Because you quote Catholic teaching out of context, to support your liberal agenda. I have seen it time and time again, from the minimizing of the indefensible evil of abortion by emphasizing less evil issues like racism and poverty to now defending this blatant racist, at whose knee Barack Obama learned his theology for 20 years.

So now, because Hagee supports Israel’s right to exist, you can overlook “AIDS was caused by white people to kill black people”, “The chickens are coming home to roost (in reference to 3000 Americans killed in the WTC)”, “white people gave drugs to black people and them put them in prison” and the ever popular “God DAMN America”.

Hagee is a footnote. If McCain had spent 20 years in his congregation, he would not be the Republican nominee.

So before attending to the mote in your brother’s eye, how about arrenting to the sequoia in your own.

Preach it, brother!

Second, this should not be read as an apologist for Wright. While I agree with much of his criticism of official American policies, I still have problems with his theology.

Tony: define “liberal”. How many times must it be pointed out that these distinctions make no sense in the Catholic domain and that — from our standpoint– the ridiculous “culture war” is a war between siblings, between step-children of the Enlightenment. Why must you people insist on using secular political terms again and again and again?

I’m open to correction, and would be happy to be wrong in this instance.

We now have a Jeremiah Wright apologist.

Vox Nova is now officially a Liberal Blog™

“The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He’s drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it’s on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

As I have written about in my books, I first joined Trinity United Church of Christ nearly twenty years ago. I knew Rev. Wright as someone who served this nation with honor as a United States Marine, as a respected biblical scholar, and as someone who taught or lectured at seminaries across the country, from Union Theological Seminary to the University of Chicago. He also led a diverse congregation that was and still is a pillar of the South Side and the entire city of Chicago. It’s a congregation that does not merely preach social justice but acts it out each day, through ministries ranging from housing the homeless to reaching out to those with HIV/AIDS.

Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life. In other words, he has never been my political advisor; he’s been my pastor. And the sermons I heard him preach always related to our obligation to love God and one another, to work on behalf of the poor, and to seek justice at every turn.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I’ve said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

With Rev. Wright’s retirement and the ascension of my new pastor, Rev. Otis Moss, III, Michelle and I look forward to continuing a relationship with a church that has done so much good. And while Rev. Wright’s statements have pained and angered me, I believe that Americans will judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States. ”

You know, I actually do believe Obama in part. Like most politicians I think he doesn’t take preachings seriously, and the hard leftism\hate America which Jeremiah Wright embodies probably is foreign to Obama, although perhaps not to his spouse. The problem for Obama is that more than a few of his supporters agree with much of what Wright said, while most Americans are simply appalled by Wright’s rantings. Obama is about to find out that the worst place in politics is to be ground between one’s own supporters and the majority of the voters.

Hosea and Elijah have zero to do with either slander or the sin of the ingrate. That they and other prophets did unusual signs does not mean they did slanderous signs or ever signed being ingrates. Your intellect is conflating primary opposites while noticing secondary similarities.

Your comments on intercourse were similarly incomprehensible. Intercourse outside of marriage post Eden and actually post Christ is all we are concerned with as to the slander of baptized Clinton by Wright….and non married intercourse is mortal sin….and it meant for the early Jews in the Mosaic law that they would have to marry and not even be able to divorce ever…. as other Jews were permitted to divorce the latter due to the hardness of their hearts…as per Christ’s words. The “law” involved for consensual sex of the non engaged follows:

Deu 22:28 ¶ If a man find a damsel [that is] a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and THEY be found;
Deu 22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty [shekels] of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.