Governor Cuomo’s anti-Catholic agenda

New York Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo will likely run for President in 2016. His favorability ratings are at record highs, he’s led some of the most productive legislative sessions in New York state history and he can deliver an impressive speech – a not so unimportant skill in this day and age.

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo

At this point it’s impossible to tell if he’ll win, but like his father Mario (the Governor of New York from 1983 to 1994) he identifies as a Catholic. Just not the kind that thinks it’s important to live out their faith in public. Or in private for that matter, seeing how he and his first wife Kerry Kennedy divorced in 2005 and he currently shares a home with his live-in girlfriend.

In 2011, Governor Cuomo signed a same-sex marriage bill into law. Now, he’s throwing his support behind legislation that would not only expand abortion access, but could put Catholic hospitals and state-funded ministries out of business.

According to Kathleen Gallagher, the director of pro-life activities for the New York Catholic Conference, Governor Cuomo’s proposed legislation would do away with “parental-notification laws, informed-consent laws, restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion bans of any kind.”

Although Cuomo says the reforms will help usher in a new era of women’s equality, Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Centre, New York sees the bill in a different light.

In an interview with the National Catholic Register, Bishop Murphy argued that when Governor Cuomo says women should have an unfettered right to an abortion because “it’s their body,” he is “espousing a position that excludes God.”

How so? Bishop Murphy responds with a question: “Are we so sovereign over our individual bodies that God the Creator has nothing to do with how we use our bodies? How we respect them? How we care for them?” He continued by pointing out that…

…in a society where everyone’s dominion over his or her body is so absolute, can we ever recognize that there are social relationships without which we cannot achieve a fully human flourishing? We become monads with no intrinsic mutual responsibility to help protect and build up human dignity.

This may seem abstract, but it illustrates what is happening: A false premise, absolute control over my body with no reference to God or neighbor, leaves us each isolated from one another and thus at risk in society. Thus the governor — and any governor or president or political leader — has to step in and arbitrarily define the legal expansion or limits of human actions and human activities.

When asked about the challenges Catholics would face if Cuomo’s plan were to become law, Bishop Murphy responded by saying the following:

This [law] is, of course, a further blow at the freedom of religious practice and a further undermining of the principle of subsidiarity, which is under tremendous attack today.

Practically, it could mean the [state’s] ability to revoke operating certificates or withhold Medicaid dollars from our hospitals, of which this diocese has six on Long Island. There is the risk that the government could extend its control by finding any of our ministries, schools, charities, etc. discriminatory because we cannot support or make references to people to exercise this new “right.”

Programs that promote birth over abortion could be at risk. And, in keeping with my overall concern, it is another blow against a pro-life position, making that position officially “unacceptable” or “bigoted” or “intolerant,” a very strange fruit in our society, where the majority of Americans, however they define it, call themselves pro-life.

To read all of Bishop Murphy’s thoughts on Governor Cuomo’s sinister plan click here.



95 thoughts on “Governor Cuomo’s anti-Catholic agenda

  1. toddyo1935 says:

    His oration is so Hitlerian, it scares me… especially when a Catholic can become so rotten inside and yet have the power to destroy people’s lives.
    The greatest conversions often come from the worst offenders of God’s laws.

  2. Manny says:
    Here is a good article explaining the reasons Cuomo should be excommunicated and giving contact info for his Bishop.

    1. abadilla says:

      If the bishops had the backbone of St. Thomas a Becket, that would have happened already.

  3. Chris R says:

    Religion and politics are not mutually exclusive but it seems that focusing on Bishop Murphy’s primarily religious teachings in a political context only adds confusion and aids Cuomo’s efforts. The proper political pro-life argument in my opinion is that abortion violates children’s God-given inalienable right to life. Focusing on religious teachings in a political context makes people wonder whether elected Catholic officials would criminalize skipping Mass on Sundays if they could and makes it more difficult for Catholics to engage in the public square. In other words, the more helpful response to “her body, her choice” is not to insist “her body is really ours, so it’s our choice” but to point out that when new life begins, that individual human being is equal in dignity and deserves protection. Bishop Paprocki’s articulate defense of marriage is a fine example of how Catholics can more successfully engage in the public square.

    1. Paulspr says:

      Disagree entirely, bishop Poprocki’s “defense” of marriage was offensive and disrespectful on many levels and was roundly criticized. It amounted to little more than a demand that everyone has to follow Catholic doctrine because he said so.

      Poprocki didn’t earn any friends with that one, and in general, Catholics are continuing to burn bridges if we continue to demand that our civil law must be based on Catholic doctrine and deprive others of the right to live by their religious beliefs.

      1. Deker71 says:

        One million French would agree with Bishop Poprocki. Laws should be based upon truths; not emotion.

        1. abadilla says:

          Correct, and the Church’s teaching has not been compromised even by scandals in our Church because one can always argue the point that anyone who practices what he Catholic Church teaches, is absolutely correct.

      2. Chris R says:

        Paul, I sense that you would be highly offended by any reasonable position that protects marriage and children.

        1. Paulspr says:

          Banning gay couples from marriage doesn’t “protect” a single straight marriage or a single child. What it does do is deprive gay couples of the rights and benefits that every straight couple can receive. What it does do is put the children of gay couples at a disadvantage by depriving their families of legal protections that everyone else receives. What it does do is purposefully deprives gay people of the ability to express their love and commitment in an effort to stigmatize and ostracize them from society.

          1. Joe M says:

            Paulspr. In what way does a traditional definition of marriage “deprive gay people of the ability to express their love and commitment”?

            Gay people are free to express their love and commitment to each other now, in every state.

          2. Russell Lewis says:

            Wow, turn your own statement around and it reads, in what way does gay marriage deprive heterosexual people of the ability to express their love and commitment.

          3. Joe M says:

            I never claimed that it does. What is the point of this observation?

          4. Russell Lewis says:

            I was responding to your grossly uninformed sparring partner Paulspr.

          5. Joe M says:

            I misunderstood. My apologies.

          6. abadilla says:

            How many times are you going to make the “same” argument for a position clearly at odds with Catholic moral teaching? Do you think that if you come into CV and proclaim your propaganda over and over again, the Church is going to change its teaching and erased from Scripture the teachings of St. Paul on homosexuality?

      3. abadilla says:

        Gee, we can always count on you to support Catholic teaching! I would not dare put Cuomo and the bishop at the same level. One teaches in the name of Christ with episcopal authority, the other lives a life of scandal as understood by the moral teaching of the Church.

    2. toddyo1935 says:

      Good analysis in my opinion. I think we have to start thinking more that we’re in spiritual warfare, not religious conflict. Please check my post on Americanconservative2conservative Sunday: It gives some pretty solid reasons.

  4. Paulspr says:

    Allowing gay people to marry is not “anti-catholic” as the law didn’t negatively affect any Catholics and actually was supported by a large majority of Catholics. Additionally, it included extensive religious protections that insure that Catholic Curches will not have to recognize or sanction ANY marriages that are contradictory to their religious beliefs.

    It’s hard to understand how a law that simply extended legal protections to gay couple, included religious protections, and was supported by a large majority of Catholics overall, and NY Catholics in particular, could be construed as anti-catholic. I get that you disagree with the law, but that is a far cry for it being “anti-catholic”.

    Misrepresent the truth much?

    1. Joe M says:

      I’m pretty sure that he was referring to Catholic principles. Not Catholic demographics.

      If it truly is hard for you to understand Catholic principles about gay marriage, perhaps you should read the Catechism.

      1. Paulspr says:

        I didn’t realize that treating gay couples unjustly by discriminating against them and banning them from legal rights was a “catholic principle”. It’s certainly not one that I was ever taught during CCD.

      2. Paulspr says:

        I didn’t realize that treating gay couples unjustly by discriminating against them and banning them from legal rights was a “catholic principle”. It’s certainly not one that I was ever taught during CCD.

        1. Joe M says:

          “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the
          gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
          complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

          Do you agree with that statement?

          1. Greg B. says:

            I agree that that is a statement of their beliefs, as ignorant as misguided as they are. But not sharing in those beliefs does not constitute an “anti-Catholic” act.

          2. TiminAL says:

            No Greg, you don’t get it.

          3. Joe M says:

            What “they” are you referring to? That is straight from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The same book translated in multiple languages and made available all over the world for the purpose of instructing people on what Catholic beliefs are.

            Contradicting these beliefs in principle is absolutely anti-Catholic.

          4. abadilla says:

            “But not sharing in those beliefs does not constitute an “anti-Catholic” act.”
            Correct, but to come into a Catholic website to hurl insults at us Catholics for what we believe, is indeed anti-Catholic. We have been defamed as bigots and have been accused of hatred often here at CV for the mere sin of following official church teaching.

          5. Greg B. says:

            “Correct”. Okay, so you agree with my comment and disagree with the entire premise of this blog post. At least we agree on something.

            Now for the new point you raise. CV is not just following the church’s teaching, it’s engaging in political activism. Much of that activism seeks to enshrine Catholic views into the laws that we all live under at the expense of gays and lesbians. It’s political activism that targets the legal rights of gays and lesbians such as civil unions, marriage, adoption, miltary service, and employment protections. The bigot label is accurate, appropriate, and well-earned. It describes the views in which that political agenda is rooted and the words and actions used in attempts to promote, legitimize, validate, and justify it. Look no further than CV’s blog posts, tweets, and the nasty comments left by its like-minded supporters to see that ignorance, bigotry and hatred are the primary motivation for the anti-gay sentiments. Please remember that this is the Internet. This blog and its propaganda are visible to the entire world. It’s not a private conversation in your church’s basement.

          6. Paulspr says:

            I agree with that statement. That doesn’t mean that I think the law should punish gay people because of what I believe. That doesn’t mean that gay people should be stigmatized and denied equal legal rights because of MY religious beliefs. That doesn’t mean that the children that gay couples have adopted should be harmed because their parents are forced to pay more in taxes.

            Lets have an honest debate about the harm that we are inflicting on gay couples when we deny them access to the thousands of legal rights associated with marriage and the harm that we do to ourselves when we use our religious beliefs as an excuse to deny other people their basic liberties.

          7. Deker71 says:

            Gay marriage harms children.

          8. Paulspr says:

            No it doesn’t. Banning gay couples from marriage harms their children though. It puts their children at a disadvantage on purpose.

          9. Deker71 says:

            Gay marriage purposely deprives children of a mother and father. The gold standard for research on the impact of gay relationships on children is the Regnerus study. A study of nearly 3,000 young adult Americans, a University of Texas study found that in comparison with children of traditional families, those raised by lesbian couples had negative outcomes in 24 out of 40 test categories. Those raised by homosexual men had negative outcomes in 19 categories.

            Also read Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View
            by Robert Oscar Lopez

            There’s plenty more studies to back up the damage done by gay relationships on children. That children need a mother and father is just common sense.

          10. Russell Lewis says:

            I’m guessing the part that the AMA and almost every reputable group denounces the validity and credibility of this study was missed by you. The fact that it was funded by a NOM which is “slightly biased and that the study was endorsed by the AFA, another biased group means nothing.

            And pray tell, what were these “negative outcomes” did the children become; rapists (the majority of whom are heterosexual males), pedophiles (need I mention the priests raised in good Catholic homes with good role models. Do they become, gasp, homosexuals themselves… well, heterosexuals can’t throw stones at that, they have been birthing and raising gay kids since… well, forever.

            Children thrive best in a loving nurturing home environment and that environment can be formed from a variety of sources.

            I think the bottom line is, if you and other heterosexuals don’t want gay couples to adopt, you probably should work on the stability of your own relationships and stop producing all the children. As anyone with a soap box will tell us, homosexuals can’t reproduce… so that leaves the onus of producing and brining into the world and raising in a loving environment the “ideal” heterosexual, married, stable couple. And by the numbers of kids waiting to be adopted… that Utopian ideal has yet to happen. Clean up your own house before you tell others how to “furnish” theirs.

          11. Russell Lewis says:

            But, come on, tell us how.

          12. Deker71 says:

            Gay marriage also violates several key principles of reason that form the foundation of civility and justice: complete explanation (data does not support gay marriage), objective evidence (gay marriage is based upon opinion and not publicly verifiable data), nonmaleficence (it harms children), and the principle of natural rights (children have a natural right to a father and mother). No law can be fair without upholding these principles. (Also see my response to Paulspr below)

          13. Russell Lewis says:

            Inane comparisons. You can’t say “data does not support gay marriage” if you have already said “Gay marriage also violates several key principles of reason that form the foundation of civility and justice.” And what does gay marriage being “based upon opinion and verifiable data” even mean. The people in the states where gay marriage is allowed, means it is only the opinion of people that they are married? I would think that marriage license is “publicly verifiable data.” Saying it harms children, your next point, does not make it so. And once again, while I agree that kids should have a mother and dad, the ideal situation doesn’t always work out and a loving family is not detrimental to the child in a way growing up in an institution would be. And of course, if you and others like you would expend as much energy keeping your fellow heterosexuals from making disposable, throw away kids, there wouldn’t be a problem as to who wants to or should adopt kids. And as far as law not being fair… well, that’s just a bogus statement, fair is pretty much in the perception of the person who agrees or doesn’t agree with the premise.

          14. Deker71 says:

            Your arguing on emotion, not facts. “Based upon opinion and verifiable data” means that the best opinion or theory is the one that explains the most data, and that nonarbitrary opinions or theories are based upon publicly verifiable evidence. You need reason and observable data to make valid conclusions – not emotions. Scientific studies (and testimonials from those raised in a gay household) show children do not fare as well as children raised in a heterosexual household. To me, this is just common sense since procreation requires a father and mother. Fairness should not be based on just people’s perception (slavery was perceived to be right). You’re right about the “throw away kids” culture that comes from the pro-abortion culture which gives children no rights. The point I trying to make is that children do have rights – not only before birth but after birth as well.

          15. Russell Lewis says:

            In the seminary, they teach your type of “logic” as circular logic. Makes no sense, doesn’t prove a point when you say something is so, because you say it is. I also think you really need to look up the definition of “opinion” before you use it again. As far as arguing with emotion, bingo you are correct. You are, however, horribly wrong in saying you need reason and observable data to make valid conclusions. I seem to remember a friend of mine debunking that particular line of thinking… I remember his name being Jesus and he was talking to someone else who needed “proof,” his name was Thomas.
            Procreation, as you say, require only a male and female… roles that are radically different from mother and father.
            In any event, I’m probably correct in saying you’ve made up your mind, it won’t be changed no matter what I or anyone else says and it’s futile to even discuss the issue with you further. Let’s just leave this at agreeing about the throw away kids point. I’m sure we’ll have other issues in this forum on which we can lock horns, for a bit.
            Over, out and done with this thread!

          16. Deker71 says:

            Agreed. Thanks for your time Russell. I enjoyed your company. May the Holy Spirit enkindle in you the fire of his love.

          17. Greg B. says:

            That’s a baseless lie. But Catholic Church as a long and well documented history of doing significant harm to children.

          18. Deker71 says:

            The gold standard for research on the impact of gay relationships on
            children is the Regnerus study. A study of nearly 3,000 young adult
            Americans, a University of Texas study found that in comparison with
            children of traditional families, those raised by lesbian couples had
            negative outcomes in 24 out of 40 test categories. Those raised by
            homosexual men had negative outcomes in 19 categories.

            Also read Growing Up With Two Moms: The Untold Children’s View
            by Robert Oscar Lopez. There are other studies and stories showing similar outcomes if you care to look.

            The Catholic church recognizes that it has a problem with some priests abusing children. She has apologized, paid damages, and made significant changes to protect children, more than any other profession, including posting local law enforcement numbers in church papers to report abuse.

          19. Greg B. says:

            LOL, the “gold standard”. Clearly you’re a NOM Blog reader because that’s the silly phrase they use to describe it over there (let’s remember that they paid for this study). Hundreds of researchers and all of the major relevant professional organizations, including the AMA, have overwhelmingly deemed his study to be scientifically invalid. The journal in which it was published launched an internal investigation and essentially determined it was garbage and shouldn’t have even been published. The “gold standard” has completely discredited Regenerus among his peers. Regenerus has been forced to admit to many of the flaws in his “research” including the fact that a study that’s supposed to draw conclusions about same-sex married couples didn’t actually study any same-sex married couples. An anti-gay political organization paid $800K to a biased researcher with a lack of professional ethics to produce “research” that would validate their bigotry. And it blew up in their faces in the most embarrassing way. Invoking it here is just more proof that the facts aren’t in your favor and that your claims about the “harms” of marriage eqiality are entirely baseless and without legitimate research to back them up.

          20. Greg B. says:

            Lopez was not raised by a legally married same-sex couple. Lots of kids have heterosexual parents in less than stable relationships, in less than ideal situations and have lots of issues. Are those stories proof that we should constitutionally ban man-woman marriage?

            At least you admit that the Catholic Church has a well documented history of harming children. The same cannot be said of same-sex marriage. The fact that the church has paid out hush money and has lost civil cases and been forced to pay damages as a result of the widespread abuse that’s happened within its walls and its horrendous record of covering up the abuse is irrelevant and I’m not sure what your point was.

          21. Joe M says:

            Let’s get a boogeyman out of the way here. Nobody is obligated to every legal right that they want. For example, Catholics do not have the legal right to force other people to agree with their religion. Right? Being “denied legal rights” is normal and everyone’s legal rights are already limited in one way or another.

            Catholics don’t have a legal right to force other people to agree with their religion. But, nobody claims that this is a violation of their civil rights. Likewise, gay people (depending on state) do not have a legal right to force other people to agree with their marriage beliefs. That is EQUIVALENT to the status of anyone else holding various beliefs but not having those beliefs enforced by law.

            There are not “thousands of legal rights” that gay couples are missing out on. And they are not being “harmed” any more than I am “harmed” by not being able to collect farming subsidies because I don’t fit the legal definition of a farmer.

          22. Greg B. says:

            “Catholics don’t have a legal right to force other people to agree with their religion. But, nobody claims that this is a violation of their civil rights.”

            You may want to tell that to NOM and CV since their entire “religious liberty” meme is nothing more than that flawed notion haphazardly repackaged in an attempt to make it easier to swallow.

          23. Joe M says:

            How so? What the gay marriage movement wants is using law to force religious people to accept marriages that conflict with their religious beliefs.

            How is that not an infringement of religious liberty?

          24. Greg B. says:

            That’s a straw man, Joe. The marriage-equality movement wants civil marriage for same-sex couples. That’s it. Gay couples don’t care whether religious people “accept” them. When you say that they want religious people to “accept” their marriages, what you really mean is that they want their marriages to exist on the same planet as anti-gay religious people. And when anti-gay religious people say that they’re being “forced to accept” gay marriage, what they really mean is that they’re being forced to live on a planet on which gay marriage exists. When pressed to back up their rhetoric, anti-gay religious people have no choice but to admit that same-sex marriage has no actual impact on their lives. Then they’ll change their tune and say that gay marriage and religious liberty can’t coexist (as NOM’s Chuck Colson has). This proves that the whole “acceptance” excuse for opposing gay marriage is a red herring. It proves that anti-gay religious activists believe that the mere existence of civil marriage for gay couples is an assault on religious liberty regardless of what they are “forced” to do or the level of “acceptance” they believe gay people are seeking from them.

          25. Joe M says:

            If anything is a straw man, it’s you putting words into my mouth and going on and on about what other people “mean to say.”

            You insisting that people mean something different than what they say proves nothing. It only suggests that you are unwilling to address the actual arguments that people have made.

            You and others have claimed repeatedly on this site that gay marriage asks nothing from other people. And it has been pointed out that this claim is false multiple times. I find it difficult to believe that you are not aware of these arguments and naively think that the argument is about not wanting to live on a planet on which gay marriage exists.

            Our laws are full of areas that refer to marriage relationships. Every law that refers to marriage is an example of forcing the people involved to accept the state definition of marriage. For example, if an adoption agency does business in a gay marriage state, they are forced to accept gay marriages for the purposes of adoption.

          26. Greg B. says:

            Priceless! In your attempt to discredit my comments, you’ve inadvertently proven that they are 100% accurate. I would hope that if you read back through our exchange you can see that. But let me know if you’d like me to spell it out for you, I’d be happy to.

          27. abadilla says:

            Of course he does not agree with that statement, yet he once taught in the name of the Church. No wonder we still have so much confusion in the ranks of ordinary Catholics.

        2. abadilla says:

          So, I am correct that once you taught CCD? Amazing, here you are, the most anti-Catholic person on CV teaching CCD! Just amazing!

        3. abadilla says:

          “It’s certainly not one that I was ever taught during CCD.” The more I read you, the more I realized whoever taught you CCD sold you a bill of goods you can called anything BUT Catholicism.

      3. abadilla says:

        Joe, Paul could care less about “The Catechism of the Catholic Church,” the Magisterium, the Scriptures etc. He has one agenda and he will use CV like the energizer bunny to dissenr from Church teaching until the moderators put a stop to it.

        1. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

          J.M.J. So true, Abadilla. Paulspr appears to object to much that comes from the Church. Once, he claimed that he attended C.C.D. classes. I don’t know how old he is, but if he is under 58, then the chances are very great that he never received a true and complete exposition of our Holy Catholic Faith. In my opinion, the time has come for the Moderators, who have been extremely patient with him, to declare: Given that you have repeatedly and persistently–even when corrected–misrepresented the Truth and cast aspersions on many of those who come to this Site, you now are forbidden to post again.

          1. abadilla says:

            Monsignor, I have tried to understand Paul to no avail. If a person says he or she are Catholic and what they stand for is the very opposite of Catholicism, one can always point out the fallacy of his/her arguments. If a person is an atheist or a member of another religion, I’m a bit more patient because I can see immediately he or she thinks he or she knows Catholicism, but he or she does not.
            I was at a meeting today of religious educators and I can see why they are confused themselves, they don’t really believe the faith they are asked to transmit, that is the major problem. As a consequence I heard this lady tell us how she gave an assignment to her class asking the kids to read Obama’s Inaugural Address to understand Christian values. Nowhere did the lady mention the fact that favoring the butchery of the unborn, favoring contraceptives and supporting the H.H. Mandate are simply not Gospel “values.” I was so stunned when I heard her I did not know whether I was coming or going. The lady simply presents to her class her political agenda is if it were the teaching of the Church. I presume this is the type of person who taught Paul and that’s why he is so confused as a Catholic, but if I were to go into a website with my opinions on Catholicism, and people there constantly correct me, at some point I’m going to realize I need to hit the books, the Catechism, papal encyclicals, pastoral letters, the documents of Vatican II, Church History, whatever would help one to be a more informed Catholic.
            I don’t see the moderators doing anything about this problem because I think they just see him as expressing his wrong views and that’s it. I just hope he does not manage to confuse faithful Catholics who come into CV often.

    2. Greg B. says:

      Anti-gay religious people like the Catholics who run CV see the mere existence of anything they oppose as an attack on them. In their warped view of the world, gay people aren’t victims if they’re constitutionally prohibited from marrying or if their existing marriage is forcibly dissolved by law, but Catholics are the victims if they have to live in a world where gay people can marry.

      1. Paulspr says:

        Thank you Greg B for being a voice of reason, truth and honesty. We need more Catholics that are willing to speak up for the truth and to protect gay people from prejudicial treatment.

        1. abadilla says:

          “We need more Catholics that are willing to speak up for the truth and to protect gay people from prejudicial treatment.” You can do so “outside” the boundaries of Roman Catholicism because what you and others express here has absolutely nothing to do with Catholicism when you and others entertain ideas that are diametrically opposed to Catholicism.

      2. Joe M says:

        Can you substantiate any of the claims you make in this comment?

      3. abadilla says:

        “Anti-gay religious people like the Catholics who run CV see the mere existence of anything they oppose as an attack on them.”
        No Greg B it is the opposite, You and Marvin and Paul keep coming into CV throwing as much garbage as you can contradicting every major teaching of the Church and because you can’t and will never win on these issues within the framework of Catholicism, then you insult CV even though you keep coming in here for more CV’s supposedly bias views.

        1. Greg B. says:

          “you can’t and will never win on these issues within the framework of Catholicism”

          Wow! You just don’t get it. We’re debating outside the framework of Catholicism. Please scroll up to refresh your memory about the issue at hand. It’s Cuomo’s position on CIVIL LAW which, as hard as it to grasp for some of you, exists outside the framework of Catholicism. Again – advocating for a law that may conflict with Catholic teaching does not constitute anti-Catholicism any more than supporting a law allowing the sale of pork constitutes antisemitism.

      4. abadilla says:

        “Anti-gay religious people like the Catholics who run CV see the mere existence of anything they oppose as an attack on them.”
        Can you prove your bogus accusation against CV? The very fact that they allow your comments in here shows their extraordinary sense of tolerance. Only Tom responds to insults hurl at CV, the other moderators simply remain silent in the face of incredible venom thrown at CV.

    3. You seem to be along the line of thinking that Catholicism is a democracy and whatever the people want is what is right. This is not the case. Something can still be anti-Catholic whether or not all the people who claim to be Catholic agree.

      1. Paulspr says:

        Our leaders are human and can be wrong sometimes.

        1. Joe M says:

          “Last I checked, the Pope was infallible and Catholic Doctrine came from
          him, not from be Bible. Perhaps you are thinking of another religion.” – Paulspr

          Do you think the Pope is infallible or not?

        2. abadilla says:

          “Our” leaders are not wrong on this one as they have never been wrong on the sacredness of human life, the belief in the Eucharist, the seven Sacraments, their understanding of the Scriptures, etc.

      2. abadilla says:

        Unfortunately he is not alone in his belief the Church is a democracy. Far too many Catholics believe the same garbage even though it is utterly clear the Church is hierarchical in nature, not a democracy.

    4. abadilla says:

      “Allowing gay people to marry is not “anti-catholic” as the law didn’t negatively affect any Catholics and actually was supported by a large majority of Catholics.”
      And here we go again, you beating the drums of dissent again and hoping for conversions, but it ain’t happening!

  5. Marvin Derks says:

    It’s important to recognize that Bishop Murphy’s interpretation of God is his interpretation. There’s no proof anywhere that it’s accurate or inaccurate. It’s simply an interpretation.

    1. Joe M says:

      A) I believe that Bishop Murphy’s position is consistent with Catholic doctrine. Given how many people are also Catholic your observation doesn’t strike me as being particularly “important.”

      B) Catholics believe that one source of proof for their doctrine is the Bible. It’s inaccurate of you to claim that there is “no proof” that the Catholic position is based on the teachings of Jesus.

      1. Paulspr says:

        Last I checked, the Pope was infallible and Catholic Doctrine came from him, not from be Bible. Perhaps you are thinking of another religion.

        1. Joe M says:

          It sounds like you need to re-check.

          The Pope is not infallible in all acts or opinions and the Bible is the basis for much, if not most, Church doctrine. Have you never read an encyclical?

          1. TiminAL says:

            Papal infallibility is only considered in matters of Canon Law and the Doctrine of the Faith. The Pope has said as much only recently when offering opinions outside those that are faith-based.

          2. Paulspr says:

            What else is there?

          3. Paulspr says:

            Where do you find that please?

          4. Joe M says:

            Where do you find encyclicals? Or, where do you find out what ex cathedra means?

            Just Google “encyclical” and you should be able to find them on-line.

            If you want to learn more about Papal Infallibility:

            Or, from the Pope himself: “The Pope is not an oracle; he is infallible in very rare situations, as we know.”

          5. Paulspr says:

            My point being that this doesn’t say what you claimed.

          6. Joe M says:

            What specific claim are you contesting?

            Are you saying that you think everything the Pope says is infallible?

            Are you saying that the Bible is not a source referred to when establishing Church doctrine?

          7. Paulspr says:

            That’s not what you said.

          8. Joe M says:

            I have scrolled up and read. It’s not clear what point you are disagreeing with.

            If you can’t simply explain what your criticism is, I am going to assume that you’re just playing games and don’t really believe that you have a point.

      2. Marvin Derks says:

        In my opinion, it’s inaccurate for you to assume that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is accurate simply because the Catholic Church says so. What other data do you have to support Catholic interpretation except Catholic writings? As an example, what proof do you have that Peter was the first Catholic Pope? Where does Jesus ever mention the Catholic Church? Where does Jesus state that women can’t be Priests or Popes? Where does Jesus say that women don’t have the right to determine when and if they will bring children into the world? Nowhere and yet these concepts are all part of Catholic doctrine. Why? Because the Catholic Church says so and yet there is no proof that any of these doctrines are accurate. Feel free to blindly follow Catholic doctrine but don’t make the assumption that these doctrines are accurate simply because the Catholic Church says they are.

        1. Joe M says:

          It’s inaccurate for you to assume that I agree with the Catholic interpretation only because the Church says it’s accurate.

          The primacy of the Church is a complicated subject. Quite a lot has been written about this and is available on-line. If you want to learn more about that, I suggest that you invest some time reading about it.

          Or, continue making assumptions about something you know very little about. That would be the more convenient thing for you.

          1. Marvin Derks says:

            Was any of this information you mention written by non-Catholics?

        2. abadilla says:

          “In my opinion, it’s inaccurate for you to assume that the Catholic interpretation of the Bible is accurate simply because the Catholic Church says so.”
          Here we go again displaying your ignorance of Catholic teaching. The word “ignorance” is not pejorative at all. I am “ignorant” of sports, period, that refers to a fact of life as it refers to me.

          Marvin, today “all” Christians claim the Bible is God’d word. Nowhere in the Bible does it say so because it was the Catholic Church that canonized those books and told the whole world it is God’s word and the Church officially interprets its own books. Yes, the Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures is correct because it was the Church that put it together to begin with. Unless you are willing to make the argument that the Church that put the Bible together is the same Church that misinterprets her own sacred books. It was the Catholic Church almost two thousand years ago that decided which books were God’s word and which books were not.

          Any historian worth ten cents acknowledges Catholics have enough historical evidence to believe Peter was the first Pope, but the words of Christ suffices for us when He told Peter, “You are Simon son of Jonah, but I tell you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.” Notice, He used the “singular” “My” not “plural” to refer to “His” Church. Only one was founded by Christ, the rest were founded by men with the possible exception of the Eastern orthodox churhes that believe the same things we do but do not follow the authority of the Bishop of Rome since 1054. All other churches have rays of the truth insofar as they reflect Catholic teaching. Jesus mentions the Catholic Church “implicitly” when He told the Apostles, to go and baptize “everyone” in the name of the Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the end of St Matthew’s Gospel chapter 28. Since baptism is the gate of the Church, anyone who was baptized became part of the “Catholic” or universal Church. If you read the words of Christ carefully, you will find that He was not founding a “national” church, a “regional,” church, or even a “continental” church. He founded a “Catholic” or universal Church. ‘Catholic” is Greek for universal. Then in 107 AD in order to make a distinction between those who followed the faith and those who had committed heresy, St. Ignatius of Antioch called Christians “Catholics” on his way to martyrdom in Rome.

          Jesus does not explicitly say anywhere that woman can’t become priests but He chose 12 male apostles and he could have chosen His own mother to be the first priestess but he didn’t.

          “Feel free to blindly follow Catholic doctrine but don’t make the assumption that these doctrines are accurate simply because the Catholic Church says they are.”
          It is “precisely” because the Catholic Church says they are right that we believe them. Even an intellectual giant like St. Augustine said that without the Church’s authority, he simply could not believe anything. Today it is the opposite, many reject Church authority but blindly accept the precepts of secular society, yet, those same folks, believe they are intellectually superior to us, poor Catholics.

    2. abadilla says:

      “It’s important to recognize that Bishop Murphy’s interpretation of God is his interpretation.” No Marvin, a bishop does not speak on his “own” interpretation on anything. That is NOT his job. That is not why the Pope elevated him to the position of bishop. A bishop in communion with the Bishop of Rome teaches Catholic teaching and nothing else.
      But again, you keep opining on things Catholic as if you understood the Catholic Church when, on other posts, you have made it clear you are not Catholic. Imagine how arrogant I would sound if a were to go into a Presbyterian website and pontificate on the teachings of that church, not understanding what presbyterianism is all about.

  6. Joe M says:

    It may be worth noting that Cuomo’s favorability ratings are at record highs… in New York.

    1. Paulspr says:

      I don’t live in New York, and I would absolutely vote for him.

      1. Joe M says:

        That only reinforces my point.

        1. Paulspr says:

          How so? I don’t live in New York and I think Cuomo would be a remarkable president.

          1. Joe M says:

            Where you live is irrelevant to my point. What you believe is more popular in New York than other parts of the country.

            New York doesn’t elect presidents by themselves.

          2. Paulspr says:

            Like what? That gay people should be allowed to marry? The entire country just elected a president who said exactly the same thing and 3 states just legalized marriage equality by popular referendum. More states will pass marriage equality in the next two years.

            You are still relying on anti-gay prejudice to carry your candidates to victory. I think you don’t understand that the country has largely moved beyond these issues and everyday more voters turn 18 and those folks overwhelmingly support equality for their gay, lesbian, and transgendered friends and family members. It’s a new day dawning and anti-gay prejudice and discrimination aren’t part of the future.

          3. Joe M says:

            You are still relying on a baseless accusation to make your argument. As I have pointed out to you, the motive for opposing this change is not “prejudice and discrimination.”

            I’m Catholic. I don’t base my principles on popular trends. It sounds like your religion isn’t Catholic. It’s the Church of Gallup.

          4. Paulspr says:

            Actually it is. I’ve yet to see a coherent reason expressed explaining what important governmental interest is accomplished by banning gay people from marriage. If you don’t have a reason for why you think gay people should be legally banned from civil marriage, then you are basing your decision on the prejudice that gay people don’t deserve equal treatment under our laws.

            Provide a coherent reason for banning gay people from marriage and I might be convinced. So far I’ve seen nothing but prejudice in the comments here. Just see the comments above.

          5. Joe M says:

            You’ve taken this angle multiple times and you have been answered multiple times. There are government reasons and examples have been given to you.

            That you may disagree with those reasons does not make them “prejudice.” And repeating yourself does not add any merit to your case.

      2. abadilla says:

        Of course you would vote for him as “Catholis” in the millions, voted for the most pro-abortion President in modern history.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.