PopeWatch: Checkmate

Saturday, June 24, AD 2017

 

From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:

 

 

Society of St. Pius X chess grandmaster Larcel Mafebvre has turned four of his pieces into bishops without approval from the World Chess Federation, officials have confirmed.

“Mr. Mafebvre has, without approval from the Federation, created bishops out of pawn pieces,” said World Chess Federation head Antonio Salamanca. “After speaking with Mr. Mafebvre regarding abiding by the new chess rules, wherein players are given the freedom to concelebrate the match, and to say the words of ‘checkmate’ in the vernacular, he has sadly decided to ignore our requests.”

Salamanca went on to tell reporters that Mafebvre had automatically incurred excheckommunication because of his disobedience.

“I must do what is in my conscience to preserve the dignity of the game,”  Mafebvre told EOTT in an exclusive interview. “Therefore, I have decided to consecrate four of my pieces into bishops to help my depleted side, for, from some Fischer, the smoke of Satan has entered the chessboard of God.”

At press time, one time follower of Larcel Mafebvre’s, Bavid Dawden, told EOTT that he has decided to become head of the World Chess Federation, though he only has three pawns to play with.

Leave a Reply

Fortnight For Freedom: Over There

Saturday, June 24, AD 2017

 

 

 

 

Something for the weekend.  George M. Cohan wrote Over There, the song which became the battle hymn of the American war effort in World War I.  George M. Cohan was immortalized by James Cagney in the 1942 film biopic Yankee Doodle Dandy.  Dying on November 5, 1942 of stomach cancer, Cohan saw the film shortly before its release in a private screening.  I do not know if the ending of the film in the clip below brought tears to his eyes, but it always does mine.  Cohan wrote the song in under two hours on April 7, 1917, two days after the US declared war on Imperial Germany.  The song would be introduced to the public during a Red Cross benefit in New York City during the fall of 1917 and swiftly became the American anthem for the war effort.  Son of Union veteran Jeremiah Cohan, who lied about his age to serve as a Union surgeon’s orderly during the Civil War, Cohan attempted to enlist during World War I in the Army but was rejected due to his age.  I have always liked this song.  It has a brash exuberance matched with a determination to accomplish a hard task, traits which have served the US well in dark times.  We could use much more of that spirit today.

Leave a Reply

Prayer Request

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

LarryD at Acts of the Apostasy has the dreadful news that his nineteen year old nephew took his life.  I would regard it as a personal favor for prayers to be offered for LarryD, the young man’s family and the repose of the soul of the young man.  I have long believed that before we reach our end, God throws a rope to us.  Let us hope that the young man grasped it before his soul left his body.

Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.  Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.  Holy Mary, mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death.  Amen.

12 Responses to Prayer Request

Leave a Reply

The Truth Always Gets Out

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

 

The ridiculous and clearly politically motivated criminal charges brought by the Democrat Attorney General of California against David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt are coming apart at the seams:

 

In a huge victory, a California court today dismissed almost all of the criminal charges abortion activists filed against the pro-life advocates who recorded undercover videos exposing Planned Parenthood selling the body parts from aborted babies.

 

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed 15 felony charges against both David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt. Becerra is a longtime abortion advocate with financial connections to the Planned Parenthood abortion company that the two pro-life Advocates exposed in the videos for selling body parts such as fetal brains and livers.

At the time, pro-life advocates said Becerra’s 15 felony charges were bogus charges meant to belittle the expose’ campaign and to cast aspersions on Daleiden and the organization behind the videos. They said the attempt was about drawing attention away from Planned Parenthood’s sales of aborted baby parts.

The San Francisco Superior Court on Wednesday dismissed 14 of 15 criminal counts but the pair are still charged with one count of conspiracy to invade privacy. However the court dismissed the charges with leave to amend — meaning Becerra could re-file the charges with additional supposed evidence against the pair.

The court ruled that counts 1-14 were legally insufficient. The state has the opportunity to amend if it can plead a more legally sufficient and specific complaint. The California’s Attorney General filed 15 criminal counts against Merritt, with counts 1-14 for each of the alleged interviews and count 15 for an alleged conspiracy. San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite gave the state attorney general’s office until mid-July to file a revised complaint.

In a statement to LifeNews, pro-life attorney Mat Svaer of LibertyCounsel, representing Merritt, said, “This is a huge victory to have 14 criminal counts dismissed.”

“We will now turn our attention to dismissing the final count. Sandra Merritt did nothing wrong. The complaint by the California Attorney General is unprecedented and frankly will threaten every journalist who provides valuable information to the public. This final count will also fall,” said Staver.

19 Responses to The Truth Always Gets Out

  • Seems that the “could re-file these charges” are being held as a “hush up now” threat?

  • No. Judges normally do not dismiss charges with prejudice unless it would be clearly impossible for the legal defects to be cured. It does mean that the charges were sloppily drafted and that the State might not be able to cure the legal defects to successfully charge the crime.

  • When a victim of murder is hidden in a closet. The victim’s rights are still intact and the closet may be searched without a warrant because of the victim’s rights. Hiding crimes is obstruction of Justice.
    This video ought to be disturbing. Crime is disturbing.

  • Will state have to pay the accused court costs? Am not a lawyer.

  • No, the state doesn’t pay the defense lawyer unless the accused is indigent. I think Liberty Counsel is probably representing this guy pro bono. Kudos on the dismissals; hopefully the California AG gets the message and backs down.

  • Kamala Harris, the new Senator from California, was California Attorney
    General while these 15 charges were drawn up. Just during the time her
    office was doing its investigation, her Senate campaign accepted roughly
    $40K in contributions from Planned Parenthood and its affiliates.

    When Harris moved up the political food chain from Sacramento to DC,
    Becerra was appointed to fill her office and subsequently filed the charges
    she’d prepared. During that short interval, he too received almost $8K in
    contributions from PP and NARAL.

    It is disturbing that an Attorney General can receive money from entities
    involved in an investigation currently being handled by their office.
    Harris and Becerra don’t seem too concerned over any appearance of
    impropriety, however. I assume there is some sort of legal nicety to
    be observed that magically transforms that behavior from an ethics
    violation and conflict of interest into just another day at the office…

  • “It does mean that the charges were sloppily drafted and that the State might not be able to cure the legal defects to successfully charge the crime.”
    Unless, of course, the process is meant to be the punishment.

  • Don, is it really possible to be charged with conspiracy when no one else can be?

  • Not in Illinois:

    “A person commits the offense of conspiracy when, with intent that an offense be committed, he or she agrees with another to the commission of that offense. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense unless an act in furtherance of that agreement is alleged and proved to have been committed by him or her or by a co-conspirator.”

  • I am not a lawyer either but it does seem that if the State is behind these thin air charges the State should bear some responsibility for frivolity

  • Unfortunately, the process is the punishment.

  • It is disturbing that an Attorney General can receive money from entities
    involved in an investigation currently being handled by their office.

    Yes it is disturbing. The thing is, it’s a reasonable wager Harris and Bacerra would have done what they did had they received not one thin dime from PP. The culture of the law schools, of the legal profession generally, and of the professional-managerial class generally is godawful. The exceptions are commonly people who have discrete affiliations which mark them as distinct within that stratum. (E.g. small town residence or belonging to an evangelical congregation).

  • Planned Parenthood’s own legal counsel worked with Kamala Harris’
    AG office to craft the legislation used to charge Daleiden and Merritt.
    Harris declined to investigate, let alone prosecute PP for its actions
    revealed in the videos, and instead her office turned PP’s legal team
    into a branch of the California DOJ, writing laws designed to target
    Daleiden and Merritt and any other pro-lifers who might try something
    similar against PP in the future.

    https://www.liveaction.org/news/planned-parenthood-wrote-portion-
    california-law-designed-target-pro-life-journalists/.

    So we appear to have a politician declining to investigate apparent
    illegal activity documented on video, opting instead to work with
    that party to craft legislation designed to criminalize the investigator’s
    actions, all while the politician is accepting substantial campaign
    contributions from the party whose illegal activity was captured
    on video. And now that politician is a US Senator, touted as a
    likely candidate for president in 2020. And no major news outlet
    seems to care.

  • When are they going to go after Planned “un”Parenthood and shut down the death dealers and put all of the evil doers in prison!?! Sadly, there are evil, greedy people out there who don’t even blink about killing babies and selling their body parts for material possessions such as expensive cars and houses. Also, there are others benefiting financially from evil PP. The people working at, for, or with PP should always have to hear the “tell-tale” hearts of all of those babies, at least, unless or until they repent of their evil. Anyway, no matter what, God sees all and God is not mocked!

  • So we appear to have a politician declining to investigate apparent
    illegal activity documented on video, opting instead to work with
    that party to craft legislation designed to criminalize the investigator’s
    actions, all while the politician is accepting substantial campaign
    contributions from the party whose illegal activity was captured
    on video.

    Again, the contributions are chump change in a constituency the size of California. The corruption here is not in the pecuniary realm, but derived from the culture of the bar, the culture of the Democratic Party, and the culture of Kamala Harris circle of friends. Of course this woman should never be in a position of public trust. That’s likely true of about 90% of the people around her. We live in a decadent age.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Judges normally do not dismiss charges with prejudice unless it would be clearly impossible for the legal defects to be cured.”

    The usual interlocutor is, “FIND the libel irrelevant to infer the pains of law; desert the diet simpliciter and dismiss the panel from the bar.”

    However, as the party has not tholed an assize, the prosecutor may serve a fresh libel, so long as the time limit for prosecuting (110 days from arrest, if the accused is in custody; a year, if he is not) has not expired.

  • TomD asked Don, “is it really possible to be charged with conspiracy when no one else can be?”

    Obviously, a person cannot conspire with himself. “Cospiracy” comes from the Latin “conspirare” – to whisper together.

    However, an individual may be charged with conspiring with “other ill-disposed persons to the prosecutor unknown” and the allegation that A and B and others to the prosecutor unknown are “all and each or one or more of you, to the number of two together” guilty of conspiracy is relevant.

    This commonly happens, for example, when a person is charged with conspiring to import controlled substances (such as drugs) into Scotland and the names of his overseas suppliers and confederates are unknown to the authorities, the evidence consisting of the receipt here of packages sent from abroad. The dispatch and receipt are libelled as being done in furtherance of the conspiracy, as drug dealers tend not to send their wares to strangers on approval, or as unsolicited samples.

  • “However, an individual may be charged with conspiring with ‘other ill-disposed persons to the prosecutor unknown'”
    Yes, I am sure that is the case, which is why I phrased my question “when no one else can be?” There must be some rational idea behind ‘other ill-disposed persons to the prosecutor unknown’ and not just paranoia.

  • “It is disturbing that an Attorney General can receive money from entities
    involved in an investigation currently being handled by their office.”
    Sounds like bribery

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Apostasy

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

Edward Pentin at National Catholic Register has a barn burner of interview with Monsignor Nicola Bux, a former consultor to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

Monsignor Bux, what are the implications of the ‘doctrinal anarchy’ that people see happening for the Church, the souls of the faithful and priests?

The first implication of doctrinal anarchy for the Church is division, caused by apostasy, which is the abandonment of Catholic thought, as defined by St. Vincent of Lerins: quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditur (what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all). Saint Irenaeus of Lyon, who calls Jesus Christ the “Master of unity,” had pointed out to heretics that everyone professes the same things, but not everyone means the same thing. This is the role of the Magisterium, founded on the truth of Christ: to bring everyone back to Catholic unity.

St. Paul exhorted Christians to be in agreement and to speak with unanimity. What would he say today? When cardinals are silent or accuse their confreres; when bishops who had thought, spoken and written — scripta manent! [written words remain]— in a Catholic way, but then say the opposite for whatever reason; when priests contest the liturgical tradition of the Church, then apostasy is established, the detachment from Catholic thought. Paul VI had foreseen that “this non-Catholic thought within Catholicism will tomorrow become the strongest [force]. But it will never represent the Church’s thinking. A small flock must remain, no matter how small it is.” (Conversation with J. Guitton, 9.IX.1977).

 

What implications, then, does doctrinal anarchy have for the souls of the faithful and ecclesiastics?

The Apostle exhorts us to be faithful to sure, sound and pure doctrine: that founded on Jesus Christ and not on worldly opinions (cf. Titus 1:7-11; 2:1-8). Perseverance in teaching and obedience to doctrine leads souls to eternal salvation. The Church cannot change the faith and at the same time ask believers to remain faithful to it. She is instead intimately obliged to be oriented toward the Word of God and toward Tradition.

Therefore, the Church remembers the Lord’s judgment: “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” (John 9:39). Do not forget that, when one is applauded by the world, it means one belongs to it. In fact, the world loves its own and hates what does not belong to it (cf. John 15:19). May the Catholic Church always remember that she is made up of only those who have converted to Christ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit; all human beings are ordained to her (cf. Lumen gentium 13), but they are not part of her until they are converted.

 

How can this problem best be resolved?

The point is: what idea does the Pope have of the Petrine ministry, as described in Lumen gentium 18 and codified in canon law? Faced with confusion and apostasy, the Pope should make the distinction — as Benedict XVI did — between what he thinks and says as a private, learned person, and what he must say as Pope of the Catholic Church. To be clear: the Pope can express his ideas as a private learned person on disputable matters which are not defined by the Church, but he cannot make heretical claims, even privately. Otherwise it would be equally heretical.

I believe that the Pope knows that every believer — who knows the regula fidei [the rule of faith] or dogma, which provides everyone with the criterion to know what the faith of the Church is, what everyone has to believe and who one has to listen to — can see if he is speaking and operating in a Catholic way, or has gone against the Church’s sensus fidei [sense of the faith]. Even one believer can hold him to account. So whoever thinks that presenting doubts [dubia] to the Pope is not a sign of obedience, hasn’t understood, 50 years after Vatican II, the relationship between him [the Pope] and the whole Church. Obedience to the Pope depends solely on the fact that he is bound by Catholic doctrine, to the faith that he must continually profess before the Church.

We are in a full crisis of faith! Therefore, in order to stop the divisions in progress, the Pope — like Paul VI in 1967, faced with the erroneous theories that were circulating shortly after the conclusion of the Council — should make a Declaration or Profession of Faith, affirming what is Catholic, and correcting those ambiguous and erroneous words and acts — his own and those of bishops — that are interpreted in a non-Catholic manner.

Otherwise, it would be grotesque that, while seeking unity with non-Catholic Christians or even understanding with non-Christians, apostasy and division is being fostered within the Catholic Church. For many Catholics, it is incredible that the Pope is asking bishops to dialogue with those who think differently, but does not want first to face the cardinals who are his chief advisors. If the Pope does not safeguard doctrine, he cannot impose discipline. As John Paul II said, the Pope must always be converted, to be able to strengthen his brothers, according to the words of Christ to Peter: “Et tu autem conversus, confirma fratres tuos [when you are converted, strengthen your brothers].” 

4 Responses to PopeWatch: Apostasy

  • Thank you.
    The tug of war ragging in my heart is exhausting and separating the office from the man has been a challenge.

    Can God turn him? Can our offerings help in his conversion?

    Not every single word from his mouth is teetering on error but his reluctance to address the matter personally is cowardice.

    Thank you for the correct perspective.

  • The smoke of Satan has indeed entered the tabernacle. Information as to how the faithful must navigate these historically crucial times is needed more than ever to insure a viable thriving remnant remain.
    Thanks for the article Don.

  • Good commentary at St. Corbinian’s Bear:

    http://corbiniansbear.blogspot.com/2017/06/who-is-antichrist-debate-between-bear.html

    Liberals say Trump isn’t their President. Well guess what? Obama wasn’t my President and Jorge Bergoglio isn’t my Pope.

  • Monsignor Nicola Bux is playing the role of Thomas More in our age of the tragic decline of the Catholic Church and particularly it’s leadership. Pope Francis has much the same attitude as Henry VIII in deciding he has no higher authority than himself.

Leave a Reply

Fortnight For Freedom: Catholics in the American Revolution

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.

Pope Leo XIII

American Catholics, a very small percentage of the population of the 13 colonies, 1.6 percent, were overwhelmingly patriots and played a role in the American Revolution out of all proportion to the small fragment of the American people they represented.  Among the Catholics who assumed leadership roles in the fight for our liberty were:

General Stephen Moylan  a noted cavalry commander and the first Muster Master-General of the Continental Army.

Captains Joshua Barney and John Barry,  two of the most successful naval commanders in the American Revolution.

Colonel John Fitzgerald was a trusted aide and private secretary to General George Washington.

Father Pierre Gibault, Vicar General of Illinois, whose aid was instrumental in the conquest of the Northwest for America by George Rogers Clark.

Thomas Fitzsimons served as a Pennsylvania militia company commander during the Trenton campaign.  Later in the War he helped found the Pennsylvania state navy.  After the War he was one of the two Catholic signers of the U.S. Constitution in 1787

Colonel Thomas Moore led a Philadelphia regiment in the War.

Major John Doyle led a group of elite riflemen during the War.

3 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom: Catholics in the American Revolution

  • Colonel Fitzgerald was one of the founding members of my church, St. Mary’s in Alexandria, VA. He hit up his friend General Washington for a donation to the building fund of the first church. So George Washington is on the original donor list to St. Mary’s Catholic Church, the oldest Catholic Church in Virginia.
    Another great American president, Abraham Lincoln, allowed the builders of the first predominately black Catholic Church in D.C., St. Augustine’s, to hold a fundraising picnic on the White House grounds. There is a plaque in the back of the church commemorating this event.

  • Colonel Fitzgerald sounds like a fascinating fellow BPS and probably historically worthy of having a biography done of him.

  • An excerpt from the diary of Colonel Fitzgerald on the battle of Trenton:

    “Christmas, 6 P.M….It is fearfully cold and raw and a snow-storm setting in. The wind is northeast and beats in the faces of the men. It will be a terrible night for the soldiers who have no shoes. Some of them have tied old rags around their feet, but I have not heard a man complain….I have never seen Washington so determined as he is now….He stands on the bank of the stream, wrapped in his cloak, superintending the landing of his troops. He is calm and collected, but very determined. The storm is changing to sleet and cuts like a knife….

    [3 A.M.] I am writing in the ferry house. The troops are all over, and the boats have gone back for the artillery. We are three hours behind the set time…[the fishermen directing the boats] have had a hard time to force the boats through the floating ice with the snow drifting in their faces….

    …it was broad daylight when we came to a house where a man was chopping wood. He was very much surprised when he saw us. ‘Can you tell me where the Hessian picket is?’ Washington asked. The man hesitated, but I said, ‘You need not be frightened, it is General Washington who asks the question.’ His face brightened, and he pointed toward the house of Mr. Howell.

    It was just eight o’clock. Looking down the road I saw a Hessian running out from the house. He yelled in Dutch and swung his arms. Three or four others came out with their guns. Two of them fired at us, but the bullets whistled over our heads. Some of General Stephen’s men rushed forward and captured two. The others took to their heels, running toward Mr. Calhoun’s house, where the picket guard was stationed, about twenty men under Captain Altenbrockum. They came running out of the house. The captain flourished his sword and tried to form his men. Some of them fired at us, others ran toward the village.

    The next moment we heard drums beat and a bugle sound, and then from the west came the boom of cannon. General Washington’s face lighted up instantly, for he knew that it was one of [General John] Sullivan’s guns.

    …We could see a great commotion down toward the meetinghouse, men running here and there, officers swinging their swords, artillerymen harnessing their horses. Captain Forrest unlimbered his guns. Washington gave the order to advance, and we rushed on to the junction of King and Queen streets. Forrest wheeled six of his cannon into position to sweep both streets. The riflemen under Colonel Hand and Scott’s and Lawson’s battalions went upon the run through the fields on the left to gain possession of the Princeton Road. The Hessians were just ready to open fire with two of their cannon when Captain [William] Washington and Lieutenant [James] Monroe with their men rushed forward and captured them.

    We saw [Colonel Johann] Rall [commander of the Hessians] riding up the street from his headquarters, which were at Stacy Potts’ house. We could hear him shouting in Dutch, ‘My brave soldiers, advance.’

    His men were frightened and confused, for our men were firing upon them from fences and houses and they were falling fast. Instead of advancing they ran into an apple orchard. The officers tried to rally them, but our men kept advancing and picking off the officers. It was not long before Rall tumbled from his horse and his soldiers threw down their guns and gave themselves up as prisoners….

    [9 P.M.] …I have just been with General Washington and [Nathanael] Greene to see Rall. He will not live through the night. He asked that his men might be kindly treated. Washington promised that he would see they were well cared for.”

Leave a Reply

Witchhunt

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

Bad enough being sent to prison for a crime you committed.  Imagine being sent to prison for twenty-one years for a crime that you did not commit:

The only physical evidence against the Kellers was the testimony of Dr Michael Mouw, who examined the girl in the emergency room of a local hospital after the therapy session and said he found tears in her hymen that potentially indicated that she was molested.

Mouw signed an affidavit last January in which he affirms that he now realises his inexperience led him to a conclusion that “is not scientifically or medically valid, and that I was mistaken.”

In an appeal filed on behalf of Fran Keller earlier this year, her lawyer, Keith Hampton, also argued that the state presented misleading evidence about the cemetery, relied on a false witness confession and the testimony of a “quack” satanic abuse “expert”, and that suggestive interview techniques had encouraged the children to make “fantastical false statements”.

According to police reports and trial records, the children said that Dan Keller killed his dog and made children cut it up and eat it, “baptised” kids with blood and disembowelled pets, forcing children to drink the blood.

The Kellers were also said to have decapitated and chopped up a baby, put the remains in a swimming pool and made the children jump in. In one account, the Kellers were said to have stolen a baby gorilla from a park and Frances cut off one of its fingers.

The pair, who apparently liked to wear robes, were said to have dug graves in a cemetery to hide dead animals and a passer-by who was shot and carved up with a chain saw.

The children were supposedly taken to military bases and on secret aeroplane trips, including to Mexico, where they were abused and returned to the centre in time for their parents to pick them up as normal. They said they were coerced into videotaped sex acts and drugged so they would forget what they had seen.

In court, the jury heard about the extensive attempts by Austin police to substantiate the stories – and Hampton believes that lent them credibility. Police conducted inquiries at nearby airfields, took the children to a cemetery and examined graves from a helicopter using an infrared camera that they said could detect “hot-spots” on decomposing corpses.

In a letter of support for the Kellers dated March 17 this year, James Wood, a psychology professor at the University of Texas at El Paso, wrote: “There is now general agreement among reputable scholars that the Daycare Abuse Panic was a twentieth-century manifestation of ‘witchcraft fever’ of the same kind that swept Salem, Massachusetts in 1692 and Western Europe in the centuries before that.”

11 Responses to Witchhunt

  • Unfortunately, common sense is all too uncommon nowadays.

  • In the case of which I have personal knowledge (one much less lurid) t was a prosecutor, parents, and a local OB GYN, compounded by a judge I wouldn’t trust either. The jury split the difference, convicting the defendant on one count (they believed the OB GYN) and acquitting on another. The sequence of events over the next 14 years (during which time he was in prison) is enough to persuade you that the parole system is humbug and should be replaced. The prosecutor in the case, in addition to insulting in open court members of the community who supported the accused, later went to work for some shizzy ‘NGO’ ‘advocating’ on behalf of the abused.
    He picked up enough vocational training in prison and his mother and father had enough good will in the community that he could find work on his release, though he lost one job when the quondam prosecutor located him and whipped up a lynch mob against one employer. (Local newspapers had in their files a bizarre mugshot that looked nothing like him and reprinted it to illustrate their articles). He moved out of state after a couple of years, and, in a surprise to everyone, found someone to marry him. He was, in the first two years after his release, episodically angry, and may still be.

  • To the hell of being wrongfully convicted and sentenced for such a horrendous crime, and then serving 21 years for said crime you didn’t commit, add the PARTICULARIZED HELL of what happens to people in prison that are convicted of crimes harming children. We can only imagine (and we probably don’t want to) what these poor people were forced to endure.

  • I am being called to my civic duty as a juror in 10 days. First time ever. Any advice about how to properly serve? The comment about “If is sounds like baloney, it usually us,” prompts me to fine tune my crap detector…

  • Bring a good book to read. You will probably be waiting quite a bit before appearing on panels for the attorneys or the courts to voir dire. If your are picked for a jury listen hard to the testimony. Remember that what the lawyers say is not evidence. The Judge will instruct all of you as to the applicable law at the end of the case. If you get a criminal case remember that beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean either “any doubt” or “he probably did it.” If you serve on a jury and they take you all to lunch during trial, I hope it is some place decent. Sometimes jurors get taken to some of the most miserable greasy spoons imaginable. After a jury verdict, jurors are not required to talk about their votes to anyone.

  • Don: thanks for the advice. I am hard of hearing but do wear hearing aids after my time flying in the military. Even with hearing aids, I often find it hard to follow conversations. Can we ask the Judge to have things repeated? I’m intrigued by going to court and I want to do a good “job” but also don’t want an important decision to rest on my hit and miss hearing…

  • The Court would probably give you a hearing device that might help better than your hearing aid. You would definitely want to bring this to the attention of the Court when you are being questioned as part of a panel during the picking of the jury.

  • Hey, miserable greasy spoons often serve up some of the best chow around.

  • Don’t forget, sometimes even Catholic priests are subjected to witchhunts. Here is a likely case: http://thesestonewalls.com/about/

  • “Hey, miserable greasy spoons often serve up some of the best chow around.”

    Those that do not also cause you to vomit it right back up. Perhaps I have simply gotten too familiar with the food inspection process over the years in my home county.

  • ABS has been selected several times to be part of a jury pool but has yet to be chosen for a trial.

    One of the positive things about being selected for a pool is that it gives ABS a chance to tell others about nullification.

Leave a Reply

FBI Pretends That Political Assassin Wasn’t

Friday, June 23, AD 2017

 

Mollie Hemingway at The Federalist tells us that the FBI has decided that would be political assassin James T. Hodgkinson was merely a victim of poor anger management:

 

 

The FBI admits that Hodgkinson:

vociferously raged against Republicans in online forums,
had a piece of paper bearing the names of six members of Congress,
was reported for doing target practice outside his home in recent months before moving to Alexandria,
had mapped out a trip to the DC area,
took multiple photos of the baseball field he would later shoot up, three days after the New York Times mentioned that Republicans practiced baseball at an Alexandria baseball field with little security,
lived out of his van at the YMCA directly next door to the baseball field he shot up,
legally purchased a rifle in March 2003 and 9 mm handgun “in November 2016,”
modified the rifle at some point to accept a detachable magazine and replaced the original stock with a folding stock,
rented a storage facility to hide hundreds of rounds of ammunition and additional rifle components,
asked “Is this the Republican or Democrat baseball team?” before firing on the Republicans,
ran a Google search for information on the “2017 Republican Convention” hours before the shooting,
and took photos at high-profile Washington locations, including the east front plaza of the U.S. Capitol and the Dirksen Senate Office.

We know from other reporting that the list was of six Republican Freedom Caucus members, including Rep. Mo Brooks, who was present at the practice.

So what does the FBI decide this information means? Well, the takeaway of the briefing was characterized well by the Associated Press headline about it: “FBI: Gunman who shot congressman had no target in mind.” The Associated Press reported the FBI:

believes the gunman “had no concrete plan to inflict violence” against Republicans,
“had not yet clarified who, if anyone, he planned to target, or why,”
believes he may have just “happened upon” the baseball game the morning of June 14, and that the attack appeared “spontaneous,”
are unclear on the “context” of Hodgkinson’s note with six names of members of Congress,
does not believe that photographs of the baseball field or other sites “represented surveillance of intended targets,” and
“painted a picture of a down-on-his-luck man with few future prospects.”

In fact, USA Today went with “FBI offers portrait of troubled Alexandria shooter with ‘anger management problem’” for their headline, since that’s what the FBI emphasized in the briefing.

The FBI also said there was no “nexus to terrorism” in the attempted mass assassination of Republican leadership by a Democratic activist. The claim that tourists take pictures of a a completely unremarkable baseball field in a tiny neighborhood also seems odd, particularly when the pictures were taken a few days after The New York Times reported that Republican members of Congress practice baseball there with little security. Someone going by the moniker “Yoenis Cespedes” wrote, “As a guy who could arguably be called a reconnaissance manager when he was in the Army, this is reconnaissance.”

Oh, and here’s a little tidbit that didn’t interest many people in the media beyond a brief mention in the last paragraphs:

Hodgkinson also visited the office of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose campaign he had worked on as a volunteer, and was in email contact with the two Democratic senators from his home state.

As one Twitter wag put it, “You’d think “Congressional Shooter Visited Actual Capitol Hill Offices” would be kinda a big deal and you’d be wrong.”

I wrote last week that the media’s big problem right now is that everyone in the country knows how they’d be covering the shooting if the parties were reversed. Can you imagine if a shooter had visited the office of Sen. Ted Cruz and corresponded with two Republican senators? Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) gave emails to investigators last week but it was treated mostly as local news.

With trust in institutions at historic lows, and the bureaucracy beset by fears of politicization, the FBI made a poor decision to gaslight Americans by claiming that the assassination attempt wasn’t premeditated terrorism but a spontaneous “anger management” problem.

4 Responses to FBI Pretends That Political Assassin Wasn’t

  • I actually think the term “living wage” is a terrible term. After all, what is a living wage? Many would say that it is a wage that enables a worker to support himself and his family. But a living wage for a man with a wife and three kids to support is going to be different than a living wage for a single man with only himself to support. So, by this logic an employer would have to pay the former more than the latter regardless of any difference in productivity. This is clearly untenable. But that term gets thrown around even by some conservatives.

  • I’m never quite sure if that’s what the officialdom said, or if that’s the fiction the reporters and editors have elected to run with. If it’s not the latter, I’d say it’s remarkable how thoroughly Holder and Lynch managed to ruin the agency.

    What’s pathetic is the degree to which federal law enforcement consists of a string of ineffective bureaucracies. See the Secret Service, which couldn’t prevent some random dude from invading the White House and is amply populated with officers who think little of cheating on their wives with Colombian hookers. See Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which may be able to defend itself by providing evidence that they’re better at their jobs than their predecessor agency.

  • I’m with Art on this– why would we trust the AP on this?

Leave a Reply

Dissolve Illinois!

Thursday, June 22, AD 2017

 

John Kass, the only reason to read the Chicago Tribune, has a column calling for the dissolution of the failed State of Illinois.  Go here to read it.  I see my chunk of the State would go to Indiana.  I could live with being a Hoosier if it meant being out from under the thumb of Cook County.

 

 

My preferred solution of course would be Illinois separating into two new states:  The Land of Lincoln and Cook County.

 

Alternative names would be God’s Country and Hell.

 

32 Responses to Dissolve Illinois!

  • If I’m reading the map correctly — some downstate cities, highways or landmarks should have been included for reference — Springfield would go to Missouri (aside from being a Cubs fan, I’d be OK with that) but they already have a Springfield so I suppose our Springfield would have to change its name. Any suggestions?

  • Have you ever noticed godless Democrats squeeze into small areas like snakes in a den, but then they devastate areas from beyond where they live?

  • Hmmm… not sure how I feel about Kentucky getting some of that… what did we do wrong?

  • “Any suggestions?”

    Lincoln Theme Park! (Let the name reflect the reality!)

  • Ah, you blue grassers Nate are getting the prettiest part of the State!

  • Who would get Great Mistakes (I mean Great Lakes) Naval Training Center?

  • It is in Lake County so it goes to Land of Lincoln!

  • I sympathize… I wish we could create the state of Northern Virginia (Washingtonistan?) north of the Rappahannock, and leave the rest of the Commonwealth to her sane self. I was wondering what your take on Illinois’ woes was. I like the suggestion I saw that would require any state declaring bankruptcy to revert to territory status, give up its representation in DC, and have to apply for readmission to the Union. But it seems that, like in Virginia, one small part of the state is doing most of the mischief.

  • I think this could be a coming issue Tom, all kidding aside. Our states are increasingly uneasy marriages of urban centers and rural areas, and some sort of separation seems inevitable down the road.

  • Michigan has enough problems, so I’m happy that we would not get part of Illinois.

  • DJH, IL does claim part of Lake Michigan (it’s the purple wedge on Don’s map). So you might get that, but fortunately only fish live there.

  • As for Springfield’s new identity, I’d suggest “Lincoln Theme Park and Video Gaming Parlors”.

  • Surely a step in the right direction. Maybe we need a Constitutional Convention to bring the country back in line with the founders conception.

  • Hoha. This is so an inter country problem
    Here in NZ, those who live in Auckland (our biggest city of 1.5 mil situated in the northern quarter of the North Island) – are known as ‘JAFFA’S – translated as “just another funny f****in Aucklander’. Why, because they think that all NZ resides in that city. The boundary to the souht west is the Bombay Hills – a low range that tends to separate Auckland from the fertile Waikato region and the rest of the country to the south, west and east. So the Jaffa’s think that NZ ends at the Bombay hills.
    News for them – as NZ is essentially a primary producing economy, the bulk of the wealth comes from those regions south of the Bombay – including the balance of the North Island, and the South Island. The Jaffas even tend to speak a bit differently – even if it is only our imagination – but it is there attitude; and most Jaffas are lefties – so the balance of the real kiwis are happy to separate them. But we are not big eonugh, nor a federal state to cast them off – so we tolerate them 😉

  • Arbitrary state and local government boundaries are an important problem, and one which receives very little discussion (and provokes neuralgic responses on the odd occasion it is brought up). It’s more of a problem in the northeast than the midwest. Local government finance is also an utter mess.

  • Only with the consent of the state Legislature and the Congress. Article IV Sections 3 and 4

  • Where is Abraham Lincoln when you need him?

  • I agree that there seems to be impetus for possibly revolutionary changes in our union. I don’t discount the California secession movement; simply on demographics, their population is becoming more and more Latino, coupled with an aggressive *non* assimilation mentality. But the urban/rural-suburban tension is definitely causing many to reconsider old political orthodoxies. Like Glen Reynolds always comments, time to reconsider Baker v. Carr.

  • I like the “Land of Lincoln” remaining a state.
    Cook County could become the “District of Cook” — similar with San Fran, New York New York etc. A federal district- under the legal authority of the federated government (representatives of the actual states)
    😊🙃Would that disenfranchise them?

  • Like Glen Reynolds always comments, time to reconsider Baker v. Carr.

    Why? The problems from which state legislatures suffer include pointless bicameralism, gerrymandering, bad parliamentary rules (see New York), bad electoral calendars, and being hamstrung by court orders and federal funding. Providing more opportunities for obstructive veto-groups to work their will addresses none of that.

  • Because the case was wrongly decided. There is no constitutional basis for the court to require equipopulous districts.

  • “Providing more opportunities for obstructive veto-groups to work their will addresses none of that.”

    Prior to Baker v. Carr most legislatures were modeled on Congress, which struck a better balance between urban and rural populations. Additionally, of course, the whole one man, one vote concept, as set forth in Baker v. Carr, is complete rubbish and completely unconstitutional.

    Justice Frankfurter writing in dissent:

    “The notion that representation proportioned to the geographic spread of population is so universally accepted as a necessary element of equality between man and man that it must be taken to be the standard of a political equality preserved by the Fourteenth Amendment — that it is, in appellants’ words “the basic principle of representative government” — is, to put it bluntly, not true. However desirable and however desired by some among the great political thinkers and framers of our government, it has never been generally practiced, today or in the past. It was not the English system, it was not the colonial system, it was not the system chosen for the national government by the Constitution, it was not the system exclusively or even predominantly practiced by the States at the time of adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is not predominantly practiced by the States today. Unless judges, the judges of this Court, are to make their private views of political wisdom the measure of the Constitution — views which, in all honesty, cannot but give the appearance, if not reflect the reality, of
    involvement with the business of partisan politics so inescapably a part of apportionment controversies — the Fourteenth Amendment, “itself a historical product,” Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U. S. 22, 260 U. S. 31, provides no guide for judicial oversight of the representation problem.”

  • Prior to Baker v. Carr most legislatures were modeled on Congress, which struck a better balance between urban and rural populations. Additionally, of course, the whole one man, one vote concept, as set forth in Baker v. Carr, is complete rubbish and completely unconstitutional.
    Because the case was wrongly decided. There is no constitutional basis for the court to require equipopulous districts.

    That’s nice. And let’s posit a future which expunges the decision? What is to be done? You can explore the question by a historical and sociological review, or you can quote specutative exercises in The Federalist or some judicial opinion.

    Multicameralism was a feature of medieval assemblies in a society of orders. We’re not a society of orders. New York’s colonial assembly had chambers functionally differentiated. The Philadelphia convention contrived a bicameral chamber as a compromise between competing principles of representation.

    As far as I’m aware, there is only one state (Tennessee) where traditional components command some sense of affiliation on the part of politicians or the public. State’s which are incongruous are so as a consequence of the evolution of settlement – which, in certain cases – leaves part of the state as a tributary of the other part. The sensible thing to do is to partition the province, not to render the provincial government dysfunctional by requiring concurrent majorities you only get when political professionals are contriving against the public.

    This is made all the more silly in our system as the interplay between the courts and elected officials has left the states with bicameral legislature wherein each chamber follows the same principle of representation and has the same functions (more or less). It might be differentiated (as it is in New York) by being gerrymandered differently.

    Now, we can fuss over Baker v. Carr (which has had perverse effects, especially the many stupid subsidiary decisions). I’m not terribly motivated to protest the intervention of judges into legislative discretion when the legislatures themselves were of questionable legitimacy. (See Bork’s reference to certain legislatures being in defiance of the guarantee clause of the federal constitution).

  • “That’s nice. And let’s posit a future which expunges the decision?”

    Why not? The Republic toddled along quite nicely until 1962, with the Supreme Court resisting for over a century cases in which it was asked to meddle with the makeup of state legislatures. It would be easy enough to bring about a direct challenge by having a legislature enact an amendment to the State Constitution giving each county, for instance, one state senator apiece.

    “The Philadelphia convention contrived a bicameral chamber as a compromise between competing principles of representation.”

    Yep and it still works well today, as it did on the state level until the intervention of our Platonic Guardians.

    “The sensible thing to do is to partition the province, not to render the provincial government dysfunctional by requiring concurrent majorities you only get when political professionals are contriving against the public.”

    Not at all Art. The states are supposed to be laboratories and they truly were in representation prior to Baker v. Carr. The idea that representation must be based on number of noses rather than the representation of geographic areas within a state is completely judge created mumbo jumbo. If the people of a state wish to do so, well and good. If they wish to erect a system that reflects what the Founding Fathers gave to us on the national level, that should be their right. Of course the very idea that the Feds may intervene in the structure of state government makes nonsense of our federal system.

  • “The sensible thing to do is to partition the province, not to render the provincial government dysfunctional by requiring concurrent majorities you only get when political professionals are contriving against the public.”

    Well, no, that is not sensible at all, unless ‘sensible’ is defined as segregating people. What is sensible about devising political systems where urban people have no interest in rural affairs? Or vice versa? No, extending “one man one vote” to the upper chambers of the state legislatures was a disaster in this regard, and realigning state borders to ‘fix’ the issue actually would make the problem worse.

    Government is dysfunctional? From what I see it is most dysfunctional when it passes laws too easily.

    Also, Art, it is very interesting that you switched from ‘state’ to ‘province’. In general, states are sovereign, provinces are not. Since the U.S. Federal system is based on sovereign states, your proposal and language would seem, well, in many situations subversive of our constitutional order. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld used to say…but outside of the ivory tower such sentiments would seem costly.

  • Why not? The Republic toddled along quite nicely until 1962, with the Supreme Court resisting for over a century cases in which it was asked to meddle with the makeup of state legislatures.

    Well, the system ‘toddles along’ right now. If being able to toddle along is the performance standard, one should be indifferent between unicameralism, asymmetric bicameralism, symmetric bicameralism, parliamentary administrations, separation-of-powers, federalism, French centralism, British centralism, executive monarchy, ceremonial monarchy, and Vladimir Putin. They all toddle along somewhere.

    It would be easy enough to bring about a direct challenge by having a legislature enact an amendment to the State Constitution giving each county, for instance, one state senator apiece.

    You can contrive a challenge. The question is, what’s the end state you are seeking?

    “The Philadelphia convention contrived a bicameral chamber as a compromise between competing principles of representation.” Yep and it still works well today,

    Only according to the most idiosyncratic understanding of the term ‘works well’. The Congress we have has (more often than not) been incapable of provisioning the government by any means other than catch-all continuing resolutions. That’s just the first item on the list of dysfunctions to which Congress is prone.

    as it did on the state level until the intervention of our Platonic Guardians.
    Again, there is a distinction between ‘works well’ and merely abiding. There are also competing interests at stake. Unlike Tennessee, New York did not blatantly ignore constitutional provisions which required re-apportionment. However, it applied an apportionment method which enhanced the weight of a set of 35 Upstate counties to the tune of about 65%. IOW, they had a premium of 14 seats in the Assembly. In a body with 150 members, those 14 seats proved decisive. County boundaries in New York have been more-or-less fixed since 1825, but there’s nothing special about counties. They do not command any affective loyalty from the public. They might to a degree from politicians jealous of their turf (which would be curious in New York inasmuch as county politicians accept being utterly hamstrung by the state legislature in ways that might surprise you). Now, the settlement patterns in the state had changed a great deal since the counties were erected, as well as the lines along which publics and politicians were divided. Ultimately, that generates political pressure to which there was (and remains) no very satisfying solution.

    “The sensible thing to do is to partition the province, not to render the provincial government dysfunctional by requiring concurrent majorities you only get when political professionals are contriving against the public.” Not at all Art. The states are supposed to be laboratories and they truly were in representation prior to Baker v. Carr. The idea that representation must be based on number of noses rather than the representation of geographic areas within a state is completely judge created mumbo jumbo. If the people of a state wish to do so, well and good. If they wish to erect a system that reflects what the Founding Fathers gave to us on the national level, that should be their right. Of course the very idea that the Feds may intervene in the structure of state government makes nonsense of our federal system.
    This response of yours is terribly confused. That the states are ‘laboratories’ is largely a political just-so story. Even if they were, the apportionment of their legislatures is irrelevant to that except insofar as the apportionment provides weight to one set of interests or another. You have a seminal system of representation which tends over time to be advantageous to one set of interests or another (in ways not anticipated), and those interests tend to protect their turf. Can be kind of a problem if their means lack legitimacy. Your contention that representation according to population is ‘judge created mumbo jumbo’ is very strange. If you mean the notional that all legislative bodies must be apportioned per population, yes that is a contrivance of the Warren court. The question arises as to what body has the authority to constitute the legislature in a particular way.
    Your references to what the state wishes to do or does not wish to do beg the question. Robert Bork offered the view that a variety of formats for the state legislature are kosher so long as the constitution and re-constitution of the legislature was a consequence of majority discretion. That seems sensible. It is, however, a contrivance which contends with actual provisions in state constitutions (just one more congruent with local control).

    I should mention that Bork did identify constitutional provisions (e.g. the guarantee clause) with which the architecture of state government ought to be in compliance.

    Federalism as practiced today is an institutional mess which does not secure local discretion, It’s already nonsense. even if the courts compound the nonsense with more nonsense. We would benefit from institutional reforms which actually do secure decentralized decision-making. The creaky carpentry of state constitutions is not getting the work done.

    As for representing ‘geographic units’, I’m not seeing the point of that unless the units themselves are something that’s there for reasons of inertia. People’s identification is strongest with their ‘home town’, but what that is is variable according to the frame of reference applied. I don’t think it’s readily possible to contrive a representation scheme based on ‘home towns’.

  • “You can contrive a challenge. The question is, what’s the end state you are seeking?”

    Pre Baker v. Carr where the States were free to set up their legislatures as they wish.

    “The Congress we have has (more often than not) been incapable of provisioning the government by any means other than catch-all continuing resolutions. That’s just the first item on the list of dysfunctions to which Congress is prone.”

    Agreed and which has bupkis to do with representation in the Senate being by geography rather than by noses which is the subject under discussion.

    “There are also competing interests at stake.”

    Yes, and which should be fought out at the state level sans federal intervention. I have little faith in the wisdom of state governments to set wise policy. I have zero faith in federal judges to do so, particularly since that is not their job.

  • Well, no, that is not sensible at all, unless ‘sensible’ is defined as segregating people.

    Whenever you place a political boundary somewhere, you are segregating people. Unless you have an objection to regional or local government per se, that’s a vacuous complaint.

    What is sensible about devising political systems where urban people have no interest in rural affairs? Or vice versa?

    When you’re asking these rhetorical questions, you’re incorporating two (mis) conceptions: (1) that ‘have no interest in’ has a fixed and discernible meaning in this context and (2) that if it did the answer to that question would conclude the argument. No and no.

    No, extending “one man one vote” to the upper chambers of the state legislatures was a disaster in this regard,

    It was actually the lower chamber in New York that was the main point of contention. That aside, what is this ‘disaster’? How does one recognize it?

    and realigning state borders to ‘fix’ the issue actually would make the problem worse.

    Meet me half way and tell me what ‘the problem’ is.

  • Government is dysfunctional? From what I see it is most dysfunctional when it passes laws too easily.

    Your federal legislature cannot pass a budget and has left the Export-Import Bank in place for about 80 years now. Somehow, I suspect your concern is misplaced.

    Also, Art, it is very interesting that you switched from ‘state’ to ‘province’.

    ‘Province’ or ‘region’ is a generic, ‘state’ is particular.

    your proposal and language would seem, well, in many situations subversive of our constitutional order.

    [rolls eyes]

  • Art, you and Mussolini (of the trains running on time fame) can roll your eyes all you like.

  • Art, you and Mussolini

    At this juncture, you’re making irritable mental gestures. No clue why.

  • No clue? I’m irritated by one of the few people I know on the internet who knows mucho more facts than I do (namely you) engaging in sophistry and illogic that lead to administrative efficiency over liberty. On this thread you have denigrated nearly every feature of the American Experiment without introducing one positive idea in opposition. Not one.


    And your style of debate stinks. For example, we have this:
    “Whenever you place a political boundary somewhere, you are segregating people. Unless you have an objection to regional or local government per se, that’s a vacuous complaint.”
    That is hardly true. Nearly all of our state and county borders were set when populations were much lower and economically more alike (read agrarian) than they are today. Such borders were arbitrary and unimportant to the creation of different people with different political interests. So you then equate these 200 year old events with your idea to redraw such borders so that people with similar interests will be together? That is really completely different, and not equivalent at all despite your assertion to the contrary. Plus, you completely ignore my point that your proposal would lead to MORE conflict, not less.
    I could list plenty of other things you have posted on this thread that irritate me also. If you would like I could list them, but I think Don McC wouldn’t like the wasted space – I mean, you would just continue to raise nonsensical objections, like the one on segregation, right?

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Audience

Thursday, June 22, AD 2017

 

The four dubia Cardinals drafted a request for an audience on April 25, 2017:

 

Most Holy Father,

It is with a certain trepidation that I address myself to Your Holiness, during these days of the Easter season. I do so on behalf of the Most Eminent Cardinals: Walter Brandmüller, Raymond L. Burke, Joachim Meisner, and myself.

We wish to begin by renewing our absolute dedication and our unconditional love for the Chair of Peter and for Your august person, in whom we recognize the Successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus: the “sweet Christ on earth,” as Saint Catherine of Siena was fond of saying. We do not share in the slightest the position of those who consider the See of Peter vacant, nor of those who want to attribute to others the indivisible responsibility of the Petrine munus. We are moved solely by the awareness of the grave responsibility arising from the munus of cardinals: to be advisers of the Successor of Peter in his sovereign ministry. And from the Sacrament of the Episcopate, which “has placed us as bishops to pasture the Church, which He has acquired with his blood” (Acts 20:28).

On September 19, 2016 we delivered to Your Holiness and to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith five dubia, asking You to resolve uncertainties and to bring clarity on some points of the post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia.

Not having received any response from Your Holiness, we have reached the decision to ask You, respectfully and humbly, for an Audience, together if Your Holiness would like. We attach, as is the practice, an Audience Sheet in which we present the two points we wish to discuss with you.

11 Responses to PopeWatch: Audience

  • The pope will promptly schedule the requested audience for the second Tuesday of next week.

  • Matthew 7:9 (“Or what man is there among you, of whom if his son shall ask bread, will
    he reach him a stone?”) somehow comes to mind. Cardinals Caffarra et. al. being dutiful
    sons asking for bread, and our Pope offering stone instead. His is the silence of a man
    who has nothing to say for himself.

  • So what happens next when after time it becomes apparent to all that the Pope will never respond and dialogue?

    What is he afraid of?

  • The reality is the pope cannot answer the dubia without exposing its inability to comply with the teachings of the faith as handed down by the Apostles. The question remains: what now? Will the cardinals sit quietly for the dissolution of Catholic doctrine and practice that has already begun? Will the Pope respond with punishment?(alter boys for the lot of them) Will he attempt to answer with more transparent ambiguity and unclarity? Will he admit to its confusion and clarify the errors? As they say, only God knows.

  • This quote from the Register says it all:
    “For many Catholics, it is incredible that the Pope is asking bishops to dialogue with those who think differently [i.e. non-Catholic Christians], but does not want first to face the cardinals who are his chief advisors,” Msgr. Bux says.

  • For pf it might be better to remain silent and be accused of heresies than to open one’s mouth and support the evidence.

    Trying my best to take the good and leave the rotton until his chapter ends. Good?
    Yes. There is some good.
    Like it or not….. he’s our Pope.
    Pray for him.

  • What I hope will happen if the Pope doesn’t respond is continued following in the example of St. Catherine of Siena’s loyalty to a difficult Holy Father.

  • I’m beginning to wonder if this Pope “thinks” that his election is proof that he (Francis) is now “authorized” by God to change what Christ taught on Marriage. Am I crazy for thinking that the Pope thinks this?

  • David WS; I too, think that Pope Francis believes that he is enabled to change the truth taught by Jesus Christ, the Healer.

  • Mundabor has an interesting perspective on this, and he doesn’t take kindly to what he calls the meowing of Cardinals:

    https://mundabor.wordpress.com/2017/06/20/four-cardinals-five-dubia-and-no-end-of-meowing/

  • Agree with Mundabor. “Please, dear Cardinals, stop meowing and grow a pair already. You are supposed to be Princes of the Church, not whining kitten.”

    What we are dealing with here is the reincarnation of Henry VII in the body of Pope Francis. What’s needed is another Thomas More. We we now have are pussy cats. Like in the time of Henry the Cardinals and Bishops are mostly caving in as nearly all Catholic will also.

    The persecution of orthodox Catholics is well on its way. Let his pray for divine intervention so that fewer souls will be lost.

Leave a Reply

Fortnight for Freedom: Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher

Thursday, June 22, AD 2017

 

A spot of blood and grease on the pages of English history.

Charles Dickens, referring to King Henry VIII

For English speaking Catholics, June 22 is a bright day on the calendar of the Saints.  It is appropriate that in the northern hemisphere it is also one of the longest days, when it is not the longest day, of the year, since no amount of sunshine is too much to celebrate the merits of Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher.  On this day we remember the two saints who stood against King Henry VIII, for the great principle that the State must never be allowed to control the Church.  Much that we Americans celebrate as freedom was born out of Church-State struggles down through the ages.  Sometimes those who stood against the State fell in the struggle, but the concept that the State is not absolute, that there are limits to its authority, is one of the great gifts of the Catholic Middle Ages to all of mankind.  It is only in modern times, since 1500, that the heresy that the State may exercise absolute authority has been a constant source of misery and strife in the history of the West.

When he ascended to the throne of England Henry VIII was popularly known as the Golden Hope of England.  His father Henry VII had never been loved by the people of England:  a miser and a distinctly unheroic figure no matter what Shakespeare would write in Richard III.  He had brought the end of the War of the Roses and peace to England, but that was about as much credit as his subjects would give the grasping, unlovable Henry Tudor.  His son by contrast looked like an Adonis when young, strong and athletic.  He had a sharp mind and had been well-educated, intended, ironically, for a career in the Church before the death of his elder brother Arthur.  He was reputed, correctly, to be pious.  He had considerable charisma in his youth and knew how to make himself loved with a well timed laugh or smile, and loved he was, by the nobles, commons, his wife Katherine, and the Church.  Few reigns started more auspiciously than that of Henry, eighth of that name.

By the end of his reign he was widely despised by most of his subjects.  Called a crowned monster behind his back, his reign had brought religious turmoil to England and domestic strife.  The best known symbols of his reign were the headman’s axe, the stake and the boiling pot in which he had some of the luckless individuals who roused his fury boiled to death.

It of course is small wonder for a Catholic to have little love for Henry VIII and his reign, but the distaste for Henry extends well beyond members of the Church.  Winston Churchill, the great English statesman and historian, in his magisterial History of the English Speaking Peoples, has this to say about the executions of Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher:

“The resistance of More and Fisher to the royal supremacy in Church government was a heroic stand.  They realised the defects of the existing Catholic system, but they hated and feared the aggressive nationalism which was destroying the unity of Christendom.  They saw that the break with Rome carried with it the risk of a despotism freed from every fetter.  More stood forth as the defender of all that was finest in the medieval outlook.  He represents to history its universality, its belief in spiritual values, and its instinctive sense of otherworldliness.  Henry VIII with cruel axe decapitated not only a wise and gifted counselor, but a system which, though it had failed to live up to its ideals in practice, had for long furnished mankind with its brightest dreams.”

 

Churchill himself was not noted for being a churchgoer.  When asked if he was a pillar of the Church of England, he quipped that perhaps he could be considered to be a flying buttress of the Church, supporting it from outside.  Perhaps this helped give him a certain objectivity regarding Henry VIII.  Here is part of his summing up of Henry’s reign:

“Henry’s rule saw many advances in the growth and the character of the English state, but it is a hideous blot upon his record that the reign should be widely remembered for its executions.  Two Queens, two of the King’s chief Ministers, a saintly bishop, numerous abbots, monks and many ordinary folk who dared to resist the royal will were put to death.  Almost every member of the nobility in whom royal blood ran perished on the scaffold at Henry’s command.  Roman Catholic and Calvinist alike were burnt for heresy and religious treason.  These persecutions, inflicted in solemn manner by officers of the law, perhaps in the presence of the Council or even the King himself, form a brutal sequel to the bright promise of the Renaissance.  The sufferings of devout men and women among the faggots, the use of torture, and the savage penalties imposed for even paltry crimes, stand in repellent contrast to the enlightened principles of humanism.” 

7 Responses to Fortnight for Freedom: Saint Thomas More and Saint John Fisher

Leave a Reply

Fifty Million Plus Dollars Later

Wednesday, June 21, AD 2017

 

 

Republicans are now 4 for 4 in special House elections since Trump took office:

 

Republican Karen Handel has won Georgia’s record-breaking special congressional election, dashing hopes by Democrats to pull off an upset in the run-up to the 2018 midterm elections.

Seen as an early proxy for whether Democrats can flip certain Republican-leaning districts in the President Donald Trump era, Tuesday’s election drew national attention and record cash from around the country. Democrats have aimed to leverage Trump’s dismal approval rating and opposition to the Republican health-care bill into winning Republican seats and potentially taking control of the House in 2018.

The race for Georgia’s 6th District for the seat vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price pitted Handel, 55, the former Georgia secretary of state, against Democrat Jon Ossoff, a 30-year old former congressional aide. Fueled by a rush of donors from around the U.S., Ossoff pushed for an upset in the suburban Atlanta district that Price repeatedly won easily.

 

He came up short, as Handel won by about 5 percentage points, according to incomplete returns.

The two campaigns and outside groups supporting and opposing the candidates shelled out at least $36 million as of May 31, including more than $22 million from Ossoff’s campaign. The election easily set a record for spending in a House race, according to NBC News.

 

18 Responses to Fifty Million Plus Dollars Later

  • I am glad the Dems lost again. I hope this continues.

    That said, I remained surprised that my company – a nuclear one which normally should favor Republicans – has management which openly despises Trump. I think I have figured out the reason. This company is home-based in a blue State which overwhelmingly voted for Hildebeast. And that State did a lot to oppose Trump’s executive orders on immigration. And young spoiled brat millennial whelps rioted and burned and looted in that State because they didn’t get their way in the last election. So guess what? That compnay isn’t going to get ANY DOE funding from Perry in the future because Perry works for Trump and Trump knows who loves him and who hates him. Realizing that subconsciously, and realizing Trump isn’t being suckered into the climate change fear mongering being used by nuclear and renewable advocates alike, management never misses an opportunity to say some snide remark, or let some ridicule loose.

    You freaking LOST, idiots! Get over it! We don’t want Democrats in power period, so change or shrivel up and die.

  • 50 million? Ah, the value of tribute money to the Godless has gone up in the last couple thousand years.

  • When will we see legislative victories?

  • Seriously?!? They ran a 30 year-old, wet behind the ears “congressional aid” against a former secretary of state and expected to win? Either the Dem bench is ridiculously shallow, or they were not all that serious.

  • Yet again the polls have been shown to be laughably inaccurate, and the
    pundits and presstitutes who gravely informed us that voters were turning
    away from Handel have been shown to be confusing their own wishful
    thinking for objective journalism.

    And it’s interesting that up until the election, we were breathlessly told
    that the Georgia 6th race represented a referendum on Trump, that a
    loss by Handel meant a rejection of Trump by the nation as a whole.
    But today? The Democrats this morning all sound like the old Saturday
    Night Live character Emily Litella: “Never mind!”

    https://youtu.be/OjYoNL4g5Vg

  • Here is what I have been told:

    “What scares me is that the ordinary American is a really dumb, ignorant fool. Trump was elected because he preyed on the uneducated and took them for a ride. Such people are so gullible that they wiillingly accept the fear mongering hat Trump disseminates. I love news headlines that even today read something similar to the following: ‘Trump’s core base still supports him!'”

    Most everyone in my company who is anyone believes exactly what you see written above. They despise Trump as an ignorant buffoon, and equally, they despise their fellow Americans who differ with them. And God help you if you are a Trump supporter.

    PS, I note with irony the fear mongering part. What the hell is the apocalypse of anthropogenic global warming but fear mongering incarnate?

  • Seriously?!? They ran a 30 year-old, wet behind the ears “congressional aid” against a former secretary of state and expected to win? Either the Dem bench is ridiculously shallow, or they were not all that serious.

    The Democratic cognoscenti in 2007 came up with the idea of running Barack Obama against Rudolph Giuliani / Mitt Romney / Mike Huckabee / John McCain / Ron Paul. Sometimes, it’s like selling Spam.

  • Did Ossoff have an ad featuring Scarlett Johanssen?

  • “When will we see legislative victories?”

    Beginning next week I suspect.

  • As was the case when a democratic supporter shot Republicans and now a Republican has won, the media very quickly moves on. The total opposite would had taken place if it had been a Republican shooter and a Democratic win. We would have heard about it endlessly with projections and fear mongering, on and on and on..
    Big Media ratings may be up, but I don’t think Big Media realizes how far their credibility sank into the toilet. No one, not even the most die hard progressive, seriously thinks Big Media is real news anymore, just entertainment, propaganda, but certainly not news. But I guess Big Media really doesn’t care about credibility anymore.

  • Stephen Miller: “The only thing Democrats won recently was the congressional baseball game, while the only way Democrat voters can seem to get Republicans out of Congress is by shooting them. And they can’t even do that right.”

    Instapundit: “Until the party can admit to itself that Barack Obama was the worst party leader perhaps ever, and that Hillary Clinton was the least-capable standard-bearer since Mike Dukakis, then they’re going to have to continue pinning the blame for their losses on racist, sexist, phobic American voters.”

  • First, I really like Clinton’s “presstitutes”.
    Next, David’s comment is so right: the ‘media’ has moved on, now that the GA 6th district decision didn’t fall their way—but also they were inordinately grateful to take their squirrel-length attention-span off of the fact that Steve Scalise is still in serious condition with scores of bullet fragments in his body, thanks to the James K. Hodgkinson (D) party.

    Now, the Hodgkinson Party, Nancy Pscyhosi, Bernie “the Red” Sanders, Elizabeth (“The Scream”, apologies to Edvard Munch) Warren, and Charles Sleazy Schumer, are all about the healthcare of the American populace, right? Imagine what $50 mil dumped into a 3rd-party administrator trust HSA administrated by the State of GA for its citizens, especially on a means-tested basis, could do for healthcare? Naw, it’s all about POWER!! What am I thinking…

    Also: Did anyone else note that the Hodkinson Party always says they understand women, and they especially targeted women voters supposedly in Fulton and DeKalb counties—by selecting supposedly an “eye-candy” (you cant argue he had any substance) candidate. So, when push encounters shove, it is always patronizing to its identity groups, even women. (“Let’s put Ossoff in there, they’ll be panting for him like we all were for James “Comely” Comey—another empty suit, and 6′ 8″ of it at that.)

  • As for why they picked Ossoff, have any of you heard him speak? His speaking style impersonates Obama. I kid you not. As if he were channeling him. I guarantee you those idiots believed themselves to be paving the way for the next Obama.
    ***
    Seriously, why else would all those Hollywood types go to Georgia to campaign on his behalf? it’s one thing to send a lot of money. It’s quite another thing to get personally involved.
    ***
    I’m telling you, I believe the left was infatuated with Ossoff on a near-Obama-like level. They viewed him as potentially the Democrats’ great Southern white hope.

  • See the look on the faces of the losers 😆
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DC1AjRGUIAASb9-?format=jpg&name=large
    Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0REPLY REPORTJUNE 22, 2017 9:02AM

  • “…but I don’t think Big Media realizes how far their credibility sank into the toilet…”
    If they did they would have fired Martha Raddatz for her near breakdown as Trump racked up the electoral votes. The woman nearly broke out into tears than night, but hey, she’s a professional, right, not like those people exposing PP and thus deserving prosecution – oh wait: http://www.lifenews.com/2017/06/21/court-dismisses-bogus-charges-against-david-daleiden-for-exposing-planned-parenthood/

  • I apologize in advance.

    Seen on the net. “I’m laughing my ossoff.”

    Also, seen. An observation on the proclivity of brave, strong feminists to burst into tears.

    I am sincerely sorry.

  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=987gjSJa7nI

    If you say so, Jay. What I notice is less the stylistic resemblance to BO than his affection for humbug (“about you”, “extraordinary community”, and that prog-trash staple “make a statement”).

    One thing I’d like to see is a constitutional amendment elaborated upon by statutory legislation which among its provisions the following: (1) candidates for supralocal public offices must be between the ages of 39 and 72 years of age on the day of the election or referendum in question; (2) positions in the judiciary subject to election or retention-in-office referenda shall carry a term of four years or a whole-number multiple of four years; all other positions shall carry a term of four years; (3) judicial positions excepted, no person shall hold an elected office for more than 10 years in any bloc of twelve, or stand for election should it be the case that he would reach this limit in the middle of his term; (5) all judges (elected or no) must retire by the close of the calendar year in which they reach the age of 76, with their term of office truncated accordingly; (6) any person in a tainted occupation standing for a seat on a conciiliar body (judicial panels excepted) must run with an understudy (listed on his petitions or nominated with him at caucuses and conventions) who is not tainted. Should the outcome of caucuses, conventions, primary elections, and petition campaigns leave a political party with a corps of candidates for a given concilar body of whom more than 20% are tainted, lots must be drawn to replace a sufficient number of tainted candidates with their respective understudies in order to bring the share of tainted candidates down to 20%. The tainted occupations are ‘member of the bar’ and ‘public employee (elected officials excepted)’. Should one hold a tainted occupation, one will retain the taint for a period of time after relinquishing said occupation. The time one retains the taint shall equal one month for every four months one held the occupation in question. (7) the foregoing applies to all elective offices and to federal offices without fail; however, any state may, via referendum, opt to follow different standards and practices for its own offices or for local office under its aegis. However, any such alternative must be reconfirmed in a referendum at least once every 30 years; if the option has not been considered in the previous 30 years, the standards and practices delineated above shall be re-instituted.

    I think if we did that, we’d see few candidates for Congress whose previous preparation for the position was a stint as a congressional aide.

  • ….Eyecandy? He looks like the Avengers’ Spider Man, but without the charm.
    Maybe going for a young, fresh face thing? Not like they’ve got a lot of mid-range folks….

    Saw a funny: Democrat demanding where all these rich, white guys who want to destroy America keep coming from, and a Marine I know commented “I don’t know, but another one lost to a strong, qualified woman last night.”

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Unholy Ghost

Wednesday, June 21, AD 2017

 

 

An article at Crisis by Julia Meloni focuses on one of the ghostwriters for the Pope:

 

 

In Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis announces: “No one can be condemned forever, because that is not the logic of the Gospel!” (297). Josef Seifert warns that it’s “nearly unavoidable” to deduce a denial of Hell—a fear echoed by others. Anna Silvas notes Amoris Laetitia’s “missing” lexicon of eternity: “There are no immortal souls in need of eternal salvation to be found in the document!”

But papal ghostwriter Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez is ebullient with joy because, as he declares in a 1995 article, “I rely firmly upon the truth that all are saved.” The author of Heal Me With Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing, Fernandez elsewhere rhapsodizes that extra-marital sex can express “ecstatic” charity and “Trinitarian richness.”

And Fernandez the papal ghostwriter—as Michael Pakaluk and Sandro Magister have shown—repeatedly plagiarizes his previous work in Amoris Laetitia. For instance, Fernandez’s 2006 declaration that “Trinitarian” love can be “realized within an objective situation of sin” is echoed in Amoris Laetitia 305.

Last September, the four cardinals submitted their dubia out of grave concern for “the true good of souls.” They’ve now published a letter from April requesting an audience with the pontiff—who has not responded.

As the months of papal non-engagement grow, Pope Francis’s maxim that “time is greater than space” feels increasingly ominous. Fernandez—whose cited and uncited work also appears in Pope Francis’s Evangelii Gaudium—has long claimed that we’re in an age of revolutionary “time.”

In his book The Francis Project, Fernandez laments that conservative “fanatics” can’t accept that the “Spirit”—which can “elude the supervision of the institution of the Church”—is leading us “toward a different phase.” It’s a phase where, apparently, God is “Mother” and “you should follow your conscience” and “a pope who tells us that God wants us to be happy on this earth will never ask us to be obsessed with sacrifice.” It’s a phase where, to quote Pope Francis, the Church isn’t “obsessed” with abortion or sexual ethics either.

6 Responses to PopeWatch: Unholy Ghost

  • So what are the four cardinals who submitted the five dubia and requested an audience going to do as Jorge Bergoglio continues to refuse to address their concerns?

    Eventually we have to reach a point where we openly call Jorge Bergoglio a heretic and refuse to follow him or give him credence.

    He must be deposed from the Seat of St Peter and anathematized. For the good of his soul and the good of the Church, he must be cast out.

    But who can do that except God? Oh that Jorge Bergoglio might experience what King Nebuchadnezzar did in Daniel chapter 4! That would fix his Argentinian ego but good.

  • I know many decent people who are striving to lead holy lives, but in the greater balance of civilization I see very few who are “obsessed with sacrifice.”

  • the sacrifice that so horrifies many in the “lifestyle” is what they see as what the world wants them to live with daily– chastity, purity. They think not giving in to what they feel driven to do, in obedience to what they have accepted as their actual identity. “This is who I am!” “You are asking me to sacrifice every day!” “God mad me this way so He obviously wants me to live this way… your obsession with my need to sacrifice is hateful and unmerciful.”

  • Anzlyne.

    As a believer and ambassador for Christ we have much to do. Our love and example is what will help them heal from a lifestyle choice that is only a dead end.

    They will search us out as the indelible mark becomes more evident and important to their sense of true identity. We must remember to just be ourselves and trust in Providence. Of course we pray. We adore.
    We beg for the forgiveness of those who do not pray, do not adore and who do not love the one who placed that indelible mark on them from the very beginning.

    Fatima’s angel of Portugal is instructing…and preparing the future St. Francisco in all of us. Sacrifice and daily Rosaries for the conversion of sinners.

    Peace.

  • If we were to imagine how the devil speaks we could do no better than to listen to Archbishop Victor Manuel Fernandez. Why this isn’t perfectly clear to Pope Francis and the Cardinals can only be explained by sharing the same belief or lack of courage.

  • Good morning Philip and thank you . We pray and hope.

Leave a Reply

Fortnight For Freedom: Bulwark of Freedom

Wednesday, June 21, AD 2017

 

 

 

On this date 239 years ago New Hampshire adopted the Constitution and the Constitution went into effect, as the “Live Free or Die State” was the ninth state to vote to ratify it.  I love the Constitution.  The Founding Fathers crafted it well.  Where this country has gone off the rails is when one arm of the tripartite government begins to operate outside of its scope.  For example, when courts act like legislatures, when administrative agencies act like legislatures, when Congress attempts to micromanage foreign policy, etc.  I have heard the Constitution praised as the bulwark of our liberties.  It is a pretty sentiment, but mistaken.  Lincoln hit the target in a speech on what is the bulwark of our liberties, after God:

What constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, the guns of our war steamers, or the strength of our gallant and disciplined army. These are not our reliance against a resumption of tyranny in our fair land. All of them may be turned against our liberties, without making us stronger or weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is in the love of liberty which God has planted in our bosoms. Our defense is in the preservation of the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands, every where. Destroy this spirit, and you have planted the seeds of despotism around your own doors.
September, 11, 1858

 

Leave a Reply

Fortnight For Freedom 2017

Tuesday, June 20, AD 2017

 

As in years past The American Catholic will participate in the Fortnight for Freedom proclaimed by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.  Each day up to the Fourth of July we will have a special blog post on the subject of liberty and freedom.

I debated in my mind whether to participate this year.  With a friend of liberty in the White House, it seemed less pressing to participate than under the odious Obama regime that was a clear and pressing danger to American liberty.  However, as our history shows, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty and the issues raised in regard to the defense of our freedoms goes to the very heart of what it means to be an American.  This country was born in furious debate and thus it must continue.  And so we will take part again this year.

 

27 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom 2017

  • God made all things AND KEEPS THEM IN EXISTENCE. it is this “KEEPS THEM IN EXISTENCE” battle that must be fought against the forces of hell. It is God’s battle. Make no mistake. “their Creator” created man in freedom and endowed the sovereignty of man to each and every person. It is to maintain the kingdom of heaven that we must be constantly vigilant.

  • Freedom, use it or loose it. The same can be said of Teaching Authority.

    It was during the Obama administration when I first heard… a sermon on contraception, a weak one, but one none the less. Now, things are suddenly quiet again.
    We need exercises in solid Teaching much more than a “Fortnight For Freedom 2017” celebration.

  • The captains of our ships…both secular and sacred, seem to be asleep at the wheel! Bishops wake up!

  • The USCCB claims “How to talk about Religious Liberty,” that religious Freedom is “2. A Fundamental Right” but religious freedom is not a fundamental right in Catholic Tradition and so it seems to ABS that claim is in direct opposition to Mirari Vos, Pascendi, The Syllabus of Errors, the Leonine Encyclicals, (Immortale Dei, and Libertas) and other examples could be multiplied.

    It can not be contested the Magisterium of today has pitted itself against the Magisterium of Tradition and so instead of celebrating this contentious chaos, let’s consider just getting drunk.

    The Thomist, Msgr. BruneroGherardini, “The Ecumenical Vatican Council II A MUCH NEEDED DISCUSSION” produces a recapitulation of the Church historic opposition to the claims of the USCCB (See Denzinger 647 for a rather different consideration of Religious LIberty).

    On page 217 of his text, Msgr Gherardini observes: The content of DH and the contents of the previous Magisterium are different. So, there is neither continuity nor development of the previous Magisterium in DH.

  • It’s not so simple as that. Limited religious tolerance was always extended to the Jews, for example, with the Popes of the Middle Ages often being the protector of the Jews. The Crusaders, with the consent of the Church, extended tolerance to many Christian groups in the East that would have been considered to be heretical. During the first three centuries of Christianity the Church asked to be merely left alone by Caesar. The discussion is complicated by the fact that heretical groups often didn’t seek tolerance but rather to destroy the Church. It is interesting that at the height of the Wars of Religion, during the reign of Mary Tudor, the Pope through his representatives was counseling a tolerant go slow approach. Pope Innocent XI expressed his displeasure at the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the persecution of the French Protestants undertaken by Louis XIV. Pope Gregory XVI, no fan of republics, noted that because of the hands off policy to religion in the United States, that except for the Papal States in no other country was he more the Pope.

    I think a good case can be made that the Church never came out against religious freedom, as we understand it today, in a regime where the Catholic Church was tolerated and protected by the Civil Authority. Actions of the past cannot be viewed in isolation but must be understood as they related to the conditions of the time.

  • “religious freedom, as we understand it today” I wish I understood how we understand it today 🙂
    We are getting into the odd position of seculars discussing and dividing theological questions– like Bernard Sanders- whose opinion has some weight.
    Plus, of course, words don’t mean what they have always meant– and they mean different things in different places. I read that religious freedom in England meant that every citizen had the right to the ministration of the Anglican church.

  • “We are getting into the odd position of seculars discussing and dividing theological questions–”

    In my case I am discussing the history of the Church and religious freedom.

  • Yes I understood that and appreciated your post. I was just jumping to a aspect of the discussion that is a concern to me– a lack of shared understanding of the meaning of terms.
    And also the very loud voice of today’s secular politicians who have a big impact religious liberty, maybe without a personal involvement in religion.

  • With the Catholic Church siding with the secular world in so many ways we have to wonder whether in the future the Fortnight of Freedom will be seen as an archaic and un-necessary practice. Seems to me our general loss of faith within and outside the Church should be our main concern.

  • Limited religious tolerance was always extended to the Jews, for example, with the Popes of the Middle Ages often being the protector of the Jews

    True enough but the Church did not let them proselytise and Catholics could not work for them etc. whereas the Judaised protestants who established America were keen on preventing the true religion from being an effective force against its desires and so they chose to keep religion private even though Catholic Doctrine teaches the state has a duty to worship God publicly.

    ABS acknowledges we disagree on this but he is not about to belabor the point on your blog so ABS will just retire from this thread and thank you for your patience.

    Simliar repossess could be made to your other examples

  • “even though Catholic Doctrine teaches the state has a duty to worship God publicly.”

    And what a disaster getting into bed with Caesar has been for the Church. At best it makes for a lazy Church. At worst it makes for a Church that becomes a national Church that looks to the State for marching orders as occurred with the Gallican movement in the Church in France. Where the State has historically adopted a hands off policy with the Church, the Church has flourished. Modern liberalism seeks to place hands on the Church which is one reason why I oppose it so strongly.

  • While prudential concerns might dictate that tolerance be extended by the state, and indeed, in the modern world, it’s hard to imagine a state (though some exceptions come to mind: Poland, for instance) *not* exercising practical tolerance, it is undeniable that the Church taught, as part of its ordinary magisterium, that the state qua state has a duty to acknowledge the one true religion and favor it, since the purpose of the state is to facilitate the telos of human existence, namely salvation, and salvation comes only through Christ and His Church. Again, that the public recognition of the Church and the suppressing of sects might be utterly impractical at a given time does not diminish the reality of the state’s duties with respect to God.

  • “does not diminish the reality of the state’s duties with respect to God.”

    Having Caesar act as a guardian for the Church has, in practice, been bad for the Church. I am glad that the idea of it being accomplished anywhere currently seems impossible. The less involvement that the Church has with Caesar the better.

  • Well, the point is, regardless of one’s view about the historical success or not of state cooperation with the Church (a lengthy, complicated, and nuanced one, revealing successes and failures), the Church’s *doctrine* as opposed to any individual’s assessment of the wisdom of how the doctrine has concretely played out, is clear: the State, deriving authority as it does from God, is bound to cooperate in helping men achieve their final end. For further study, cf, Mortalium Animos, Libertas Praestantissimum, Mirari Vos, the Syllabus of Errors, Vehementer Nos, and even the “liberal” Leo XII in Longique Oceana, where he said: “it would be very erroneous to draw the conclusion that in America is to be sought the type of the most desirable status of the Church, or that it would be universally lawful or expedient for State and Church to be, as in America, dissevered and divorced.”
    I agree with the Popes and the Magisterium on this one.

  • whereas the Judaised protestants

    Oh?

    who established America were keen on preventing the true religion from being an effective force against its desires and so they chose to keep religion private even though Catholic Doctrine teaches the state has a duty to worship God publicly.

    That’s a most … inventive understanding of New England Puritans.

  • “I agree with the Popes and the Magisterium on this one.”

    Actually you disagree with some of the Popes and the Magisterium on this one, as do I, since Popes and the Magisterium have proclaimed different things in regard to religious freedom and the relationship of the Church to the State at different times.
    In regard to religious freedom I say ditto to John Paul II:
    https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/messages/pont_messages/1980/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19800901_helsinki-act.html

    The history of the Church with the State tends to be a combative and an unhappy one and the Church should always have followed the example of Christ and the early Christians who never asked anything of Caesar for three centuries except to be left alone.

  • Pingback: TVESDAY CATHOLICA EXTRA | Big Pulpit
  • Sorry, but the perennial doctrine on the duties of the state to the true Faith remains unchanged by Vatican II, as the Declaration on Religious Liberty expressly stated, that document, while acknowledging a personal right to free exercise of religion, “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”
    That “untouched traditional doctrine” was expressed in the papal magisterial documents I mentioned previously. There is no more definitive statement than these encyclicals, affirmed by the express words of an Ecumenical Council, regardless of the personal opinions of a particular Pope. A Catholic may not like that teaching, but a Catholic is bound to accept them by “religious submission of the mind and will,” as Lumen Gentium, another document of Vatican II phrased it.

  • Where the State has historically adopted a hands off policy with the Church, the Church has flourished

    Not in America.

    Both the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and The State are perfect societies in that each has as its disposal all of the means to meet each of its ends (salvation and Sanctification, Church Common Good, State) but both must acknowledge God as the source of authority and, thus, the state can not legislate in opposition to Jesus Christ the King as His commandments and yet we see that America has established positive law that succors the Four Sins crying to Heaven for Vengeance.

    Abortion
    Sodomy
    Usury
    Open Borders -> excessive labor -> decreased wages
    etc etc.

    This malign madness is one that ought not be celebrated

  • “Not in America.”

    Of course it has, at least until Vatican II. Also compare and contrast the state of the Church in this country with traditional Catholic countries like Spain and Austria where the Church is on life support.

    “Both the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and The State are perfect societies:Both the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church and The State are perfect societies ”

    Even a cursory review of history would indicate that is complete and total rubbish. The only aspect of the Church that is a perfect society is the Church Triumphant.

  • “leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ.”

    “Leaves untouched”, yes. Smashed to bits would be more accurate. As we attorneys know Tom, words can be used in many ways but they can never alter reality. The idea that the Church today would support a state that forbade all religions except Catholicism is simple lunacy.

    “Government is also to help create conditions favorable to the fostering of religious life, in order that the people may be truly enabled to exercise their religious rights and to fulfill their religious duties, and also in order that society itself may profit by the moral qualities of justice and peace which have their origin in men’s faithfulness to God and to His holy will. (6)

    If, in view of peculiar circumstances obtaining among peoples, special civil recognition is given to one religious community in the constitutional order of society, it is at the same time imperative that the right of all citizens and religious communities to religious freedom should be recognized and made effective in practice.

    Finally, government is to see to it that equality of citizens before the law, which is itself an element of the common good, is never violated, whether openly or covertly, for religious reasons. Nor is there to be discrimination among citizens.

    It follows that a wrong is done when government imposes upon its people, by force or fear or other means, the profession or repudiation of any religion, or when it hinders men from joining or leaving a religious community. All the more is it a violation of the will of God and of the sacred rights of the person and the family of nations when force is brought to bear in any way in order to destroy or repress religion, either in the whole of mankind or in a particular country or in a definite community”

    Compare and contrast that section of DH with this section from the Syllabus of Errors:’

    “77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship. — Allocution “Nemo vestrum,” July 26, 1855.

    78. Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship. — Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852.”

  • That’s a most … inventive understanding of New England Puritans.

    It is not really inventive, rather, it just describes what happened in a nutshell.

    The English Puritans exited to the Low Countries where they we’re schooled by such men as the Jews who had been bounced out of Spain and those prots/puritans came to the colonies and established their Judaised Protestant state.

    P. 84 here:

    http://www.nhinet.org/moots23-1.pdf

    OK, earlier ABS said he would shut up and so he will even though the topic is interesting

  • Of course it has, at least until Vatican II. Also compare and contrast the state of the Church in this country with traditional Catholic countries like Spain and Austria where the Church is on life support.

    I think you mean France, not Spain. I’m not aware of any country in Europe bar Malta (and perhaps Poland) where the Church has much vigor, but IIRC Spain and Portugal are above the median.

  • It is not really inventive, rather, it just describes what happened in a nutshell.

    In the space between your ears only.

  • I wrote my undergrad thesis on the conflict between Dignitatis Humanae and the traditional teaching of the Church, particularly as enunciated by the Church Fathers, so yes, I’m acutely aware of the “tension” (to put it mildly) between DH and tradition. Nonetheless, the duty of a Catholic is, to use the legalese we so love, to interpret the teaching in pari materia, attempting to show continuity, not discontinuity. Many have done so with respect to DH, some with more success than others. Fr. Brian Harrison (another lawyer!) came closest in my view. http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt151.html
    What all orthodox commenters maintain, however, is that the traditional teaching remains intact so far as the duties of individuals and societies both to acknowledge the Kingship of Christ and order their affairs accordingly. This does not, by the way, necessarily mean a fusion of Church and State, but rather the State accompanying the Church in the effort to save souls. Think 15th and 16th century Spain, where a confessional state kept the country from going Protestant. Other examples exist, but it’s a sidetrack, since the issue is the principle. By the way, “perfect society” is a theological/philosophical term of art, not a concrete descriptive. Both Church and state are in fact perfect societies. (cf., http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=35522)

  • “By the way, “perfect society” is a theological/philosophical term of art, not a concrete descriptive. Both Church and state are in fact perfect societies.”

    I’m aware of that Tom but I find it amusing since historically it is simply not accurate of any human society. It is no accident, as the Marxists used to say, that the term has not been used by the Church much since its swan song usage by Paul VI in ’69.

    I understand the desire to pretend that DH does not break with tradition but I find the arguments simply unconvincing. It is like arguing that there is no difference between our Universe and the Bearded Spock Universe. One can imagine Pope John Paul II in Heaven futilely attempting to convince Pio Nono that DH did not involve a rupture from what he taught in the Syllabus of Errors.

    In regard to Spain one could argue that the close alliance of State and Church fanned the flames of the anti-clericalism that became such a feature of Spanish life in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Longterm I think such identification by the Church with a local Caesar is almost always a bad bargain for the Church.

  • IMMORTALE DEI
    ENCYCLICAL OF POPE LEO XIII
ON THE CHRISTIAN CONSTITUTION OF STATES

    See #23- #36
 if there is no time to read all of it
    note #35 in which Pope Leo XII reiterates Tradition that Church and State are perfect societies.

    The Church has abandoned Tradition vis a vis the Church and State and it is impossible to reconcile DH with Tradition.

    In any event, were a nominal Catholic (i.e. the USCCB members) to read the great encyclicals of Pope Leo XII, they’d be constrained to clam-up about glorifying Freedom of Religion.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: The Vatican-German Axis?

Tuesday, June 20, AD 2017

 

It is striking the influence that Germany has had upon this papacy, far more than under the prior German Pope:

 

The pope and the German Chancellor met behind closed doors for 40 minutes.
According to the Vatican, they spoke about “the upcoming G20 meeting in Hamburg, the responsibility of the international community in combating poverty and hunger, the global threat of terrorism, and climate change.”
She said the idea is to boost multilateral collaboration, and tear down walls instead of building them.

3 Responses to PopeWatch: The Vatican-German Axis?

Leave a Reply

June 5, 1917: Alvin C. York Registers for the Draft

Tuesday, June 20, AD 2017

As millions of other American men registered for the draft, so did twenty-nine year old Tennessee mountaineer Alvin C. York.  On June 5, 1917 he filled out his registration form.  He claimed exemption with the simple words:  “Yes.  Don’t Want to Fight.”

 

York arrived in this world on December 3, 1887, the third of the eleven children of William and Mary York.  He was born into rural poverty.  Although both of his parents were quite hard-working, the Yorks lived in a two-room log cabin at a subsistence level.  None of the York children received more than nine-months education, as their labor was desperately needed to farm the few hard scrabble acres that the Yorks owned, and to hunt for food to feed the large family.

When his father died in 1911, Alvin took on the responsibility of helping his mother raise his younger siblings, and supporting the family.  Alvin early developed the reputation as both a hard-worker during the day and a drunken hell-raiser at night, something that constantly distressed his mother, a Christian and a pacifist.

4 Responses to June 5, 1917: Alvin C. York Registers for the Draft

  • Looking forward to the rest of this story. As an aside, I recently discovered via Ancestry.com the WWI draft registrations for both of my grandfathers as well as my husband’s paternal grandfather, and they all were dated June 5, 1917. Was that a designated date for all draft eligible men nationwide to register?

  • Yep, that was the date to register for all men 21-31. June 5, 1918 was the registration date for all men who turned 21 after June 5, 1917.

  • Ran into an amusing thing poking through the old census stuff– it’s not accurate. Not just massive spelling errors– but a flat-out made up name for my grandmother. (to be fair, she didn’t have a name until the local high school refused to enroll her without a legal name– a bunch of family pressure about what name to use was solved by taking an off-route option. :mrgreen: ) I’m guessing that like anything else in record keeping, people made up stuff if they didn’t have an answer. (The family in question was quite literate, and more importantly they entered everyone in the family Bible so there is an official spelling; I’m not even being picky about cutting out most of the kids’ names, not much room for five middle names.)

  • Ran into an amusing thing poking through the old census stuff– it’s not accurate.

    My family’s listings are generally accurate.

Leave a Reply