Newt Gingrich: Receiving the Eucharist Brings Me Peace

Wednesday, November 30, AD 2011

Just listened to parts of the Newt Gingrich tonight by Sean Hannity while I was working and Speaker Gingrich said in the most Catholic language imaginable how receiving the Eucharist brings him peace and comfort.

That was an incredible line.  As soon as I can find it on YouTube, I’ll post it, but I may begin budging towards Gingrich based simply on his faith!

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Newt Gingrich: Receiving the Eucharist Brings Me Peace

  • I am glad Newt found faith, but he needs to find many more things before I would willingly support him. This is a pretty good Ron Paul ad, and I am not Ron Paul fan.

  • Sounds likes he is against same sex marriage and has taken actions that follow his convictions. On the other hand, if a state decides to support same sex marriage, then that is their choice even if he disagrees with it.

    Ron Paul is not my guy. He is off his rocker when it comes to foreign policy. Nonetheless, his ad on Newt is good.

  • I watched the same interview with Hannity and had the same response. I have never in my adult life seen such an open expression by a nationally known politician like Newt give such an embrace of the Eucharist as he did tonight. For me, if a person (Catholic) expresses himself/herself by speaking of the gifts of the Eucharist as he did tonight, it gives a good sense as to where he/she would be on most major issues of the day to our nation,party, and religion.

    Looking for more good stuff to come from his candidacy. The interview really woke me up to this guy who I have grown so used to over the last 20 years or so.

  • And Joe Biden says the rosary daily.

    Newt is a scumbag. I wouldn’t say that about any other candidate. Looking at his personal life, you can’t reach any other conclusion.

  • RR,

    Of course you’re going to say that, if all you get your information from the liberal media.

    Your comment really says a lot about you.

  • RR – so funny how far you are from understanding the thrust of this article and comments on this thread. First off, I could care less about what he did or did not do in his past that is already known. Our Lord did not come for the saved, he came for the sinner. I am impressed with Newt’s embace of our faith in the way he is doing. What he states now and his actions now are what should count. Second, your use of that foul term on this site indicates that you are far from bringing any valuable comments to inform anyone here.

    Thanks for the try but a place you might enjoy spending time would be titled soethin like the following …

    Thanks and God Bless.

  • You raise an interesting question about expressions of faith in public life and I’m notsure where I come down on the answer you suggest.

    If there is something wrong with holding a man’s faith against him as he seeks public office, surely the opposite is true too? Yet, can we honestly say that we don’t prefer “our guy” when a candidate expresses himself in a way that taps into the core of our being?

    I think the opposite is true too for I cannot imagine how I could bring myself to vote for one who publicly declared himself to be an atheist. (I’m not alone in this regard and I think this is why candidate Obama worked so hard to establish “Christian” credentials – not because he’s a closet Moslem but because he believes in nothing and couldn’t say so for fear that it would be held as a defect by many.)

    Perhaps, then, the problem is with the underlying idea that faith isn’t a thing to be considered in candidacy. Perhaps it isn’t honest for the candidate to hide his faith or lack of faith and it isn’t honest for voters to pretend that faith isn’t an issue in elections.

    But, if so, how can a republic survive the resulting fracturing? If candidates were to declare themselves on faith matters, surely parties would spring up to allign those interests. What would be the difference, then, between us and, for example, Turkey or Lebanon?

  • It is obvious that Newt has totally forgiven himself for his adulterous behavior and all his political profiteering. How honest he is in his soul with God, only God knows. But from what I can see of him that is public, he is a real snake. Watch out Church–Newt is a user of the first order. God can take care of Himself, but us mortals need to be on guard against this guy. Never enough sex, glamor, money or self-importance. If he gets to be president, he will sit on the throne like a pompous little king. He sure doesn’t have my vote.

  • I know many of you don’t get any news that doesn’t come from Sean Hannity’s mouth so I’ll enlighten you on why thinking conservatives don’t think too highly of Newt.

    “Newt Gingrich will not be the nominee because, despite his daughter’s rebuttals to the horror stories of how Gingrich divorced his first of three wives, Jackie Gingrich told the Washington Post on January 3, 1985, “He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery.” Gingrich went on to cheat on the second wife with the third. Regardless of the actual facts or even the spin, he won’t win women.” – Eric Erickson

    Richard Land says evangelical women will not vote for Gingrich under any circumstances.

    “He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected.” – Marianne Gingrich, Wife #2

    And to top it off, he says he cheated on his wives because he loved his country so much!

    I won’t even get into the flip-flopping on everything from cap-and-trade to the health care mandate. He has a nasty attitude as evidenced by every debate. The exchange with Maria Bartiromo made him look like a fool. He complained about only having 30 seconds to answer so Maria said he can take as much time as he needs to which Newt responded, “that wouldn’t be fair to the others.” Yeah, that’s why it’s 30 seconds, idiot!

    How do you think he’ll work with John Boehner who led the eventually successful effort in the 90’s to force Newt to step down? Boehner, now there’s a Catholic I can get behind.

    I’m even skeptical of the conversion story. How convenient that he found religion while preparing to run for president.

    The moment I discovered he wasn’t even as smart as some made him out to be was when he released his tax reform plan. Few people even know about it because it really can’t be taken seriously. I’m not saying that I don’t take it seriously. I’m saying that NOBODY takes it seriously. He tried to one-up Perry before everyone criticized Perry’s plan. Newt’s plan is Perry’s super-sized.

    Then came the CBS foreign policy debate and I figured out why people think Newt is smart. He knows his history. Every answer he gave was a history lesson. The problem was that he doesn’t know how things currently work. He could only think in historical analogies. He doesn’t have coherent guiding philosophies unless you count political expedience as a guiding philosophy.

    If I had to vote, I can vote for any of the Republican candidates except Cain and Gingrinch. Cain because he doesn’t know anything about public policy and Gingrinch because he’s a horrible person.

  • I have little use for Gingrich as I indicated in this post:

    If he obtains the nomination, and that he might just do that is a tribute to the strong antipathy most Republicans, including myself, have for Romney, I will certainly vote for him in his race against Obama. He certainly is far from my ideal of a Republican standard bearer, but compared to Obama, it is an easy vote. I am by no means convinced that Gingrich will get the nomination, since I believe he has a talent for political suicide, but we shall see.

    As for the Paul ad, attack ads by Paul (R. Pluto), are certainly preferable for his campaign than his attempting to defend his usually infantile, and always dangerous, foreign policy positions.

    However, politics is one thing and religion is another. Gingrich has given no evidence that his conversion is not sincere and whole-hearted. I am glad that the Eucharist gives him peace and comfort, and I pray that we all may feel the same.

  • I have many concerns about Newt base on past behavior, but I’m more inclined to believe the eyewitness account of his daughter vs. the second/third/or fourth hand account of someone else.

    He definitely has baggage, but his ideas are very interesting and his ability to reason and articulate are second to none.

  • More than once I have heard Newt described as half genius and half crazy. Normally I would not vote for someone like that but if he is our only alternative to a president who is ALL aggressively liberal, anti-life and anti-Catholic, I may just have to.

  • I know many of you don’t get any news that doesn’t come from Sean Hannity’s mouth

    I think this one sentence pretty much sums up why I ignore most of the things you say.

  • Since we, as Americans, appear to have lost our moral conscience, the Holy Spirit will play a major role in this election. God often uses “characters” throughout history to effect His Plan. Liberal or Conservatives will agree , we all need God to help this world through its current calamities

  • I pray that he has found peace through his conversion.

    But, man–Gingrich’s record is a mess. Personally and professionally.

    This slate is really the best the GOP can do?

    Of the people who have polled more than ten percent during the cycle, I can’t see myself voting for Romney (Every person you need to be), Cain (remarkably inept on anything not brought to you by the number 9), and Paul (isolationism combined with naivete is a crap sandwich) or Bachmann (inexperienced at anything other than backbencher bomb-throwing).

    [Though in Paul’s case, I respect and understand the appeal of his candidacy.]

    I’m close to feeling the same no-go about Gingrich, even conceding his political skills and functioning wonky brain.

    I’m still most inclined toward Perry, though his implosion probably means he’s not viable any more, sad to say.

    “If God wanted us to vote, He’d give us candidates.”

  • I know many of you don’t get any news that doesn’t come from Sean Hannity’s mouth

    I think this one sentence pretty much sums up why I ignore most of the things you say.

    Mea culpa, it was background noise and when I heard him mention the Eucharist I literally fell out of my chair.

    Mea maxima culpa.

  • wow Dale , I often find what I fear most in others , is hidden deep within myself

  • I echo Dale’s sentiments. I like the two Ricks, but combined they aren’t polling into the double digits. I think things will pick up for one or both of them as Cain continues to plummet and more conservatives remember Newt’s foibles. I’ve actually been a Perry guy, but considering Santorum is just about as viable now and he’s the one who I agree with on more issues, I might wind up backing him (though by the time the primary gets to MD, it will be a moot point). Newt is more palatable than the rest of the field, but that’s primarily due to the rest of the field’s weaknesses.

    But we are deviating from the post topic, and I do appreciate Newt’s sentiments. That said, is anyone else uncomfortable with the idea of a twice divorced, re-married man receiving the Eucharist? I know those marriages took place before his crossing the Tiber, but they still count.

  • wow Dale , I often find what I fear most in others , is hidden deep within myself

    Meaning what, precisely?

  • That said, is anyone else uncomfortable with the idea of a twice divorced, re-married man receiving the Eucharist? I know those marriages took place before his crossing the Tiber, but they still count.

    I am.

  • I understand the repentant sinner requires forgiveness. Nonetheless, some damage caused by sin remains. The damage caused by his infidelities is for God and Newt’s family to work through.

    The worrisome part of Newt’s marriages, how they came about, and his infidelities is they are examples of a serious lack of judgment. It shows he possesses an impulsive nature, which might be okay when choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, but not when it comes to maintaining a monogamous relationship, especially in the vows of marriage.

    This impulsive nature is intrinsic to Newt’s personality. It explains what so many have pointed out, his ability to commit political suicide. He says things without fully thinking the ramifications of them. He participates in ideas because they seem advantageous at the moment without thinking what long term messages he is sending. The words or ideas seem like a great affair to be involved in, so he marries himself to it and is faithful until the next opportune moment comes along.

  • He is off his rocker when it comes to foreign policy.

    Yes -because billions of dollars and countless lives later, everyone else is so spot on.

  • If he gets to be president, he will sit on the throne like a pompous little king.

    Not much different from the current occupant.

  • Besides Kyle Miller’s response, it appears that other posters are willing to drag up events in Newt’s life from a “SIN” standpoint and are not willing to forgive and forget bout these acts as it relates to his run for the Presidency. How shallow a position – with all do respect – to have given how we should except the major premise of our faith which is Forgiveness and non-judgment of others.

    To form an opinion of ones abilities as president based on previous actions and what they say today is one thing. However, to flog someone in a public forum like this should tell us that we may have to review the foundation of our faith first before we are to pull lever for or against someone.

    Comments expressed here about someone receiving the Eucharist after a divorce seem to be ill informed comments at that. If the person has asked for gods mercy and has gone through the process (as it appears Newt did) of preparing themselves to receive the Eucharist with a clean soul, it would not matter how many times the person was “divorced”. That is what our faith is about….forgiveness of our sins by our lord..if we truly mean it. If we do not believe this for ourselves and others of our faith….what good is our faith. As St. Paul says…we are still in our sin.

  • Good to see I’m not the only one who dislikes the Gingrinch. As for forgiveness, he didn’t wrong me. I don’t need his forgiveness. I’m not letting a former child molester, however remorseful, near my children and I’m not letting a horrible person, however remorseful, sit in the Oval Office. It’s not like, Newt was a child. He did these things as an adult including as Speaker. You can’t dismiss it as a previous life. You don’t change that much from age 56 to 68.

  • Yes -because billions of dollars and countless lives later, everyone else is so spot on.

    They’re less wrong, which is pretty horrifying to think about.
    I can’t support someone who wants us to abandon those who have been good allies to us, and for us to abandon the commitments we forced on others– Hello, Japan– just because fully legal military actions didn’t turn out so great. That’s totally ignoring that the long-term effects would be horrific for our nation itself.
    It’s like arguing that because cops in LA are sometimes criminal jerks and haven’t managed to remove the gang problem, we should withdraw from LA entirely.
    (If one more person waives his being a military surgeon for a few years, decades ago, as a card to show that he’s automatically right on military matters– or brings up that worthless “he got more military associated donations than everyone else before the candidates were chosen”– of over $200, with less than a hundred total– I may scream. Right up there with folks “informing” me that Obama is all my fault because I’m part of the “youth vote.”)

  • RR – that’s the point. He did not do anything to you for you to forgive him – it’s between he and God. And yes, he is not a child molestar -thank God. By bringing up that subject you show that you are comparing apples and oranges.

    I just hope you reflect on your own private life before posting how big a sinner Newt is. While you are reading this (right now at this very moment) remember God is looking at you….is your soul as clean as you expect of others? I hope so.

  • gregory rogsn, so you would let a repentant former child molester babysit your kids?

  • “I believe in . . . the forgiveness of sins; . . . ”

    Who can say?

    Maybe Speaker Gingrich has trully converted to the Holy Catholic Church.

    Maybe Newt Gingrich has repented of his sins.

    Maybe Gingrich has Confessed for all the sins of his past life.

    Maybe Newt has done penance.

    Maybe he has resolved to amend his life and through good works glorify Almighty God through Christ our Lord.

    Maybe some commenters have lowered bar for detraction to new depths.

  • RR – please know that I will pray for you today as well as the former Speaker of the House. We all need prayer and a true understanding of God’s love and mercy for all we do wrong in our lives. I will also pray I will not judge anyone involved in my life either publicly or privately.

    God Bless.

  • Pingback: Newt Gingrich on His Catholic Faith and the Eucharist | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Newt Gingrich on His Catholic Faith and the Eucharist « Catholibertarian

Party of Death

Wednesday, November 30, AD 2011

4 Responses to Party of Death

Green Jobs and other Myths

Wednesday, November 30, AD 2011




Thank you Cartoon Klavan!  Green jobs aren’t quite as rare as unicorns, but they are quite expensive.  The notorious right wing rag, The Washington Post, has reported that the Obama administration has spent 19 billion of our money creating a grand total of 3, 545 green jobs.  One cannot say of course that the White House has not been trying to create green jobs.  For example, just look at the Solyndra company, now in bankruptcy.  The Obama administration sent that company 535 million of taxpayer money, and agreed to a restructuring plan for the company’s debt which allowed two private investors to move ahead of the taxpayers.  Then when the company began to imitate the Titanic, Energy Secretary Steve Chu had his minions thoughtfully contact Solyndra and had them hold off on employee layoffs until after the mid-term elections last year, lest voters be unduly alarmed at another half a billion down a green rathole.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Green Jobs and other Myths

  • I can’t listen to the You Tube videos right now, but I do note with interest that 19 billion dollars would be about five 1600 MWe worth of non-polluting ESBWR nuclear power plants from the corporation headed by Obama’s job czar, GE CEO Jeff Immelt.

    In the meantime, how many megawatts of green power has Obama created? And how many jobs has Jeff Immelt created. I’ll wager the answers are the same.

    There are rotten fish, and not just in Denmark!

    PS, No, an ESBWR could not have failed in the way that the BWR 3 reactors with Mark I containments failed at Fukushima after the earthquake and resulting tsunami. CAN NOT. Anti-nuke kooks (who are not nuclear engineers and haven’t worked at BWRs) need not voice disagreement. I can’t distill 30 years of nuclear training and experience into a blog comment. BUT what is interesting is this: the oil and natural gas fires and explosions resulting from the earthquake and tsunami burned for 10 days, dumping billions of tons of chemical toxins into the enviroment that will never ever decay away. They got NO news publicity. And Obama’s solution is more wind mills and solar cells whose capacity factors are never above 30% (which means that 70% of the year you and I are without electicity). These by their nature therefore REQUIRE spinning reserve in the form of natural gas, oil and coal because YOU and I require 100% availability of electicity. Even 99% availability is intolerable because that means 3.65 days per year without electrical power. Remember, cloudy days, night time, and short winter days means no or greatly reduced solar power. Windless or too windy days mean no wind power. So we make ourselves MORE suspceptible to natural disaster by relying on green energy. Yup, green power, black death.

  • Did the Obama regime “punt” on the Keystone (Canada oil) pipeline because there are more Solyndras out there dependent on high oil prices and Alberta oil threatens to lower the price enough to put more of them out of business? The OWS movement should be jumping on this.

    In his 2008 campaign, Obama said his environmental policies would make energy costs (for you and me) sky rocket. But, BUT, soaring food/fuel prices hit low-to-moderate income peoples de hardest.

    So, why are genius Obama and his high-IQ regime striving 24/7 to raise fuel prices? I suppose it’s another one of them high-level concepts we ignorant, self-supporting idiots just cannot comprehend.

  • Paul-
    isn’t there some kind of reactor that works off of the nuclear waste, too? Something about Jimmy Carter outlawing them (effectively) because it makes stuff that can be weaponized easily?

    I *like* the idea of nuclear power…then again, I grew up with a chunk of rock from a (iirc) uranium mine as part of the fireplace, so radiation isn’t an instant boogyman.

  • Foxfier,

    You are correct. It’s called a fast neutron burner. Today’s light water cooled and moderated reactors consume only five percent of the energy available in the fuel. Why? because they are thermal neutron reactors. Fast neutron reactors can consume the long lived actinides produced within thermal neutrons reactors and, depending on design, run for 30+ years on a single refueling.

    Now to the subject of weapons proliferation. First, you have to understand something about neutron kinetics and radioactive decay. U-233, U-235 and Pu-239 are each fissile with thermal neutrons (that’s what bombs use). But there’s no U-233 or Pu-239 in nature, and only 0.7% of all Uranium in nature is U-235; the rest is U-238. So to fuel a light water reactor, we enrich the uranium to 5% U-235 with the 95% being U-238. Now a fission bomb needs 92+% U-235 to undergo a nuclear explosion; anything less and it fissiles out (no pun intended). The same would be true were the bomb fueled with U-233 or Pu-239.

    Now where do we get U-233 or Pu-239 from if they don’t occur in nature? Why, from fertile Th-232 and U-238. When Th-232 absorbs a thermal neutron, it becomes Th-233 which immediately beta minus decays to Pa-233. That isotope has a half life of 27 days after which it turns into fissile U-233.

    In the case of Pu-239, when U-238 absorbs a thermal neutron, it becomes U-239 which immediately beta minus decays to Np-239. That isotope has a half life of 2.4 days after which it turns into fissile Pu-239.

    Now the problem with producing either U-233 or Pu-239 is this: the intermediary products (Pa-233 and Np-239 respectively) have an affinity for absorbing thermal neutrons also, but when that happens, they transmutate into radio-isotopes that are non-fissile with thermal neutrons. Thus, either U-233 or Pu-239 made in a light water reactor will also produce too many bomb-dampening isotopes. Thus, the product of making either U-233 or Pu-239 in a light water reactor is unsuited for bomb material. That’s why the North Korean plutonium bomb fissiled out as a dud (no pun intended). And that’s also why the Iranians are pursuing uranium enrichment instead of following the North Korean route. They won’t stop at 5% U-235. They’ll go right to 92+% U-235.

    Jimmy Carter, a former nuclear submarine officer, KNEW all this (that reactor fuel can’t be used for bombs), so why he banned fuel reprocessing / recycling is beyond my understanding. I can only conclude “Liberal – Progressive – Democrat.”

    Now let’s go back to fast burner reactors. These don’t use light water, heavy water or graphite neutron moderators. usually they are metal cooled (sodium, lead-bismuth, etc.)They go critical (i.e., chain reaction self-sustaining) on fast neutrons. Yes, critical is a GOOD thing – it means the reactor is operating in a self-sustaining change reaction; the number of neutrons inducing fission at the beginning of the neutron life cycle equals the number produced at the end. Because of fast neutrons, it doesn’t matter if the fast burner reactor fuel contains U-238 or Am-240 or whatever. They can consume the material and leave left-over only short lived isotopes that make Harry Reid’s opposition to the Yucca Mountain million year spent fuel repository a moot point. Indeed, we have enough spent fuel in these United States to fuel the electric grid for hundreds of years using fast neutron burners.

    Furthermore, if we don’t want to go to fast neutron burners right away, then with only minimal reprocessing, existing light water reactor spent fuel in the US can be cut up and put in canisters for use in Canada’s CANDU heavy water reactors. Heavy water is a better moderator of thermal neutrons because while its scattering cross section for neutrons isn’t as good as light water, its absorption cross section is a whole lot less, so the Canadians don’t have to enrich their fuel: they can use natural uranium or we could sell them our spent fuel. Now there’s an idea!

    We do NOT have an energy crisis. We have a crisis of greed for money and greed for power. We have corrupt croney capitalists / corporate socialists making a mint off of fossil fuel while the Obama government deliberately stymies new nuclear build with money for useless wind and solar energy. If wind energy were so darn great, then why don’t we still use sailing ships to transport goods across the ocean? If solar power were so darn great, then why don’t we still bake mud and straw into bricks the way that the Sumerians did so long ago? It’s all horse crap. God gave us enough uranium and thorium in Earth’s crust to fuel nine billion people at the same level of energy consumption as the average American uses each year for tens of thousands of years into the future. And we can do it safely. Only SIX people died from the reactors at Fukushima Daiichi (and those were a bad design anyways); but 1800 people died from drowning in a nearby dam collapse. Green hydro-electric power! Hah! Green energy / black death. It’s but one small part of the culture of death. Think about it.

  • Folks,

    As long as I am on a roll, I may as well continue. (Yes, I teach a training class on this, but I shall be merciful and just give you the high points.)


    Under the Global Nuclear Energy Program of the previous Administration at 1600 Pnnesylvania Avenue, there was much work being done in the Department of Energy for several different styles of Generation IV reactors, among them the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR). The kind of reactor that was being developed for producing hydrogengas for use in motor vehicles was a graphite moderated and helium cooled reactor with a thermal neutron spectrum. It was designed to be a high-efficiency system, which can supply electricity and process heat to a broad spectrum of high-temperature and energy-intensive processes.

    The reference reactor was intended to be a 600 MWth core connected to an intermediate heat exchanger to deliver process heat. The reactor core can be a prismatic block core or a pebble-bed core according to the fuel particles assembly. Fuel particles are coated with successive material layers, high temperature resistant, then formed either into fuel compacts embedded in graphite block for the prismatic block-type core reactor, or formed into graphite coated pebbles. The reactor supplies heat with core outlet temperatures up to 1,000 degrees Celsius, which enables such applications as hydrogen production or process heat for the petrochemical industry. As a nuclear heat application, hydrogen can be efficiently produced from only heat and water by using thermochemical iodine-sulfur process, or high temperature electrolysis process or with additional natural gas by applying the steam reformer technology.

    Thus, the VHTR design offered high-efficiency electricity production and a broad range of process heat applications, while retaining the desirable safety characteristics in normal as well as off-normal events. Solutions to adequate waste management were intended to be developed (e.g., recycle into fast neutron burner reactors). The basic technology for the VHTR has been well established in former High Temperature Gas Reactors plants, such as the US Fort Saint Vrain and Peach Bottom prototypes (both decommissioned) , and the German AVR and THTR prototypes. The technology was at one time being advanced through near- or medium-term projects lead by several plant vendors and national laboratories, such as: PBMR, GT-HTR300C, ANTARES, NHDD, GT-MHR and NGNP in South Africa, Japan, France, Republic of Korea and the United States. Experimental reactors: HTTR (Japan, 30 MWth) and HTR-10 (China, 10 MWth) support the advanced concept development, and the cogeneration of electricity and nuclear heat application. Right now there are no US plans to proceed along these lines.


    So enough of the training material. Guess who HATES the idea of producing hydrogen using nuclear energy!

    Exxon/Mobil, Shell, British Petroleum (can you spell “Gulf spill” – a disaster equal to or greater than Fukushima), Citgo, etc. And the coal companies. Those corporations WANT wind mills and solar cells because those things necessitate spinning reserve from coal and natural gas, and with 52% of all electricity in America being produced from the coal, vast quantities of petroleum has to be used to transport that coal from mines to power plants. Think on this:

    “Uranium-235 is the isotope of uranium that is used in nuclear reactors. Uranium-235 can produce 3.7 million times as much energy as the same amount of coal. As an example, 7 trucks, each carrying 6 cases of 2-12 foot high fuel assemblies, can fuel a 1000 Megawatt-electrical (MWe) reactor for 1.5 years. During this period, ~ 2 metric tons of Uranium-235 (of the 100 metric tons of fuel – uranium dioxide) would be consumed. To operate a coal plant of the same output would require 1 train of 89-100 ton coal cars each EVERY day. Over 350,000 tons of ash would be produced AND over 4 million tons of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides would be released to the environment.”

    Green power / black death. Remember that phrase because wind mills and solar cells necessitate fossil fuel as spinning reserve for the 70% of the time you can’t get electricity from wind or solar.

  • Paul,

    Let me just say that I for one love it when you get into details about the nuclear industry. Because of the nature of my work I’m hesitant to speak too much about electricity related issues, but you are a great resource on this topic.

  • Well, thanks, Paul Z. But I think we in the nuclear industry have to be very humble, too. I wrote the following at my blog site a few weeks ago and it bears repeating. If we think that we can create a new Tower of Babel to save us – nuclear power – then God will knock that down just as He did the last one.


    Japan’s Bishops: Close All of Nation’s Nuclear Power Plants


    I am very disappointed to report that Japan’s Roman Catholic Bishops have issued a statement calling for the closure of all the nuclear power plants in that country in the aftermath of the events at Fukushima Daiichi. UCA News reports on this in its article, “End Nuclear Power Now, Say Bishops.” I have neither the time nor the willingness to do a detailed comparison that would demonstrate that while less than a dozen people were killed outright from the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, tens of thousands died from dam failures, oil refinery explosions, toxic chemical releases, etc., as a result of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. If anything, that disaster demonstrates that accidents happening at petro-chemical sources of energy are far, far more injurious to human life than those happening at nuclear power plants. Furthermore, the calls to find alternative sources of energy are useless because there are none: renewable energy’s unreliability make it demonstrably unsuited to supplying any highly technological society with a continuous and reliable supply of electricity. Finally, even given the environmental impact of the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, it pales in comparison to the adverse environmental impact that dumping into the ecosystem millions of metric tons of fly ash and sludge from coal-fired power plants (which supply greater than 50% of the electricity consumed in the United States), and from the emission of pollutants off of natural gas fired power plants (which supply much of the electricity consumed in Japan).

    Nevertheless, all that being said, I respect the Roman Catholic Bishops in Japan because it is human pride that causes us to think we can erect something impervious to the action of God. No, I am not saying that God caused the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami; rather, when the people of the world reject God’s benevolence, then being a true Gentleman, He removes His hand of protection and the inevitable happens. The story of the Tower of Babel in Genesis 11:1-9 is a case in point. We are NOT the “God Species,” and when we place science (or I should say the religion of scientism) ahead of the Divine, then we can expect the inevitable to happen. For this is Luke 13:1-5 written:

    There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”

    I do not agree with the Bishop of Japan regarding nuclear energy, but on reading what liberal progressive Democrats at NEI Nuclear Notes, and at Atomic Insights advocate, then all one can say is this: the Church was here for 2000 years before there was nuclear energy, and if the good Lord should tarry, the Church will be here 2000 years after nuclear energy is buried and gone. The goal is NOT a man-made Kingdom of Heaven on Earth and it is utter hubris to think we can build a Tower of Babel to create such a man-made paradise. The goal is conversion and repentance before the King of kings and Lord of lords, and until we as a country – indeed, as a planet – do that, then we can expect more events like the Tohoku earthquake and tsunami. No amount of nuclear energy can save us. Indeed, God won’t stay were He isn’t wanted, and with our world-wide embrace of the infanticide of the unborn and the filth of homosexual perversion, we show Him that we don’t want Him.

    Now some will say that this is all unscientific, superstitious nonsense. Yet the Catholic News Agency reports that the epicenter of the Tohoku earthquake was located near the site of an apparition in which the Blessed Virgin Mary, “Our Lady of Akita,” warned about a worldwide disaster that could afflict humanity:

    Japanese Quake’s Epicenter Located Near Marian Apparition Site

    EWTN TV gives a good summary of the Messages of Our Lady of Akita to Sr. Anes Sasagawa. The messages state in part:

    “As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead.”

    I don’t know if there is a connection between the messages of Our Lady of Akita and Fukushima Daiichi or not, but God will NOT let unrepentant, defiant mankind use the power of the atom – or any other power, for that matter – to build for himself a man-made paradise that murders the unborn and sanctifies the filth of homosexual sodomy. There is one and only one solution: repent. While I may disagree with the stance of the Bishop’s of Japan against nuclear energy, if their message is that, then I fully support them.

    As Jesus said so long ago, “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand.”

  • I’m glad I bothered to ask for clarification on that half-remembered point. ^.^

    *sticks link in pile of things to refer to in response to stock arguments*

Some advice from Lech Walesa for Occupy Wall Street…

Tuesday, November 29, AD 2011

The freedom fighter and former President of Poland, Lech Walesa, has offered a thoughtful reflection concerning the protests occurring across the Arab world, Europe, and the United States.

Lech Walesa
former President of Poland


In a San Francisco Chronicle op-ed, Mr. Walesa sides with the protesters.  But, he also takes them to task:

What has struck me the most as I have followed the protests on television and in the social media is that the protesters generally know that the status quo should not be tolerated, but are a lot less clear and unified about what they want to replace it with.


What  idea that unifies the protesters?

In the United States, The Motley Monk would observe that there is little if any talk about God-given rights or inalienable freedoms.  Instead, the Occupy Wall Streeters talk mostly about “economic justice” for the 99% and rail against the evils being perpetrated against them by the 1%.  In this regard, Walesa observes:

Today’s protests seem more focused on the problems that are plaguing many of the world’s advanced economies, with little regard to the impact of government in creating these problems.  What is needed in addition are sound solutions that are mindful of both the effects of government powers and the importance of vital freedoms.  These solutions have to be earned through dialogue between bankers, entrepreneurs, public administrators, labor unions and social organizations….I do not support solely the idea of overthrowing those who are in power.  I support the processes that would lead to new orders guaranteeing individual liberty, democracy, civic virtue, equality and the rule of law.


Absent an inspiring idea to unify people, protests are just that.  Eventually, they peter out.  And then, they die as the protesters depart for their homes dejected that their once glorious “movement” failed under the oppressive weight of the powers they were protesting.  In the end, nothing changes because the protesters—who have legitimate concerns—stood against something but stood for nothing.  Mr Walesa observes:

While today’s protesters have many legitimate concerns, let me assure them that instead of either cronyism or greater government control, it is dialogue and solidarity leading to freedom that we should all strive for.

Let’s hope that the people can come together to solve our shared problems.  Otherwise they will have to contend with mere turmoil against the status quo without benefit of a clear, rational and productive alternative for a better future of freedom for all.


It might be beneficial for members of the Occupy Wall Street “movement” to read Lech Walesa’s biography.  He has a few lessons to teach them about hope and change:

Before you set out to alter the status quo, you ought to know how to replace it—and you need to be convinced, intellectually and in your heart, that the new system will actually be better.


Let the discussion begin…


To read the Lech Walesa’s op-ed, click on the following link:



Continue reading...

27 Responses to Some advice from Lech Walesa for Occupy Wall Street…

  • I agree overall with the comments Mr Walesa has presented here. However, I think that perhaps he is missing part of the point. Perhaps through no fault of his own and being a “victim”, so to speak, of the media.

    There are a very clear set of propositions that have been put forth repeatedly and they have been consistently disregarded. The dialogue to which he refers has been consistently disregarded and that is why many people feel that either they have no choice or, like myself, this is the last best hope.

    Mr. Walesa writes that, “I support the processes that would lead to new orders guaranteeing individual liberty, democracy, civic virtue, equality and the rule of law.” What he seems to have not understood, is that on the ground, in the streets, in offices, homes and on line, this very process is happening. Because it is somewhat different from the old paradigm, and for some people they would have it be completely different, perhaps it is incomprehensible to some of the old guard. However, with all due respect, I do not understand how, given the quotes attributed to him, he can NOT support the OWS completely given that the processes he says he supports is precisely what is in motion.

    My perspective is that the combination of the people on the street and the rest of us hoping to move everyone in the “right” direction is going to reclaim this country, and in turn the world. If not, then he is absolutely right, and to some extent we already see it happening that, “protesters depart for their homes dejected that their once glorious “movement” failed under the oppressive weight of the powers they were protesting.”

    I am personally disgusted with my local occupation. Almost to the point of non-involvement with it. I see how the NY GA is evolving away from their horizontal structure, because it simply doesn’t work in large groups. (Something I’ve been saying for years, but only just learned has an academic name. Dunbar’s Number. Apparently I’ve been generous in setting the bar at 200. Dunbar set it at 150.)

    The movement is evolving. It is still nascent, but it is still the hope. It is still the only significant socio-economic potential out there to hit the reset button and that, my friends, is precisely what we have to do.

  • The so-called movement is one over-hyped tantrum trumpeted by the state media to distract from the misery being inflicted by Obama et al.

    The occupy movement is of less practical use than your average bowel movement. Look at all the violence and rapes, for starters. And the anti-semitism and class hat

  • It’s really a shame, t shaw, that you actually believe that instead of learning information. You obviously only listen to FauxNEWs.

    While there have been a small handful of the issues you mention, they have been blown way out of proportion, and are not representative of the movement as a whole. It certainly is not trumpeted by the state media. The media is denigrating it at every turn.

    Even the people supporting the Tea Party would recognize a great deal of overlap with the message of the OWS, if you would look beyond the line Fox News is spewing.

    Either way, what you won’t find is the kind of hatred that you put in your post, coming from me. God forgives and loves, right? And encourages you to do the same, I believe, yes?

  • It’s really a shame, t shaw, that you actually believe that instead of learning information. You obviously only listen to FauxNEWs.

    Ooh, that’ll show us.

    With that lame, over-used and irrational line, you made dang sure that I’m not going to waste time on your ignorant claims.

  • As you wish. Have a blessed day.

  • I’m astonished that anyone could suggest with a straight face that Lech Walesa
    doesn’t know what he’s talking about. The fact that this man has considerable
    reservations about the state of the OWS movement should give it pause.

    The OWS movement is not winning hearts and minds. Mr. Walesa and his Solidarity
    movement did win hearts and minds and swept away an entire totalitarian
    order, one that had spies and guns and total control of all media and transport
    and no scruples whatsoever. The occupy folks should stop bleating about the rest
    of us just not understanding them and take a deep, critical look at themselves
    and ask just why it is they repel so many honest people.

  • I believe the movement is not only gaining hearts and minds, it has garnered world wide support. I live near a tiny city Poughkeepsie and OWS has grown to a 1000 person plus group! The generation X has a voice at last and it shouts out loud and clear that things must change. Maybe their goals seem scattered as they choose to be inclusive of all values but the main thing they want is a chance to make it on a level playing field. Did we forget how close to depression we were?

    God bless Em!

  • Think about it.

    Is it “us vs. Them”?

    Is it contempt for democracy?

    Is it “He has more than me, the system must be destroyed.”?

    Is it rape and assault?

    What is it you want?

    It sounds to me like it is “Stick ‘ em up! We’v come for what is ours!”

  • I live near a tiny city Poughkeepsie and OWS has grown to a 1000 person plus group!

    For the record, the conjoined urban complex around Poughkeepsie and Newburgh, New York has about 350,000 residents.

  • That “tiny city” is also a staging ground for the main #OWS.

    I also found why all the video shots I looked at for that “movement” are shot so oddly– this is the “park” they’re “occupying.” (Odd in that all the shots are either focused on three tents, or are very tight zoom with the background of a brick house and some trees, or are oddly framed pictures of people standing in front of some sort of “stage”– it seems to be part of the park, but pulling back any would look over the road. “Occupy the basketball court” or “occupy that cute little park across from the United Way” just doesn’t have the same ring.)

  • I stand by small city as Poughkeepsie has 32K residents. Why Newburgh was listed is beyond me. Newburgh is over 17 miles away and across a river. They may have their own OWS I do not get there too often. I suppose we could include Yonkers, Peekskill and Ossinging as well because they are on the Hudson river lol I suppose it was an attempt to show the movement is not as large as it is but that would only be a guess.

  • Why Newburgh was listed is beyond me.

    Looking at the bird’s-eye-view map, it’s the same reason that people talk about “Seattle-Tacoma”– even though there are a lot of cities that are located in that glob, like University Place, and even enough open space for a decent number of small farms. It’s an “urban complex”– big blob of light, in terms of those cool “world at night” pictures. You don’t hit big open countryside between the cities, even if it spreads out so you can’t look in your neighbor’s windows.

  • I stand by small city as Poughkeepsie has 32K residents

    That would be the population living within the muncipality designated ‘City of Poughkeepsie’. The population of Ulster, Dutchess, and Orange Counties sums to about 760,000. The Census Bureau identifies three ‘urbanized areas’ in those counties, which is to say three sets of dense settlement in excess of 50,000 people paying no mind to municipal boundaries. None of these settlements extend into Westchester County and certainly would not include Ossining or Yonkers, which are clearly components of metropolitan New York. Again, the most populous settlement delineated is the Poughkeepsie/Newburgh complex, which has about 350,000 people in it. It is geographically oddly-shaped: two strips of tract development one on each side of the Hudson River. If you have a complaint about that, you can take it up with the geographers at the Census Bureau.

  • I have no problem. I said Poughkeepsie City and I stick by that. Why are you insisting on including “urbanized” areas-That makes no sense but maybe to suggest that 1000 in Poughkeepsie is a small gathering because 350K live nearby. Ok but what if those areas have OWS too? is it my job to find out for ya? Could you please tell me why you insist on putting the whole “urbannized” thingy in? Thanks

  • Lol I assure you Po’Kip’see does not stand out on a Satellite image. You crack me up. This discussion makes no sense-please tell me why I must include the whole when my reference was to a city? Aww-nevermind I think we has beaten dis’s hoss da’ death!
    Go OWS!

    Glen from a small village of Wappingers just south of Potown

  • Who am I going to believe, you or my lyin’ eyes?

    Given that, I’m rather doubting the accuracy of your “thousand people” claim, as well– I would guess the number came from their facebook page. (Now up to 1500 likes– although there’s no way to know if those are individuals or community pages.)

    Glen from a small village of Wappingers just south of Potown

    Same way that Fircrest is a small town near Tacoma…..

  • That makes no sense but maybe to suggest that 1000 in Poughkeepsie is a small gathering because 350K live nearby

    Commuting and settlement patterns are not respecters of municipal boundaries.

  • I am a Philadelphian and walked through and by the protests at least twice a week. I went by there this morning, only then discovering that the police had cleaned it up.

    Here are my thoughts, for what they are worth:

    1. It is no more fair to tar the various tent cities with the “rape and vandalism” brush than it is to tar the Tea Party as “racist and xenophobic.” Examples of such inhumanity exist in the camps to be sure but it is untrue to claim that those incidents are representative of even a small minority of the participants or experiences. As one who attended Tea Party Demonstrations in Philadelphia and have more than a passing experience with the OWS movement protest in Philadelphia, I can safely characterize ONLY Philadelphia’s iterations as “peaceful” and “minimally disruptive.” French barricades they weren’t.
    2. There is as large a gulf between the fundamental character of the Tea Party movement and the OWS movement as there is between the GOP and the Democratic Party. There is overlap but such is the nature of political discourse. To point to the overlap as evidence that movements share the same political space is misguided. At its core, the Tea Party movement is narrowly focused on limiting government through spending restraint. I can’t rightly say what the OWS movement is for. I listened to dozens of speeches through bullhorns over the last few weeks. Each speaker had his or her own agendas and, while most spoke well and with impassioned intellect, there was no unifying theme, no “call to arms” that the listener could focus on. Indeed, the “stop corporate greed” refrains were thrown in like sprinkles on ice cream – they were neither incorporated into any arguments, nor directed to any activity.
    3. The OWS movement, like all utopian “movements,” lacks any broader sense of its place in the polity. It isn’t a movement of “the people” for “the people” are not a bunch of retirees out to relive their youth, homeless looking for a meal and a place to stay, youth looking for their “identity,” or anarchists looking for yet another excuse to cause mayhem. It isn’t a movement of workers for it was merely used BY without being ORGANIZED by Labor. Labor… Now THAT is a movement. The OWS is nothing like that. It isn’t even like the Labor Movement in the early days, which is precisely the point… Utopian movements are useless and destructive precisely because they range so far and wide across the intellectual landscape that there is no way for a grass roots movement to form around it. In the end, the only way that the Left – for the OWS is, beyond any reasonable doubt, a Leftish project – to make any actual progress is to narrow in on a few closely related issues and direct them centrally. The distance from that model to the OWS movement is as clear an indicator as a man can have as to how daft and useless this project was.

    As I stated above, I hold the participants in no particular distaste. Each is probably as worthy as the next of respect but lets not pretend that the movement as a whole is other than a pointless blip on the radar.

  • 1. It is no more fair to tar the various tent cities with the “rape and vandalism” brush than it is to tar the Tea Party as “racist and xenophobic.”

    1) a. You’re the first to do either, here; b. there’s a big difference between holding up a fake sign– or claiming you heard something that later cannot be found on any of the multiple tapes– to try to smear the other side, and actually committing rapes and vandalism. (and assaults, and public indecency, and so on; if they’re going to be willing to claim the numbers drawn there by a large population of victims and a large amount of freebees, they’re going to have to consider what sort they’re claiming)
    2) You are correct.
    The TEA party is built around a single goal-type ideal– stop taxing us so much. #OWS has a scapegoat– Wall Street/”the 1%”. Which seems to kind of be the Polish gentleman’s point.

    I do hold those that I know in distaste, basically because they’re continuing head-first down the same road that got them where they are– throwing themselves body and soul into a course of action with unsure goals but which an authority they respect has assured them is Right and Just and shows they’re Good People who will have great success. It didn’t work with the Magical College Degree in partying, so they’re looking for someone to blame and a reason to continue living as they have been.

  • I surrender! I’m wrong.

    OWS will not last it will fade from history just like all democratic ideals. Civil rights, social security, union fought with blood rights like 40 hour week safety and fair wages,Medicare Etc. The right fought so hard against these things now it is magic degree kids who like to party. So sorry I’m on their side.

    Hey it’s yesterdays news why concern yourself with any comments?

    love live the ideals of the great society and the new deal.

  • see occupy Poughkeepsie on facebook

  • Flippancy does you no credit. Drama doesn’t either.

    There is much to take issue with you your response. I’ll settle on one issue alone, that civil rights come from protests like the Occupy Movement.

    Civil rights are grounded in the inherent rights granted us from God Himself. They are not a “gift” from society or a sort of “prize,” wrested from a government. This is the problem with flash-in-the-pan utopian movements – they assume that a single act of defiance will claim something that they long for. In reality, “claiming” civil rights is pushing back at oppression and that requires heavy lifting.

    It is hard work and it takes time to push back the forces of tyranny. It is costly too. Most importantly, it requires working in many conditions and with many tools.

    If you want to see what a successful movement looks like, American history is replete with them. Look to the Revolution itself if you want to see what dogged determinism and sacrifice look like. Want something less violent? OK. How about the Suffragette Movement? Want something dealing with obvious oppression? How about the Abolition Movement or the Civil Rights Movement?

    In each and every case, there was a determined, long term commitment to claiming what was already due – the God-given rights of Man. Compare that with the Occupy Movement and you will see that there is a huge gulf between them.

    Do you want to make a difference? Dig in and dedicate yourself to working with and outside the system for justice and opportunity. Push away no assistance, even if it comes from unexpected quarters. Accept that compromise is necessary and that “sacrificing the good for the perfect” is daft. Most of all, prepare to sacrifice for nothing worth having comes without sacrifice.

  • Civil rights is indeed from the Lord yet many looked on as the dogs snarled and bit and they rooted for the police.

    Look I’m tired of trying to convince anyone that OWS is basically a cry against oppression. People are fixed in thought. This is my last post as there is little sense in beating my position into the ground. I am democrat and proud, A Cathloic and proud yet I have issues with them both.

    I see a hands on goverment that employs socail programs to help-others are for trickle down or private charity type of help. My main goal in life is to please the Lord by service to other. I dedicated my life to this as a worker in mental health and as avolunteer in nursing homes and prisons.

    I see service to the poor,sick and elderly (well I’m not to far from that myself lol) as the high ground and pleasing to the Lord. I see great gaps between the rich and poor which is ok if the fair share is carried-I make it my goal to make change. OWS wants change, yes they are scattered a bit in goals but my goodness what evil have they done that people hate them so?

    God Bless and I’m done

  • see occupy Poughkeepsie on facebook


    Ever get the idea that someone isn’t even pretending to read the responses, just scans and responds to that?

    I think we disappointed him. Amazing how these “peoples’ movement” type things keep fizzling on contact with actual people….

    (If I had the time to actually set down and write a post, I’d do one about my family: just below median income, two small children, married, renting, both were military enlisted, I stay at home in part because there’s no job I could get that would cover child care, and we’re somehow the 1%? But then I’d have to go into the top 5 or ten % making 20-something % of gross income and “only” paying 30-something % of the taxes, and that always takes too much time. I need a button: “We are the 53%“.)

  • You look for hatred but I’m not seeing it here. There is a fair amount of condescension and ridicule though; and why not? The Occupy movement is ridiculous.

    You mistake ridicule for opposition and that is part of the problem.

    Let me give you an example.

    My uncle didn’t graduate from high school. He thought he would do well with his music and he is, indeed, a fine musician. However, my aunt became pregnant and he took a job to support his family. He eventually earned a GED and has held no less than two jobs at a time for nearly fifty years. He is a good, honest, faithful man. Day in and day out, he works with no expectation of ever retiring. He is the kind of guy that drops everything to rescue an idiot nephew from a roadside at two AM, knowing that he has to be at work at four.

    He has about as much in common with a 22 year old, face pierced so completely as to have to resist the magnetic pull of the earth college kid as a Clydesdale does with a Jackrabbit. He is as similar to a comfortably retired Quaker protesting on a corner as freighter is to a Sunfish.

    Until you can reach him – a man with interests entirely matched to those you cry about – you have failed.

    My point – for I will not presume to speak for others here – is that the Occupy Movement is pointless and ridiculous because it pretends to speak for men like my uncle and yet doesn’t bother to offer a plan that would rouse him from his work to notice. He said it better than I can: “when an independent plumber gives up his day’s wages to walk around downtown, I’ll take notice.”

  • My point – for I will not presume to speak for others here – is that the Occupy Movement is pointless and ridiculous because it pretends to speak for men like my uncle and yet doesn’t bother to offer a plan that would rouse him from his work to notice. He said it better than I can: “when an independent plumber gives up his day’s wages to walk around downtown, I’ll take notice.”


    This is the same folks who always protest– complete with the issues that happen when there are protests– for a “trendy,” ill-defined cause and those solutions offered by those who bother to offer them are the same as they were for most of the prior causes.
    In contrast, the TEA party was folks who never protest, for a goal that’s mocked by popular culture by a means that you just don’t get massive groups showing up in support of.

5 Responses to Audie Murphy on What’s My Line

It’s Not About You

Monday, November 28, AD 2011

Msgr. Pope addresses some of the common concerns about the new translation.  In particular he discusses the charge that it is difficult to understand the new prayers because of the subordinate clauses.

Now, if the priest who recites or sings the prayer is careful with the commas, and alters his tone of voice properly, the new translation is quite intelligible, and also quite beautiful. My own mind lit up as I recited the new prayer above, this morning.

That said, it may still be harder for some in the pew to attend the words of the priest, even if it is well spoken, since the use of sentences with subordinate clauses requires the listener to hold one thought, while a subordinate thought is articulated, and then the speaker branches back to the main thought.

So lets grant that it is a little harder.

But here we come to an important insight that, though it is not politically correct, is still true: The priest is not talking to you. He is not directing the prayer to you, and the first purpose of the prayer is not that you understand it perfectly. The prayer is directed to God, (most often, to God the Father). The priest is speaking to God, and is doing so on your behalf, and that of the whole Church. And God is wholly able to understand the prayer, no matter how complicated its structure.

Too often in modern times we have very anthropocentric (man-centered) notions of the Sacred Liturgy. With the return to the vernacular, and mass celebrated toward the people, (neither intrinsically wrong), there is often the wrongful conclusion that the Liturgy is about us, the gathered assembly. Surely there are aspects celebrated on our behalf and for our benefit, especially the Liturgy of the Word and the reception of Holy Communion, but the prayers of the Sacred Liturgy are addressed to and focused on God.

More at the link.  As much as we’ve touted the new translation and have psyched ourselves up for the new responses, the really radical change is not what we’re saying but what the Priest is saying.  It became immediately obvious that we had something very new with the first prayers.  The very tone of the prayers is completely different.  The language is so much more elevated and distinct.  Even if you had no idea that there was a new translation in effect surely you would have noticed something had changed.

Anyway, that is what struck me with my initial Mass with the new translation.  I’ve been reading over the responses and getting ready, so finally saying “And with your spirit” wasn’t as novel to me as hearing the words of the consecration for the first time. That’s when it really hit me that we have something much more special here.

Of course I still managed to mess up and began responding “and also with you” at the conclusion of Mass.  Something tells me it might be a while before even those of us who are the happiest about the revisions really settle in and adapt to it fully.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to It’s Not About You

  • “The priest is not talking to you. He is not directing the prayer to you, and the first purpose of the prayer is not that you understand it perfectly. The prayer is directed to God, (most often, to God the Father). The priest is speaking to God, and is doing so on your behalf, and that of the whole Church. And God is wholly able to understand the prayer, no matter how complicated its structure.”

    But the Mass is about us as a community. A community of self-actualizing beings who, through the meal of the Eucarist, then go into the world to realize ourselves in acts of social justice. This justice is then the actualization of the example of the actualized humanity of Jesus in the world.

    How can the Mass be about God?

  • Phillip:

    You have a point – the Mass is about community. But first, and foremost, the Mass is about our worship of God. The Mass is entirely about our recognition of our dependence on God so that we can fulfill the mission He sends us out to do. For us to believe that the Mass is all about “us”, we’re deceiving ourselves, because we’re placing ourselves above God, and then not realizing our dependence on Him or the Mystery of Salvation that comes to us through Christ. If this is the case, then why even go to Mass? We’re just worshiping ourselves in the belief that we’re doing what Jesus asked us to do, but not asking Jesus to help us do it. Our communal gathering is to make manifest that it is through the Body of Christ alone – yet through the Sacramental and Mystical realities made present – that we do what Jesus commands. Ultimately, it is for us as the Body of Christ to realize is that God is God, and we are not, and that we can do nothing apart from Him.

  • Frob:

    Phillip was engaging in a bit of satire.

  • True – but others can be thinking the same thing. We can’t leave something like that open-ended for any misunderstanding.

  • Frob,

    It was in part a bit of satire. I say a bit because once upon a life I was in the diaconate program in my diocese. That was how the about how the sacramental theology course summed up the Mass. Pretty much every sacrament was so reduced to the action of the community transforming this or that in social justice. The priesthood was the action of the community transforming the candidate into a presider, baptism the community accepting the baptized into the community, etc.

    So, sadly, I accept your clearing things up.

  • I actually find it _easier_ to pay attention to the new texts with all the subordinate clauses, etc. because it gives my mind something to latch onto 🙂 Active participation is much easier when your mind is actually given something to be active about! With the old texts it was like trying to grab hold of water — it just slipped and flowed through my fingers no matter how much effort I made, partially because so much content was removed by the translators that there was less there to grab hold of, and partially because the remaining content was then phrased so smoothly that it just washed over me with ever sinking in. The new translation has all the content back (or most of it anyway — any translation will lose some nuances, and Latin is still the first language of the Roman Mass) and the way it’s phrased is often the opposite of the old text – it wakes me up and holds my attention rather than softly lulling me into a dreamless (i.e. doctrine-free) slumber like the old texts did.

  • You have said it all, Paul. To us who grew up to adulthood with the Latin Mass and Missals which had the exact English translation on the opposite Pages, we are thanking the Holy Spirit for restoring our Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist to us. The Eucharistic Prayers are especially truly Divine Worship to God the Father – and this is what the Holy Eucharist is all about. As commented above, though the Congregation are full participants, the Priest/Celebrant is in place of Jesus who offers Himself to His Heavenly Father and, as we assist in the Sacrifice, He in turn, offers us, along with Himself to our Heavenly Father. When one understands fully what the Holy Mass is all about, one will greatly appreciate the Sacredness which has now been restored. We are now awaiting with great joy, the translation of the other Divine Worship especially the Holy Matrimony Liturgy and the Requem Holy Mass.

Don’t Know Much About History

Monday, November 28, AD 2011

Excellent takedown from Jonah Goldberg of an excruciating bit of historical illiteracy written by Kevin Boyle.  Boyle had written a review in the Times of a couple of books about the Klan, and led with this laugher:

Imagine a political movement created in a moment of terrible anxiety, its origins shrouded in a peculiar combination of manipulation and grass-roots mobilization, its ranks dominated by Christian conservatives and self-proclaimed patriots, its agenda driven by its members’ fervent embrace of nationalism, nativism and moral regeneration, with more than a whiff of racism wafting through it.

No, not that movement. The one from the 1920s, with the sheets and the flaming crosses and the ludicrous name meant to evoke a heroic past. The Invisible Empire of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, they called it. And for a few years it burned across the nation, a fearsome thing to ­behold.

There’s a lot more silliness, including a whopper of a closing paragraph that both Jonah and Daniel Foster rightfully mock.  At any rate, Jonah responds:

The average reader with no specialized knowledge and an unhealthy faith in the wisdom and accuracy of the New York Times might find in all of this reinforcement of the conventional liberal tale of the KKK as a quirky and extremist conservative organization.

But that’s simply not the story of the second Klan. I don’t expect Kevin Boyle to hammer home the Klan’s progressive and Democratic ties. But he manages to make them all sound conventionally conservative. He doesn’t acknowledge that Woodrow Wilson was Birth of a Nation’s most famous booster. Nor does he mention that World War One was the Progressives’ war and that “100% Americanism” was touted and promoted by Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson — our two progressive presidents. He doesn’t mention that evil spirits of World War One were orchestrated by progressive wordsmiths, activists, and artists.

The Klan of the 1920s and 30s would have had more sympathy for the populist sentimentality of the Occupy Wall Street crowd than with the tea parties.  Like the OWS group, they thought the reforms instituted by the Democrat in the White House to be not radical enough.  But acknowledging as much would derail an “academic” with an ideological axe to gore.


Continue reading...

4 Responses to Don’t Know Much About History

Peter Kreeft Calls a Spade a Bloody Shovel

Monday, November 28, AD 2011


We live in a low, dishonest age where blatant evil is protected with euphemisms.  I take heart whenever anyone stands up against this meretricious trend.  I therefore applaud Dr. Peter Kreeft, Boston College Philosophy Professor and a Catholic convert, for his remarks at a speech sponsored by the Diocese of Madison, Wisconsin on the subject of whether a Catholic can be a liberal.  He minced no words when the subject of abortion and the Kennedy clan came up:

During the Q&A, an audience member brought up the Kennedy political  dynasty and how a group of leading theologians and Catholic college professors  had met with Kennedy family members in the mid-1960s and came up with a way for  Catholic politicians to support a pro-abortion rights platform with clear consciences.

Kreeft said these Catholic advisers “told the Kennedys how they could get  away with murder.” Kreeft then made one of his boldest comments of the evening,  suggesting the theologians who first convinced Democratic politicians they could  support abortion rights and remain Catholic did more damage to the Catholic  Church than pedophile priests.

“These were wicked people. These were dishonest people. These were people  who, frankly, loved power more than they loved God,” Kreeft said. “Sorry, that’s  just the way it is. In fact, I’d say these were even worse than the child  molesters — though the immediate damage they did was not as obvious — because  they did it deliberately, it wasn’t a sin of weakness. Sins of power are worse than sins of weakness. Cold, calculating sins — that’s straight from the  devil.”

A few minutes later, the talk over, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Peter Kreeft Calls a Spade a Bloody Shovel

  • Coincidentally, dying milltowns in Massachusetts became a destination for poor immigrants where there was a growth in welfare benefitted lifestyles, with increases for children born to these unmarried beneficiaries. No Mr. & Mrs. or Mother & Father has become commonplace. Gangs of these children form alternate families and battle to the death. Our nation provides not only abortion, but also a means to the destruction of family through legislation. The glamor of evil and its voting block.

  • I love the message — Dr. Kreeft is a great apologist and writer — but was thrown off by the title of this post. To “call a spade a spade” is to call things by their right names without regard for tact or sensibilities, which is what Dr. Kreeft did; am I missing a point or a play on words?

  • it is my way Anthony of underlining what he did. In England that is the way the phrase is expressed and I have always been fond of that usage:

  • Truth!

    God bless Professor Kreeft.

  • Donald
    Your link to the background says that none of the theologians held abortion to be moral but they advised legalization. Could their contradiction revolve around safety. Abortion is never safe for the child …legal or illegal; but illegal abortion is also unsafe for the mother. So could this advice really be rooted in safety though it turned out to be naive in that legalization exponentially increases the number of abortions? But the link has the theologans seeing abortion as immoral not moral. Oddly Augustine and Aquinas held for state’s allowing prostitution lest in Augustine’s view, worse lust takes place…apparently adultery and rape and seduction of non prostitutes. Vatican II seems to have rejected their position though.

  • Very good question, Bill. I do think that whether an immoral act should be criminalized is usually a matter of prudence. But try as I might, I just cannot imagine a justification for the legalization of abortion that does not rely on assigning insufficient gravity to the evil of the act. There is an indifference to the life of the unborn that can only be regarded as either very irrational or very callous.

  • Mike
    I agree with you totally. I’m just wondering whether at that time period the theologians were thinking aggregate abortions would not increase in number and legally done would be death to the child but safety to the mother rather than jeopardy to both. New York City now has the abortion rate of Red China now without its being coerced as in Red China.

  • I know basically zero about Theology. However, I would question anyone who would make murder safer for the killers. I would look up “consequentialism.”

    Plus, I have some highly uncharitable thoughts about them theologists that thunk that way.

  • “So could this advice really be rooted in safety though it turned out to be naive in that legalization exponentially increases the number of abortions?”

    I think the advice was rooted in sheer political expediency Bill. Feminism was on the march and was a crucial element in the liberal coalition. I think the late Jesuit Robert Drinan was typical of this ilk. He served in Congress from 1970 to 1981 and was an unfailing pro-abort vote, including public funding of it. Here is an excerpt from a debate he had with Jerry Falwell where the Baptist preacher defends Catholic teaching on abortion and Drinan completely ignores it.

    “FALWELL: It’s shocking to me that you, a Roman Catholic priest, are part of a church that condemns abortion and calls it murder, as your pope did very courageously in America last year, how you could support federal funding for abortion absolutely in contradiction of everything the Church stands for . . . .

    DRINAN: The Supreme Court said that there’s a constitutional right in a couple, or in a woman, to have an abortion. Can the federal government say that we are going to restrict and constrict that particular right? . . .

    FALWELL: If the Congress, the Constitution, and the executive branch all legalized abortion, you and I as men of the cloth have a higher authority, in my opinion, and that is almighty God and the Word of God, and the church we represent. And all three in both instances—your church and mine—condemn abortion as the taking of human life, and I cannot see how you could possibly justify your position as a man of the cloth, repudiating the position of your own church, and voting regularly for federal funding of abortion.

    DRINAN: I have not repudiated the position of my own church. I’ve said thousands of times that abortion is immoral in my judgment and coming out of my tradition, but that this is oversimplified piety, as if everything that the churches hold must in fact be put into American law. . . . A lot of Catholics in the Congress and throughout the country feel that the state should not deny Medicaid funds to people who are entitled to an abortion under the law. . . .

    FALWELL: Your church believes that abortion is murder. . . . Why is it that you don’t support that, and why is [it] that you are constantly voting to pay for something that your church calls immoral? . . .

    DRINAN: I think that there’s a constitutional right granted by the highest tribunal of the nation, and that a member of Congress takes an oath to support that Constitution.

    FALWELL: Do you take the ruling of a Supreme Court above the authority of the Holy Father? . . . The question is, do you believe that the Supreme Court has more authority than your Holy Father does on this issue?

    DRINAN: That’s not the question. The Supreme Court has authority in a field, and . . . we should sustain the Constitution as the Supreme Court has interpreted it, until or unless it’s reversed.”

    Drinan was an unfailing shill for the pro-abort cause after the Pope ordered him not to run again in 1980. Complete contempt is a weak description for my feelings toward Drinan and his fellow pro-abort priests.

    In regard to Ted Kennedy I think he was an easy convert to support for abortion on demand. Whatever his public statements regarding abortion, I have no doubt that his private view was probably: “darn convenient.”

  • Donald,
    Read the First Things link….all very bizarre and suggests where Pilosi may have gotten her ideas. I found a Drinan article at Theological Studies (see below) on the topic but it is still hard to find there his implicit “render to Caesar with gusto once Caesar has erred” idea. He cites John Courtney Murray S.J. to the effect that there are many immoral actions that the law does not prohibit …I suppose like eating habits that lead to diabetes and communal expense that some are warning of in our media lately. The devil tricked him in an area that I am not seeing unless it’s in the area in the article at TS where he sees significance (what kind?) in the one third of preborns that die by nature all along the spectrum from failed implantation to miscarriage…and similar observations. Well….God takes many people into the next life through heart attack and tornados….that doesn’t mean we should.

  • Years ago at the UN an Australian delegate remarked that it was time to call a spade a spade. In rebuttal, a Russian delegate remarked that calling a spade a spade was all very well for capitalist countries, “but in the Soviet Union we call a spade a shovel”.

  • Pingback: Catholic Phoenix
  • Great piece! Thank you for offering this message & reflection.

  • Peter Kreeft has the knack Bob of saying the truth out of season, and it is a trait I prize!

National Catholic Reporter in Full Melt Down Mode

Monday, November 28, AD 2011

Having sat through some pretty dreadful masses since Vatican II, I guess I have a wee bit of schadenfreude right now.  The National Catholic Reporter has an editorial that has to be seen to be believed.  This is a choice paragraph:

The Vatican issued new translation guidelines, Liturgiam authenticam, in 2001, reorganized ICEL to report not to the English-speaking bishops but to the Curia, and appointed a committee, Vox Clara, to advise it on the approval of English translations. All this was done ostensibly to ensure the authenticity of the translation, but it was clear from the beginning that a clerical, imperial ideology was being imposed on the translation. The poetry of language and beauty of prayers were secondary concerns.



Continue reading...

15 Responses to National Catholic Reporter in Full Melt Down Mode

  • This is the first I’ve heard of the 1998 translation. I looked it up and it’s somewhere between the 1973 and current translations but much closer to the 1973. So close that I don’t even see why it warranted change.

    I do see Mr. Tambourine’s point though. It’s a step back for comprehensibility. But then again, it is more poetic which I prefer to simplicity. On the third hand, the Mass should be accessible to the masses. I keep on returning to the idea I have about bifurcating the missal into high and low versions or maybe even more.

  • RR:

    Can you post a link to the 1998 translation?

    The editorial was actually much better than the irrational “Leave Britney Alone!” freakout I was expecting (and have seen before).

    But I’m really getting tired of the refusal of those wetting their beds over the change to admit that the ’73 was a steaming pile of crap, and not just the product of “aw, shucks–we were carried away by enthusiasm!” In some sections, it’s a bad paraphrase, which prompts fair questions as to the motives of the translators.

    Until the protesters admit to the awfulness of the previous translation, I’m inclined to roundfile their objections.

  • I keep on returning to the idea I have about bifurcating the missal into high and low versions or maybe even more.

    I can understand the motivation, but the liturgy is already diverse enough by having four eucharistic prayers in the new rite and the ’62 Mass. “Indulting” the ’73 (so to speak) is pretty close to fracturing the rite altogether.

  • The English Mass was hardly a translation from the Latin to English. It was a re-write.

    E.G., Et cum spiritu tuo is And with your spirit in English, not And also with you. Big difference in meaning and intent.

    The youths won’t be there because their parents weren’t there.

  • 1998 Sacramentary:

    Dale, I’ve never actually heard the alternative Eucharistic prayers used. There may be enough diversity but it’s not taken advantage of due to, I suspect, inertia. I think making clearer distinctions (e.g., designating a version as “high” or “solemn”) and encouraging their use could be beneficial.

  • Well, given the way the NCR editorial staff feels about the new translation – how they will cringe with the new words – they might have a better appreciation at how faithful Catholics feel when they read the cr*p they consistently publish.

  • I guess this fellow commenting on the NCR thread can be the one to turn off the lights for the Episcopalians:

    “Oh, Heavens!! The Catholic Church lost me 50 years ago & I’ve finally “grown up” and left it ~ HOORAY!!!! My Methodist-raised spouse & I joined the REAL Church of the Good Lord, the Episcopal Church ~ our church does Mass the correct way with all the former “High Mass” trimmings EVERY SUNDAY morning AND the fabulous formal choir (in ROBES!)always sings ALL the verses to the lovely Christian hymns. The congregation dresses properly ~ not in junk clothes like the Catholics these days (at 5 p.m. Masses, especially) ~ and really WANTS to be there to praise & thank the Good Lord…unlike Catholics who just “show up” so they won’t “commit a mortal sin & go to Hell” ~ or so they were trained to believe they will!

    No wonder there was the Protestant Reformation ~ the Episcopalians got it right!!”

  • We tambourine people! Oh my goodness! LOL!

    I see where this is going now, they really just want the jingle-jangle worship that is entirely the sound of tambourine, and will avoid any language whatsoever so as not to offend anyone who is offended by Latin, English, commas, unfamiliar words, the idea we are sinners in need of mercy, or religion and belief in God in general.

  • I’m thinking a chorus of “Listen To What The Flower People Say” from This Is Spinal Tap would pretty much sum up the Tamborine People…

  • Donate to NCR? You have got to be kidding. The Mass this past Sunday was beautiful, poetic and reverent. The thing is that we must get out of “auto pilot” with our responses. At daily Mass yesterday, “and also with you” was said several times. There is a difference between “and with your spirit” and “and also with you”. When the Mass was translated into other languages, the translations were much closer to the Latin text. Only in English speaking countries was the translation so abominable. The Eucharistic Prayers are beautiful. I am thankful to JP II and Benedict for this beautiful and faithful translation.

  • I’ve written quite extensively on the new translation, having examined and commented upon every prayer in the ordinary, and every collect, offertory prayer, preface, postcommunion, special blessing, and prayer over the people, for every Sunday and every feast day, even the minor ones, throughout the year. The translation we have now is immeasurably superior to what we’ve had for forty years — and superior in the very poetic qualities that the Distorter pretends to long for. The 1998 translation was a Trojan Horse — and the Distorter doesn’t want to admit it. They did actually try to translate, sort of, the collects and the prefaces (as opposed to the lame paraphrase of 1973), but they left the bad translations of the ordinary alone, and they introduced some really bad and stupid stuff, via the feminist syndrome.

    As for the young people: I have spent my whole professional life around young people. I teach them for a living. If I offered a class on singing Renaissance polyphony, I’d have thirty kids signing up overnight, half of them boys. The students I know who love their faith are more, not less, interested in learning Latin and recovering their Catholic heritage. Haven’t oldsters been pretending for all these years that they knew what would attract young people? Haven’t they already tried making things “cool” and “hip” and “relevant” and so forth? Haven’t the kids seen through all that and shrugged? When I’m at a Mass where the people sing the atrocious muzak from Haugen, Haas, and Schutte, and the “choir” consists of a bunch of middle aged women who like to be looked at, some old guy going along with it to please his wife, and a teenage girl or two, it doesn’t take much genius to see behind the stony faces of the boys in the congregation — if there are any.

  • Thank you Tony. I too have noticed the young people preferring the new translation. There are more young people at Eucharistic Adoration. Yesterday, I noticed more young people at daily Mass. Those to whom I spoke after Mass, said that they prefer the new translation.

  • My sons are 20 & 22 and they want to be told the TRUTH, even if it is harder than a sugarcoated lie. They will do great with the new translation because its TRUE. One of the most disrespectful thing that people can do is to lie to get a certain response from others…it tells them that you don’t respect their capacity to have the correct response from the actual truth.

    Noone likes disrespect but young makes especially dont will violently remove themselves from situations when disrespected. Give them the TRUTH….as close as we have it, the new translation is the truth.

He Outranked Stonewall

Monday, November 28, AD 2011



James B. Sheeran knew many roles in his life:  husband, father, Catholic priest and soldier, and whatever his role he gave everything he had.  Born in Temple Mehill, County Longford, Ireland, in either 1814 or 1818, he emigrated to Canada at the age of 12.  Eventually he settled in Monroe, Michigan and taught at a school run by the Redemptorist Fathers.  He married and he and his wife had a son and daughter.

Tragedy stalked the family.  Sheeran’s wife died in 1849 and his son also died of illness.  His daughter became a nun, but also died young of an illness.  Rather than retreat into bitterness, always a temptation for a man afflicted with so much sorrow, Sheeran decided that God was calling him to a new path and joined the Redemptorists, being ordained a priest in 1858.  He was sent to a parish in New Orleans.  In the Crescent City he found that he liked the people and became an ardent Southerner.  When Louisiana seceded, he became a chaplain in the 14th Louisiana, which served in the Army of Northern Virginia under General Robert E. Lee.

Father Sheeran was a priest who believed in speaking his mind.  An example of this was caused by his habit of helping enemy wounded after he had helped the wounded Confederates.  His unit had captured a Union field hospital and Father Sheeran went over to it and was appalled to see that the wounded were not being cared for.  He kept a diary throughout the War and he recorded the following:

The union soldiers “told me that they had no bandages to dress the wounds, no instruments to operate with, and that they were fatigued from the labors of the night.”

“I remarked it would be some consolation to their wounded if they would but visit them and wash the wound of those who were bathed in their own blood. I next went to their men paroled to attend to the wounded, asked why they did not wait on their companions, many of whom were suffering for a drink of water. They told me that they had no one to direct them, that their surgeons seemed to take no interest in the men.”

“I became somewhat indignant to hear the excuses of these worthless nurses, and putting on an air of authority ordered them to go to the rifle pits filled with the dead bodies of their companions and they would find hundreds of knapsacks filled with shirts, handkerchiefs and other articles that would make excellent bandages.”

“They obeyed my orders with the utmost alacrity and soon returned with their arms full of excellent bandage material, and bringing them to me asked: ‘Now sir, what shall we do with them?’” Sheeran was fully prepared to give the required final direction. “Go and tell your surgeons that you have bandages enough now.”

“Off they went to the surgeons….”. “In about two hours I returned and was pleased to find the surgeons and nurses all at work attending to their wounded.”

Father Sheeran did not restrict his outspokenness only to Union soldiers.  His friend Father James Flynn in 1892 wrote about one memorable run in Father Sheeran had with the legendary Stonewall Jackson:

“Going to his [Father Sheeran’s] tent one day, General Jackson sternly rebuked the priest for disobeying his orders, and reproached him for doing what he would not tolerate in any officer in his command. [The exact offense is unknown.] ‘Father Sheeran,’ said the general, ‘you ask more favors and take more privileges than any officer in the army.’ [Sheeran apparently replied] ‘General Jackson, I want you to understand that as a priest of God I outrank every officer in your command. I even outrank you, and when it is a question of duty I shall go wherever called.’ The General looked with undistinguished astonishment on the bold priest and without reply left his tent.”

This incident obviously left an impression on General Jackson.  Just before the battle of Chancellorsville he had ordered that all baggage be sent to the rear which included tents.  Chaplain Sheeran immediately sent in his resignation, claiming that his tent was necessary for him to perform his duties as a priest.  Dr. Hunter McGuire, chief surgeon of the Second Corps, reported on what happened next:

“I said to General Jackson, that I was very sorry to give up [the] Father–; that he was one of the most useful chaplains in the service. He replied: ‘If that is the case he shall have a tent.’ And so far as I know this Roman Catholic priest was the only man in the corps who had one.”

Continue reading...

2 Responses to He Outranked Stonewall

  • “[Sheeran apparently replied] ‘General Jackson, I want you to understand that as a priest of God I outrank every officer in your command. I even outrank you, and when it is a question of duty I shall go wherever called.’”

    That is NOT the attitude (though it should be) of facing down Obama and his Culture of Death Democrats, particularly pseudo-Catholic politicians such as Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kucinich, Cuomo, etc.

  • Father Sheeran’s book, full of virile Catholicism, is indeed a joy to read as was this synopsis of his life. I wonder if anyone out there knows what his middle name was as I am hoping to name my soon to be born son after him. Any help would be appreciated.

New Catholic Blog: Over the Rhine and into the Tiber

Sunday, November 27, AD 2011


An e-mail birdie has informed me of a new Catholic blog which looks quite interesting:  Over the Rhine and into the Tiber.  Go here to take a gander at it.  Judging from its initial posts, I believe that I will be putting it on my personal list of Catholic blogs that I read daily.  Here is a description of the blog from the e-mail which I received:

Continue reading...

Steve Jobs: Thanks Mom For Not Aborting Me!

Sunday, November 27, AD 2011


A follow up to my post, which may be read here, regarding Steve Jobs, Adoption and  Abortion.  Pro-lifers have gotten some static for bringing up the fact that Steve Jobs could have ended up aborted if his mother had not chosen life for him.  Well, it appears that Steve Jobs was thankful that his mother did not choose to kill him through abortion.

“I wanted to meet [her] mostly to see if she was OK and to thank her, because I’m glad I didn’t end up as an abortion,” he said. “She was 23 and she went through a lot to have me.”

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Steve Jobs: Thanks Mom For Not Aborting Me!

  • We are all Gods creatures of his image. Steve Jobs as well as many other people thank God that they were not aborted. If a person doesn’t want to have a baby they should at the very least let the baby live. If we think about are parents are suppose to care and love us not kill us. If you look back in history there was a lot of famous people that would of never lived if their parents aborted them.

  • “If a person doesn’t want to have a baby they should at the very least let the baby live.”

    Actually, if a person doesn’t want to have a baby, then that person must remain sexually abstinent. What are we? Wild baboons without sentience, given to the passing whims of the lust of the flesh that we cannot control our own bodies, and when we fornicate or commit adultery, we think we should be given a free pass for our lack of self-control?

    No sex outside of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. No adultery. No fornication. And while it doesn’t cause pregnancy, no homosexual behavior. God gave us brains and He expects us to use them.

Thanksgiving 1952: Red Skelton

Sunday, November 27, AD 2011

Red Skelton rose from poverty to become one of the most popular comedians of his day.  A comedic genius, he created a gallery of comedic personas:  Clem Kaddidlehopper, the Mean Little Kid, San Fernando Red, Freddie the Freeloader  and others, which allowed him not only to amuse but also to engage in wry commentary about some of the foibles of his time. Skelton the man was fairly simple:  he liked to make people laugh, and he loved God, Country and Kids.  The love of God and his dying son I have written about in the post The Pope, the Clown and the Cross.  Skelton’s love of God and Country shines through in his rendition of the Pledge of Allegiance which I have written about here.

His love of kids was no mere entertainer’s pose as the following anecdote illustrates:

“Funny how you can go to a doctor’s offices and find magazines that are years old in the lobby. I had to go to a dentist two week ago and found a Golf magazine from the 80’s. I also found a magazine that told me the following story:

Decades ago, a young American was flying across the mountain ranges of Europe on his way to London. Accompanying his friend, a Catholic priest, the two were scheduled to have a meeting with the Pope in England. As the priest talked, the plane suddenly rocked. Then rocked again.  Something told the priest the plane was not destined to ever touch land again.

The passengers, busy in their individual conversations, failed to notice, the priest observed, until a flight attendant made an announcement of impending doom. The plane was over a mountain range and losing altitude.

As expected, panic set in.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Thanksgiving 1952: Red Skelton

Messianic Prophecies: Wisdom 2: 12-20

Saturday, November 26, AD 2011




Something for the weekend.  O Come, O Come Emmanuel.  We start Advent tomorrow, and my thoughts have been turning to the many messianic prophecies in the Old Testament that are applicable to Christ.  I do not think there is adequate treatment in contemporary catechesis of the remarkable string of prophecies in the Old Testament that find their completion in Christ.  All Catholics need to be familiar with these prophecies, for they are an anchor for our Faith.  One example is Wisdom 2:12-20:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Messianic Prophecies: Wisdom 2: 12-20

Planned Parenthood Thanksgiving Talking Points

Friday, November 25, AD 2011

Ah, nothing quite says Thanksgiving like a pro-abort attempting to defend the indefensible while the turkey is being carved!  Worse Than Murder, Inc., a\k\a Planned Parenthood, lest a pro-life word be uttered around the Thanksgiving table, has some talking points for its supporters to mutter :

1. Avoid bumper speak talk. A slogan might work for a poster or a button, but in a conversation it just leads to a heated back and forth. Try to steer clear of catchall phrases—they very rarely lead to common ground or change anyone’s mind.

2. Remember the big picture. Debating when life begins or whether or not abortion is federally funded may get you nowhere. Instead focus on your shared values and the big picture—for instance, talk about how you believe everyone should be able to afford to go to the doctor, or how the decision about when and whether to become a parent is a personal one. You never know, you just may find yourself actually agreeing with your relatives.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Planned Parenthood Thanksgiving Talking Points

Thanksgiving 1789

Thursday, November 24, AD 2011


Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor – and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Thanksgiving 1789

When The Technocrats Took My Country

Wednesday, November 23, AD 2011

Ross Douthat goes through the interesting exercise of translating what just happend to Italy into American terms, and in doing so underscores just how big the Eurozone shake up is:

The murmurs about Barack Obama being forced out began in Berlin and Beijing. After his party lost the midterm vote, there were hints that a government of technocrats would be imposed on America, to save the country from a debt crisis and the world from a depression.

As the debt-ceiling negotiations stalled out over the summer, a global coalition — led by Germany, China and the International Monetary Fund — began working behind the scenes to ease Obama out of the White House. The credit downgrade was the final blow: the president had lost the confidence of the world’s shadow government, and his administration could no longer survive.

Within days, thanks to some unusual constitutional maneuvering, Obama resigned the presidency and Michael Bloomberg was invited to take the oath of office. With Beijing issuing veiled threats against our currency, Congress had no choice but to turn the country’s finances over to the Senate’s bipartisan Gang of 6, which in turn acceded to Chinese and German “supervision” of their negotiations. Meanwhile, there was a growing consensus in Europe and Asia that only a true global superstate could prevent the debt contagion from spreading …

FOR Americans, the scenario I’ve just imagined is a paranoid fantasy, the kind of New World Order nightmare that haunts the sleep of black-helicopter watchers and Trilateral Commission obsessives.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to When The Technocrats Took My Country

  • The whole EU experiment has been turning ghastly for all involved. I think the Brussel Bureaucrats are soon going to have to earn an honest living.

  • We saw a little of this in the US with TARP. Highly unpopular among Democrats and Republicans. But passed with bipartisan support because the technocrats said we had to. I think it’s a good thing when government puts the country before the polls and that needs to be encouraged. I’d replace the entire Senate with appointed technocrats. They’re more than halfway there anyway.

  • Smile when you say that RR! My faith in most technocrats is only exceeded by my faith in the prophetic powers of an eight ball. As Churchill noted about Democracy the best argument against it is a five minute chat with an average voter, but he also said this:

    “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

  • I think democracy should be a release valve not a complete system of government. Most people agree to a limited extent. We prefer a republic to direct democracy.

  • All just power derives from the consent of the governed RR. The last century graphically demonstrated what happens when elites decide that they know what is best for the people they goven, democracy be hanged. I agree whole-heartedly with the sentiments expressed by Abraham Lincoln in a speech on July 10, 1858:

    “Those arguments that are made, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man? If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! If it is not true let us tear it out! If it is true let us stick to it then, let us stand firmly by it then.”

  • because the technocrats said we had to.

    TARP has not worked out badly. (Please note that ‘technocrats’ had a spectrum of views on the appropriate course of action at that time). IIRC, the elected officials produced no policy initiatives at that time other than a mortgage insurance scheme. Please note also that in other circumstances, the elected official most prominent in manufacturing legislation on the banking sector has been….Barney Frank. The putrefaction of our national legislature is one of the drivers of technocracy.

  • Something quite like this is already happening in Michigan, though on a smaller scale.

  • You will note in that story a problem that placing these municipalities in trusteeship was meant to address: the antecedent concession of public power to union bosses.