Catholic League Chief ‘Astonished’ By Romney Chick-fil-A Stance
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
The Romney campaign’s decision to duck the Chick-fil-A controversy over gay-marriage appears to have reopened old wounds with social conservatives, who were never fully sold that the former Massachusetts governor would represent their concerns in the marbled halls of Washington.
“This is the most disheartened that certainly I’ve felt looking at this entire race,” said Catholic League president Bill Donohue. He told Newsmax in an exclusive interview that social conservatives will now have to decide whether to sit out the race.
On Friday, Romney told reporters he does not intend to address the controversy that was touched off when big city mayors threatened to punish the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain after its president, Dan Cathy, voiced support for the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.
“Those are not things that are part of my campaign,” said Romney.
Romney’s aides have explained that while the presumptive GOP presidential nominee favors the traditional definition of marriage, he is trying to structure his remarks to keep the focus solely on the economy in order to have the best possible chance of defeating President Barack Obama in November.
Longtime columnist and former GOP presidential candidate Patrick J. Buchanan waded in on the issue Friday, telling Politico that Republicans must push back against gay marriage or risk losing social conservatives for a generation.
“I don’t understand why Mitt Romney doesn’t just get his Secret Service detail and take his press corps down to a Chick-fil-A and show solidarity with these people,” Buchanan said, adding: ” . . . Reagan would have walked right on down there naturally.” [more]
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 17, 2013 5:43
Archbishop clarifies remarks about Cuomo
-
May 17, 2013 5:40
Fr. Gary Meier goes public with clergy experience
-
May 17, 2013 5:37
Predator priests paid to pray for unsuspecting families
-
May 16, 2013 1:56
Cleanup of Bridgeport, Conn., diocese begins in earnest
-
May 16, 2013 1:38
Archbishop Presses Cuomo Over Abortion
-
May 16, 2013 1:26
Deal reached in Catholic lawsuit
-
May 16, 2013 1:13
N.Y. matriarch moves closer to sainthood
-
May 16, 2013 1:07
Alvare talk on women, religious freedom, draws hundreds to seminary
-
May 15, 2013 2:31
US bishops announce 2nd Fortnight for Freedom
-
May 15, 2013 2:15
Black clergy call for abortion investigations, chastise NAACP, CBC for ignoring life issue
68 Comments
Once again Romney displays a stunning lack of moral courage whenever comes to dealing with the so-called “social issues.” Those who voted for McCain are going to learn once more what happens when they go with a lukewarm moderate, which is to say that they will be spit out by those to the right of them. The only thing that MIGHT save Romney is to go with Paul Ryan as his running mate. Otherwise he can kiss his election chances bye-bye.
[...] by Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) and embellished by Benedict XVI in the manner of Scott Lively, Bill Donahue of the Catholic League, Maggie Gallagher of NOM (read here and here), Brian Fischer (American [...]
The only two viable candidates are the only two elected people in U.S. history that signed a health care mandate into law and yet most fail to see how Orwellian this election is. Donohue, who told you Romney was conservative?
Thought this was worth sharing.
• The marital act demonstrates the powerful life-giving love of the covenant in a unique way. All the other covenants show God’s love and transmits God’s love, but it is only in the marital covenant that the love is so real and powerful that it communicates life. – Sex and the Marriage Covenant, Kippley
Thanks for sharing that beautiful thought, Scott.
[...] by Pope Paul VI (1963-1978) and embellished by Benedict XVI in the manner of Scott Lively, Bill Donahue of the Catholic League, Maggie Gallagher of NOM (read here and here), Brian Fischer (American [...]
[...] that social conservatives will now have to decide whether to sit out the race. Continued- http://www.cathnewsusa.com/2012/08/catholic-league-chief-%e2%80%98astonished%e2%80%99-by-romney-chic… __________________ Your socks stink. To view links or images in signatures your post count [...]
People are wicked. That’s why when God says no, people say yes and even Hell yes, because that’s where their nonsense is taking them-straight to Hell. Jesus taught that “For this reason shall a MAN leave his father and mother and CLEAVE unto his WIFE( not spouse-female capable of marriage-look up the Greek and Hebrew and Aramaic word used there and also Spouse-singular not plural) and the TWO ( not three not four) shall become ONE flesh (sexual expression)Why can’t we obey what Jesus said?
Trimelda — here’s the answer to your final question in your post above: because these people are true idiots. More precisely, they are a proud bunch — no humility. They are just like Eve and Adam, thinking they know better than God, and that they can defeat God’s perfect plan.
Just like the Cathy’s chicken sandwiches, marriage (traditional, same sex, arranged, celibate, full connubial, celestial, etc) is always and by definition a matter of individual preference if not fully free choice.
We don’t HAVE to buy, or eat at Chick-fil-A, we don’t HAVE to push back on gay marriage, and we don’t HAVE to vote GOP, none of whom speak with the voice of the Most Holy One.
Not so long ago a black person could not legally marry a white person, or go through the preliminaries like dating or a trip to a drive-in. Times and laws have changed, even though a lotta minds are still in need of an overhaul when it comes to realizing that we are all guests on this planet and need to treat all others with this fact in heart as well as mind.
Good for you Florian
“Times and laws” may have changed, but the fundamental essence of the human person has not. In her wisdom, the churchs ethical teachings rely on much more than the “current events” of a historical period. The NATURAL LAW teaches the wisdom of the TRUE and ONLY definition of MARRIAGE, as that existing between one MAN and onw WOMAN. It will never “change” like the “times and laws”, Thank GOD.
God never changes even though people get disoriented and confused. God made man and women for marriage between one man and one woman FOR LIFE. Common sense provides the obvious biologically. Medically it is also the healthiest… No STDs. This is obvious too. Minds are indeed in need of overhaul but you have overhaul need confused.
Excuse me, does this actually mean anything? What comprises treating one another as if we were guests on this planet? Whose guests? It sounds like a lot of sugary twaddle amounting to the statement, “It’s just mean not to let me have whatever I want.”
Fascinating that you would say that. Look at what the Word of God says: Daniel 7:25 He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.
That speaks about the Antichrist. That’s not good company to keep. And by the way, most African Americans, like me, do not believe that sexual orientation is a civil rights issue. We believe it is a MORAL issue that is destroying our nation and culture.
Trimelda — God bless you, man — this is your Caucasian brother Jim. Many white folk just don’t get it.
Joseph Francis is right…let Romney keep his focus on economy!!!
Love is love and the foundation of a good marriage. The issues is not gay marriages, but why some people would that gay marriage is bad. First of all it is non of your business. second it is the anti-gays are the sexual deviants.
MJF — if we are both in a boat, and you want to drill a hole on the bottom of your side, that creates a problem for me. The stablity of society depends on the stability of heterosexual marriages — so, gay “marriage” diminishes the sacredness of marriage. Empirical research concludes that children do the best when raised in permanent marriages between a man and a woman. Besides, MJF, this is a Catholic blog, did you notice? And the Catholic Church is very clear that it is God’s plan to build society on the bedrock of permanent heterosexual marriages. Why do you come to a Catholic blog and post your clearly heretical positions?
Name caller!
How sweet do you want that wine, Ann?
George Orwell – 1984 – definition of “doublesepeak” – It is a language which makes bad, seem good, the negative positive, the unpleasant seem attractive or at least tolerable. It is a language which avoids shifts or denies responsibility. Language which is at variance with real or purported meaning, a language which conceals or prevents thought.
Catholic Lady — MJF is perhaps the most entrenched, least-reachable person who posts here. It is likely you are wasting your posts on him — but I admire you for trying.
And, Catholic Lady, I can’t remember if you were quoting this stretch of Scripture the other day from 2 Timothy 4: “For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths. But you, be self-possessed in all circumstances; put up with hardship; perform the work of an evangelist; fulfill your ministry.” You are doing that, Catholic Lady. It is stunning, though, that here on a Catholic blog we have so many enemies of the truth.
Who do you, specifically, accuse of being an enemy of truth on this website? I don’t think anybody is an enemy of truth, I think people simply have different opinions of what the truth actually is (not that I’m saying different interpretations are okay, just that this is what the situation is).
I would say Fox News fits that scripture reading quite well – they have been caught in lies time and time again, and yet people still watch them and believe them.
Jim, how do you know that your interpretation of the Bible is the truth, or that Catholic Lady’s interpretation is so wrong?
Man, blag, are you illogical — you who wield the “logic bat.” There is an objective truth; and, if you disagree with that objective truth, you are an enemy of the truth, pure and simple. This is grade school stuff, Blag — you’ll have to get a little more logical if I am going to continue this conversation with you.
Yes, I agree that objective truth exists. All I am saying is that different people have different ideas of what the objective truth is.
I don’t think anybody you mentioned is an “enemy of truth”, it’s just they don’t see the same things as true as what you see as true.
Furthermore, philosophy and theory of knowledge are hardly grade school stuff, so please refrain from implying that I don’t understand grade school ideas. I do; you didn’t understand my post.
It’s also very telling that everybody who you see as an enemy of truth disagrees with what you believe (and, by implication, what the Catholic church believes as put forward in the Magisterium). Just because people disagree as to what the truth is doesn’t mean that they are “enemies of truth” (which I take to mean deliberately confusing people as to what makes sense).
If you truly believe that the Magisterium is true, then I ask for your rational justifications for believing so.
To answer your question, Blag, and to name names, I assert the following are enemies of the truth: MJF; Concerned; Tony; you; Ann; almondwoodturner; Dr. Sarah Dolan; and various others. The following are NOT an enemy of the truth: Michael; Catholic Lady; and Mary.
That is, anyone who disagrees with Jim?
No, dear, anyone who disagrees with the Magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church. I don’t define those teachings — the Church does. I simply say, if Rome teaches it, I believe it, and that settles it.
. . . for you.
Yes, and I’m sorry that’s not true for you and the majority of others who post here on this Catholic blog.
do you think most of the objections come from those who have to deal with emotions and feelings? Emotion is not reliable, and feeling shift like the wind. The Catholic Church has been saying the same things for 2000 years. I cannot for the life of me figure out what all the moaning is about. The ones that have issues with the Catholic Church are just bad Catholics plain and simple.They need to be prayed for, specifically for understanding the truth as the Church teaches and humility and loving the truth when they discover it. Thank you Jim for you faithfulness.
Thank you for your support, Tanya; your faith and simplicity are beautiful.
But to answer your question, Tanya, I don’t think the problem is feelings and emotions; I believe the problem is a hardness of heart, and a fundamental disobedience to God’s plan.
The saga between jim and tony gos on. The way you have Ben and Jerry Ice cream, we have Jim and Anthony Catholism.
I cannot see why people are upset. Mr Romney has on countless time spoken out in defense of marriage between a man and a women. I feel his plan of action to keep his focus on the Economics of our country is right.
Please Mr.Donohue check this information out..Romney was asked two questions .One about Chic fil A. And. One about Michelle
Bachmann..I think he did Mrs.Bachman a lot of good by saying that is not part of my campaign..Check out as to why he did not want to comment on controversial
Issues about her ! Muslem Brotherhood comments that have been in the press about her !
Impressive: I’ve just found another word this website rejects: sxnctxty. Wow, honestly, I think those that designed this web site are working for the devil, as these very good words are excluded; for example, another word for sexual purity that begins with the letter “C”.
Bill Donohue uses the name:Catholic League” by his own choice. He is not part of any Catholic organization in the Archdiocese of New York.
Dr.Sarah A. Dolan
Unbelievable how we major in minors. How about the homeless, jobless, soaring cost of education, lack of control over war guns, etc. etc, etc. How does it change someone’s life if two people love each other and want to be married?
Gay “marriage” undermines the holiness of heterosexual marriage — it mocks heterosexual marriage — and thus hurts all of society, as God intended marriage to be between only one man and one woman, and that for life. Children do not do well when raised outside of this context, as clearly demonstrated in empirical research.
They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Legally speaking, marriage is about a contract between people. Nothing more, nothing less. Contracts can be broken, changed before agreement, amended after agreement, a nullified by one or either party. For the legal definition of marriage, there is nothing that has anything to do with love, god, the Catholic church, Jim, Tony, the Pope, or anything else religious at all.
Denying some people the right to enter in to a contract without having a legitimate, secular reason (eg: one party is not mentally able to understand the requirements of their contract) is discrimination, period.
The religious definition of marriage can be anything any religion says it is, and the law does not care about that. Some religions can support gay marriage in the religious sense, and some can oppose gay marriage in the religious sense – the law does not have any applicability in what religions choose to practice. The closest argument against gay legal marriage I have heard is that it would force religious ministers against their will to marry two gay people or suffer a potential lawsuit. However, in every state gay marriage has passed, there have been explicit exceptions for this situation – nobody is required to marry homosexuals by law anywhere in the US.
The legal definition does not care about the ability to have children, nor about belief in god, or anything else religious. It is explicitly barred from doing so by the First Amendment. The evidence for that is that atheists can get married, people past the age of childbearing can get married, and infertile couples can get married. There is no test to be legally married other than signing the marriage license when you are of sound mind (eg: not drunk or under 18), and not under coercion. That is all gay marriage entails is just that – the ability for two people of the same gender, of sound mind and body (eg: not drunk or under 18), and not under coercion to enter into a legal contract of their own volition.
Children do not factor into the legality of individual legal marriages, whether they are straight or gay, but I will respond to that part of your post anyway.
While single parent households and the GPA of students is correlated, there is a causal relationship you are implying that does not exist. When you account for the household income of two-parent and single-parent households, that factor is far more important in predicting the “success” of children in that household than any other factor. I expect that after that the next correlative factor would be the percentage of parent/teacher conferences are attended by the parent/s. So, while you are correct that children do worse in single parent households than two-parent households, I have heard of studies that show that children of two gay parent households do just as well as children of two straight parent households.
I can produce links to those studies upon request, but Jim, I refuse to do so until you read my insightful and educational post that you haven’t had to time do (you know which one), because you have been so busy posting on other stories on this website.
I hope this clears up the issue of gay marriage once and for all for you. The more you know….
Hey blag, I did respond to your “insightful and educational post” several days ago — and my response was a complete response, addressing all aspects of your post. You’re not taking the time to read my replies, apparently!
My apologies Jim, you did indeed and I had not seen it. Thank you for responding, I have responded to your response.
Hey Jim, if you are really against single-parent households so much, do you support the practice of legal divorce – the undoing of a legal marriage? And would you support laws forcing two people who no longer get along with each other to live with each other to raise the children?
If you don’t support either of those things, then how do you justify that with your stance against single-parent households?
Blag — I do, in fact, support legal changes to make it more difficult and costly for people to end their marriage, especially when children are involved. For example, they could be required to pay a “divorce tax” of, let’s say, $20K, to offset the costs society will bear in dealing with their children’s problems spawned by the divorce.
So people who are already losing a life partner and will only live on half of their previous income will be required to pay more? Wouldn’t that disenfranchise the poor more than the rich? I wonder what the Catholic church says about disenfranchising the poor….
Tough luck for them, Blag — there are consequences in life. If you choose to jump out of an airplane without a parachute, you are going to die. Don’t drag me into your difficulties — I am not responsible for your errors. Jesus Himself holds all of us accountable for our behavior, so you might as well face that reality now, Blag, instead of waiting until your individual judgment by Him.
Ah Jim, what a compassionate soul you are.
That’s called justice, Ann. And, until the election of Obama, people in the USA used to get rewarded for their efforts.
That’s not justice – that’s needlessly punishing people for doing something that is perfectly legal. Why should we punish people for not harming anybody else and doing something that is perfectly legal?
I also don’t think you are following the Catholic church’s teachings on social justice, Jim. Please look into that more.
But, since you’re an Obama supporter, I wouldn’t expect you to understand justice. BTW, if Obama is reelected, I may not be able to buy you any more drinks — I’ll be broke just like everyone else in a socialist economy.
I don’t drink.
you drink ann, everyone drinks or they die
People who vote for Obama can still understand the concept of justice, Jim. Just because people have a difference of opinion with you does not mean that they are less smart or drink. As I have asked you politely before, please stop insulting other people and be nice.
Blag — follow your own proscriptions and quit insulting me, quit questioning my truthfulness in my posts, quit accusing me of being illogical (while offerning no evidence to support that contention).
And blag, you missed some nuance between Ann and I (and in this case, I don’t hold you accountable for that): I have been kidding her about being at a bar, she overhears my conversation with another poster as him and I have our beers, and I offer to buy her a glass of wine. It was just some diversion — I was not in any way implying that those who disagree with me (more correctly, with the Magisterium) have a drinking problem.
Bill Donahue and the Catholic League speaks loud and clear for this Catholic.
And yet you claim that everybody else has a liberal bias. I think you should look up “confirmation bias” and “political polarization”.
Hey blag — do your realize your 5:37 P.M. post, attached by you to my 10:54 A.M. post, had absolutely nothing to do with my 10:54 A.M. post? Look at it yourself, Blag — it’s right there for you and all to see. And you walk around questioning my credibility? Try staying on topic for a change.
I guess you left your “logic bat” home today, didn’t you?
Bill Donohue and the Catholic League does not speak for this Catholic.
what kind of “catholic” are you?
Tanya — I’ll answer for Tony — he is a CINO (even if he doesn’t know it).
Jimmmy take your little catechism, your little soap box and go home. Stop badgering people, especially the Sisters.
I could have sworn there was a little knat somewhere — I did hear some buzzing, I’m sure. When I catch that annoying knat, he will be swatted. Insects irritate me.
Jimmy, tell us more about something you really have no expertise in, like Religious Life, you pontificate about it so much.