Slugger O'Toole

This user has not yet written a description

Latest comments from Catholic Observer (see all)

Catholic Observer has commented 7 times (0 in the last month).

1. Comment on The Fighting Irish feud over Obama invite
   on 1 April 2009 at 12:36 am

   I staunchly opposed both the Iraq War and the extraordinary rendition programmes, but the Catholic Church [url=http://sspx.org/against_sound_bites/capital_punishment.htm]does not teach[/url] that the use of death penalty is sinful, at least when done judiciously.

   “3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

   [url=http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/apr/050419a.html]Worthiness to Receive Communion[/url], Congregation of the Doctrine for the Faith

   Go to comment

2. Comment on The Fighting Irish feud over Obama invite
   on 31 March 2009 at 10:55 pm

   March 26, 2009

   Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C.
   President, University of Notre Dame
   400 Main Building
   Notre Dame, IN 46556

   Dear Father Jenkins:

   I have just learned that you, as President of the University of Notre Dame, have invited President Barack Obama to be the graduation commencement speaker at the University’s exercises on May 17, 2009. I was also informed that you will confer on the president an honorary doctor of laws degree, one of the highest honors bestowed by your institution.

   I write to protest this egregious decision on your part. President Obama has been a pro-abortion legislator. He has indicated, especially since he took office, his deliberate disregard of the unborn by lifting the ban on embryonic stem cell research, by promoting the FOCA agenda and by his open support for gay rights throughout this country.

   It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician.

   I hope that you are able to reconsider this decision. If not, please do not expect me to support your University in the future.

   Sincerely yours,

   The Most Reverend John C. Nienstedt
   Archbishop of Saint Paul and Minneapolis

   Go to comment

3. Comment on The Fighting Irish feud over Obama invite
   on 31 March 2009 at 3:08 am

   Obama has already overturned the Mexico City Policy and supports the so-called Freedom of Choice Act which would overturn all state-enacted restrictions on abortion and partial-birth abortions. It could also coerce Catholic hospitals into providing them. He is also attempting to overturn Bush’s Conscience Protection laws which help protect the consciences of pro-life workers. It is absolutely disgusting that a self-styled Catholic university would choose to honour such a man and yet another tragic consequence of Land O’Lakes.

   Go to comment

4. Comment on The Fighting Irish feud over Obama invite
   on 30 March 2009 at 11:48 pm

   http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otr.cfm?id=4962

   Go to comment

5. Comment on The Fighting Irish feud over Obama invite
   on 30 March 2009 at 10:47 pm

   Rice is just another disgrace on top of a [url=http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.org/SearchCatholicColleges/BostonCollege/tabid/126/Default.aspx]very long list[/url]

   Go to comment

6. Comment on “in the absence of a regulated system of transfer..”
   on 30 March 2009 at 10:34 pm

   [url=http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/03/sort-out-reformation-for-me-would-you.html]I might give similar advice to the Lord Chancellor[/url]

   Go to comment

7. Comment on Unionists and Monarchy
   on 30 March 2009 at 12:15 am

   Very interesting piece Turgon.

   Perhaps the reason why many fundamentalists might be ambivalent about the concept of monarchy is that it has historically been associated with the High Church wing of the Established Church, often accompanied with support for episcopal polity and a more Catholic ecclesiology. Queen Elizabeth and James I believed that abolishing bishops would undermine the rule of monarch. Presbyterianism, by promoting a vertical ecclesiology seemed to negate the very concept of monarchy. Indeed I remember a certain Ian Paisley lauding the Scottish Covenanters in their battles against King Charles I.

   Paradoxically the most ardent monarchists I have ever encountered was among some Traditionalist Catholics. This was especially the case in France, where virtually all Traditionalists I met were monarchists, usually supporting the Legitimist pretender, Louis XX. Monarchism, with its belief in a hierarchial social structure, was deemed to more consonant with a Catholic social order than republicanism, perhaps informed by the fact that republicanism in France was historically very anti-Catholic.

   There was once a rather bitter dispute a few years back in an SSPX church in Edinburgh where after High Mass the French priest went on chanting the prescribed Prayers for the Sovereign. Some members of the congregation walked out in anger and later informed the priest that those prayers were not traditionally said in Scotland. But the priest refused to back down, and insisted they be said. However this later changed and it is presently the case that these Royal prayers are said in High Masses in Glasgow (where the Catholics are mostly of Irish descent) whereas they are not in Edinburgh (where the Catholics are mostly ‘natives’).

   Go to comment