Monday, November 17, 2008
Another of OLL priests becoming too Liberal
Fr. Seagriff:I am not typically one of those parishioners that writes angry letters tothe clergy when they say or do something I disagree with, however, this isan exception. I was at your 9:30 mass this morning (with my three children)and they all walked away asking me the following: ³Why did Fr. Seagriffsay Obama is like Jesus?². Now, two of them are 17 year old Honor studentsand our daughter is an equally intelligent 10 year old. My 72 year oldmother also leaned over to me during mass to ask the same question...she wasappalled! You seem to be playing right into the hands of the white guilt riddenliberal elites; Obama¹s race (of which is only half-African/American) hasabsolutely nothing to do with his ineptitude to be President. Hisliberal/Socialist agenda, his inexperience, his disdain for the military,his politics....these have EVERYTHING to do with why is not qualified tolead this country. And from a Catholic standpoint: ABORTION , he iswholeheartedly PRO-ABORTION. To compare him to John F. Kennedy (who was NOTPro-Abortion) is so absurd that I cannot believe a man of your intelligencewould posture such nonsense. We are too smart to give this poor excuse ofa President a free pass BECAUSE of the color of his skin; he is one of themost liberal senators we have and his positions are wholly UN-Catholic andfor THIS reason alone, I did not vote for him.Just last week at Fr. Mason¹s mass, he referred to Obama as anantichrist...NOT AT ALL because of the color of his skin, but preciselybecause of his ANTI-LIFE politics. To say that politics have nothing to dowith accepting this man as President is ludicrous. The American Bishopsrecognize that politically he can do quite a bit of damage to the unborn.Further, your use of a story about your bigoted father kissing a Nigerianpriest¹s hand was pandering to the wrong audience. Perhaps that Nigerianpriest was Jesus, Barack Obama is not and should never have been compared toHim. Next, you used Abraham Lincoln¹s assassination reference incorrectly.Lincoln was not at all about freeing the slaves; and that is NOT why he wasassassinated. Election to Congress in 1854 and the Mexican War brought theissue of the expansion of slave territory to the nation's attention.Lincoln formed a clearer position on slavery as a result. He was originallyopposed to black equality and had no intention of disturbing slavery inslave states. However, when Lincoln ran for Senate in 1858 against StephenA. Douglas, Lincoln and Douglas engaged in several popular and now famousdebates about slavery. Lincoln was not an abolitionist, though he regardedslavery as an evil. He opposed its expansion and said that he had no purposedirectly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in thestates where it existed. Furthermore, he said that he had no lawful rightto do so and, therefore, had no intention of doing that. He believed alsothat whites were superior (a position I DO NOT agree with). Lincoln saidthat he was not and had never been in favor of bringing about the social andpolitical equality of the white and black races. Lincoln stated furtherthat he was not nor ever had been in favor of making voters or jurors ofblacks, nor letting them hold office or intermarry with white people. AsSoutherners became convinced that the election of Lincoln would besufficient cause for secession, his views on slavery shifted! He now firmlybelieved that if the nation remained divided on the issue of slavery, thenation would not last; borrowing from a statement made by Jesus, "A housedivided against itself cannot stand. I believe that this government cannotendure permanently half slave and half free." Enter John Wilkes Booth, whoin 1864 began developing plans to kidnap Lincoln, take him to Richmond (theConfederate capital), and hold him in return for Confederate prisoners ofwar. By 1865, Booth had organized a group of co-conspirators. The groupplanned to capture Lincoln who was scheduled to attend a play at a hospitallocated on the outskirts of Washington. As is widely known now, thepresident changed plans and remained in the capital, inadvertently ruiningBooth¹s plot against him. While it is absolutely right and true to sayBooth was a racist and Southern sympathizer, it is not right or true to saythat he set out to kill Lincoln because of his position on slavery alone;his original plan was to kidnap him and use him as ransom for hisConfederate brethren's release. When Lincoln spoke from the White Houseto a crowd gathered outside (April 1865), Booth was present as Lincolnsuggested in his speech that voting rights be granted to certain blacks.Infuriated, Booth's plans now turned in the direction of assassination. Iagree with you on only one point, that the assassination of Barack Obamawould be the worst thing to ever happen to this country; the reason beingthat we would surely find ourselves in a different type of civil war... aracial war.I would have voted for Alan Keyes (the African American Conservative) in aNew York minute because I agree with his politics and his policies...notbecause he is black; which is why so many people voted for Obama. Half ofthem don¹t care or know where he stands on stem cell research, abortion orany of the issues that Catholics should be considering when walking into avoting booth; if they did....this man would not be our next President.It is so sad that even the clergy are losing sight of what¹s real and what¹sright; politics should not be used amongst clergy as WMDs against eachother. I will continue to pray for you and all of the priests at Our Ladyof Lourdes as I believe you are all losing sight of the very vows you tookwhen you were ordained; there is a liberal virus running rampant in ourparish and your sermon today just proved that.
Posted by itzik janowitz at 11:40 AM