with a sex predator) and a brother coaching the swim team bore moral if not criminal responsibility for the later suicides of two boys I knew. Both molesters had years on the job to prowl to their heart's content so there are likely many other victims...I know the priest I've mentioned was tangentally involved in court testimony during our area's Diocese-wide abuse lawsuit.
The high camp during my 4 years culminated in a brother who arrived in my junior year.
This guy had a peroxide blond pompadour, a pudgy Liberace-like face, a high, light voice and sharply pointed, manicured fingernails...oh, and he played the organ...insisted on it actually...at school events previously organ-free…Oh, and he loved to wear big white cardigans. I swear I'm not kidding. I'm unaware of his sexual proclivities but, if any, they had to be beauts.
Actually that is a very sad story...horrible that this occurs.
But you know, the worst thing a Catholic school girl could do was bleach her hair and start smoking. Of course our parish was largely Italian, so it turned their hair a sinful orange. I was so blessed being a dirty blond.
Not that I care...but the hypocracy of course is why I mention it.
I [and all my siblings] was raised as a Catholic and attended 12 years of parochial school, lo' those many years ago. This Thanksgiving, - though I love my family - I was shocked to hear the white anger (things like "Our 'bama") and the hypocritical complaints that mimic the leitmotif being display by Fr. Illo.
http://wonkette.com/404640/prepare-for-gay-inva...
Be Afraid....VERY AFRAID.
Seriously, enough of the hypoctritical bullshit. They want to get into it, fine, you lose the tax exempt status. Simple as that.
Its really a shame that there continues to be these bigots in a position of power, however, christians tend to believe there is evil all around us and this type of thing simply helps to substantiate that belief...
Seriously.
Their goals are to gain approval through a supreme court decision allowing them to preach politics from the pulpit and in a greater goal, to form their own lobbying organizations and still maintain their tax exempt status...
They're not called mega churches for nothing... these churches will become the new union halls and they will seek the same political clout that unions used to wield..
By the way, why is it that those who claim to embrace Christianity have an almost religious faith that the sin of Greed will make all things work to the better?
Perhaps, by extension, Lust will hold families together, Anger will serve our international interests, and Pride should be our diplomatic stance.
And let's let the lower classes be satisfied with Envy and Gluttony.
Three major extremist religions who are extremely dangerous and need to be DEPROGRAMMED before they kill all of us?
A. Al-Qaida - Taliban - muslim extremists
B. Talibangelicals - christian extremists
C. Zionistas - jewish extremists
There are some really good people of all those faiths who aren't insane and work to make people's lives better instead of LIVING to DIE in some kind of jihad.
Not saying that what this priest said was OK - it was idiotic (and against church doctrine) , but it's hypocritical to decry the GOP punditry's latching on to the screeds or quotes of every moonbat lefty as evidence of the intentions of "the left" (Ward Churchill anyone?) and then turn around and bash the whole of the church and therefore all parishioners. I expected better here. *sigh*
Oh well, turning the other cheek I guess -I hope you all have a lovely day and God Bless you,
Sorry, me thinks your own bigoted frock is showing.
"We" do not sit by in silence anymore when people of authority, such as this priest, claim dominion over his flock. This is a new day and you may call it what you will, but we will not remain in silence anymore whilst watching our rights or the persons we voted into office be soiled by some sore-loser of a priest. He and others of his ilk hold no authority over myself and many of us. His parishioners who voted for Obama should protest by cutting off their funds to the collection plate and replace them with notes as to why. They should question him why he turns his back on adulterers or divorcees going to his parish. We do not pick and choose what we want to say and ignore other rules and regulations. They should consider going to a different mass, unless this priest does them all, then perhaps, they should switch parishes. He's welcome to his own demons but he shouldn't use his position to punish others for their freedom to choose which person they want in office.
In terms of this particular incident. What's wrong with reporting this?? Nothing. If this priest is going to rant and rave like this, then he should shout it from the mountain tops and own it, and be proud of it. The problem is, if he does this- about 85 percent of the public will think he is completely nuts. So don't blame us for posting this story.
Every law, every social norm is built around YOU. As a gay person in this country, we have to constantly monitor ourselves, keep ourselves in check because of the attitudes of people like this priest spouting this type of nonsense. If this priest is going to say this type of stuff, we have the right to call him out on it.
We are tollerant of what ever he believes, he is protected by the constitution to not be persecuted for his religious beliefs. Sadly I am not afforded the same rights, or consideration that we give other groups.
Try being a gay kid subjected to years of verbal, mental and sometimes physical abuse in grade school and later. Then get back to me on your 'tolerant' comment.
It is a common tale in the Catholic church of abuse. Turn the other cheek? Many of these people should be in jail. Give me a break.
The Pope is infallible on issues of morals and faith. It is Catholic doctrine to be as extreme in their beliefs as they are. The problem with Catholics in the U.S is they think they can be 'caffeteria catholics' and pick and choose which doctrines by which they abide.
There is no wiggle room here. You either take all of the pope and catholic doctrine, or none of it. It's been that way for nearly 1700 years.
The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. And if the followers sit idley by and watch this insanity go on, then they are guilty whether they believe him or not. They can choose not to go.
I was raised Catholic, and one major cultural difference here is the Catholics tend to put their head in the sand when problems arrise, as if they don't exist. No one is gay, no one can get an abortion, in any circumstance. No kids were, or are being abused by priests. Well my friend it is happening and the Catholic church act like accomplices by virtue of their silence.
Quit making excuses for people like this priest. And yes, we should not generalize....but when the doctrine comes from the top, and no one does anything and there are patterns of abuse and extremism rampant in the Catholic church, I think we have the right to discuss it.
The big question is if the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility was ever itself declared infallible. Papal infallibility was only declared through the Sacred Magisterium of the First Vatican Council in 1870, and at the time Pope Pius IX worried that infallibly declaring himself infallible would sound just too tacky.
Fr. Illo's perspective is not the first instantiation of politics into the pulpit since the election. Reverend Jay Scott Newman in SC did the same thing recently and the examples were common during John Kerry's campaign. So, there is ample [and likely statistically-significant] evidence to support the contention in many of our posts that this is an institutional perspective (Catholic League, anyone?). Ergo, these instances are not moonbat Catholics ... it is systemic. The point that many posters here are trying to make is that Fr. Illo isn't some rogue element and the Church should be called on it. Also, the posts here reflect the history of abuse that the Church has perpetuated.
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bisho...
While that may seem like splitting hairs to some, the fact remains that the Catholic Church's position is that abortion is a serious sin. That said, it understands that it is not the only issue for a voter's consideration. It's a sensible position that balances faith with the complex mix of policy choices at stake when electing an official.
Illo--and any others like him--have clearly gone off the reservation.
Priests like this one are making it up as they go along: why haven't they spent the last 8 years condemning the inaction on the part of the Bush Administration? ---- Hypocrites, all.
So, just to review, Mr. PAULinDC's point can be considered valid if he is Roman Catholic, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, .Succession of Utrecht, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, Armenian Catholic, Greek Uniate Catholic, Alexandrian Catholic, Antiochian Catholic or Chaldean Catholic. Otherwise we must reject Mr. PAULinDC's viewpoint as invalid, which is a real shame because I think he is spot on.
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a225/cokebott...
As my ol mama used to say: Turn the other cheek, but keep in mind you only have four of them. If someone keeps hitting after that, hit back, HARD.
http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/
"Excuse me Father, is there a time difference between the Vatican City and the rest of Italy?'" My buddy, without missing a beat, replied,
"Yes, madam, about 800 years."
I nearly pissed myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4
vows, married a nun, and they have seven kids.
the Vatican collections...OMFG...male on male porn etchings of cardinals
with little boys, diaries of Papal Nuncio's gay sexual proclivities. How the
hell they ever let me in there to do my research I will never know. Danny
made some connections for me at the time. As Bette Davis would say, "Who do
you have to fuck to get out of this movie?" To which a co-star would say,
"The same person you fucked to get the part." You do the math. But that
library was really a horn maker...some of the best gay historical porn I've
ever seen. Look up Thomas Rowlandson on the net...then imagine his work
using only men.
It's a small but elaborate, elegant 18th C room in the bowels of the Vatican
Libraries. It houses all sorts of cool shit. My musicological research led
me there because of a very obscure Roman 17th Century composer. He'd been a
household musician to a Cardinal Montaldo. Danny got me permission...it was
not easy...to get into the library for ONE HOUR. Well the little
queen-priest running the show took a fancy to me. Needless to say I got to
return several times...ahem.
little efficious faggot priest or prelate was making sure I did not touch
anything other than my work. I did manage to sneak in a tiny spy-style half
frame 35mm camera and took pictures of the manuscripts I was looking at and
a few other tasty tidbits. Sort of a microfilm camera. I lost those films
twenty years ago somewhere in a move or during my divorce. They may have
wound up in a box full of research materials I donated to Yale...some poor
bloke in the library there probably got a boner lookin at them...ROFL...the
one thing I really remember vividly was the gay porn by Rowlandson. It was
awesome shit.
Just got back from the grocery store bearing the hubbie's Bulgarian culture buttermilk. I keep telling him it has nothing to do with Bulgaria. I told him it's just a bunch of germs, but he won't listen. He thinks it's exotic.
Well, now must set up for dinner, and then it's a thrill-packed evening of TV. We're thinking about starting to watch the evening news during dinner again, but we're nervous that they may still inadvertently show Bush while they're doing a story on the real President, id est Obama. Maybe we'll wait a few more weeks.
Nite nite!
I particularly like the article below for the headshot, in which Fr. Illo looks gayer than a treeful of parrots. Not that there's anything wrong with that; I wonder, however, if Fr. Illo's highly principled beliefs extend to denying communion to closeted priests...
http://www.modbee.com/1618/story/516763.html
ding ding ding ding
He is gayer than a pink easter bunny, truly. No doubt about it.
We have a friend who is still a priest. When he visited us last year he told us about masturbating for the first time in his life at the age of 62. He's a very kind and intelligent man, and very open - with us, at least. He honestly doesn't know if he is gay or straight. He has spent a lifetime divorcing himself from his sexual feelings. He went straight into the seminary at an early age, and has been playing by the rules ever since. He has no idea who he really is, and I'm amazed he was able to allow himself to explore sexuality at all. The Church has created the perfect environment for confused, sexually repressed in the extreme priests to wreak havoc upon themselves and others.
If the churches and the religious right want to interject themselves into politics, then they should lose their tax exempt status.
A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bisho...
The concession that the balance of a candidate's positions outweighs the single issue puts the Catholic Church miles ahead of many other so-called "values voters."
Here's my other problem. The Catholic Church condemned the war in Iraq and called for its end. This obviously meant that to them it was an unjust war. So why didn't the church call for all those Catholics who voted for Bush in 2004 to confess? It just seems like the church concentrates on the issue abortion being the gravest threat to humanity. I'm sorry but dropping bombs on innocent people who are living breathing, functioning human beings who actually feel fear, pain, and misery is a bigger moral problem than abortion. A three year old Iraqi child who sees his family killed in front of him takes priority over a three week old fetus. Its always about the unborn with the religious zealots, its NEVER about the already born. Why?
----------------
You're overlooking the fact that "The Church" hasn't called on anyone to confess here, either; some priest has. As far as the Catholic Church, as an institution, goes, the same standard is applied in both cases: the voter is not morally culpable for the candidate's position.
Overall, the Church's position here, is at least consistent. (Once again, much more than can be said of most "values voters.") The taking of a life is wrong, be it through, abortion, execution, or unjust warfare. That's not the sort of belief that's going to be swayed by individual circumstances like financial burden or abusive relationships.
Insulting as you may find their pronouncements of what is or isn't "evil," that's their doctrine. Just as they didn't shift their opinion on the war simply because it had some measure of popularity (back when it did, anyway), they're not going to, here, either.
Not everyone with a strong opinion is a zealot. In this case, the priest, contravening the Church's own position on the issue, very much is. The Catholic Church, as a whole? Not so much.
1) despite the super-duper prayer teams' best effort in trying to get it to rain, Obama's acceptance speech in Invesco field enjoyed perfect weather.
1a) yet the start of the RNC was delayed due to a hurricane
and too, also 2) Ann Coulter's mouth has been wired shut
I am so bored with these organized religion crackpots. I am so glad I separated church from my mental state when I was 10. When I was 9 my grandma died and when I wanted to quit my communion classes because God did not listen to my constant prayers to let her get better (I was 9), my mom and I were called into a meeting with the Father. He told me that I didn't pray hard enough and that is why she died. I stomped out and never looked back. When I lived in NC I was asked by my coworkers what church I went to. When I told them I don't go to church they were appalled and told me that was unacceptable, everyone had to go to church. After picking my laughing self up off the chair I gave them my most heartfelt true "Bless Your Heart". Some never spoke to me again and it wasn't because of the laughing.
Have any of these reporters checked with his bishop to see what they think?
But the Most Rev. Stephen Blaire, bishop of the Stockton, Calif., Diocese, said he disagrees with Illo. He said Catholics should not feel compelled to disclose how they voted to their priest.
Blaire said Catholics who carefully weighed many issues and settled on a candidate, such as Obama, who was supportive of abortion rights, were not in need of confession. He said confession would be necessary "only if someone voted for a pro-abortion or pro-choice candidate -- if that's the reason you voted for them."
"Our position on pro-life is very important, but there are other issues," Blaire said. "No one candidate reflects everything that we stand for. I'm sure that most Catholics who voted were voting on economic issues.
"There were probably many priests, and I suspect many bishops, who voted for Obama."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/56697.html
Church___State
Church__State
Church_State
ChurchState
ChurScthate
ChSutracthe
CShtuartceh
Illo's position runs counter to the local hierarchy as well as that of the Vatican. The Catholic Church is not attempting some incursion, here, no matter how many silly visual aids you post.
One of these things is not like the other.
Yup, didn't seem fair to a 7-year-old that I'd be sent to hell, if I missed Mass and was hit by a Popsicle truck before I'd had the chance to go to Congession and get that sin wiped from my soul.
Me in pigtails in Hell with Hitler and the Grand Inquistor, I guess.
Also didn't seem fair that little pagan babies went to Limbo, where they'd never see the face of God, for the sin of not having been baptized Catholic.
Didn't make sense then, doesn't make sense now (although the Church has since had second thoughts on their bigoted Limbo.)
Oh, by the way. Hitler was Catholic.