The Man Behind the GOP's Catholic Strategy

A Catholic inside-baseball story turns huge. Why? Because it involves the presidential election.

jbhtx713

08/25/2004 11:38:45 PM

Hudson represents the very worst qualities of self-annointed defenders of the faith. Scripture is quite clear that those who view themselves as gatekeepers aren't believers. It is idolatry to play God and decide who is worthy of a free and undeserved gift, as if anyone is. That's the real problem with religious conservatives- they worship man-made institutions and dogma with its false sense of security instead of true faith.

ariadne1

08/25/2004 02:12:48 PM

If it happened at Fordham University, Milady, that's in Bronx, NY. The drinking age in New York is now, and has been for a long time, 21. So, yes, he also broke the law if he let a minor drink.

alranusch

08/24/2004 08:00:48 PM

If anti-abortion activists sometimes lose sleep, its for the same reason death penalty opponents and anti-war activists lose sleep; because its hard to sleep when human lives are at stake and you're engaged in a losing battle with humanity's indifference to the value of human life

milady

08/24/2004 04:23:11 PM

newmexico "He should have had criminal charges brought up, as should the bar he took her to get her drunk." That would depend on the drinking laws for the state involved. In some states the drinking age is 18.

newmexico

08/24/2004 03:02:29 PM

I've never understood how antiabortion people can even sleep at night. Such monsterous egos. Such smug hatred and hysteria.

newmexico

08/24/2004 02:29:14 PM

Hudson is just the usual shameless hypocrite. A little hypocrisy helps grease the rough cogs of society, but Hudson is some piece of work. As someone who works in the mines of Academia, Hudson got off easy. He should have had criminal charges brought up, as should the bar he took her to get her drunk.

Kymus

08/24/2004 08:49:42 AM

you can already answer you own questions if you would look at the information I provided and my posts. I don't debate? No no, it is you that can not debate here. You have just proved it for the 2nd time.

la_pieta

08/24/2004 03:06:52 AM

What would you have us do? Sit still in the face of Adolph Hitler? Sit still in the face of moral relativism, which you preach and which I have lived and seen lived first handedly? Ask the UN what to do in maybe less, mayber more than 3 years time? How much longer did you actually think we should have waited? This is a serious question and I won't interrupt until it and your constituents answer, understanding moral relativism and the danger that imposes.

la_pieta

08/24/2004 03:00:35 AM

You need to evaluate yourself on what you actually believe and what the DNC and Soros have told you to believe. For someone who purports to be so independent, lets see just how independent you are. "If you're going to play in the sandbox," Hudson told NCR, (back to the main topic of this page) "then you have to take the consequences of your public utterances and your public actions." In a recent fundraising letter, Hudson pledged that Crisis would be taking "a close [emphasis in original] look at some of the bishops who are allowing their local politicians to get away with" the "deception" of calling themselves Catholic while voting for abortion rights.

thefish

08/24/2004 02:57:38 AM

"Bush is both going in there and trying to fix what's wrong there..." And since when is it our job to "fix" what is "wrong" with other nations??? Peace <

la_pieta

08/24/2004 02:55:31 AM

Clinton came as close to catching Bin Laden as he did to catching a VD. He spent about as much policy and presidential effort at both. End of story. More so than you can say about the victims of the Cole bombings. They got about the same stain on someone's dress in support of the cause that Kerry purports to now support.

la_pieta

08/24/2004 01:46:07 AM

You are not even debating. How easily you dismiss. You call me ignorant for not following your "Faith". That is as closed-minded as you accused me of being hours ago.

Kymus

08/24/2004 12:47:38 AM

Unbelievable. Avoiding the Middle East? The only ones who did that were Carter and Clinton. you just proved my point, thank you. Debating with you is like trying to get a wall to understand. I presented to you all the facts, each backed with a bibliography. One of which included Clinton and said on there how he almost captured Bin Laden. Ignorance is bliss I suppose.

Kymus

08/24/2004 12:45:09 AM

as I said before: Bush 1 and 2: both oil tycoons. Bush 1 and 2: both send us to war in Iraq. Iraq has a large supply of oil. Hmmmmm. Coincidence?

la_pieta

08/24/2004 12:39:52 AM

Unbelievable. Avoiding the Middle East? The only ones who did that were Carter and Clinton. Bush is both going in there and trying to fix what's wrong there AND trying to submit other options for the oil you seem to think he so religiously covets.

la_pieta

08/24/2004 12:38:16 AM

--> drilling in the mid-atlantic is simply another way to try to avoid the mid-east.

Kymus

08/24/2004 12:23:31 AM

so what's the answer then? Bush never knew about 9/11? It just happened? He didn't learn anything from our war with the Japanese? Bush hides so many truths, it's disgusting. Even Nixons former advisor wrote a book on GW and his nixon-esque facist attempts, goals, and plans. I don't know about you, but when I think Nixon, I think lies

Kymus

08/24/2004 12:21:18 AM

drilling in the mid-atlantic is simply another way to try to avoid the mid-east. Untill we can start to use cleaner fuels, we're always going to go back to the middle east since that's where all the oil is. Bush has already said that he plans on paying off all of the budget with the oil revenue from Iraq. Why do you think he talked about making them into "strong, proud, allies"? Installing a US selected President (I suppose that's what you could call him, since we're supposed to be giving them a democracy) in Iraq is one more step to this goal. If it weren't for the fact that he was born there, he would barely know what Iraq was, he's been out of there so long.

la_pieta

08/24/2004 12:20:57 AM

You're following Michael Moore as closely as Bush claims to follow the Scriptures

la_pieta

08/24/2004 12:15:29 AM

Then why the environmental plan to drill in the Arctic to rid us of the Middle East dependence.

Kymus

08/24/2004 12:09:06 AM

If it were up to Bin Laden, Bush would stay in office for a very long time. First Bush says he wants Bin Laden, then he says he doesn't care?! Furthermore, Bush's family has a history with Bin Laden's own family when it came to oil. Bush's war plan has been so erradically stupid, it's gotta make you wonder. When we first went to war, I was fooled - just like almost everyone else in the country. Then the focus starts to shift, and it shifts again, and again. Bush is in the middle east because that's where the oil is, and that's where the money is. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000 because I knew he was a war monger. Then what happens? We get involved in a 3 year (so far) war that has changed direction numerous times. You talk about conspiracy theories, but the evidence is always presented. Robert Steele, former US spy for 20 years,

Kymus

08/24/2004 12:08:57 AM

Michael Moore, GNN, and 9/11 Family supported organisations all say the same things: Bush is full of crap. Even without these "theories" you can see that when it comes down to the war , Bush said "we're getting Bin Laden" and then what happens? Pandora's Box! What are we doing now? We're looking for Bin Laden (well, not anymore by Bush's words), Fighting terrorist groups, and reforming Iraq?? What would Bin Laden do? Keep the man who keeps screwing up and forgot about him.

la_pieta

08/23/2004 11:33:55 PM

Speaking of civil liberties and the "Liberal media": Read this article... the WHOLE article, and think critically about how inflammatory it is.. keep going until the paragraphs at the very end that detail the actual reasons why this man was imprisoned... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/19/politics/19witness.html read past the sympathy story to what he lists as his hobbies and wonder whether your radar might be piqued. This is the New York Times for crying out loud. The only difference between this and the conspiracy theory websites these days is that the Times mostly spells things correctly.

la_pieta

08/23/2004 11:33:37 PM

I voted for Clinton. Then Nader in 2000 out of spite for the system. Then September 11th happened and I could smell the Pentagon burning smoke down the Potomac. That didn't even wake me up. For years I read all that conspiracy crap. One protest sign that I held on the side of the road read "What's in YOUR file??" in response to all my civil liberties that were being "taken away" by the FBI in the name of fighting something so "vague" as terrorism. I'm embarassed to say but it took until Nick Berg's beheading to make me understand. Then I woke up. I was on your side for a very long time. And then I really thought about the nature of this Western hatred and the fundamental differences between right and wrong, love and hatred, and who would Osama vote for? He wants Bush out of the White House just as much as you do.. Maybe not quite as much as you do... frighteningly enough.

Kymus

08/23/2004 10:48:27 PM

If you look at most anything that describes this war, it will consider it "preemptive". Since you claim unfair partisanship, here's an article (a very detailed one at that) about preemptive war in Iraq by The Conservative American

Kymus

08/23/2004 10:26:57 PM

you show your partisanship with your constant bashes at Clinton. Just blame Clinton, right? Bush is 20x worse (and keep in mind that when Clinton left office I thought he was a dumb ass) Don't blame Clinton for 9/11 26 June 1993 (United States, Iraq) Oh wait, I forgot, Clinton did nothing in office.

Kymus

08/23/2004 10:19:51 PM

WOW which two do you think were non-partisan? Follow the links backwards to the source my friend. Judicial Watch WOW they talk about Kerry too! I guess since they talk about Bush, they're just "liberal media" Skeleton Closet WOW they talk about Kerry too! I guess since they talk about Bush, they're just "liberal media"

Kymus

08/23/2004 10:16:51 PM

How are these wars pre-emptive??? Bush: we can not wait for the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud. We can not wait, we must act now. Kinda funny since the CIA told him that his evidence wasn't credible enough and that we should wait to gather more information.

la_pieta

08/23/2004 10:06:33 PM

WOW which two do you think were non-partisan? Follow the links backwards to the source my friend.

la_pieta

08/23/2004 10:05:54 PM

How much more time did we need? Another Kurdish slaughter? Another embassy bombing in Africa? (Clinton administration nonintervention) Another attack on a military ship like the Cole? (Clinton administration nonintervention) A 3rd attack on the World Trade Center? (Clinton administration nonintervention after the first) How are these wars pre-emptive???

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:59:36 PM

la_pieta: actually, if you look closer, everything is doccumented with bibliographical evidence. Also, if you look closer, 2 of them are unpartisan. Guess you must've missed it.

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:58:10 PM

la pieta: this isn't about democrat vs republican. Where one party fails, the other gains. In the end, they have many common things. It is simply that I've noticed that when a Republican is in office, they get a free ride (for the most part. Although I must reiterate that Reagan got one fully, but that was a bit different). Clinton got impeached for crimes much smaller than what GW has done. I don't disagree with you that Saddam needed to be taken out, but at what cost? We went into this war pre-emptively. Perhaps if we took the time to plan this out, the war would of been much more supported, more "noble", and less lives lost. I've thought for a long time that we needed to get rid of terrorists in general, but again, at what cost? We weren't prepared for this. How can you (not you specifically) justify something when you do not prepare for it? How can a diver say they did their best without preparing and practicing (although given, the analagies are very different but hold similarities)

la_pieta

08/23/2004 08:57:51 PM

History consists of more than soundbites pieced together by moveon-dot-org You produced articles with "facts" on websites that aren't exactly neutral... you need to check out your sources... or do you already and reject the ones that don't try to rip Bush to shreds and only question Kerry's old rock group albums. We are arguing two sides of the same wall, perhaps.

la_pieta

08/23/2004 08:46:09 PM

Hey I was right there with you two years ago... standing on the street every weekend holding an anti-war sign. Until I woke up and took off my George Soros blinders and CNN blinders and actually read history and learned about the Democrat's failures in foreign policy, how it was Carter who actually helped put Saddam into power by his nonintervention when the Shah of Iran was being deposed, creating a power vacuum and the rise of the murderous anti-Western Ayatollah Khomeini regime. Saddam was an opportunist taking power since suddenly next-door Iran had no American ally and perceived weakness in chaos. Whoever said we put Saddam in power was right... but for the wrong reasons.

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:36:27 PM

last I checked, only the clinically insane looked into their heart and found a right out of a wrong. Generally that takes greed, which comes from the mind, no the heart.

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:31:46 PM

la_pieta: Pyschology would say that they have a problem and lack compassion.

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:30:54 PM

edit: the links didn't make it into the post (that's what I get for a cut and paste in WYSIWYG mode) Bush's resume Bush's skeleton closet Bush obstructs Halliburton lawsuit my appologies

la_pieta

08/23/2004 08:28:09 PM

Same question phrased your way: What if someone looks into his own heart and decides it's okay rape women?

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:16:06 PM

la_pieta: Debating with you is about the same as arguing with a wall, you have no clue what you are talking about. How much research have you put into this? How much have you actually looked into what our president has done? The "dangerous" part comes when people blindly support Bush and don't even remember why we originally went to war: To capture Bin Laden. Here's a timeline in Bush's own words: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:15:53 PM

"...Secondly, he is not escaping us. ... our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain ...bring him to justice. And that's what's happening." - Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on official White House site "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - G.W. Bush, 3/13/02 "I am truly not that concerned about him." - G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts, 3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02) Weapons of mass destruction are not only nuclear Well, whatever the US considers WMD to be - we haven't found any - especially not where The Bush Administration said they were (they claimed they knew where they were).

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:14:26 PM

Saddam's history of using such agents both on his own civilians and Iranian troops and saying "Oh well we didn't find WMDs. Nothing to worry about" is dangerous illogic. get a clue, Saddam posed no threat to us. The WMD he had were all destroyed in the late 90's. His son in law told us this! Did Saddam need to be stopped? Sure. Is it right for people to die based on a lie? No. so now that Saddam is captured, have we dropped everything and quit because Bush got his revenge? you are dense, aren't you? Take off your Bush blinders and you'd be amazed at the facts you see. It went like this: Lets get Bin Laden! to let's get Hussein! to screw Bin Laden! to let's get those rogue terrorist groups! to let's install a new leader in Iraq that we hand picked and hasn't set foot in Iraq for over a decade. I would love to understand how we are installing a democracy when we hand pick the leader, not the people.

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:14:02 PM

Are we not still there, staying committed to helping the Iraqi people build a new government? Kerry is the one who wants to pull troops out when there are still radical violent personalities emerging in that country like al-Sadr Of course, it's making Bush and his halliburton buddies millions! It's also making him out to be some sort of hero (when most people are ignorant of the real truths he hides). I see that you pay no attention to the other side with your Kerry comment. Kerry said specifically at the DNC that he would strenghten our ties with other nations (something Bush did the opposite of) and have them help us. No moron, not even Ann Coulter, would pull our troops out now. We're too far in this mess to pull out. Besides, what Bush really wants is the oil that is in Iraq. Bush 1: invaded Iraq, also involved with haliburton and carlyle. Bush 2: invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, also involved with haliburton and carlyle.

Kymus

08/23/2004 08:13:34 PM

If George Bush is so tight with Haliburton why is that company trying to steal from the government and possibly tarnish his administration by illegal billing? It won't trash his administration because he has a bunch of blind conservatives backing him. Clinton is impeached for pergury, but Bush? He gets as many free passes as Reagan did. With a $7 trillion deficit, after Clinton balanced it, clearly Bush has no concern for how our money is spent. He let his best friend Karl Rove rip off millions of people, so do you really think that he cares about what Haliburton does to the government? Bush has already tried to obstruct justice when it comes to Halliburton. Do you actually try to educate yourself on these issues or do you just believe whatever it is that the media, Bush, and your conservative buddies tell you? You prove the latter rather well.

Kymus

08/23/2004 07:54:04 PM

fish: Well said, thank you. We must look to our hearts, not God(s) or faith. If we were immoral without both, then that would make every athiest and agnostic a murderous rebel to society without morals. I shared a room with one for 3 years - and he never crossed me, never killed, always lived with respect, decency, and morals

thefish

08/23/2004 07:48:56 PM

My "faith" doesn't "tell" me it's wrong to rape, murder or steal...etc...my HEART INSTILLS the creed "DON'T HURT OTHERS" into my SOUL.... It's a very sad commentary to the human condition when you have to be TOLD by a God or Religion that these things are WRONG!!! Peace <

Kymus

08/23/2004 07:29:11 PM

la_pieta: they hold nothing in common to abortion. Rape and murder are already illegal.

la_pieta

08/23/2004 06:04:41 PM

--> I don't expect people to follow the rules of my faith, because it's not their faith! It's a clear showing of disrespect and ignorance towards another person to expect that of them What if your faith teaches you that it is wrong to rape women or kill people or steal other people's belongings or to only have one wife? Would it be disrespectful or ignorant to expect other people to follow those rules?

la_pieta

08/23/2004 05:36:34 PM

Weapons of mass destruction are not only nuclear. Finding all the traces of laboratory work, documents detailing resumption of uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation, finding manufacturing of fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant missles and reference strains and research of biological organisms like ricin, Brucella, aflatoxin and knowing Saddam's history of using such agents both on his own civilians and Iranian troops and saying "Oh well we didn't find WMDs. Nothing to worry about" is dangerous illogic.

la_pieta

08/23/2004 05:35:25 PM

so now that Saddam is captured, have we dropped everything and quit because Bush got his revenge? Are we not still there, staying committed to helping the Iraqi people build a new government? Kerry is the one who wants to pull troops out when there are still radical violent personalities emerging in that country like al-Sadr. If George Bush is so tight with Haliburton why is that company trying to steal from the government and possibly tarnish his administration by illegal billing?

milady

08/23/2004 05:09:55 PM

La pieta Under International law, a sovereign nation can only be attacked in self-defense, not because we do not like the government. This is why the U.S. was unable to get the support of the United Nations and why WMD issue was so important. We attacked a sovereign nation based on lies. The U.S. government (during the Reagan/George HW Bush administration) gave weapons to Iraq and later supported Hussein, even while he was gassing the Kurds. U.S. oil companies wanted a pipeline through Iraq. As a result of this unprovoked attack, more than 37,000 innocent Iraq citizens have died thus far. If we are saying it’s alright to attack governments based on their leadership or the world view of that nation’s policies, we are walking on thin ice. The Bush administration exhibits all 14 characteristics of a fascist regime identified by Dr. Lawrence Britt http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

ariadne1

08/23/2004 03:26:56 PM

You can be pro-life and be imperfect. But it's probably a good idea, if you're being pro-life, to also respect people, even when you disagree with them. If nothing else, I think you'd have a far better chance of convincing them that you actually care about life and people, if you demonstrate caring and love, even while speaking out and defending your position than if you practice the politics of personal destruction and think every battle must scorch the earth and destroy the lives and livelihood of others. Oh yeah, and actually, practicing some of what you preach might be good. I mean, how hard is it to refrain from sexual harrassment and adultery? I suspect millions of ordinary Americans don't do those things.

ariadne1

08/23/2004 03:23:13 PM

No, Mr. Donahue, you do not have to look for only "immaculately conceived employees." All that's necessary is to find employees who: 1. are not themselves hypocrites who insist on "outing" and getting others fired and publicly humiliated. 2. have a modicum of honesty and humility and refrain from making savage personal attacks on others. Deal is in trouble because, like Donahue himself, he has slung mud and thrown rocks and stoned others first. Other people got fired because of his vicious attacks. The first lesson of being a Pharisee was always, if you live in a glass house, don't throw the first stone. Jesus himself tried to teach that lesson.

ariadne1

08/23/2004 03:23:06 PM

Years ago, somebody I once knew called all pro-life Catholics, unfairly I thought, "fetus fetishists." I'm starting to believe that perhaps this person wasn't being so unfair, after all. That's how we must look to the outside world. Why does every single Catholic discussion sink to, and get mired in, the politics of abortion? I too believe that abortion is wrong. But there are other sins out there too. Deal Hudson has not gotten himself publicly humiliated because he was a victim of intolerant and self-rightous mudslingers who are so perfectionistic that they would condemn any misstep or act that is sinful no matter how trivial, as William Donahue suggests.

Kymus

08/23/2004 03:13:37 PM

La_pieta: You don't understand, we were led into this war based upon lies! We went in there for 2 reasons: so Bush could get revenge on Saddam and so that he could boost his stock in Haliburton. He said that Saddam was giving the torrorists WMD, that's false, he said Iraq hasn't accounted for nearly 30,000 missiles, that is false, he said that Iraq purchased aluminum tubes used for WMD, that is false (they are used for M-81 rockets and are incompatible with any nuclear weapon),

Kymus

08/23/2004 03:13:29 PM

he said that Iraq could launch a nuclear attack at us within 45 minutes of being given the command, that is false - Iraq has never been able to launch missiles at us, he showed footage of a plane spraying faux anthrax, that is misleading - the plane was demolished in 1991. Bush on the captured "terrorists" at places like Abu Ghraib: "More than 3000 suspected terrorists have been arrested (by the US) in many countries. And many others have met a different fate. Lets put it that way. They are no longer a problem..." (state of the union message - Feb 4th 2003. Clearly, he does not care about the reasons we are in there. He just puts himself up as this "tough on terrorism" president. Bush is a war monger, just like his father. Afghanistan, Korea, you're next!

Kymus

08/23/2004 03:06:42 PM

la_pieta: you aren't understanding my point. Kerry said that he himself doesn't believe in abortion, but just because he doesn't believe in it doesn't mean that everyone must follow. I have a catholic friend who is the most devout person I've ever met. She's experienced angels, has a picture of jesus on every wall, leads a prayer group, and attends Church more than regularly. She is pro-life, but she does not feel that we should enact laws for it. It is bigoted to expect another to follow a law of a religion they do not follow! You like Catechism #2270? Good for you! I don't, so yanno what? Good for me!. I don't expect people to follow the rules of my faith, because it's not their faith! It's a clear showing of disrespect and ignorance towards another person to expect that of them

la_pieta

08/23/2004 02:55:26 PM

Kymus you aren't understanding my point.. it's not about you. It's about John Kerry, someone who willfully on his own accord calls himself a Catholic who is publicly trouncing the Catechism #2270.

la_pieta

08/23/2004 02:55:08 PM

The social teachings of the Church entail loving all human beings. But that also means defending human beings from other human beings if they are being hurt. Jesus used force when he overturned all the moneychangers' tables at the Temple. Because they were offending his Father. That wasn't just a glancing shove at a card table. Yes war and capital punishment should be avoided: but they are also society's self-defense. See the Catechism #2267. what are you calling war mongering? Acting to depose a sadistic terrorist government, acting as security forces to help prevent chaos and anarchy in the interim, helping set up local interim government until local democratic elections can be held? Look at the timeline. We are doing everything we said we would do, in both Afghanistan and Iraq. If this is President Bush war-mongering, then why have countries like Britain, Italy, Austrailia and the Republic of Tonga committed their own troops to die for this cause?

milady

08/23/2004 02:18:01 PM

la pieta “How do people call themselves Catholic while rejecting the major tenets of the Faith?” The only “ major tenet” of the faith you had addressed in your post was abortion. Somehow you didn’t get to the social teaching of the church. What about war mongering? Capital punishment? How about caring for the poor? B-net has a wonderful article on this called “The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus.” http://www.beliefnet.com/story/132/story_13245.html The fact that Kerry takes the Eucharist while upholding a woman’s right to choose is matter between him and God. We can choose not to vote for Sen. Kerry, but we do not have the right to judge him.

Edwin1974

08/23/2004 02:02:18 PM

:Can you explain to me #1 how it's contitutional to agree with laws passed based on religion,: All laws are based on religion. That is to say, all laws are based on one's view of the universe, _and_ most laws deal with matters on which some religion has a position. There is nothing unconstitutional with passing a law condemning something that a religion condemns. There is nothing wrong with a politician of a particular religion opposing slavery or abortion or any other evil because his religion tells him to. That is not forcing one's religion on anyone. : and #2 how it would be right of me to expect you to follow something of my religion?: My religion forbids murder. Does that mean that we can't pass laws against murder? Edwin

Edwin1974

08/23/2004 02:00:05 PM

Pedophilia? It's bad enough that the word is being misused to refer to sexual exploitation of adolescents. But now alleged (not proven) sexual misbehavior with a college student is being referred to as pedophilia? Come on now. Let's let words mean something. The sexual abuse of children is an utterly monstrous thing. Let's not trivialize it by confusing it with a married man making sexual advances to an 18-year-old student, morally reprehensible though that is.

catholicseeker

08/23/2004 09:00:24 AM

I disliked Hudson already, for being an obnoxious right-wing politico. Now--after learning of his pedophilia and his prostituting himself to deliver the White House to Bush--I have no use for this scum whatsoever. Bush is an even bigger scumbag, for using people like Hudson--and all American Catholics--to grab power.

Kymus

08/22/2004 08:47:45 PM

la_pieta: I didn't know that expecting everyone to follow your beliefs is a sin before God. I thought it was just that word we called bigotry (and a lack of respect for anyone of another faith)

la_pieta

08/22/2004 02:27:34 PM

Who is pressing their faith on John Kerry? He takes the Eukarist and calls himself but he sins before God and country.

Kymus

08/22/2004 09:26:32 AM

How do people call themselves Catholic while rejecting the major tenets of the Faith? It's called not pressing your faith on people. Can you explain to me #1 how it's contitutional to agree with laws passed based on religion, and #2 how it would be right of me to expect you to follow something of my religion? answer: it's not

la_pieta

08/21/2004 04:06:18 PM

Whether or not this man committed atrocities does not make Kerry any less guilty of his: voting to allow murderous abortions, lying about his record, and having no steadfast moral convictions as spelled out by his abominable record in the Senate and the changes he makes in his speeches weekly throughout this campaign. How do people call themselves Catholic while rejecting the major tenets of the Faith?

LAHSM

08/21/2004 01:31:01 PM

synthsz1, Don't feel too bad, I've made that same mistake not too long ago (actually, you helped me not to feel moronic about posting the same thing five times...I'm not the only one that's happened to.) I hope what you say is true because I am a Catholic that is backing Kerry. So long, Deal Hudson!! We'll miss you about as much as we miss Cardinal Law.

synthsz1

08/21/2004 02:24:13 AM

galesms wrote: "He is so grandiose and vicious in attacking anyone who doesn't follow his right wing, neo-Southern Baptist brand of Catholicism, that he apparently thought he was better than other people whom he held to the commandments. Good riddance, and once again--FANTASTIC job, NCR! Well put!! One other thing Deal Hudson and others of his ilk ought to realize is that there is no such thing as a Catholic vote. Catholics of all stripes vote the way other Americans do, and still vote more Democrat than Republican. Once again, Catholics will put a Democrat in office and that will be John Kerry!

Ortega

08/21/2004 12:06:49 AM

Gal politcs is a game for the self righteous and self serving. Kerry is using the Catholic vote as well. Everyone is using everyone and after voting this election I know I'll be taking a long shower afterwards.

Ortega

08/21/2004 12:04:55 AM

kevin lets not exagerate Torquemeda did evil things that deprived people of their lives. Yeah, he might be self righteous but aren't we all. I mean be fair. I invite you to chat at the Catholic boards like Catholic Debate here at BN. Remeber, though that don't loss faith because of people behaving badly. I got it on good authorty that the CHurch is like a net thrown into the ocean, when you pull in the net you'll find fish and gunk " But Jesus said he would take care of it.

galesms

08/20/2004 06:48:05 PM

I sincerely pray that, as this article suggests, Hudson's retreat will help to oust war-mongering and Catholic -pandering Bush. Any Catholic who takes the gospel commands seriously would be an idiot to vote for Bush. He is USING Catholics and will have no further use for them after the election. Deal Hudson is the worst sort of hypocrite. He is so grandiose and vicious in attacking anyone who doesn't follow his right wing, neo-Southern Baptist brand of Catholicism, that he apparently thought he was better than other people whom he held to the commandments. Good riddance, and once again--FANTASTIC job, NCR!

jkevinm

08/20/2004 05:41:47 PM

The reason so many of us either ignore certain dogmas, or opt out of the church altogether, is that we no longer trust the people who are supposed to be leading us. For some of us the disagreement is old and theological. For others it is recent and based on the obvious hypocrisy of some of the church leaders. In either event, our postions on these issues are no less valid than those of the most extreme of the "Righteous Extreme". But discourse in America, or most of the rest of the world, no longer allows for the possibility that two people with divergent viewpoints could be right. And that is what Christ must cry over every day. We have lost our brotherhood and our faith, in our desire to control each other instead of trying to live together.

jkevinm

08/20/2004 05:41:41 PM

In revieiwing this article again, and looking at the related companion pieces, I find I have to comment on the widening gulf between the so called, 'Conservative' Roman Catholics, and the rest of us, including those like me who have actually left the church and moved on in our faith to a different place. There is a desire, strongly imbued in all of us who were raised in the church, to look to others for our moral structure. It takes you to a peaceful place where you can blame nearly anything that you do, or that happens to you, on someone or something else.

jkevinm

08/20/2004 05:30:39 PM

Because Deal Hudson is guilty of hypocrisy and heresies so profound in the name of HIS view of the catholic church, that the retribution visited on him can neither be overwhelming nor swift enough. This is a man who makes Tourquemada look like a buddhist monk. It is about time something brought him up short, and it should not be terribly surprising that it was a scandal that reeks of harrassment and unchristian behavior.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

DiggDeliciousNewsvineRedditStumbleTechnoratiFacebook