Blasphemy? Heresy? Apostacy? Schism?

I have no idea as to the correct label for this article by no less than a Kennedy. We no longer look to the Kennedys to be our premier example of Catholicism. This article is why Jon Boehner and other Catholic Republicans have to speak out on the Dems' attempt to "own" Caritas in Veritate as the moral foundation of their statist agenda. The liberal pro-abortion Catholics in America regard Obama as their pope. They are set for schism, at least in spirit, I'd say. This article was published before the meeting between Obie and Benedict XVI and thus is unaware of the moral formation that Benedict XVI put on Obie with Dignitas Humanae. Benedict and George W Bush clearly had a mutual regard for one another and W had a great profound respect for Catholicism. While certainly many politically conservative Catholics worked hard to justify Bush's policies as being in line with Catholic morality, not all were, eg, Iraq war. But the politically conservative Catholics were never so bold and indecent as the Dem Catholics have been particularly this week and at the time of the Notre Dame speech. The goal of Obie, some say, is to separate the faithful from their shepherds. Now, the ultimate separation is articulated: the Church in America from the Holy Father. American Catholics are to follow instead Barack Obama--young, inexperienced, lacking an understanding of American, Catholic and world history--whose personal experience as a Christian is limited to black liberation theology and whose associates throughout his life have primarily been marxists and anti-American-ists. While certainly, Catholicism is not so much pro-American, as if America is always just, right and perfect, it is not anti-American either. That describes the Catholicism of Robert Ellsberg, Orbis book writer, whose All Saints chronicles many Catholics whom he considered "saintly" in their lives, which is fine. The book, however, centered on many Catholic ordained and lay, and other, missionaries to Latin America who came to embrace marxism as the way to save the poor, indigent peoples. That same book put down Paul VI's Humanae Vitae as being a disapppointment.

Barack Obama, inadequate to lead the Free World, is to be our American Pope. Shame on Mrs. Kennedy Townsend. A couple of excerpts from this 2 pager:

Tomorrow Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama's controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama's appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.

In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.

It's fitting that Obama's visit comes just days after the publication of "Charity in Truth," a Vatican encyclical that declares unions, regulation of capitalism's excesses, and environmentalism to be ethical imperatives. The document gives moral credence to Obama's message and to progressive politics writ large.

*****

But there they part ways. Politics requires the ability to listen to different points of view, to step into others' shoes. Obama might call it empathy. While the pope preaches love, listening to the other has been a particular stumbling block for the Catholic hierarchy (as it is for many in power). The hierarchy ignores women's equality and gays' cry for justice because to heed them would require that it admit error and acknowledge that the self-satisfied edifice constructed around sex and gender has been grievously wrong. Before he became John Paul II, Karol Wojtyla had a telling all-or-nothing formulation: "If it should be decided that contraception is not an evil in itself then we should have to concede frankly that the Holy Spirit is on the side of the Protestant Churches."

That attitude has resulted in some heinous decisions. Most famously, in the lead up to the encyclical "Humanae Vitae" in 1968, an advisory body of theologians and laity empaneled by the pope advised that the church should reverse its position on birth control and concede that the issue should be a question for morality and for science. But authority—not truth, not love—prevailed: Pope Paul VI, listening to the advice of Wojtyla, disagreed with the majority of these advisers, who had voted 69 to 10 for change, fretting that to change this position would weaken his authority.

In the same vein, American bishops in the 1970s struggled to produce a paper that would address the concerns of women. After nine years of effort, they gave up. Why? According to Bishop P. Francis Murphy, bishops see themselves as "teachers, not learners: truth can not emerge through consultation." Pope Benedict, having lived in the safety and security of the Vatican for much of his professional life, is part of this culture that silences dissent. (His last job was as the enforcer of doctrine.)

*****

She wants to set morality by polling. Her claim about the Church's "disdain (if not disgust) toward gays" is libel and could be open to a defamation lawsuit if the Church or a bishop felt so inclined. Heck, the way the courts are, the Church would lose. We are in a terrible fight for our faith in America, folks.

Yet polls bear out that American Catholics do not want to be told by the Vatican how to think. Despite the rhetoric of love and truth, the Vatican shows disdain (if not disgust) toward gays. But 54 percent of American Catholics find gay relationships to be morally acceptable, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. Meanwhile, against all scientific evidence and protestations from clergy on the ground, the pope claims that condoms aggravate the spread of AIDS. Seventy-nine percent of American Catholics disagree, according to a 2007 poll by Catholics for Choice.
****

All the polling she cites and the desire to follow Pope O is evidence that a good chunk of the American Catholic populace is simply not Roman Catholic. The Church hasn't changed or moved; they have.

Hey, how will the protestants, Jews, atheists, Hindus, etc., feel about the US pursuing a Catholic governance policy? Alinsky extensively used Catholics to pursue his agenda, recall