Deconstructing the “Bible Endorses Slavery” Meme

Monday, April 30, AD 2012

One of the more fashionable responses to any Christian’s objection to the legalization of “gay marriage”, or for that matter, any objection to anything blatantly immoral in modern society, is to immediately announce that since the Bible (allegedly) endorses slavery, anything it has to say on any moral issue is completely irrelevant.

I suppose the argument goes something like this for most people in their heads: “so your Bible says that (insert the sin you want to justify here) is immoral, eh? Well let me tell YOU something:

The Bible says slavery is moral. (Premise 1)

Slavery, as we all (allegedly) know is immoral. (Premise 2)

Therefore the Bible endorses something that is immoral. (Premise 3)

Therefore, the Bible is not a legitimate source of moral arguments. (Conclusion)”

Have I got that right? I think I do. So let’s deconstruct these premises and demonstrate why this ever-so popular argument is really just another lazy, uncritical, decontextualized, factually-deficient and hypocritical canard.

Continue reading...

70 Responses to Deconstructing the “Bible Endorses Slavery” Meme

  • Slavery in the Roman Empire was a mixed bag. House slaves were often almost treated like members of the family. Slaves in the mines endured living death. Manumission was not rare, and neither were slave revolts, the most famous being that led by Spartacus in 73BC-71BC. I am sure that many slaves would have agreed with the sentiment expressed in the movie Spartacus that death was the only freedom that a slave knew:

  • The interesting thing about slavery in the Roman Empire was that after the conversion of the Empire to Christ, slavery, after a few centuries, was on its way out. Likewise, eventually with serfdom in Western Europe, and afterwards with negro slavery. The Christian West was the only civilization which, over time, abolished slavery several times, a universal institution around the globe. In the absence of Christianity, I have no doubt that slavery would still be universal. Additionally, where Christianity weakens we will see a return to slavery, as happened in the Communist states, with their millions of Gulag state slaves, and with the state slaves in the concentration camps of the Third Reich.

  • I would not say that slavery is recognized as a “legitimate social institution” but rather that it is acknowledged as a social reality of the time.

  • Not only was chattel slavery condemned by the Church, it is also condemned in the OT and NT under “man-stealing”.

  • As with so many ideas in the Bible, in the Greek, variations or levels of concepts had different words. The English “love,” for instance, has the four Greek concepts of eros (physical, romantic,) storge (familial, parental,) philia (brotherly, fraternal,) and agapas (spiritual, unconditional.) Perhaps it is this way for different types of servitude. Any chance there would be further elucidation on this subject, just to be able to smear the idiots a little more abrasively?

  • Pingback: Deconstructing the “Bible Endorses Slavery” Meme | The American Catholic | Catholic Canada
  • Well WK, I only know modern Hebrew, but the word for slave is closer to worker. There is a second word for slave which is often translated as servant, though, but I am not sure which is used in the Bible. Either way, though, chattel slavery is not implied by either.

  • I differ. God gave chattel slavery to the Jews; and Pope Nicholas V gave it to the Portuguese in 1455 in Romanus Pontifex inter alia …mid fourth large paragraph.
    God was right; Pope Nicholas and three successive Popes were not.
    Documentation:
    Leviticus Chapter 25…God gives chattel slavery to the Jews in a nomadic culture…
    44 “Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. 45 You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, 
    46 and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen..”

     Here is Pope Nicholas V giving Portugal the right to enslave in 1455 in Romanus Pontifex which Pope Paul III tried to overcome in the quote under it in a 1537 bull:

    Pope Nicholas V:
    ” — We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso — to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”

    Pope Paul III trying to undo the above in Sublimus Dei:
    ” We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ.”

    Portugal in the long run obeyed the bad one because it contained this caveat to ward off future Popes:
    ” And if anyone, by whatever authority, shall, wittingly or unwittingly, attempt anything inconsistent with these orders we decree that his act shall be null and void.”

    The bad one by the way also had the written affirmation of three subsequent Popes. Because Pope Leo XIII and another 19th century Pope wrote short histories of the Church and slavery that left out Pope Nicholas V and his endorsers (3 Popes), many many Catholics suppose unbroken papal opposition to slavery.

  • Bill,

    I acknowledge the kind of slavery approved by Pope Nicholas V in my posts, and make a clear distinction between it and chattel slavery.

    Perhaps you didn’t catch that part.

    ” The context is also important; in one Papal bull endorsing this kind of slavery, the context of unending war with Islamic pirates, who captured and enslaved thousands of innocent Christians year after year, is ever-present. The taking of Saracen prisoners of war as slaves was more of a retaliatory war effort than an official social institution. I simply will not condemn it as inherently evil, even if I wouldn’t endorse it today for a thousand different reasons.”

    You can’t just lump every type of slavery into one category.

  • Bonchamps
    But Paul III is addressing the mistakes of the Pope you are defending by context. But you’re dealing with a Pope Nicholas V who was dealing not just with Saracens but three categories to include: ” all Saracens AND PAGANS whatsoever, and OTHER ENEMIES OF CHRIST.”. All the Americas were pagan and in the Americas these permissions were soon used in line with that wording by the Pope. Later Pope Alexander VI was to give Spain the exact same permissions as the Americas were just discovered. One of his mistresses was the sister of Pope Paul III who reformed his own life and opposed this whole late 15th century group of Popes who, like Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam a century and a half before them, saw the Popes as having both spiritual
    and physical power over all the earth. ” The Church That Can and Cannot Change” by Federal Judge, John Noonan Jr. goes into this period in great detail but also shows that contemporaneous with the 8 or so Papal bulls against slavery, there was both in the decretals and in University theologians exceptions. The one as to born to a slave mother means slavery for the child can be seen in the supplement to the Summa online where Aquinas gives the decretal ( canon law) cites: Supplement, question 52, art.4
    ” wherefore children follow the mother in freedom and BONDAGE; whereas in matters pertaining to dignity as proceeding from a thing’s form, they follow the father, for instance in honors, franchise, inheritance and so forth. The canons are in agreement with this (cap. Liberi, 32, qu. iv, in gloss.: cap. Inducens, De natis ex libero ventre) as also the law of Moses (Exodus 21).

  • Shalom.

    You should also link to the church documents/encyclicals on that topic.

  • I do not know Bill. It seems to me that in giving only King Alfonso the Great this power, and giving him this power before the discovery of the Americas, Pope Nicholas’ intention is pretty clearly limited to Iberia. It sounds like the legal language which covers all possible eventualities. Alexander VI, correct me if I am wrong, forbade slavery of the converted indigenous people of the Americas, and saw slavery as a punishment for failure to convert.
    This forced conversion strikes us as pretty perverse, but given that the aliens in the ancient Levant and the Medieval New World were into large scale child sacrifice, might this practice be more amenable to our modern condemnation of slavery, which even now allows for it as a punishment in our own Thirteenth Amendment?

  • Ike
    Again the fact that Pope Paul III took exception and he lived in that context too, argues against context as excuse. If one is against child sacrifice, then end it by war….don’t enslave in order to withdraw silver from Pitosi for a century as Spain did in Peru. Pope Nicholas V may have dreamed about Iberia converting others as primary but in fact, Brazil and Peru right now til this day lead the world in the number of uncontacted tribes.

  • I am not sure that Paul III is objecting to Nicholas V so much as clarifying the statement in a post-Columbian world. Nicholas and Paul were writing in different contexts since one writes during the Reconquista and before the discovery of the Americas (and as you might expect, his statements concern the Reconquista and not the Americas – which he did not know existed) and the other writes after the Reconquista and after the discovery of the Americas (and as you might expect, his statements have the opposite concerns). And I am not saying that the practice or the reasoning behind the allowance of slavery was something other than wrong; I am just wondering if given all the evidence one can judge the papacy so harshly.

  • or say that this constitutes an allowance of chattel slavery which has no regard toward defending some legitimate good – even if done in a bad way.

  • Bill Bannon,

    It is clear to me that the indigenous peoples of the Americas were at no time ever considered “the enemies of Christ”, even if they were technically pagans. This is made absolutely evident by the very first bull condemning the expropriation and enslavement of natives, Sicut Dudum, written in 1435.

    You’re hung up on what appears to me to be an incredibly thin argument, a nit-picky technicality that really doesn’t convey the truth of the situation in the least degree.

  • Pingback: New York Times ESPN Porn Gene Wojciechowski Maureen Dowd | The Pulpit
  • Bonchamps
    You began by implying the Bible doesn’t endorse slavery. I gave Leviticus to the effect that it and God does. Why did He? Because there were in those nomadic or near nomadic times no prisons for three groups: criminals, captured enemies, and debtors. Therefore two violent groups were farmed out into slavery. God gave it as a solution to an overflow that was dangerous in two of those cases. That’s why the Old Testament allows violence toward fools because you as a small farmer or herder might have a robber as a slave and thus you were part warden in a culture without prisons. Suddenly these types of violent passages make sense:

    Pro 10:13 In the lips of him that hath understanding wisdom is found: but a rod [is] for the back of him that is void of understanding.
    Pro 26:3 A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool’s back.
    Exd 21:27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

    If you have a robber as a slave and you constantly find him dozing off, you just might blt him in the mouth.
    ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
    On Romanus Pontifex, you want to believe it had little effect and was a blip in the history.
    Unforetunately it proved to have the most power of the bulls with Portugal who became a principal slaver and the last Euro nation out of the slave trade. Romanus Pontifex was gold to the Portuguese who harried three other Popes into reconfirming it in writing: Pope Calixtus III in 1456; Sixtus IV in 1481; and as late as 1514, Pope Leo X. Pope Paul III writes just 23 years after Leo. The other bulls against slavery appear here and there precisely because traditionally Catholic countries were recurringly involved in slavery. The later Popes weren’t writing for the British. They were writing
    against the impetus caused by another Pope…Nicholas V whose permissions for Portugal were
    repeated by Pope Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope, in one of his Inter Caetera for his native Spain…the same ” privileges, favors, liberties, immunities, exemptions and indults..” ( Noonan,
    page 65 of mentioned book).

    The Old Testament slavery was dealing with a surfeit of violent men in a culture without large prisons. That’s not the situation of Portugal who caused African tribes to capture each other in war in order to barter for goods with Portugal. Africans were far from innocent in this. The Catholic universities allowed that capture in a just war was a good exception that allowed slavery. Portugal had Catholic chapels in its African trading ports. She presumed slaves were captured in just wars but really by having permanent slave trading posts, she caused the wars in part because it became an industry…profitable to the Africans who won those tribal wars.

  • Ike
    Read Romanus Pontifex or you will create a history. It refers to a reality far away from Iberia.
    Quotes from within it:

    “The Roman pontiff, successor of the key-bearer of the heavenly kingdom and vicar of Jesus Christ, contemplating with a father’s mind all the several climes of the world and the characteristics of all the nations dwelling in them and seeking and desiring the salvation of all”

    shortly after: “vanquish them and their kingdoms and habitations, though situated in the remotest
    parts unknown to us”

    “strengthened, however, always by the royal authority, he has not ceased for twenty-five years past to send almost yearly an army of the peoples of the said kingdoms with the greatest labor, danger, and expense, in very swift ships called caravels, to explore the sea and coast lands toward the south and the Antarctic pole.”

    ” Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said
    kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by
    the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will
    be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.”

    That’s all quotes of Pope Nicholas V talking in Romanus Pontifex. In short, the Reconquista is maybe a small part of RP…exploration southward is the main topic.

  • Bill,

    “You began by implying the Bible doesn’t endorse slavery.”

    I acknowledge very clearly that the Old Testament permits slavery. I do question the extent of the relevant contextual and historical knowledge of the know-nothing bigots who attack Scripture to further their own demonically perverse political agendas.

    “On Romanus Pontifex, you want to believe it had little effect and was a blip in the history.”

    No, I simply want to acknowledge that it is NOT referring to indigenous peoples, nor could it be, since there are Papal bulls in which the expropriation and enslavement of indigenous peoples is clearly outlawed and forbidden, such as the one I mentioned in my previous comment. You’re conflating two very distinct issues.

    “She presumed slaves were captured in just wars but really by having permanent slave trading posts, she caused the wars in part because it became an industry…profitable to the Africans who won those tribal wars.”

    This sounds like a lot of speculation to me.

  • I have to go give a final exam. I’ll be back later today to talk about Romanus Pontifex, which I believe you are misreading and misusing.

  • Bonchamps,
    You write: ” No I simply want to ackowledge that it (Romanus Pontifex) is not referring to indigenous people.”

    What the hell would you call Africans in 1455?

    Romanus Pontifex: ” Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms. A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.”

  • Pope Nicholas V’s apparent endorsement of slavery is easy to reconcile.
    The Muslims were persecuting Christians every where they could and enslaving them, or force converting them or executing them for not conforming in an unjust war of conquest and assimilation. They were beyond war criminals and the west was well within its just right to kill them and repel them as a just response. In these times it was the practice to execute wounded soldiers captured or if coming from wealthy families to ransom them back for booty or to enslave them for perpetual work until they perished. Nicholas was authorizing under a just war doctrine a more generally merciful condition of life long imprisonment as slaves rather than just and rightful execution for committing war crimes against the Christian Nation. That’s really merciful considering that these were deserving of execution as this particular enemy was unrelenting and radically opposed to Christianity and sworn to kill Christians at every opportunity. To even imprison such individuals was a risk since an escape could put more innocent lives at risk. This is why society still justly executes some prisoners – because some individuals are so violent and hardened to evil that they will not hesitate to kill again if given the opportunity to escape incarceration. There were no elaborate and well constructed frontier prisons in the day and it was a considerable risk to even take prisoners – not to mention the cost of guarding and feeding etc. So in this context even taking prisoners and putting them to the punishment of slavery for their crimes is VERY just – especially for the harshness of this period of time. Also, the pope’s letter was not a universal teaching for all places – only a limited area of conflict.

  • Bonchamps,
    Sicut Dudum of 1435 by Pope Eugene IV which you say prohibits enslaving indigenous people us actually about about and against enslaving baptized natives and those seeking baptism. Read it closely. Here is its ending warning:
    ” We will that like sentence of excommunication be incurred by one and all who attempt to capture, sell, or subject to slavery, baptized residents of the Canary Islands, or those who are freely seeking Baptism, from which excommunication cannot be absolved except as was stated above.”
    A year later the same Pope gave Portugal the right of conquest over infidel Islands of the Canaries ( ibid, Noonan, page 243).

  • Jesus Christ, Who came to set men free in Truth, did indeed. Anyone who believes in Jesus Christ is a free man, no matter what anybody says. The Bible is the story of Jesus Christ’s coming, His salvation of man, and His second coming. FREEEDOM is from God. FREE WILL is from God. Jesus came that we may have life and have it more abundantly. Those who are bought and sold and called slaves are free men, even death cannot change truth.

  • InvictusLux,
    You have to ignore the text of Romanus Pontifex to get to the Muslim only theme as I’ve already shown and as Romanus Pontifex shows. See e.g. my 6:23 AM post to Ike.

  • Bill Bannon,

    There is absolutely no logical connection between the two very separate statements in Romanus Pontifex.

    This: “We [therefore] weighing all and singular the premises with due meditation, and noting that since we had formerly by other letters of ours granted among other things free and ample faculty to the aforesaid King Alfonso — to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery”

    Is not in any contextual way related to this:

    “Thence also many Guineamen and other negroes, taken by force, and some by barter of unprohibited articles, or by other lawful contract of purchase, have been sent to the said kingdoms.”

    The first statement is a decree; the second statement is simply a statement of fact. There’s no sanction there for the enslavement of these people. As for the statement that follows:

    ” A large number of these have been converted to the Catholic faith, and it is hoped, by the help of divine mercy, that if such progress be continued with them, either those peoples will be converted to the faith or at least the souls of many of them will be gained for Christ.”

    Still not a decree, simply the expression of a hope. Nowhere does it say “go out and capture blacks for the purpose of converting them to Christianity.”

    Then of course there is Paul III, whom you already mentioned:

    ” We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.”

    Note the “may be said” – there’s never any admission that this is what Nicholas V was actually teaching. At no point did the Church say, “yes, we used to allow the enslavement of any and all indigenous peoples who didn’t believe in Christ but now we are putting a stop to it.” At BEST, Church teaching on the matter had not been clearly settled. If you look at the debates between some of the priests in the 16th century on the indigenous peoples, you can see that this wasn’t a settled matter. So as she always does, once the controversy reached a certain point and absolute clarity was required, the Church spoke. Paul III did not “correct” Eugene IV or Nicholas V, then – he ruled on a matter that had never been ruled on before.

  • I’ll grant your point, though, about the bull Sicut Dudum.

  • Bonchamps
    None of this is Church teaching. It’s Papal choices and prudential judgements which are based on papal beliefs that are not in the realm of teaching even though they are beliefs. Even teaching of a formal nature can be incorrect as when John Paul II called slavery an “intrinsic evil”
    in section 80 of ” Splendor of the Truth”. Levitcus 25:44-46 suffices to correct him. God gave chattel slavery and God never gave an intrinsic evil like incest to the Jews. Both he and Benedict have immoderate feelings about things that God commanded and they sidestep them by the use of critico-historical hermeneutics…John Paul in sect. 40 of Evangelium Vitae and Benedict in section 42 of Verbum Domini.
    In any event, neutral readers here have enough bric a brac from both of us to sort through. Two days of slavery is enough for me. I need now 🙂 to pray for the Knicks…that Lebron…King James…and D. Wade do not murder them again and this time up here in Madison Square
    Garden. Dare I watch.

  • Bill,

    I don’t believe the Church has ever sanctioned an “intrinsic evil.” That’s all I’m going to say on that topic. My point about the textual context of that bull stands. There’s no evidence that the Church ever permitted or endorsed chattel slavery.

  • In a similar way, it’s worth pointing out that the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution does not forbid everything that might be called slavery.

    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

  • I am greatly impressed by the scholarly comments of Bonchamps and Bannon. However, the original question seemed to be whether the Bible approves of slavery and, perhaps for some, does God approve of slavery. The precepts of the Torah are the works of men and reflect the institutions of the time and ancient near Eastern practices as in the code of Hammurabi. They in no way are the decrees of God or necessarily even approved by God. The interesting question debated by Bonchamps and Bannon is did the Church officially approve of slavery. Some today would consider such papal decrees as reflections of the ordinary Magisterium of the pope and quasi-infallible moral teachings. What was the authority or the Magisterium of the mentioned Papal Bulls? There seems to be here a real conflict in moral teaching.

  • It is not the difference between ancient and modern forms of slavery that is the point of defense against this meme. The Chosen people adopted a radically different approach to slavery than all of the surrounding cultures of the time, because they understood that all men are made in God’s image and they had been slaves in Egypt. Hence they freed ther indentured servants every jubilee year and were not allowed to mistreat fellow human being’s.

    Reading through the old testament to the new, clearly shows that understanding deepening with God’s revelation until you have Paul declaring that a runaway slave is his master’s brother in Christ.

    In order to treat men like property you have to turn away from all of the lessons God so patiently and lovingly teaches throughout the span of the bible.

    Atheists like Savage don’t bother to look at or understand the whole picture. They are only interested in negating the passages that apply to their sin so as to find acceptance by turning ignorant people away from the source of goodness with out of context quotes and misrepresentation.

  • The precepts of the Torah are the works of men and reflect the institutions of the time and ancient near Eastern practices as in the code of Hammurabi. They in no way are the decrees of God or necessarily even approved by God.

    That would be the heresy of Marcionism — a very popular idea these days.

  • Howard:

    You claim that Flamen is insinuating that the God of the Jews is not the same as the God of the New Testament. I can’t claim to know what he means, but I don’t believe that this is a necessary conclusion of what he says. He may simply mean that we do not need to believe that God actually said what some particular Old Testament scripture said that God said, and that we may safely believe that the passages on slavery are examples of the children of Israel assuming the divine authorship of their laws regardless of the truth of this authorship. Similarly, we may believe that the creation account does not relay the actual “words and actions” of God but rather a mythological account of the origins and nature of the universe, or that the biblical histories may sometimes put commands into the mouth of God (such as the command to kill children) which are not actually commands of God. You may still disagree with this, of course, but it is a very different claim than what you are interpreting it to mean.

  • The video of Michael Savage is a picture of a lost soul enslaved to homosexual behavior. To balance the wretchedness of his face against the validity of his words is a chasm that may not be breeched. Michael Savage’s soul speaks unmitigated enslavement while his words hurl vitriol at the Word of God, God, and the children of God, for his free will choice. That, he (Michael Savage) has chosen badly is no one to blame. He refuses to accept his free will and his wretched choice. Blessed be God in His angels and in His saints.

  • Scotty

    I have deleted the previous exchange because I do not want this devolving any further. Naturally I feel that your accusations were sufficiently “mucky” to justify muck of my own. I want to stop this now. I think you have horribly misunderstood my intentions with this piece, and I don’t want to debate further your interpretation of my interpretation of someone else’s interpretation of Scripture.

    You can see this as me squelching an ever-so-fascinating exchange and storm off, or you can stick around and perhaps we can have a real discussion.

    To get to the real point: no, I don’t think you can categorically say that every kind of slavery is inherently and always wrong.

    There are some things that are always wrong, and some kinds of slavery would fall into that category.

    There are other things that are matters of prudential judgment, and other kinds of slavery would fall into that category.

    That is my position. If you want to wave your arms and shout “see, he thinks slavery is ok!”, go ahead. I do think certain forms of slavery are morally permissible, though I would not advocate them or participate them myself.

  • @Scotty Ellis

    Back up your words with documentation. The actual scope of how we may interpret Scriptures is not without bound.

  • Oh, and if the God of the Old Testament was just an example of Near Eastern fairy tales, then either He is different from the God of the New Testament (i.e., Marcionism), or the God of the New Testament is also a fairy tale, which could be almost any flavor of unbelief whatsoever, but cannot be Christianity.

  • “The video of Michael Savage is a picture of a lost soul enslaved to homosexual behavior.”

    Um, I take it you meant DAN Savage. If Michael Savage, the talk show host, is “enslaved to homosexual behavior” then Rush Limbaugh is a Communist, Michael Moore is anorexic, and I’m George Washington.

    Michael Savage was fired from his brief stint at MSNBC in 2003 for telling a caller who identified himself as gay: “So you’re one of those sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig; how’s that?” (He also endeared himself to me, and probably to Don and others with autistic children, in 2009 by claiming that 99 percent of autistic children are merely spoiled brats who haven’t been disciplined enough.)

  • “He also endeared himself to me, and probably to Don and others with autistic children, in 2009 by claiming that 99 percent of autistic children are merely spoiled brats who haven’t been disciplined enough.”

    Indeed Elaine. The man specializes in ignorance and bile, also the trademarks of Dan Savage. In my more intemperate moments I might wish that Michael and Dan Savage were marooned together on a very tiny desert island with one very sharp knife between them.

  • Almost makes me wonder if Dan Savage isn’t Michael Savage’s evil twin, or is it the other way around? 🙂

    Getting back to our topic…

    Seems to me that the Church steered more or less a middle ground between those who demanded immediate emancipation and abolition of slavery at any cost (including war) and those who insisted that the right to own slaves included the absolute right to treat them as mere objects, and not as human beings created in the image of God.

    There were Catholic slave owners in America before the Civil War, although they were a pretty small minority of overall slaveholders. I don’t know of any instance in which a Catholic slave owner was excommunicated or otherwise barred from the sacraments until they freed their slaves.

  • Scotty Ellis,

    I’m not going to publish your last comment, because I don’t want what became a personal dispute between the two of us to dominate this discussion.

    If you do want to have substantive discussion, you can respond to my post above about the morality of different kinds of slavery.

  • You can also offer your account of how anything can be “wrong” on the basis of atheistic materialism.

  • Flamen,

    “The interesting question debated by Bonchamps and Bannon is did the Church officially approve of slavery. Some today would consider such papal decrees as reflections of the ordinary Magisterium of the pope and quasi-infallible moral teachings. What was the authority or the Magisterium of the mentioned Papal Bulls? There seems to be here a real conflict in moral teaching.”

    Yes, the Church officially approved of certain types of slavery as far as I can tell. But it never approved of chattel slavery, and Bill Bannon’s attempts to use the mere appearance of the word “pagan” in Pope Nicholas V’s bull as proof that the Church did endorse chattel slavery is simply wrong.

    As for the level of authority, there is a difference between the ordinary Magisterium and the ordinary and universal Magisterium. The latter is infallible. The former isn’t. A bull addressed only to one one nation does not rise to the level of infallibility, as an encyclical letter to the universal Church does. That is why Paul III’s bull is of far greater importance than Nicholas V’s.

  • Bonchamps
    You’re misrepresenting me. What affirms chattel slavery in Romanus Pontifex is not the word “pagan” but the combination of actions of taking the possessions and reducing them to perpetual slavery…” and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”. But chattel slavery can be good where it is a necessity (Leviticus 25… no or insufficient prison space) but a bad thing when it is not necessary ( making war likely due to trading goods for persons captured in war).
    Drunkeness is a related example. Condemned repeatedly in the Bible and ordinarily a mortal sin, it can however be the due act of virtue when the person is deeply troubled wherein Scripture
    requires the very thing it ordinarily condemns: Proverbs 31:6 ” Give strong drink to anyone who is perishing,and wine to the embittered;7 When they drink, they will forget their misery,
    and think no more of their troubles.”
    Amongst the uncontacted tribes of the Amazon wherein also there are no prisons, it right now may be the due act that they have slavery of criminals as in Leviticus 25 rather than having execution for simple theft and fraud e.g.
    When you go past my previous quote of RP a bit, you see the stealing involved:

    ” to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit –“. That became through the later reconfirmers of RP the tragedy of Latin America.
    The conquistador families ended up with the best land and huge tracts of it setting the stage for
    the rich poor divide that breeds crime and makes all Latin American countries less street safe than Shinto Japan.
    I’m going to try and leave again.

  • Bill,

    You said in your last post:

    “What affirms chattel slavery in Romanus Pontifex is not the word “pagan” but the combination of actions of taking the possessions and reducing them to perpetual slavery…” and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”

    This is what you said before, though:

    “But you’re dealing with a Pope Nicholas V who was dealing not just with Saracens but three categories to include: ” all Saracens AND PAGANS whatsoever, and OTHER ENEMIES OF CHRIST.”. All the Americas were pagan and in the Americas these permissions were soon used in line with that wording by the Pope.”

    So you were building your case on that word, and I don’t think it is accurate at all.

  • Bonchamps
    No….I was responding by those capitalizations to the concept that RP was only about Saracens which you gave immediately above my capitals post.. RP was about all distant humans as Portugal traveled south along the African coast. Eventually Brazil would have black slaves bought by Portugal, most of whom brought African animism with them but some of whom in Bahia were Yoruba who were Muslim.
    The capitalizations of the three groups is about the breath of RP that goes well past Saracens.
    Chattel slavery is separate and inferred by “perpetual” which is used in Leviticus in conjunction with that word…no rights henceforth is connoted by the stealing of their goods which happened in dramatic fashion in Peru with the endless taking of silver by Spain from Pitosi which became according to Niall Fergusson in the “Ascent of Money”….40% of Spain’s national budget which went into European wars.

  • The worst kind of slavery is sin!

  • Bill,

    I still don’t “pagans” = carte blanche enslavement of whomever you find in your explorations. If people got that impression, that’s one thing; the document doesn’t actually say that.

  • Bonchamps
    Well who else would you find besides RP’s 3: “Saracens” “pagans” “other enemies of Christ”…given that the Council of Florence a little earlier in that century said in the bull by Eugene IV that everyone outside the Catholic Church proper was damned even if they shed blood for Christ or gave alms if they did not enter the visible Catholic fold before death. Forget “pagan”. The really broad category was “other enemies of Christ” in that century.
    Think of the Council of Florence or at least Eugene IV’s bull therein as the anti ecumenical movement par excellence. He would have found looking for the good in Zen…a work of Satan.
    Had Eugene IV seen John Paul II kiss the Koran…oy…oy.

  • Bill,

    Given the political nature and context of the bull, as well as the phrase “other enemies” – implying that it is referring only to those pagans who can properly be classified as enemies of Christ – I think your interpretation is wrong. There are some pagans who are actively hostile to Christianity (indeed, Muslims were thought of as pagans by medieval Christians), and others who aren’t. What happened in the 16th century was that a debate ensued about the ontological status of indigenous peoples – were they human beings as well? They’d never been seen before. Some said no. The Papacy ruled that not only were they human beings, but that they had the same natural rights as everyone else and could not be enslaved.

    So I grant that there was confusion. I can even grant that Nicholas V may have been misinterpreted to justify the slave trade. But what I can’t grant is that his document actually establishes or endorses the slave trade, or that the Church ever held the position that it was morally acceptable to go into uncharted territory and enslave people for profit.

    I don’t know what the Council of Florence has to do with this debate. That is describing the spiritual reality, it has nothing to do with temporal matters. I am very familiar with Cantate Domino, which is dogmatic and infallible by the way.

  • Bonchamps
    You have a paradigm you are protecting. Hence the circle we are going in. It’s endless. Romanus Pontifex and its 3 reconfirmations for 42 years until 1514 and the Borgia Pope repeating their privileges for Spain were exactly what happened in Latin America and Africa…slavery and theft (or despoiling in the ruler’s view.) That breaks your paradigm of Church history as pristine. Pope Paul III tried to overcome those Popes and lost. Look at his text…it is an exact reproof of RP…exact….but it breaks your paradigm to admit it. He actually first had a caveat of excommunication for persons who enslaved new natives but withdrew it. Find out why in your reading someday. Ask when you find the answer, why he and other Popes didn’t interdict Portugal and Spain over the slavery and theft permitted them by RP. One Pope tried it on Venice and they laughed at him.

    History is not like a Thomas Kinkaid painting….turns out Kinkaid wasn’t like a Kinkaid painting.
    I’m gone now really. In ten minutes Lebron murders the Knicks. It’s a train wreck I must watch.

  • Bill,

    I quoted the text above, and I don’t think it is an “exact reproof.” There’s no evidence that he is even acknowledging, let alone reproving or repealing, anything that his predecessors said. Surely he is not referring to Nicholas V as “the enemy of the human race”, whose views he is exposing and rejecting in this bull!

    You’re mentioning a lot of things that you aren’t providing any evidence for. “Find out someday?” How about you support your claims now?

  • Bonchamps,

    Sublimus Dei text from your ” enemy of the human race” way down to the separate tone of correcting the Popes in question…keep in mind his sister was the mistress of the Borgia Pope…he did not have your problem of seeing Popes immune to satan:

    ” The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God’s word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.

    We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.”

    Note the distance from your enemy passage to “whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary”…and hardly the same tone. Popes in those days fought each other. Pope Julius II had to flee for his life from a previous Pope, Alexander VI until the latter passed away. Paul III’s sister was Alexander VI’s mistress. Your seeing their reality as though it were your time. It was a very different time.

  • The Bible has countless passages endorsing slavery and telling slaves to be loyal to their masters.

    I was expecting a decent argument against this actually using the Bible, but you danced around this and ignored the Bible entirely. A church can teach whatever it wants, but what’s in the Bible is in the Bible, and the Bible is full of endorsements for humans as property.

  • @Thom,
    Actually… not. “full”? not. “endorsements”? not. “countless”? not.

    Since when is telling slaves to be loyal to their masters an endorsement of slavery?
    That’s like saying telling folks to be responsible citizens is an endorsement of [insert your favorite government over-step, whether rendition, militarism, corruption, etc].

    But speaking of what’s (actually) in the Bible… have you read any of it? In context?

    Are you aware of the book of Philemon (of which someone wrote elsewhere:

    In the time of the Roman Empire, runaway slaves could be tracked down and returned to their masters, who then had the ‘right’ to execute them; certainly a runaway slave would have been a fugitive for the rest of his life. Paul’s letter to Philemon concerning Onesimus makes sense in that light – by returning him to Philemon, Onesimus would no longer be a hunted man, and he would be welcomed back into Philemon’s household as a brother in Christ. So far from endorsing slavery, Paul was being realistic about Roman laws and their implications.

    )?

    Are you aware of the seminal Gal 3:28:

    There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

    Are you aware that long before the enlightenment, the vast majority of anti-slavery writing (of which there was considerable) was Christian?

    Are you aware that the basis of American abolition was also Christian?

  • @Thom,
    One last thing: there is not a respectable scholar on the planet who imagines that “humans as property” fairly represents the Biblical instantiation of slavery. The difference between “indentured servitude” and “chattel” is not inconsiderable — even if both have been historically labelled “slavery”.

  • Doug

    Leviticus Chapter 25…God gives chattel slavery to the Jews in a nomadic culture…
    44 ”Slaves, male and female, you may indeed possess, provided you buy them from among the neighboring nations. 45 You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels, 
    46 and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves. But you shall not lord it harshly over any of the Israelites, your kinsmen..”

    Slavery in primitive cultures where there are no large prisons for criminals and war captures and deep debtors…makes sense and so God gave chattel slavery for that context. Modern slavery was wrong because as in Portugal’s slave trading stations vis a vis Africa, capturing people in war in order to sell them to Portugal became the purpose of tribal wars not a result of
    just war but the purpose of unjust wars.

  • @bill bannon,
    …as long as you don’t pretend that the Biblical provision for chattel constitutes support for

    the Bible is full of endorsements for humans as property

    …and as long as you don’t pretend that chattel represents the normative form of slavery in the Bible, I’m won’t disagree.

  • No….as time went on and prisons did exist, the legitimate reason for chattel slavery diminished.
    But in ancient times without prisons the alternative was to execute every criminal and all those captured in war. Leviticus’ chattel slavery was part of a system that saved lives in that context then and there.

  • In the book of Sirac it says that if you have a slave you should treat him like a brother. The word slave came about towards the end of the Roman empire when most slaves were Slavic slaves who were servants because they were captured during war and the word slave is actually just a racial slur of Slav.

  • God did not want his chosen people to be slaves, but he did not mind if they enslaved others?

    Exodus 3:7

    “The Lord said, “I have seen my people suffer in Egypt. I have heard them cry out because of their slave drivers. I am concerned about their suffering. ”

    Exodus 6:5

    “Also, I have heard the groans of the Israelites. The Egyptians are keeping them as slaves. But I have remembered my covenant. ”

    When Moses saved the Israelites from Egypt, God set forth the rules “his” people should follow in their new settlement

    ~ God shares these laws right after God his Ten Commandments

    Exodus 21:20-21

    “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

    Beating a slave is ok, as long as they do not die, because they are your property!

    I am trying to learn about Christianity by securing the Bible in my mind as the ultimate authority of truth, but it is so hard. I am sorry, you can justify anything.

    I believe in a higher power and I know there are some good truths in the Bible, but I believe this book was compiled by men.

  • “I am trying to learn about Christianity by securing the Bible in my mind as the ultimate authority of truth, but it is so hard. ”

    Ah. Well, it is a good thing you are really trying to learn about the faith, and not just saying that as a sort of sarcastic way of dismissing a religion and a book you know almost nothing about on the basis of an isolated quotation translated into modern vernacular.

    My Douay-Rhemis Bible renders Ex. 21:20-21 much differently. The word “property” is nowhere to be found in reference to a human being. Just a few verses later, which I am sure, in your diligent study of Scripture on your journey to a greater knowledge of Christianity, you are already familiar with, Exodus 21 states:

    “[26] If any man strike the eye of his manservant or maidservant, and leave them but one eye, he shall let them go free for the eye which he put out. [27] Also if he strike out a tooth of his manservant or maidservant, he shall in like manner make them free.”

    So if they actually did beat their slaves and cause them serious injury, by the law of God, that slave would have to be set free. Clearly we are looking at a situation in which slavery is an acknowledged reality (the entire world practiced slavery), but not one in which people are treated like animals. As I said in my post, the laws of God make humane even a situation like slavery when it is unavoidable. Masters have duties to their servants no less than servants do to their masters.

    And if slaves were really considered just “property”, how do you explain Deuteronomy 23:15-16?

    “Thou shalt not deliver to his master the servant that is fled to thee. “He shall dwell with thee ill the place that shall please him, and shall rest, in one of thy cities: give him no trouble.”

    So, a slave who escapes is considered free. Finally:

    I return to the point I made in my original post. What is your criteria, your standard, for judging and condemning the Bible? Your personal preferences?

  • Yes, Elaine Krewer, I mean Dan Savage. Thanks for the catch.

  • Elaine: Worse than that, I believe that the post was for the Dan Savage video. Can’t explain dumb.

  • Andy
    God did not want his chosen people to be slaves, but he did not mind if they enslaved others?

    Exodus 3:7

    “The Lord said, “I have seen my people suffer in Egypt. I have heard them cry out because of their slave drivers. I am concerned about their suffering. ”

    Exodus 6:5

    “Also, I have heard the groans of the Israelites. The Egyptians are keeping them as slaves. But I have remembered my covenant. ”
    Only the Chosen People cried out to the true God, therefore, only the Chosen People were heard by the true God.

  • I greatly appreciate the Christian Churches and followers for their service to God, which ultimately leads to a better humanity. All of the devout Christians I know are good people and our world is better having them in our world. I believe the Bible has really good stories, parables and lessons that are valuable to everyone.

    I am sorry if my language is strong, please read this in a light a manner, even though my writing may seem heavy at times.

    I question the Authority of the Bible, especially when followers of any religion judge and condemn others through claims of Divine Authority based on “God’s” word. For example, gay marriage, slavery and women’s rights. It just bothers me when people validate their opinions from the Bible, because it is “God’s” words. Did God write the Bible? Did Jesus write any of the books?

    Some religious folks say we get our morals from the Bible and without God we would be lawless. Was it a decree by God that we should abstain from enslaving or fellow humans? Was it a decree by God, that we should give women the right to vote? I believe it was noble men that knew it was right.

    Let me ask you this…

    What if one of your friends tells you, they met God at the park. They even describe some of the miracles he performed. Also telling you all of the noble parables and lessons they have learned. They even explain some of the laws you should now follow. Some of them you agree with some of them you don’t. Well, wouldn’t it be blasphemy to go against God’s words. You may also, not really know where you will go when you die and you are scared because you do not want to go to hell.

    Would you believe them? Or would you question their sincerity and ask to see God for yourself? Then they tell you, “you just have to believe and if you don’t believe you are going against God’s will.” In the time when many of our world religions were founded the people on earth, our ancestors were struggling to provide food and shelter. These holy books comforted our ancestors and helped them make sense of their environments.

    However, what about all of the other religions that were enslaved and conquered because they did not follow the one true God. What about all of the wide array of forms Christianity that did not make the final cut, therefore they were persecuted and prevented from following their form of Christianity, like the Gnostics, Marcionites, Ebionites and many of the early sects. The Dead Sea scrolls were hidden to protect them from the deadly ‘authority’ of the ruling Christian denomination.

    You may have known your friend at the park, but do you know anyone who wrote parts of the Bible? What makes the Bible any holier than any other book? Why is it that people from India follow Hinduism and people from the Middle East follow Muhammad?

    The Bible was used on both sides of the Civil War, and that was 1830 years after Christ came to earth. With all of the different sects and denominations of Christianity it seems all facets are up for discussion. I am saying the Bible might not be the word of God, based on some of the inconsistencies that can be attributed to archaic men.

    Jesus came to fulfill the law not to abolish it. He was so enraged with the money changers, yet he did nothing about the enslavement of humanity. It is a sin to own someone else. The slaves/servants were getting paid nothing and their labor was very valuable to the master. Slavery was avoidable.

    Let’s say, God intended for us to go through slavery and suppress women’s rights.

    Are those God’s words? Or just some rulers who wanted to justify the slavery, so they could line their pockets with their handwork? What about Eve the temptress causing all other women to be subjugated to ruling men. Were these laws from men who wanted to assert control? Immediately when the Bible was formed it was the ultimate authority and any other religions were destroyed. How did our form of the Christian Bible come to be? Why did it take 300 years to get a final cut of the Bible? What was left out? What was added? Who gave those leaders Divine Authority?

    Bonchamps as you said

    Your Douay-Rhemis Bible changes property for money. I am not really sure what your Bible means by money, but I can see how property, money and capital are interchangeable.

    You said: “So, a slave who escapes is considered free. Finally: ”

    The slaves were only free if they agreed to leave. What if they had formed a family?

    Exodus 21: 4 – 6
    “If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.”

    ” But if the servant declares, ” I love my master and my wife and children and do not want to go free, then his master must take him before the judges. He shall take him to the door or the doorpost and pierce his ear with an awl. Then he will be his servant for life.”

    Slave goes free, but they would have to leave their family behind?

    That is nice of a master to give his slave a wife, but was it just to make more slaves? Did the slave raise his family and grow attached to it? That is cruel to offer freedom to the man only, and force him to leave his family behind.

    Or he can stay and get branded with a dehumanizing slave earring, to mark his slavery?

    How humiliating would that be to know you are someone’s property and you and your family are supposed to obey them as you would the Lord for your entire life.

    The Bible does relay an attitude to be an obedient slave,

    Ephesians 6:5
    “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.”

    I would think a righteous God would be appalled by one man being a slave to another. Especially because he is giving him the respect he would to God. Doesn’t the Bible say not to have any idols besides the one and only Lord.

    Respect your masters and fear them? Fear of what? Fear does not seem like a friendly form of slavery, but I was not there and neither were you.

    In Deuteronomy, it explains how profitable slaves were even if you were to set them free.

    Deuteronomy 15: 18

    “Do not consider it a hardship to set your servant free, because their service to you these six years has been worth twice as much as that of a hired hand. And the Lord your God will bless you in everything you do.”

    No wonder slave trading was so lucrative, not only did the slaves get nothing, but the owners were able to double their profits off of the free labor. I have great respect for the Source of our world and the universe, but I do not believe the Totality of God is in one book and especially one that displays the ruling class of men.

    It is appalling to think that babies are born sinners and they deserve to burn in hell and the only way for their salvation is to worship the Lord. Part of me thinks portions of Christianity are trading one form of slavery for another. It just bothers me when I hear Christians say, “well the Bible says this, what you are doing is wrong.” It is kinda like one of those ink blots, you see what you want to see. I could be wrong and everything in the Bible could be the word of God.

    Sorry for my rant. Maybe I am spending too much of my energy on this, but it bothers me when people pick and choose parts of the Bible. I know you can attain Godly wisdom through reading the Bible, I just question its Divine Authority.

  • wow sorry for the long post

In Which I Agree with Mark Shea

Monday, April 30, AD 2012

Agreeing with something Mark wrote in criticizing Michael Voris?  This might just be my last post at The American Catholic.

All kidding aside, I second Mark’s concerns regarding Vorris’s association with E. Michael Jones.  As Shea details:

Let us be clear about what is happening here. Marc Brammer and Michael Voris, Folk Hero to the Utterly Undiscerning, will be working hard to mainstream somebody
Jim Stone shows Israel Behind Fukashima Disaster
The European Jewish Union Exonerating Everything Jewish
Jewish Child Molesters
Mossad Involvement in 9/11
Jewry’s push for War with Iran
Jewish Atzmon Says Merah Was a Mossad False Flag Agent
and, last but not least, E. Michael Jones: Who is the World’s Real Enemy?(Guess who?)
(For a full catalog of Sungenis’ vast corpus of crazy statements about the Jews, go here.)

I’ll be the first to admit that sometimes Mark can exaggerate (I’m being charitable here) others’ viewpoints, but I don’t believe he is doing so here.  Jones has a fairly extensive record of what can only be described by any reasonable person as anti-Semitism, and yet Voris is happy to give the man a platform.

I’m sure there will be those that object that Voris himself does not hold these views, and that this is a game of guilt by association.  I would counter that providing an open platform to such a person as Jones is beyond reprehensible.   People should be able to engage in honest discussion with others who hold differing viewpoints, but this goes well beyond that.  There are certain lines that when crossed should disqualify individuals from ever being taken seriously again.  When you willingly not only associate yourself with such individuals, but actually provide a forum which grants a certain amount of legitimacy, then you should also be taken to task

And of course leave it to the very first commenter on Mark’s post to play the “but what is anti-Semitism?” game.  It’s an insipid attempt to change the discussion and avoid having to address the issue at hand.

I haven’t gotten involved with previous discussions about Voris because I haven’t really seen that much of his work.  And I think it’s fairly well-known that I have had my share of disagreements with Mark, to say the least.  So I have no personal axe to grind with Voris.  But he should be held to account for his decision to associate with Jones.

Continue reading...

101 Responses to In Which I Agree with Mark Shea

  • There is an alarming trend with ultra-conservatives (don’t get started, I am a frequent EF Mass attendee and can sing a mean Missa del Angelis!) towards anti-semitism. From Mel Gibson to SSPX BIshop Wiiliamson, they have moved from praying for Israel to accept her Saviour to downright sinful anti-semitism.

  • E.M. Jones was, once upon a time, an engaging and insightful writer. Sorry to hear about all this.

  • Yeah, E. Michael Jones is an anti-semitic, conspiracy mongering nutcase:

  • Right-wing commentary is the most potent stuff in the sphere…..and then someone mentions the joooos and it is like watching a helicopter with its rear rotor shot off.

  • It should be understood that Voris didn’t just happen to do this interview. He, Marc Brammer, and Jones are now business partners. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/01/uh-oh-3.html

    That’s why I say Voris is deliberately mainstreaming Jones’ antisemtism. The goal is to make this stuff normal and acceptable, all while portraying themselves as valiant champions of True Catholic Faith who are standing up to evil bishops (like Chaput(!)). And note the kooks in my comboxes who are cheering for it. This guy is poison.

  • I don’t endorse anti-Semitism as I’ve always understood it, which is a hatred for Jews as a race or for the Jewish religion.

    But I sure get accused of it often enough for simply questioning the wisdom of the United States’ apparently unconditional support for Israel or for my own traditional Catholicism. And I think some of us are a little sick of this card being played, over and over again. I really resent it, and I can see how it can push some people right into anti-Semitism.

    It seems both sides, Jewish activist groups like the ADL/SPLC, as well as traditional Catholics, are pushing each other into mutual hatred sometimes. The SPLC puts traditional Catholic groups on their “hate watch” list, groups that have never made a single threat against a single Jewish person organization, who have simply taught what the Church has taught for 2000 years. The traditional Catholics react with hostilities for Jews as such, which further justifies the scrutiny they’ve been put under. It’s a cycle I’d like to see come to an end, but don’t think will.

    The bottom line is that while I absolutely reject the insane conspiracy theories of the sort advocated by this writer (of whom I’ve never heard), I also reject the race-baiting that Jewish groups engage in with people who simply disagree with their political positions, or who proclaim the traditional faith. I am willing to die for the traditional faith, including its teachings on the Jews and the Old Covenant. And no matter how the teaching itself may offend the Jews, it is also a historical fact that the Papacy absolutely forbade anyone to do violence to Jews, or to spread blood libels, despoil them of their property, etc. Those bulls are still in force as far as I am concerned.

  • Michael Voris is absolutely wrong in supporting an anti-Semite.

    I have been accused of being a Zionist. That gratifies me. I hope Israel kicks the Islamic fanatics back into the stone age.

    I want a strong and powerful Israel with lots of thermonuclear weapons. Don’t like that? Too bad. I don’t care any longer. I won’t argue the point with anyone. Say what you want. Israel free and secure forever!

  • When it comes to Jews my sentiments are those of Pope Pius XII:

    “On the 28th of April 1944 the Palestine Post published an article entitled ‘A Papal Audience in War-Time’. A young Jewish man told how three years before he had managed to meet the Pope with the help of a German priest. In 1941, after escaping from Germany, the young man entered the Apostolic Palace. He was filled with fear since there were also a few German soldiers present at the papal audience, but he managed to talk with Pius XII for a few minutes. He told the Pope about the conditions of five hundred Jewish refugees living in poverty in Rhodes and held captive by the Italian military who were waiting to hand them over to the Germans.

    After telling the Pope who he was, Pius XII replied “You have

    done well to come to me and tell me this. I have heard about it before. Come back

    tomorrow with a written report and give it to the Secretary of State who is dealing

    with the question. But now for you, my son. You are a young Jew. I know what that

    means and I hope you will always be proud to be a Jew!”

    Then raising his voice so those who were close by could clearly hear his words, Pius XII said “My son, whether you are worthier than others only the Lord knows, but believe me, you are at least as worthy as every other human being that lives on this earth! And now, my Jewish friend, go with the protection of the Lord, and never forget, you must always be proud to be a Jew!”

    In the latest issue of ‘Inside the Vatican’, the American scholar William Doino, author of several papers and articles on Pius XII, managed to give a name and a face to the author of this story (http://moynihanreport.itvworking.com/author/billdoino).

    It is Heinz Wisla: Jewish, born in Germany, at the time of the audience he was 21 years old. In his writings during the winter of 1941-1942, Wisla attested that, thanks to the personal intervention of the Pope, the Red Cross saved the Jews who had been imprisoned and took them to Italy. This is yet another testimony of the behaviour and actions of Pius XII, wrongly considered an ‘anti-Semitic’ Pope by some publications.”

  • If Jones had ended that little history lesson with “Well, what are you going to do about it, whitey?” it would not have been out of place.

  • “I hope Israel kicks the Islamic fanatics back into the stone age.”

    For a lot of Islamists that’s what–two hours ago?

  • “If Jones had ended that little history lesson with “Well, what are you going to do about it, whitey?” it would not have been out of place.”

  • Sometimes the pot is right when it calls the kettle black.

  • Mr. Price,

    I did NOT say that I hope Israel kicks the Islamists back into the stone age. I said the Islamic fanatics – you know the kind: those who make women wear hoods over their heads and treat them as slaves, those who teach little children to be suicide bombers on Israeli school buses, those who declare that Israel should be driven inot the sea, those who pilot jet aircraft into towers filled with thousands of innocent people.

    And by the way, we are only branches grafted in. We had better not become haughty and self-satisfied as the “new Israel.” Read Romans 11. St. Paul said that all Israel will be saved.

    I despise and loathe anti-Semitism. I also despise and loathe Muslim women and children being treated in the way that their religion treats them – just for the record.

  • Paul,

    You’re right. We shouldn’t be haughty and self-satisfied as the New Israel.

    But the Catholic Church IS the New Israel, and Jesus Christ was the son of God. Both beliefs are antithetical to Judaism, and there are some Jews, especially in Israel, who virulently hate Christianity.

    It would really be shocking and amazing if there was ANY group of people on the Earth that didn’t have members who really hated people of other groups.

  • Paul, it was a misfired attempt at humor. As in, they’re only two hours out of the Stone Age *right now.*

    “How can you tell if they’ve been bombed back to the Stone Age?” and the like.

    The main difference I can see between the murderous fanatics and Islamists is the former tries to murder you and your loved ones, while the latter patiently explains to you why you deserve it.

  • Maybe Vorhis et al., are just depressed a$$#oles.

  • Pingback: I Agree with Mark Shea’s taking on of Michael Voris. This article expresses well why he should be of concern to Catholics everywhere | Catholic Canada
  • “It seems both sides, Jewish activist groups like the ADL/SPLC….”

    The SPLC is not a Jewish organization in any explicit sense. In fact, claiming that they are would plausibly be considered defamatory to any number of Jews — or at least those who recognize Morris Dees as the shamelessly self-aggrandizing huckster that he is. (And for what it’s worth, Wikipedia lists him as a Unitarian.)

  • Just a tangential observation, Voris’ identification of Murray as a participant of the infamous Hyannisport, MA meeting with the Kennedy’s (around the 40 minute mark) is historically incorrect — Murray not only wasn’t present, he reportedly perturbed by Kennedy’s attempt to sever any connections between one’s religious and political creeds. “To make religion merely a private matter,” Murray argued, “was idiocy.” (See: JFK’s Houston Speech at 50: Three Views, by George J. Marlin. The Catholic Thing 9/9/10.

    If there’s one thing I’ve gathered from reading Murray, it’s that he is appropriated by both ends of the Catholic political spectrum, and what Murray actually countenanced in his lifetime is often different from speculation of what Catholics like to imagine he would have, or might have endorsed. (Of course, being dead, he’s not very adept at defending himself from exploitation).

  • Gotta hand it to Jones, though — that part about Archbishop Chaput being involved in a black operation, continuing the devious work of Murray, Luce and the CIA to the point of infiltrating the papacy itself (“occupying the mind of [Pope Benedict XVI] and he doesn’t even know it“) was a new twist I hadn’t heard before.

  • This runs rampant through Shaw’s alleged mind. “Why do we live like this? The violence and the hatred, Bernardo . . . ” With apologies to whoever copied “West Side Story” from Shakespeare.

  • I have a copy of Murray’s “We Hold These Truths,” and what I’ve read so far is very worthwhile. I think the problem is that he’s been soundbitten and turned into a totem, mostly by the left. I suspect he would not appreciate it.

  • I don’t know Mike Jones, I’ll make my judgement after watching the video with Voris.

    So far, I know he got fired from Notre dame for being pro-life.

  • I think you mean that you know Jones says he got fired from Notre Dame for being pro-life. As a good friend of mine likes to say, sometimes Christians are persecuted for their Christian beliefs and sometimes they’re just persecuted for being a-holes. Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage. Just a thought.

  • @ Francis

    “Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage.” True in general cases, but in this specific one, is there material evidence, or is there simply circumstantial occurrences and innuendo? OK, don’t answer that. Not relevant to the topic. I hope and pray Fr. Corapi is innocent, but I am a pessimist by nature. 🙁

    @ Dale

    Sometimes I am the anal orifice. Sorry I didn’t see the humor. I had a boss once who is an Iranian Shiite. He had a Koran on his desk just as I have a Bible on mine. He turned out to be more Christian in his behavior than most so-called Christians I know. How’s that for irony?

    @ Bonchamps

    If we are members of the new Israel, then we should each and everyone of us go to Eucharistic Adoration and get prostrate before the Blessed Sacrament for as long and as often as possible, begging forgiveness for our sins and thanking the Ruler and Creator of this universe that He grafted us into the Olive Tree because clearly we don’t deserve it. BTW, St. Paul does say that all Israel will be saved, and I don’t think he is referring to just the Gentile grafts, and I still support the modern State of Israel over the barbaric fanatics running most Middle Eastern countries.

  • I just saw that Shea posted a follow-up to this, too. This can only end very badly. I don’t know what they were thinking in starting a business collaboration with Jones.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/04/since-various-people-have-shown-up-in-the-comboxes.html

  • Mike Jones sounds reasonable, he rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris.

    “I think you mean that you know Jones says he got fired from Notre Dame for being pro-life. ”

    what evidence do you have that he got fired for another reason?

    “Some people (think Fr. Corapi) use their identity/credibility in one area as a cover for other garbage.”

    Fr. Corapi was an excellent priest who has taken a terrible fall, I hope he comes back.

  • Jasper, if you find Michael Jones to be “reasonable,” then there’s honestly nothing we can do for you.

    he rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris.

    And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world. If I were to go on a long rant about how black people were responsible for all the crime and villainy in the world, and then said that “of course, I’m not a racist,” that declaration would not in fact absolve me of racism.

  • “And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world. ”

    I didn’t get that Paul. What I heard is that we should be preaching the Gospel to jews instead of just going along with them.

  • Listen a little more closely to how Jones defines anti-Semitism. That’s a very narrow understanding of it. A person can be an anti-Semite without having a purely racial prejudice against Jews. Some of the commenters at Shea’s blog (including Shea) already picked up on that. I think Paul Zummo’s point (above) is on target as well.

    In regard to Jones’ firing at Notre Dame (supposedly merely for being openly pro-life), all I’m pointing out is that all we have is his personal say-so. What corroborating evidence is there for Jones’ claims? Considering his affinity for conspiracy-theories, it seems reasonable to question whether he may have imagined or exaggerated a conspiracy against him at Notre Dame as well. In my experience, people like this tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general. Maybe what he says about his firing is true. Maybe it’s not. Maybe it’s partially true.

    Regardless, from what I have seen, it’s a mistake for Voris and his enterprise to collaborate with Jones. This is bound to end very badly.

  • “In my experience, people like this tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general.”

    was he paranoid about the corruption and heresy in church when he wrote about it back in the 80’s?

  • Voris is not a “business partner” with E. Michael Jones.

  • You missed the point about Jone’s view of what “anti-Semitism” means, Jasper. It’s unduly narrow. And your point about what he wrote isn’t really relevant to mine. I didn’t say Jones has never been correct about anything. I said that he’s into conspiracy theories and in my experience people like that tend to be a bit on the paranoid side in general – increasingly so the longer they stay engaged in that kind of theorizing. I said he may or may not be right about what actually happened at Notre Dame. But I’d like to see corroborating evidence other than his personal say-so.

    If Voris intends to increase his collaboration with Jones, I think it’s a mistake that will not end well for him and his enterprise.

  • Paul P,

    “If we are members of the new Israel, then we should each and everyone of us go to Eucharistic Adoration and get prostrate before the Blessed Sacrament for as long and as often as possible, begging forgiveness for our sins and thanking the Ruler and Creator of this universe that He grafted us into the Olive Tree because clearly we don’t deserve it.”

    I don’t disagree.

    “BTW, St. Paul does say that all Israel will be saved, and I don’t think he is referring to just the Gentile grafts”,

    Even if he isn’t, he still wouldn’t be referring to people who reject Christ. The New Israel originally consisted of converted Jews, people who accepted Christ as the Messiah. The “grafting” (what a word!) of Gentiles did not take much longer. There is no Jew or Greek in Christ – hence his words in Galatians. Such distinctions no longer matter. Our faith is what counts, and our membership in the Body.

    “and I still support the modern State of Israel over the barbaric fanatics running most Middle Eastern countries.”

    I support us minding our own business. Had we done so consistently, Islam would not have become the potent political force it is today. Saddam Hussein was a secular socialist. So was Yasser Arafat. So was Momar Qaddafi. Meanwhile our most cherished ally in the region, Saudi Arabia, has been an Islamic regime for ages.

  • Franicis,

    I came into this thread being accused of being an ‘Undiscerning’ idiot. I wonder now who is being undiscerning, neither Voris’s video or McClarey’s have convinced me. Arn’t we suppose to try and convert jews? after all, they are flawed in what they believe What am I missing?

  • I didn’t call you or anyone an “undiscerning idiot”, Jasper. I’ve just pointed out some things about what you wrote in regard to Jones. I think the kinds of things documented at Shea’s blog, like calling Jews “the enemy of the human race” and the interviews Jones gave to a white supremacist and another extremist are disturbing. There’s more over there, did you read it all?

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/04/since-various-people-have-shown-up-in-the-comboxes.html

  • Christine – I hope you’re right, but how do you know this? Shea put up some information supporting a different conclusion. Are you saying Voris and Jones are not collaborating at all? Or are you just saying that they are not strictly “business partners”?

  • @ Bonchamps,

    I mostly agree. To your point about Saudi Arabia: Had we fully developed our nuclear energy capability in the 1970s, then we would by now be producing liquid fuels or hydrogen from nuclear power plants to fuel our cars, trucks, trains and airplanes. But after TMI, Jimmy Carter allowed the industry to become emasculated by the excessive regulations of the US NRC, and thus coal (which has to be transported to coal fired power plants by diesel fueled trains), oil and natural gas became dominate. So now we import much of our oil from Canada while our military keeps the sea lanes open from the Middle East to Europe so that Europe can get Saudi oil (there’s only so much oil to go around). Renewable energy is a joke that natural gas companies just love – always got to have spinning reserve. So we support Saudi Islamic extremism – Wahhabism – in the name of “democracy.” We have enough thorium and uranium to tell these fanatics to go drown in their mineral slime, but we can’t because we are now hopelessly addicted.

    I won’t go on further right now because it’s not on topic, but I agree that we made our own mess. As for Israel, supporting them is probably the only right thing we did. You’ll disagree, of course. That’s OK. Personally, I just wish we’d go all nuclear and tell the Muslim fanatics (not the Muslims – there’s a difference) to take their oil and shove it. But first, NRC Chairman Jackzo has to be fired and the NRC has to go from being an antagonist to actually living up to its charter in ensuring the SAFE use of nuclear power, not the non-use of nuclear power. Of course that’s not going to happen under Obama. It was happening under Bush with his GNEP initiative, but that’s a story for a different blog post.

  • PS, sorry I wasn’t on topic, but I agreed with Bonchamps for reasons that Bonchamps might not have expected. Now that this rare moment of lucidity has passed, I shall return to being an ultra-conservative pro-Israel pain in the neck. 😉

  • “Arn’t we suppose to try and convert jews?”

    We are supposed to convert everyone Jasper. That has nothing to do with the fact that E. Michael Jones is an anti-semite, who believes in bizarre conspiracies to support his hate and who peddles wretchedly bad history while doing so.

  • Francis wrote: “Christine – I hope you’re right, but how do you know this? Shea put up some information supporting a different conclusion. Are you saying Voris and Jones are not collaborating at all? Or are you just saying that they are not strictly “business partners”?”

    I know because I know. Shea has a very fertile imagination, and he lets it take him to rather interesting places. Voris is not collaborating with E. Michael Jones, nor are they business partners. He had him on his show “Roman Forum” for an interview–that’s it. He’s had a number of people on for interviews, and he doesn’t necessarily agree with everything his interviewees say or do. This whole “guilt by association” tactic is nonsense.

  • Vincent Lewis’ comment is a You Tube video by Brother Nathanael, a Jew and now a Russian Orthodox Monastic who himself is ironically anti-semitic:

    http://www.realzionistnews.com/

    http://www.thebrothernathanaelfoundation.org/about

    I watched several You Tube videos and browsed around. There is only so much fecal matter I can stand in any one day. According to this guy, Jews are in control of the banks and the Congress and everything else, and soon Christmas will be outlawed and we’ll be forced to celebrate Hannukah instead while the goyim get taxed to death. What planet is this guy from? Or am I the one in outer space?

  • Well, I was kind of hoping for something a bit more than “I know because I know”. 😉 I still hope you’re right, though. And maybe it’s me, but I thought Voris seemed a bit more than a simple, disinterested interviewer with Jones. IMO, he came across as someone who really admires Jones – someone very sympathetic to his view of Jews. I don’t remember ever seeing him smile and chuckle so much. Considering the fact that he obviously knows about Jones’ reputation in regard to Jews (he mentions it in the interview), it’s hard to understand how he could not be aware of the disturbing things about Jones that are documented at Shea’s blog. The information is readily available on the Internet.

  • Never mind. The offending video is deleted, so feel free to delete mine “response.” I couldn’t believe my eyes and ears. Thought I was going batty!

  • Francis wrote: “I thought Voris seemed a bit more than a simple, disinterested interviewer with Jones. IMO, he came across as someone who really admires Jones – someone very sympathetic to his view of Jews. I don’t remember ever seeing him smile and chuckle so much.”

    As someone who has watched every interview Michael has done on Roman Forum, he smiles and laughs with every single one of his guests. I didn’t notice that he was any friendlier toward Jones than toward the others. As to your other questions, I don’t speak on Michael’s behalf. Perhaps you should send him an e-mail at RealCatholicTV.com and ask him directly yourself.

  • Whenever the subject of Jews is raised on a Catholic website nutcases start coming out from underneath rocks to proclaim their undying hatred of the Children of Abraham. That is simply not going to be tolerated on The American Catholic. I deleted the idiotic video of the racist and anti-semite who goes by the name of Brother Nathanael Kapner and banned Vincent Lewis for posting it. Anyone who wishes to engage in paranoid rantings against the Jooos!, or defend those who do engage in such paranoid rantings, will have to find another venue to do so.

  • “I know because I know”.

    Irrefutable.

    Meanwhile, Voris *entire* defense against his bishop when he was ordered to stop using the name “Catholic” was, “Who? Me? I don’t run Real Catholic TV! Brammer does! And he lives in Indiana! Talk to him! I just work here.”

    Yes. Brammer lives in Indiana. And by a strange coincidence he shares exactly the same mailing address as Jones for his business.

    So yeah, these guys are in bed together, Christine’s ineffable and incommunicable knowledge to the contrary notwithstanding. We’ll see more from these guys. They are in cahoots. And Voris *is* trying to mainstream Jones–with some success. Not good.

  • (at 31:44 in the video)

    Jones: And so what was neo-conservatism? 2003. We are involved in a war. Who would have thought we were going to get involved in this war? Who was responsible for this war? It was the neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatism is a Jewishrevolutionarymovement. And that got me thinking, how is this fit into history. And that’s the genesis of the book that I wrote called The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.

    Voris: Some people have read that book and said, “Oh, Michael Jones is clearly an anti-Semite”

    Jones: Anti-Semitism is very clear. Every Catholic has to condemn anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism says that the Jew cannot be trusted, is an evil person, because of his racial inheritance, because he’s got bad DNA. No Catholic could ever say that. Okay? What we are saying here is, the traditional teaching of the Church is basically, when Jesus Christ came to this earth He came for one group of people, and that was the Jewish people. And the Jewish people had to make a decision. They had to either accept Him as the Messiah or not. The Jews who accepted Jesus Christ as the Messiah are now known as the Catholic Church. The Jews who rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah are known as Jews. Okay? When they rejected Jesus Christ they rejected Logos, which is the order of the universe. When they rejected the order of the universe they rejected the social order as well and when you reject any possible social order you become a revolutionary. And they confirmed that decision by choosing Barabbas over Christ. And the history, the history of history since that time is the battle between the descendants of the Jews who accepted Jesus Christ and the descendants of the Jews who rejected Jesus Christ. And that’s what that book is about. And that is not anti-Semitism, in any way, shape or form. And I go on record, I condemn anti-Semitism. I do not believe in any form of racial determinism, period.

    Paul Zummo observed that “[Jones] rejects anti-Semitism in his interview with Voris. And then immediately engages in a bizarre tirade that essentially blames the Jews for everything that is wrong with the world” To which Jasper responded, “I didn’t get that Paul. What I heard is that we should be preaching the Gospel to jews instead of just going along with them.”

    Really, Jasper? That’s all you heard? Jones had just been asked to defend himself against the charge of anti-Semitism. And what does he do? Exactly what Paul Zummo said–he charged the Jews, all Jews, with rejecting the order of the universe, rejecting “any possible social order”, and therefore being by nature “revolutionary”. He made absolutely no distinctions or qualifications, he just broadbrushed all Jews of all time in the very place in which he was supposedly defending himself against the charge of anti-Semitism. How did you miss that?

    But more seriously, Jones has his theology all screwed up. The Church does not teach that Jesus Christ “came for one group of people”. It teaches that He came for all men, the Jew first and then to the Gentile. Taken at face value, Jones’ statement is heretical. On the contrary, “as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation” (Nostra Aetate 4).

    Second, it seems to me that Jones here outlines a sort of second Original Sin, in which the decision of many of the Jews of that day to reject Christ–“the Jewish people had to make a decision”–and some of them to put Him to death–“they confirmed that decision by choosing Barabbas over Christ”–was a decision made on behalf of all Jews, those living and all those yet to be born. By that corporate decision, all Jews automatically (and apparently culpably) a) reject Logos, and therefore b) reject the order of the universe, which leads automatically to them c) rejecting “any possible social order”, and therefore d) they are all, by definition and intrinsically, “revolutionary”. Not treated in any way as individuals by Jones, the “Jewish people” without any distinctions all share in this revolutionary inheritance of the decision of those living at the time of our Lord. Thus all of subsequent history comes to be defined as the struggle of these revolutionaries against “any possible social order”. No wonder, then, that they can be fairly described as the enemies of the universe.

    But that’s not anti-Semitism, mind you. (Wink, wink.)

    It’s not that the Jews are evil and not to be trusted on account of their DNA. No, that would be racial determinism. It’s just that they’re not to be trusted because they all share in the corporate sin of their forefathers, they have corporately rejected Logos, they corporately reject “any possible social order” and therefore they are all revolutionaries, bent on subverting all good order and right morals. Who could possibly see anything dangerous about that?

    How is this not directly contrary to the teaching of the Church that, “His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures” (Nostra Aetate 4)? And even more pointedly, the Church teaches that:

    “our sins consigned Christ the Lord to the death of the cross, most certainly those who wallow in sin and iniquity crucify to themselves again the Son of God, as far as in them lies, and make a mockery of Him. This guilt seems more enormous in us than in the Jews, since according to the testimony of the same Apostle: If they had known it, they would never have crucified the Lord of glory; while we, on the contrary, professing to know Him, yet denying Him by our actions, seem in some sort to lay violent hands on him.” (Catechism of Trent, Article IV)

    And why the double-standards when it comes to Jews? Historically speaking, the Protestants of today are far closer in time to the fathers of their schism than are the Jews to theirs. Therefore, there is certainly at least equal excuse for today’s Jews for not expressly entering the Catholic Church as there is for Protestants. Lutherans who are born into their faith are quite different from the perspective of moral culpability than Martin Luther and his contemporary followers. The same is true of today’s Jews vs. the Jews 2,000 years ago who actually knew and heard Jesus. And while the selective rigorist who is fixated on followers of Judaism may argue that at least Protestants “accept Christ,” one may counter that rejection of the Church is also rejection of Christ (Lk. 10:16). The notion that all of today’s Jews who haven’t been baptized are consciously rejecting Jesus Christ and His Church–and that this rejection must truly be of Jesus and His Church and not what they falsely believe them to be (perhaps as a result of the kind of “teaching” spewed by people like Robert Sungenis and E. Michael Jones under the guise of “Catholic” theology)–is preposterous.

    Some weeks ago, in a lengthy discussion on the Catholic Answers Forum, I repeatedly challenged Bob Sungenis (a follower, friend and collaborator with E. Michael Jones) to provide magisterial support for his novel and idiosyncratic views on the Jewish people. In the face of these repeated challenges, there was nothing but a resounding silence. The same goes for Dr. Jones, who brazenly claims that he’s simply upholding “the traditional teaching of the Church”. So I issue the same challenge to Jones. Back up your novel theology from magisterial teachings of the Catholic Church, Mike.

    I anticipate the same response. Silence.

  • Exhibit A, Christine.

    And yes, you do–constantly–speak on Michael’s behalf all over the blogosphere, perpetually turning up on any blog that says anything critical of him. You may not have been *sent* by him to speak on his behalf. But speak on his behalf you constantly do.

  • Indeed, Christine, as I scroll down the comboxes of the link I just posted, there you are! So you *know* that Brammer, who Voris insists is the one in charge of RCTV, and Jones have the same address and phone.

  • Mark Shea is right about this. I like Voris, but this stuff is creepy.

  • When I see a good man maligned, yes, I will speak on his behalf.

    Brammer owns the domain name for RealCatholicTV.com, which is registered in Indiana. The Institute for New Media is Brammer’s baby; it has nothing to do with St. Michael’s Media or RCTV.

  • I understand Mark S’s concerns, I’m sure he knows alot more about EMJ than I do.

    But, let’s take a step back and look at who controls the awful anti-catholic media, anti-catholic hollywood, the porn industry, those who lead the legalization of abortion, the anti-christian legal system, etc. For being just 1-2 % of the US population they sure have wreaked alot of havoc.

    This is my last comment of this thread, I had a good, clean comment up that got deleted…

  • “For 1 to 2 % of the population, they sure have wreaked a lot of havoc.”

    No. Rather, we Catholics with our pitiful embrace of social justice / common good nonsense did that. We wanted bellies filled with the food that perishes instead of the Bread of Life. It’s our very own – Biden, Kerry, Kennedy, Kucinich, Cuomo (Mario and Andy), Leahy, Pelosi, etc ad nauseam who have done this, along with too many effeminate, hand-wringing clerics more interested in the praises of men than of God. NOT the Jews! The Jews didn’t do this.

    BTW, aren’t this week’s daily gospel readings on Jesus’ bread of life discourse?

  • I am amazed that absolutly no one has pointed out the mean spirited, unchartible way that Shea makes his points in this article.

    …..Michael Voris, Folk Hero to the Utterly Undiscerning

    What a wonderful thing to say. A nice insult really gets a point across.

    Another charitable description:

    It will be interesting to see how long fanboys of Voris’ dangerous demagoguery will go on defending this or drinking this poison because “He has some good things to say you know”.

    I was completely unaware of this whole situation, but I am glad to be labeled utterly undiscerning and a “fanboy”.

    I am amazed a Catholic blogger can be so nasty and not be called out on it.

  • This is my last comment of this thread,

    No jasper, that is your last comment on this blog. Bye.

    Though I will leave your comment up as it destroys the facade you were so careful to erect.

  • Chris P:

    If Jasper wasn’t on this very thread (and several other over at my blog) demonstrating exactly what I’m talking about, you’d have a point.

    Christine: Somehow your concern for people being maligned only extends to Voris and not to a nation being maligned en masse as “enemies of the human race” while Voris chuckles and rolls his eyes at the dolts who (“get this” says his mocking tone) think Jones is anti-semite. You have no problem with Voris helping to malign Chaput and encouraging contempt for him. Or, really, anybody Voris deems to be not a “Real Catholic[TM]”. Seriously, when the moneybags behind RCTV is Brammer and Brammer is in bed with Jones and Jones is given a softball interview by Voris calculated to mainstream his nuttery and create more Jaspers, Voris passes his sell by date. He is a dangerous demagogue and what he is selling is poisonous Jew-hatred. That the Jew-hatred is dolled up as Traditional Catholic Teaching and not as racism, just makes his poison more toxic. Stop making excuses for him.

  • Chris P is correct. Mark Shea is every bit as diplomatic and “charitable” as Michael Voris is. Sorry, Mark. I agree with you about this particular issue, but you and Michael do share some characteristics. No insult is intended.

    PS, I too am about as diplomatic and “charitable” as a skunk off gassing at Sunday morning Mass. Fortunately, I have little audience if any to speak of.

    😉

  • Considering the things that Jones has said, and the platform and supportive interview Voris provided, I feel Mark was actually restrained in his comments.

  • Quite rite, Paul Z. Mark was certainly more restrained than what I am capable of.

  • Yeah, you know how THOSE people are, Jasper. I mean, they’re basically all the same, THOSE people…those…JEWS. They have wreaked a lot of havoc…those enemies of the universe.

    As Paul Primavera pointed out: Who is in control of our government? Jews? No. The Supreme Court? Jews? No.

    Boy, they are pretty tricky mind-controllers, those Jews. They manage to control 98-99% of the population. They must have special Jew-powers. Maybe they’re doing something to us all through our cell phones? I’d really like to see where they all meet to come up with their plans. I hear they don’t even have to all vote on what evil they’re going to perpetrate. They just KNOW! They all think alike, kind of like the Borg!

    So, who invented the birth control pill – the very thing that enabled the sexual revolution? That Jew, John Rock. Oh, wait. John Rock was a Catholic.

    Who did away with the decency code in Hollywood. That Jew, Jack Valenti. Oh, wait. Valenti was an Italian Catholic.

    Who introduced Rock and Roll and crazy sexual gyrations to our youth? That Jew, Elvis Presley. Oh wait, Presley was a member of the Assembly of God.

    Who founded Playboy? That Jew, Hugh Hefner. Oh, wait. Hefner’s lineage is German/English and he was raised a Methodist.

    Penthouse? That Jew, Bob Guccione. Oh, wait. Guccione was an Italian Catholic.

    Hustler? That Jew, Larry Flynt. Oh, wait. Flynt’s ancestry is English.

    But it’s all the fault of the Jews. These poor, simple Gentiles couldn’t resist the mind-control power of THE JEWS!

    :-/

  • Paul P.: No disagreement. I know I irk people. I don’t much care about it in this case since people irked on Voris and Jones’ behalf for this are people whose opinion I don’t value and whose approval I would feel ashamed of. I do care about Catholics pretending that declaring the Jews the enemy of the human race is “Traditional Catholicism” and I acutely care that influential demagogues like Voris package, market, and sell that to suckers who have anointed him the latest Folk Hero. That sh*t is poison and he needs to be stopped. I hope the bishops of Detroit and South Bend step on them *hard*.

  • And I got to agree w/ you, Mark. Someone in authority should step in. I don’t like any of this. 🙁

    Hail Mary, full of grace……….Maybe that’s what we should do – pray.

  • Paul P.:

    In cyberspace, you’re on your own. In the real world, on rare ocassions, bishops step in to put out fires if they threaten to burn out of control. Vigneron tried it once and Voris defied him while posing as persecuted savior of the American Church and disingenously passing the buck to Brammer. If these guys keep this up, my prayer, frankly, is that Rhoades of South Bend (who already has had to tangle with Sungenis’ nuttery) and Vigneron of Detroit will bring the hammer down on this whole dodgy operation. It’s a faint hope: a poor thing but mine own. And when it happens you can *bet* that there will be screams from the Voris crowd about the liberal gay cabal silencing a brave hero (just like with Corapi). For my part, I will applaud it as a real act of episcopal courage.

  • I tend to agree with Bonchamps. Saudi Arabia that excellent friend of the US, is the main sponsor of Islamism. Of course they do not need sponsor Bin Laden or AlQueda to get their job done, merely pour in billions into their taquiyya in various countries. Things will then take care themselves. It turns out that Hans Blix was right: Saddam Hussein neither had nuclear weapons nor the means to produce any. Essentially the US took out a toothless tiger who had some value in preventing wholesale Iranian takeover of the Persian Gulf to no purpose. Christians are routinely hounded and murdered in the new Iraq. A few hundred thousand of them are refugees in the surrounding countries. If the remaining neocons and Hillary Clinton have their way, the two million Christians in Syria would meet the same fate. I don’t think the Israelis give a damn one way or another about the Christians so any hope that the paladins would ride out from Tel Aviv is forlorn indeed. They abandoned their Christian allies the SLA without much heartache in 2000.

  • Ivan:

    Both the Kay and Duefluer reports affirmed that Hussein posed an even greater threat than even the Bush administration thought. WHile there were no WMD stockpiles found, he was retaining all his experts that could very easily make WMD after the UN sanctions had been lifted, something that was in the works but the US overthrew the regime. Plus Saddam was awash with cash, thanks to the corruption of the Oil for Food program.

  • Hussein posed a greater threat… to whom, exactly?

    Not the United States of America. In fact he only invaded Kuwait the first time around because he mistakenly believed that our government wouldn’t mind if he did.

  • Sorry, this is off topic. I’ll start a foreign policy discussion soon and we can all have it out then 🙂

  • Pingback: Good for Paul Zummo and the American Catholic blog!
  • Mark,

    I would rather Voris repents of association with Jones. I would also pray for Corapi’s return. The Bishops have a bigger cleanup job to do w/ Pelosi, Sebelius and crew than w/ Voris.

  • Is the Old Testament still part of the Catholic Tradition to the “Traditionalist Catholics”?….in my recollection I believe there are numerous passages in which God warns in scripture, that the Jewish People are his and he will deal with his people himself.. and that anybody who wrongfully or unjustly persecutes them will bring genuine “creator-of-the-universe-wrath” onto themselves…. as mentioned previously in these forums… history has already shown this, time and time again.

    Mark’s sage-like ability to detect the beginnings of yet another so-called orthodox Catholic personality spectacular falls from their mountain tops is both uncanny & depressing…

  • Not the United States of America. In fact he only invaded Kuwait the first time around because he mistakenly believed that our government wouldn’t mind if he did.

    Nice bit of excuse-mongering. He conquered and despoiled a harmless neighboring principality in an effort to treble his proven reserves of oil. Previously, he had thrown eight years and several hundred thousand lives into an effort to conquer the Iranian province of Khuzestan. You seem to forget the Ba’ath Party was a multinational pan-Arab fascist organization and the limits on his ambitions in and amongst the Arab states were purely practical. From 1972 to the day it was ejected in April of 2003, it was consistently among the half-dozen or so most abusive governments in the world and in a similarly exclusive club as regards the use of military conquest as a political tool and developing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

  • I really didn’t know what to think of this guy Voris with the wig until I got to know him through this interview yesterday.
    http://www.blogtalkradio.com/up-close/2012/05/01/up-close-with-michael-voris

    Quite a different picture.

  • Sometimes I am the anal orifice. Sorry I didn’t see the humor. I had a boss once who is an Iranian Shiite. He had a Koran on his desk just as I have a Bible on mine. He turned out to be more Christian in his behavior than most so-called Christians I know. How’s that for irony?

    Nah, Paul, you’re a good egg, all around. In my attempt at humor, I deliberately used Islamist as opposed to Muslim. Your point is a good one. And since the only doctor to ever cut into my innards is a Muslim, I’m inclined to agree with your distinctions. 🙂

    In my experience, the Shia are really a good bunch. Alas for Khomeini and the Mullahocracy, who are the worst possible examples of Shiism ever to exist.

  • Art Deco correctly wrote: “He [ Saddam Hussein ] conquered and despoiled a harmless neighboring principality in an effort to treble his proven reserves of oil.”

    If we did this (see web links below), then we wouldn’t need to care about Kuwaiti or Iraqi or Iranian or Saudi oil:

    http://www.gen-4.org/Technology/systems/vhtr.htm
    http://www.eoearth.org/article/Hydrogen_production_from_nuclear_power

    @ Dale – thanks for the kind response.

  • If Jasper wasn’t on this very thread (and several other over at my blog) demonstrating exactly what I’m talking about, you’d have a point.

    I really don’t know who Jasper is and it was not relevant to what I said. I didn’t know two wrongs make a right???

    I do know this, when I go to the youtube RCTV I see an excellent video on abortion. I watched an excellent series on overcoming pornography. He talks about attaining holiness and praying for others.

    I found out about this site and some others through RCTV.

    Obviously I don’t agree with everything he says, but why don’t you try pointing out his errors without the snide comments….

  • A rant.

    The reason why the Middle East is so messed up is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why the US is not energy self-sufficient is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why some hate Jews is human envy, greed and lust for power.
    The reason why some hate Arabs, Persians, Muslims, etc. is human envy, greed and lust for power.

    The problem is sin. The problem has always been sin – rebellion against God. And the problem always will be sin.

    Now as for Voris, I really like it when he slames liberal politicians and clerics (sorry, I’m bad and I know it). And no, I am not a shrill for the GOP-Republicans; personally, I prefer the Constitution Party, but that’s a different topic.

    But I don’t like it when Voris goes in with anti-Semitic jerks like Jones or when he unfairly demeans our separated Protestant brethren. I used to post his videos at my blog. I have since stop doing that except in rare cases. My family is all Protestant and I’ll be darned if I am going to insult them with the declaration “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” My Mom and siblings will learn more about the Catholic faith if I actually live that faith instead of acting like a triumphal jerk (which I am well adept at doing).

  • Paul wrote: “My family is all Protestant and I’ll be darned if I am going to insult them with the declaration “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.” ”

    Voris didn’t make up that doctrine–he’s merely repeating what the Church has always taught. If merely teaching basic Catholic doctrine offends people, so be it.

    The Church allows for the possibility of salvation outside the fold in cases of invincible ignorance. But that is the exception, not the rule. By the ordinary means of grace, we need the Church to be saved. We do protestants no favors by sugarcoating or whitewashing this teaching, as their very souls are in danger of hell without the sacraments.

    The purpose of proclaiming “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus” is not to be triumphalist–it is to SAVE SOULS. That should be the only motive for anything we say or do.

  • Paul,

    The dogmas of the Church will always be insulting to those who reject them. But they are the divinely revealed truths which we MUST believe as Catholics. EENS is not negotiable, and you only cause harm to souls by pretending otherwise. I have many Protestant family members too. Sugar-coating things won’t help them.

  • Oh darn! This is another thing not directly related to the topic. Voris apparently thinks (well, I’m not inside his head, so I don’t know what he thinks) that “Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus” means “Extra Ecclesiam Romanam Nulla Salus.” That “Ecclesia Romana” recognizes as valid the Holy Orders and Sacraments within the independent autocephalus Eastern Orthodox Churches demonstrates that “Extra Ecclesiam Romanam Nulla Salus” is a false sentiment and one need not be “In Communione Plena cum Sede Petri” to be saved.

    OK, now I suppose that I too will be branded a heretic. Can’t win no matter what.

    🙁

    BTW, my whole family knows exactly where I stand on the primacy of the Catholic faith. If I am an opinionated “loud mouth” here, how do you I am around my own family? Rhetorical question.

    😉

    We simply don’t argue the point any longer. Now I guess I should get back on topic.

  • Paul,

    You certainly can’t win when you disagree with God and His Church.

    Valid sacraments, BTW, have nothing to do with Church membership. The sacraments are valid because they have power in and of themselves, just like the name of Jesus Christ does. But just as NOT everyone who says “Lord, Lord” – including those who even cast out demons with His name – will be saved, neither will people be saved merely because they gave or received valid sacraments.

    The Easterners are still in schism, and none of the basic conditions for unity such as those spelled out by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos have been met. But if THEIR position is precarious, then that of the Protestants is even worse.

    This isn’t some petty academic dispute either. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that outside the Church it is all but impossible to stay free of mortal sin, to acquire the graces and helps needed for salvation. The Protestant confessions present a version of the faith that does not produce saints, nor does it even really acknowledge the validity of sainthood as we do.

    That said, there will be as many Catholics in hell as there are Protestants. Being a Catholic isn’t a one-way ticket to Heaven. It’s just a boarding pass. You can get kicked off the train at any time before you die.

  • “Voris apparently thinks (well, I’m not inside his head, so I don’t know what he thinks)…”

    No, you don’t know what he thinks, so best to leave all speculation aside and refrain from attributing beliefs to him that are false. He follows the Church’s teachings on EENS–no more, no less.

  • Bonchamps wrote: “St. Thomas Aquinas teaches that outside the Church it is all but impossible to stay free of mortal sin, to acquire the graces and helps needed for salvation.”

    Very true. Just think: one mortal sin is sufficient to send one’s soul to hell, unless one receives sacramental absolution. And protestants not only reject sacramental absolution, they also in many cases reject the notion that grave sins can cause loss of salvation, and even reject what those sins might be. According to the Catholic Church, using contraception is a mortal sin; masturbation is a mortal sin; indulging in pornography is a mortal sin; sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin; etc. If a protestant has done any of these even ONCE in his life, he has lost his salvation, until he is absolved through the sacrament of penance.

    Our Lady of Fatima said souls are falling into hell like snowflakes because they have none to pray and sacrifice for them. We have the truth that the world is literally dying to hear, and we must share it.

  • David Palm specializes in half truths. First let me say that the only “silence” he received was when I said “we are done” to anymore discussion with Mr. Palm after I caught him divulging a private email on the CA thread I sent him several months prior. As for his “challenge,” Yanni and I spent two weeks informing Mr. Palm about what Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium teach about the Jews, but he simply didn’t want to accept it. That’s because Mr. Palm believes the Jews are “special people” just because they are Jewish, just as Roy Schoeman and David Moss teach. This is nothing more than spiritual racism. It is heretical and sinful, and it is precisely what Dr. Jones and I are fighting against. Neither Scripture, Tradition or the Magisterium teach it.

  • Christine, are you a Feenyite?

  • “Christine, are you a Feenyite?”

    I’d think my remarks would have answered that question clearly. No.

  • The Shadow Priest on EENS:

  • I apologize, Christine, but it was not obvious to me. You are correct that the related doctrines of invincible ignorance and Baptism of Desire are exceptions to the rule so to speak, but some exceptions swallow rules. The Holy Spirit has not yet revealed the precise contours of these related teachings to the Church, so we must acknowledge them as not being fully understood. Accordingly, we must be cautious in assuming a perfect understanding of the eternal fate of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters, including those who are unbaptized. This cuts two ways of course. We must evangelize since we cannot assume our non-Catholic loved ones who live in accordance with natural law will know God, but we may also avoid despair for our loved ones by knowing that the Church most definitely holds out the possiblity that their souls may experinece eternal rest with the Lord. This uncertainty may be a gift in that it avoids the temptation to despair as well as the temptation to dismiss the importance of evangelization.
    Finally, your apparent assertion that a single moral sin necessarily consigns a Protestant to eternal damnation absent the Sacrament of Penance is not a Church teaching; it is but a speculation.

  • Mike, I was following what you said, up until this: “Finally, your apparent assertion that a single mortal sin necessarily consigns a Protestant to eternal damnation absent the Sacrament of Penance is not a Church teaching; it is but a speculation.”

    The Catholic Church unambiguously teaches that mortal sin causes the death of the soul. There is no speculation there.

    From the Baltimore Catechism:

    “68. Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, what else does mortal sin do to the soul?

    Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, mortal sin makes the soul an enemy of God, takes away the merit of all its good actions, deprives it of the right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in hell.”

    The Church also unambiguously teaches that the only way to be forgiven of mortal sin is through sacramental absolution. There are exceptions of invincible ignorance–but those are the exceptions, and we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule.

  • Mike P:

    Christine may not be a “Feeneyite”, but I am, more or less.

    If you want to debate the merits, I will be happy to do so. If the argument is simply “Feeneyism is heresy”, well, that is a whole different debate. Obviously I don’t think it is, and neither does the current pope for that matter. From all I have read, this is considered a legitimate theological dispute.

    I’ll grant that this is one of the most terribly misunderstood positions a person can hold, and I’ve heard every – and I mean every – concievable argument against it. This might not be the thread to have it out on this topic, or maybe it is.

  • I say “more or less”, btw, because Fr. Feeney wasn’t right about everything. He held a few erroneous positions, but his position on EENS and baptism wasn’t one of them.

  • I had to look up Feeneyism:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeneyism

    Wow! No offense, Bonchamps, but there are as many “sects” (well, maybe that’s not the right term) within Ecclesia Romana as there are without.

  • Bonchamps,

    Didn’t Feeney reject Church teaching on both Baptism of Desire as well as invincible ignorance as being incompatable with EENS?

    Do you think that martyrs who died absent baptism by water are consigned to eternal damnation?

  • Guys (and gals),

    I know the horse is out of the barn, so to speak, but we are diverging quite a bit from the topic at hand.

  • Christine,
    It is true that we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule, but nor should we assume the exception is narrow when the Church does not teach that. In fact an examination of Church teaching in its fullness strongly suggests otherwise.
    In any case, it would be foolish to evangelize via citation to EENS. One must evangelize by convincing non-Catholics that the Church is Christ’s true mystical body on earth. No thinking person will agree to be received into the Church for fear of his soul until he first determines that the Church is what She claims to be. Leading with EENS is destined to be feckless.

  • So now Robert Sungenis has gotten into the comments box here defending his associate E. Michael Jones? This is the sort of company Michael Voris is exposing his viewers to. As I said, I think this is going to end badly for Voris.

    Christine, you’re obviously an energetic supporter of Voris. It sounds like you know him personally. Maybe he would listen to you. Have you tried to help him by warning him?

  • Mike wrote: “It is true that we cannot go about acting as if the exception is the rule, but nor should we assume the exception is narrow when the Church does not teach that. In fact an examination of Church teaching in its fullness strongly suggests otherwise.”

    No one can reasonably come to that conclusion by reading all the magisterial pronouncements on EENS, which proclaim forcefully and unequivocally that the Church is necessary for salvation. It has only been in the 20th century that the teaching seems to have been watered down to near-meaninglessness.

    “In any case, it would be foolish to evangelize via citation to EENS.”

    I leave it to each person to decide the best way to evangelize in a particular situation. I do know that in my experience, downplaying the necessity of the Church never leads to any good, and deprives non-Catholics of the graces of the sacraments they so desperately need. We do souls no favors by watering down this teaching.

    “Christine, you’re obviously an energetic supporter of Voris. It sounds like you know him personally. Maybe he would listen to you. Have you tried to help him by warning him?”

    Michael’s a big boy and needs no advice from me. The fact that his detractors like to make connections that do not exist in order to tarnish his reputation is their problem, not his. His chief concern is the salvation of souls; all the rest is a distraction.

  • Mike P,

    “Didn’t Feeney reject Church teaching on both Baptism of Desire as well as invincible ignorance as being incompatable with EENS?”

    First, there is no “Church teaching” on Baptism of Desire. It is not a Magisterial teaching. It appears in many catechisms, yes, but there is no “ex cathedra” statement on this. Some point to a passage in the Council of Trent, but if it is studied contextually, it is by no means certain that the council is actually teaching the doctrine – and even if it were, it would have been teaching the doctrine as it was believed by some (though not all or even the majority) of the Church Fathers, which basically limited the possibility of BOD/BOB to catechumens with explicit faith in Christ.

    “Do you think that martyrs who died absent baptism by water are consigned to eternal damnation?”

    There’s no evidence that anyone died without baptism (saying “by water” seems redundant, since the word means “immersion in water”…). There are some martyrs for whom there is no record of a baptism; there is no case that I know of in which historians are absolutely positive that there was no baptism.

    What I do know is that there is no basis in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium for any exceptions to Jn. 3:5, and I find 99% of the attempts to find one to be based upon purely subjective emotions. Are these emotions understandable? Yes. Are they valid as far as establishing the truth of this matter goes? Not in the least. People who worry about their non-Catholic relatives going to hell should recall, as well, what Jesus said:

    “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” — Lk. 14:26

    I’m not saying my take on BOD is dogma and you have to share it to be a good Catholic. I am saying, though, that every person I’ve discussed this with has a personal, subjective motivation for wanting to reject Feeney (and St. Augustine). They are unable or unwilling to seriously and objectively consider the facts. And that’s fine, if you just can’t bring yourself to it. But then usually follows the name-calling, the “you must think you’re so great” line of thought.

    As I see it, I just believe what the man said, and what the Church always taught.

  • “Michael’s a big boy and needs no advice from me. The fact that his detractors like to make connections that do not exist in order to tarnish his reputation is their problem, not his. His chief concern is the salvation of souls; all the rest is a distraction.”

    Christine, based on the information brought out by Mark Shea, there clearly seems to be some type of collaboration going on between Jones, Brammer and Voris beyond Jones’ appearance on Voris’ show. And he conducted an interview with Jones in which he allowed Jones to white-wash the whole “Jewish issue.” Do you see what that might not be a good idea for Voris’ reputation? Why it might not be good for his audience? Now Jones’ associate Robert Sungenis is chiming in. I don’t think that’s a good thing for Michael Voris, either.

    I’d think that he would appreciate and value feedback from someone like yourself who has devoted such time and energy to defending him. For all we know, maybe he’s not fully aware of these things. So you’d be doing him a real service. Maybe even more of a service than promoting and defending him on blogs. I mean that sincerely.

  • Yes, it’s going to end very badly for Voris. The greater tragedy will be how many people get sucked into the Jew-hating pit with him.

    No one who claims to care for his work seems inclined even to warn him away, which is another, lesser tragedy.

  • Paul asked that this thread return to the topic of his post and his request has been ignored. I am going to disable comments for this thread. Paul may re-enable comments if he wishes. Right now this thread seems to be home to several debates that are far removed indeed from the original topic raised by Paul.

Forward!

Monday, April 30, AD 2012

12 Responses to Forward!

  • “It’s the perfect slogan. Simple, for the simple minds; sound bitish-y…”

    Don’t you mean:

    “It’s the perfect slogan. Simple, for the simple minds; sound british-y…”

    “british”, not “bitish” – unless another word denoting “female canine” was intended.

    😉

  • also makes the obvious implications that the President’s opponents are “backwards” or “reverse”

  • ” Dare to think, dare to act” was the slogan of Mao’s Great Leap Forward from 1958-1960. Since Barry seems to have appropriated “Forward” it might be interesting to see if some variation of Mao’s slogan shows up this year. I wouldn’t be surprised.

  • The last speaker at Judgment at Nuremberg indicted Churchill, the Vatican, even the Russians. The speaker does not differentiate the purpose and the intent of these people in trying to protect life and freedom but lumps them all togetrther with an aggressor of unmeasurable evil. Many individuals knew what was going on. To speak against Hilter was a death sentence. Some died. Some merely survived Hitler.
    Obama is the most retrograde individual ever to come forward. Accepting atheism, “inalienable” rights that come from the state and the United Nations when a person is given birth, Life, Liberty and human rights come from the state, rejecting sovereign personhood of the begotten, not believing in our founding fathers reliance on their “CREATOR”, endower of “unalienable” human rights. Denying the human being as composed of body and immortal soul will bring us forward to Nuremberg, to savagery, uncivilization. FORWARD into meaninglessness, cultural darkness, cannibalism. Forward to being tyranized. Human rights begin at birth for Obama. Human rights begin at human existence.

  • I’m not surprised.

    “Fore!” was already taken.

    I think the GOP should use, “We Can Do Better!”

    Fact: More (than God my son was not one) gallant young Americans died in Afghanistan in Obama’s three years in control than in the seven years President Bush led the Land of the Free.

  • I think T. Shaw that the Republicans should use the same slogan that they used to take Congress in 1946: “Had enough?”

  • One of the favorite Party slogans in the USSR in the 60s & 70s was “Forward to Communism!” (Vperyod na kommunismu!)” The theory was that while rule by the Vanguard of the Proletariat was still necessary, Russian society was still in the stage of “socialism,” with “communism” the Nirvana toward which they were working. I saw it as a summer college language student (among 150 Americans), on red banners festooning buildings in Leningrad and Moscow in 1973. In view of President Obama’s approach to the economy and religion, as well as his tactics against opponents, I think his 2012 motto quite appropriate if completed according to the Party’s old slogan.

    Jim Cole

  • Jim,

    I thought of the old Soviet slogan the instant I saw it as well. I’ve seen my share of Soviet propaganda posters too.

  • “Bitish” as in “sound bite.” Unless, of course “Sound Brit” or “Sound bit(h” was intended. Then, I got nothin’.

  • “bitish” as in sound bite was the intent.

    Two things – (1) wish you had corrected my typos (now out there for all the world to see) 🙂
    and (2) wish I had copyrighted (copywritten?) the slogan.

  • Human rights begin at birth for Obama

    Unless, of course, you were the failed attempt of an abortion – then not even at birth.

  • The “Guaranteed Contraception” and “Stem Cell Research Funded” comments are aimed at a particular opponent, eh? Way to stick it to the Catholics….publicly, Mr. President.

    The line in the sand is drawn. Will Catholics line up with their Church or with the President? I don’t see how voting for this man is not a grave sin, in light of his anti-Church comments and actions.

    You cannot be both pro-Obama and pro-Catholic.

One, Two, Three

Monday, April 30, AD 2012

Tomorrow is Victims of Communism Day and I will be having a post on that subject.  In a lighter vein on the same subject is the hilarious Cold War comedy One, Two, Three (1961), starring James Cagney and directed by Billy Wilder.  It actually foreshadowed the trajectory of the Cold War fairly better than many a serious study.  As the film indicates the Soviets simply were unable to produce consumer goods of a high enough quality to keep their people satisfied, and the failure to do so, along with the lack of freedom, ultimately led to the rapid fall in the eighties of the last century of regimes that looked on the surface to be rock solid.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to One, Two, Three

  • The hypocrisy of communism. How interesting it is that this movie clip and the Victims of Communism Day comes on the heels of Paul Ryan and Catholic Social Teaching, as though America has journeyed to the center of the earth and Paul Ryan is pointing the way back to the surface.

  • That good Catholic man, Jimmy Cagney. An American Catholic.

  • “Originally a very left-wing Democrat activist during the 1930s, Cagney later switched his viewpoint and became progressively more conservative with age. He supported his friend Ronald Reagan’s campaigns for the Governorship of California in 1966 and 1970, as well as his Presidential campaigns in 1980 and 1984. President Reagan delivered the eulogy at Cagney’s funeral in 1986.”

    Cagney would probably have said with Reagan that he didn’t leave the Democrats, they left him.

  • the Democratic party left me too… I thin other Catholics this very moment, even this Monday morning are making that same painful break.
    But where to go? I wish the GOP would show some of Cagney’s humor and optimism about the nature of our American people and the democratic ( lower case) and republican (lower case) ideals I am not a bit happy with the way the GOP has acted lately; I feel like we have been force-fed Romney. I wonder what Reagan and Cagney would say about that.

  • Well I know what Reagan would say. Reagan supported Ford in 1976 after losing the primary to Ford, viewing Ford as far preferable to Carter. Reagan was right.

  • “This is a crummy cigar.”

    “Don’t worry. We send them crummy rockets.” 🙂

    The great Leon Askin… General Burkhalter……..”KLEEEEEEEEEEENK! Off to the Russian Front!”

  • ” Tomorrow is Victims of Communism Day……..

    All Americans, weep.
    You are all victims of the nearest thing to communism in your history – Obama.

  • Don,

    We brought it on ourselves. Barack Obumbler’s politics and policies are nauseating to any clear thinking person. The American education system sucks up trillions of dollars and produces pinheads. The entertainment-media complex keeps them stupid. I do a lot of the grocery shopping for our family. The drivel sold at checkout lines appeals to those who believe their brains are fully engaged when reading about some floozy Kardashian….and these people are eligible to vote.

  • I think RWR today would say the same thing about the GOP that he said about the Dems a half-century ago.

  • WK Aiken

    Which was??

  • The drivel sold at checkout lines appeals to…

    females.

    Females are almost the exclusive consumers of that trash, one of the female-preferred forms of pornography. And it’s sold openly in plain view of children. Is this the fault of capitalism or Mom-ism?

22 Responses to Paul Ryan and Catholic Social Teaching (Roundup)

  • It’s been a while since you’ve posted here Chris.

  • While not perfect, Ryan offers a vision that is not contrary to CST. He does seem to get it wrong when he equates subsidiarity with Federalism. However, Federalism does not seem contrary to the concept of solidarity or subsidiarity and so seems a reasonable position to hold. In fact his error seems less eggregious than the one of equating solidarity with increased state involvement, increased taxes etc. So perhaps a B+ in his understanding. (Perhaps a good a grade as most clerics unfortunately would receive.)

    A solid A however, for offering a position which is consistent with CST and challenges those who believe CST is merely a theological formulation of leftist programs or fringe, quasi-economic theories.

  • In Ayn Rand more than anyone else, did a fantastic job of explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism, and this to me is what matters most.

    Yeah, because those are two points that are really popular to defend outside of the libertarian circles and the standard Crazy Old Uncle….

    If folks have an issue with Ryan’s claim, please– explain who does it better? Not like ‘capitalism’ as a label is all that old; it’s not like the religious calls to groups over individuals haven’t been co-opted for political aims.

    I’m not going to hold my breath for a Bishop to defend the dignity of the poor when it comes to not being treated like house pets.

  • The best defense of the Ryan budget is this quote from Adam Smith:

    “When national debts have once been accumulated to a certain degree, there is scarce, I believe, a single instance of their having been fairly and completely paid. The liberation of the public revenue,if it has ever been brought about at all, has always been brought about by bankruptcy; sometimes by an avowed one, but always by a real one, though frequently by a pretend payment.”

    We reduce expenditures radically, or ultimately our economy will take a blow that we will be decades recovering from. I guarantee that in such a circumstance the poor will suffer more than any of us.

  • “We reduce expenditures radically, or ultimately our economy will take a blow that we will be decades recovering from. I guarantee that in such a circumstance the poor will suffer more than any of us.”

    This is one way to state the obvious. There is saying I used to hear all the time during my Navy days was that” S@#t rolls down hill.” I would have to say that principle applies here.

  • Note that it is possible to be guided by Catholic social teaching (which, as far as I can tell, is all that Ryan actually claimed) yet arrive at a conclusion the bishops find unsatisfactory.
    This is Ryan’s job – he undoubtably knows more about the facts and constraints of the problems than do the bishops. Many would like a solution that continues to fund entitlements as they are, but actual facts and constraints dictate that it is not possible to do that.
    The comments about ‘failing to protect the dignity of the poor’ sounds like a reflexive response. Many government programs erode that dignity; we are long overdue for an examination of the harmful effects that result. For example, school-lunch programs have expanded so much that they now cover multiple meals per day and almost everyone is eligible. Doesn’t this erode the dignity of parenthood, by removing the responsibility of feeding your own children?
    Many objected to welfare reform, too, decades ago…

  • Well, they didn’t exactly say Ryan is starving little children.

    The bishops don’t understand. The government is the problem.

    Case in point: in the first quarter 2012, the national debt expanded to $15.6 trillion. That is higher than the US gross domestic product for that date; and 1.5-times the percentage growth rate growth rate of the evil, unjust private sector GDP for which the Obama regime needs four more years to compete its destruction. Add to that unfunded commitments at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels and it’s HUGE.

    The national debt and local requirements will impoverish our children and grandchildren.

    Additionally, Re: Matthew 25 (it’s only in Matthew) doesn’t read: “I was hungry and you voted for Obama (fed me), I was thirsty and you attacked a Catholic Congressman (gave me to drink), . . . You get it.

    At the Final Judgment (Matt. 25): if you did it with other people’s money, it was not Charity.

  • Pingback: The Ryan Budget and Catholic Social Teaching « Blogs For Victory
  • It’s precisely the way he has handled the Ayn Rand story that gives me pause on defending him. It appears to me that he wants to pretend that he never held her up as a model, but the record shows otherwise. When I see Paul Ryan defending life and marriage with as much passion as he defends the dollar, I’ll be more apt to be convinced.

  • [Foxfier] “If folks have an issue with Ryan’s claim, please– explain who does it better?”

    The problem for me is that there’s too much baggage attached to ‘Atlas Shrugged’ to see a Catholic politician promoting it to the extent that Ryan has. Recalling my tortured reading, I found it to be thinly-veiled propaganda piece in which Rand’s own Objectivism is piled on pretty heavily. Egoism reigns supreme. For me, it’s difficult to extract from Rand’s book a “morality of capitalism” that isn’t already tainted by her own philosophy and anthropology. It wasn’t just the left that opposed Rand’s philosophy, but mainstream conservatism as well

    As far as individuals who Ryan might have praised as having articulated an ethic of democratic capitalism, Ryan would have made a better impression if he mentioned F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman, or better yet, Michael Novak (The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism) and John Paul II’s Centesimus Annus.

    For Ryan to consistently wax evangelical about Ayn Rand’s and Atlas Shrugged through the past decade, only to suddenly in the past week have an about-face and disclaim that her philosophy is wholly “anti-thetical to his own” strikes me as a bit … “opportune”. Why now? — well, if genuine I’m happy about his sudden revelation.

    That said, with respect to Paul Ryan’s work in Washingon — his budget proposals, his spearheading the critique of Obamacare at the health care summit, et al., I’m supportive. Clearly, he’s one of the few who actually gives a damn about where this country is headed and wants to do something about it. To those who criticize his efforts on the budget, I agree with Professor Garnet: the onus is on them to respond to the challenges that he identifies.

    [Greg] “It’s been a while since you’ve posted here Chris.”

    Thanks. Work has been crazy, but I’m appreciative to still have the opportunity. =)

  • Fully agreed, Don (on Ryan’s pro-life record).

  • Agreed with Lisa and Christopher on their qualms re: Ryan and Atlas Shrugged. I’ve written about the book before, and there is little redeeming about the tome. As Christopher said above, there are plenty of other great works that defend capitalism much more concisely and thoroughly without being morally objectionable. That said, Ryan’s record demonstrates a solid commitment to social issues as well.

  • All I know is that letting capitalism work and a free market system seemed to create enough income for our fairly large family with enough to share with those less fortunate, the pro-life cause, Native American needs. Now since the sewage of government intervention continually seeps into every aspect of our operation we have less money, therefore less time as we have to work more off the farm jobs, longer hours for much less and are so tired we are having a hard time keeping up with any of it.
    surely you cannot think that Paul Ryan’s plan would not take care of those truly in need. That’s what the goal should be. It might be hard for people at first but if the country could get back to work and real earned income came back into the system we might be able to pull out of this. As long as we continue to be socially engineered we haven’t got a chance. I still don’t understand how BO got elected in the first place. Gotta go, have to change light bulbs in the barn, and put soap in the milkhouse sink or we’ll get kicked off Grade A. “rules” ya better not break or the “inspectors” will make your life miserable.

  • Christopher B-
    I didn’t say “articulated an ethic of democratic capitalism,” I specifically quoted the explaining the morality of capitalism, the morality of individualism.

    Others may do a better job in covering the technicalities and whys and all the things that are important once you have the idea, but Rand is accessible to those who don’t already agree.
    Terry Pratchett has a running joke about “That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way”. The more I teach folks, the more that makes perfect sense.

    Incidentally? Searching on Bing for “The Spirit of Democratic Populism” brings up zero results.

    The other examples that come to mind are Animal Farm and the various movies that have clones as main characters who are going to be killed for their organs. Inaccurate. Drama over accuracy, and world view taints them…but they humanize a view enough for people to consider the reality.

  • Yes, Rep. Ryan’s about-face is peculiar (to put it gently), but here’s hoping.

    It’s probably giving Rand entirely too much credit to call her “philosophy” a philosophy, though her enthusiasts certainly wax flatulent in their praise of her “insights.” One called her the “corrector of Aristotle,” which makes me profusely thank God that I did not have a beverage making its way to my innards at the time.

    In fact, it’s best to think of Rand as the distaff half of the coin to L. Ron Hubbard, as I said to the misguided Rand groupie. The parallels are interesting:

    both were moderately talented (if woefully unedited) writers. Each wrote science fiction, or at least future-oriented fiction, and each enjoyed considerable success in the 50s. Both developed grandiose notions about their competence outside of the field of fiction writing, and each developed what they regarded as systematic wholistic philosophies for living and interacting with fellow humans. Both still have significant, if decidedly minority, followings today, and have followers who make unsupportable claims about their intellectual legacies and the applicability of their legacies to the problems of today.

    That said (and there was more than the simple motivation to zing Rand), I think it’s a little overblown to worry about someone getting ensnared into an objectivist worldview. It’s idiosyncratic, and only seems to have worked for an egotistical horny Russian emigre’ pulp writer of the female persuasion. Most will cull from it a few bits regarding the dangers of collectivism and move on. The rest can be ignored as they toil away in their cubicles.

  • Christopher B-
    found it, “The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism;” a political conversion story probably won’t change minds unless they’ve already been prepped to at least consider the idea that they could be wrong, and the emotional impact of a story tends to do that. (Side note: haven’t read any of Rand’s stuff, I can’t stand stories that are sermons before they’re stories, and folks whose taste I trust have told me that’s what she wrote. I just know that’s a strange turn of taste, and I know a large number of formerly unthinkingly leftist folks who are now slightly less unthinking libertarians because of Rand, and some who already went through that stage and are now fairly conservative, or at least think about why they think what they think.)

  • “a political conversion story probably won’t change minds unless they’ve already been prepped to at least consider the idea that they could be wrong”

    Perhaps. (Sorry for the ‘populism’ typo earlier, corrected). But to give some credit to Novak’s work — despite it being non-fiction, it has gone through a number of underground printings and being an inin then-socialist nations in the 80’s (Communist Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) and changed a few minds.

    I agree with your point — giving credit where it’s due, Atlas Shrugged has probably change quite a few minds from the left-wing socialist persuasion. Even so, Rand’s “capitalist ethic” insofar as it manifests itself in her fiction seems to me too irretrievably tainted by her pure egoism and materialism, leaving no room for altruisim (or even religion). There’s a reason why mainstream conservativism sought to distance itself from it upon publication (ex. Big sister is Watching You, Whittaker Chambers National Review 1957; or more recently, Paul’s own review).

    In the end, Ayn Rand’s fiction puts forth the worst kind of stereotype of “capitalism” (and the nature of the capitalist) that you could ask for — and insofar as we do Randian’s ethic is lauded as an ideal to be pursued, liberals couldn’t ask for anything better as a target.

    Hence not the kind of work I’d envision a professed Catholic peddling to the degree that Ryan has done over the years, so I’m relieved at hearing of his “repudiation” and hope for the best.

  • (Sorry for the ‘populism’ typo earlier, corrected).

    I insert totally different words related to a topic all the time, especially when I’m talking. Part of why I love typing instead– I can go back over and re-read in hopes of catching really bad examples. Probably some kind of diagnosable thingie, if I wasn’t just fine calling it me being all flutter-brains.

    In the end, Ayn Rand’s fiction puts forth the worst kind of stereotype of “capitalism” (and the nature of the capitalist) that you could ask for — and insofar as we do Randian’s ethic is lauded as an ideal to be pursued, liberals couldn’t ask for anything better as a target.

    Agreed– but it does so in a sympathetic way. I really wish that most folks my age were objective enough to not believe the worst stereotype of “the other side” was accurate, but that isn’t so; having a book that appeals to their existing tendencies while being Kabuki Heartless Capitalism is pretty effective. College libertarians aren’t great to be around, but they beat college anarchists.

  • The World cannot embrace the truth. If it could, capitalism would need no defense.

    Capitalism may be the worst economic system, except for all the others.

    Go to the historical record. Capitalism stands apart from other so-called economic systems. Anti-capitalist nations devolved into hell holes of universal envy and mass brigandage. They had one common denominator: command economy/socialism.

    Capitalism is the cure for poverty.

  • Pingback: Distributism Paul Ryan Catholic Social Teaching Catholic | The Pulpit
  • I believe the criticisms of Paul Ryan and his admiration for Ayn Rand are examples of jumping to false conclusions or at least jumping to “false concerns.”

    Ryan is not inconsistent when he states being influenced by Rand’s economics, yet does not accept her philosophy in toto. Moreover, based upon what Ryan proposes, it should be obvious to even the casual reader that he goes way beyond anything that Rand would approve. How about letting these actions speak for themselves instead of lamenting over Ryan’s appreciation of Randian economic principles?

    As Aquinas was said to have “baptized” Aristotle, if you take all of what Ryan proposes, plus his pro-life and other Catholic stances, etc., you don’t have to conclude that he “baptizes” Rand, but he does find ways to take what Rand teaches (as well as others) and incorporate some of those insights into an approach consistent with Catholic teaching.

    But similar to the fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum, some are jumping all over Paul Ryan in what might be called Reductio ad Ayn Rand despite the fact that Paul Ryan has distanced himself from many aspects of Randian philosophy that does not square with Catholic teaching. Ryan has made the distinctions clear, his actions illustrate this, and yet some people see his admiration for Ayn Rand economics as his defining characteristic, or it is considered to be very troubling.

    Here’s a logic-type question for all those who do not believe Ryan is “Catholic enough” in his economic philosophy because of his admiration for Randian economic libertarianism, and he “should” distance himself more from Rand:

    If Ryan’s appreciation for Ayn Rand is problematic because of some Randian views that do not square with Catholic teaching, then why is it not equally problematic to accept and even praise government involvement in various programs that help the poor to some extent, since the government champions many views that don’t square with Catholic teaching?

    Double Standard?

    DB
    Omnia Vincit Veritas

    P.S. I set forth a series of questions regarding “Moralnomics and the US Bishops” at my blog. If interested, you can check it out at:

    http://vlogicusinsight.wordpress.com/2012/04/27/moralnomics-what-the-us-bishops-fail-to-realize/

Hit the Road Obama

Sunday, April 29, AD 2012

The Road we Traveled is an Obama campaign video directed by Davis Guggenheim who directed Al Gore’s mendacious An Inconvenient Truth, and narrated by Tom Hanks, taking a break apparently from starring in Catholic bashing Dan Brown flicks.    The film gets the Science Fiction Mystery Theater 3000 commentary from Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle in the video above.  The Obama campaign should thank Whittle and Klavan:  at least someone will actually watch this piece of agit-prop drek now.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Hit the Road Obama

  • Would this be the road directly to hell?

  • Relying on the “inalienable” human rights based on the human rights of other people, moving forward with Obama will surely get us to maybe Auschwitz, definitely to Hell where God is not allowed. God is not allowed in Hell, in the United Nations and now in the USA, under Obama. Moving forward.

Surrender of New Orleans

Sunday, April 29, AD 2012

The largest city of the Confederacy, New Orleans also controlled all shipment from the Mississippi and into the Mississppi.  Even a cursory look at a map would indicate that New Orleans was a crucial city for the Confederacy and a crucial target for the Union.  In early 1862 the Union assembled a force to take this prize:  18,000 soldiers commanded by Major General Benjamin Butler, and a naval armada under Flag Captain David G. Farragut, 6o years old, but possessed of energy that few men in their twenties possess, and a veteran of over half a century of service in the Navy.

In Mid-March Farragut began moving his fleet into the mouth of the Mississippi.  The approach to New Orleans up the Mississippi was guarded by two Confederate forts:  Jackson on the west bank and Saint Philip on the east bank.    The Confederate defenses were aided on the river by three ironclads:  the CSS Manassas, the CSS Mississippi, and the CSS Louisiana, backed up by an improvised fleet of converted merchant vessels, gunboats and rams, none of which stood any chance against the might of the Union fleet.  If Farragut’s force was going to be stopped, it would have to be by the forts.

From April 18-April 23 the forts were bombarded by 26 mortar schooners under the command of Farragut’s foster brother Captain David Porter, with whom Farragut had an uneasy relationship.  Porter had used his influence in Washington to require Farragut to give him the chance to reduce the forts by bombardment.  Farragut was sceptical and he was right.  Although the bombardment was fierce, the forts remained in action.  On the 24th, Farragut successfully had his ships run past the forts, destroying the Confederate fleet in the process.  Almost defenseless New Orleans surrendered to the fleet after three days of negotiation on April 29.  Butler’s army took the forts bloodlessly on the 29th, aided by a mutiny of the Confederate troops at Fort Jackson.  The richest strategic prize of the War fell to the Union swiftly, and with amazingly few casualties.  Farragut was promoted to Rear Admiral for this feat, the first admiral in US history.  The Union took a large step to victory with the fall of the Crescent City.

Continue reading...

Anti-Bullying Tzar Bullies Christians During Anti-Bullying Speech

Saturday, April 28, AD 2012

Advisory to the video above due to strong language and high idiocy content.  Hattip to Jazz Shaw at Hot Air.  Dan Savage, anti-Christian bigot, homosexual activist and all around jerk, is the de facto anti-Bullying tzar of the Obama administration.  He was the featured speaker at a High School Journalism Convention where he was supposed to talk on anti-bullying initiatives in schools.  Instead, he decided to vent his extreme hatred of Christianity and Christians:

Barack Obama and Joe Biden may be having second thoughts about assigning Dan Savage as their de facto “Anti-Bullying Czar” this year. According to Fox News, the sex advice columnist – Savage Love – and gay rights activist who founded It Gets Better seems to either have a hard time understanding the definition of bullying or has some serious issues with irony.

Really? So you picked a raunchy sex advice columnist who publishes a column called “Savage Love” as your ambassador to help out at risk children. What could possibly go wrong? Well, here’s what can possibly go wrong.

As many as 100 high school students walked out of a national journalism conference after an anti-bullying speaker began cursing, attacked the Bible and reportedly called those who refused to listen to his rant “pansy asses.” …

Savage was supposed to be delivering a speech about anti-bullying at the National High School Journalism Conference sponsored by the Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association. But it turned into an episode of Christian-bashing.

Rick Tuttle, the journalism advisor for Sutter Union High School in California, was among several thousand people in the audience. He said they thought the speech was one thing – but it turned into something else.

“I thought this would be about anti-bullying,” Tuttle told Fox news. “It turned into a pointed attack on Christian beliefs.”

Tuttle said a number of his students were offended by Savage’s remarks – and some decided to leave the auditorium.

“It became hostile,” he said. “It felt hostile as we were sitting in the audience – especially towards Christians who espouse beliefs that he was literally taking on.”

The speaker, in a supposed attempt to encourage young people to behave in a civil fashion toward each other, immediately launches into a diatribe against Christian values. When some of the students – particularly a few of the young ladies – become offended, he berates them and engages in hostile name calling. This is the keystone of the anti-bullying campaign?

Continue reading...

64 Responses to Anti-Bullying Tzar Bullies Christians During Anti-Bullying Speech

  • Everything they do is ironic. If they say we won’t raise taxes, they raise taxes. If they say insurance won’t pay for abortions, then it will pay for abortions. It says keep our kids safe and then they select this bozo. Like the devil, keep a keen eye out for the opposite of what is presented cause it’s pretty sure bound to happen. Especially at 4:15 pm on a Friday night.

  • Call me crazy, but “Anti-bullying Tzar” sounds like a contradiction in terms.

  • Yeah, rather like “Pacifist General”. People in the administration are no doubt not too familiar with the habits of the autocrats of all the Russias. On second thought, perhaps they are.

  • Mr Savage shows only a superficial reading of the Bible with regard his comments on slavery. Had he bothered to read Paul, he would see that Paul actually says “Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality.”

    He further has no understanding of the use of the word ‘slave’ for situations of the ancient era, because it was used to describe a wide range that included indentured servitude, like that of a butlers and maids in the modern sense, as opposed to the slavery practiced in the south. The ironic thing is his faulty reading was exactly what pro-slavery people used to justify their the malfeasance.

    He would probably be surprised to see that Pope Eugene IV condemned slavery as early as 1435.

    If Mr Savage wanted to get any traction on anti-bullying, he’d be better to tell student o turn to Mathew where Jesus says: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

    As well as Galatians 5:13 For you were called to freedom, brothers. Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh, but through love serve one another.

  • Actually, I think the administration has more in common with what came after the Tzars, but that’s just the anti-Obama bigot in me getting loose.

  • Love all the kids leaving. w00t.

  • I find it funny, although not surprising, that he omits the fact that the abolitionist movement was a Christian inspired movement. And tht in Paul’s letter to Philemon, he exhorts Philemon to treat Onesimus the salve as his brother in Christ and not a piece of property.

    I woud also add that Christians go to great pains to say that mistreating someone be they homo, hetero, 90 degrees off center, in terms of their sexual preferences is wrong. There is a big difference between raising moral objections to behavior and “bullying”. If Mr. Savage would realize how much he and other homosexuals are used as pawns by the heterosexual left, he would rightly be calling them bullies.

  • Pingback: Ethics Dunces: The Journalism Education Association and the National Scholastic Press Association | Ethics Alarms
  • I was thinking of writing to our President regarding this issue via the http://www.whitehouse.gov website, but the picture on the home page deterred me and suggested that not only may communicating with this President be fruitless, but that America may have a far greater problem at the highest level of government.

    Pray…and one daily Mass at a time.

  • This is Dan Savage. He’s a particularly disturbed crapweasel, and I don’t use the “disturbed” lightly.

    If you’re trying to shake the stereotype of homosexual men as mincing, hyper-emotional, sex-crazed narcissists, you couldn’t do worse than Savage.

  • I wonder if he ever waxes on about all the bul$%^t in te Koran about homosexuality and how in Muslim countries homosexuals still get murdered for being homosexuals. How many noanoseconds would he last as Obama’s anti-bullyinbg after he made that remark?

  • So, who did the vetting for this fine gentleman. Curious, indeed. Perhaps another Democrat
    Brownshirt?

  • Pingback: Anti-Bullying Tzar Bullies Christians During Anti-Bullying Speech | The American Catholic | Catholic Canada
  • Another reason why the campaigner-in-chief must be ousted in November!

  • Admonish the sinner.

    You will not be getting into Heaven if you vote democrat.

  • See how he gets the audience to laugh at the other kids behind their backs? Classic bullying. Everyone’s willing to be a bully when they’re taking on the “real” bullies. That’s why righteous anger is so dangerous.

  • I never knew this pig Dan Savage actually worked for Obama, but it does make sense…

  • Dale Price, I agree with you. Dan Savage makes my skin crawl. He is sleazy and frightening.

  • Please remember that in criticizing Mr Savage’s remarks, that we must counter them in a loving manner, and not stoop to bullying him, President Obama, political parties, or those those who do not agree with our Christian faith. One may respectfully disagree without name calling.

    That no child is bullied is noble goal. I too was bullied as a teen. But my Catholic faith was the rock that I clung too, for I knew that it taught love not hate. The message of that truthes of our faith should be the goal of our evangelisation.

  • Responsibility for this travesty lies with the National Scholastic Press Association, whose Board of Directors is as follows:

    Albert R. Tims, Ph.D., President
    Director, School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota
    Committee: Executive (chair)

    David J. Therkelsen, Treasurer
    Executive Director, Crisis Connection
    Committee: Finance & Investment (chair)

    Peter Bobkowski
    William Allen White School of Journalism and Mass Communications, University of Kansas

    Timothy S. Dorway
    Principal, Chanhassen (Minn.) High School

    Linda Drake
    Chase County High School, Cottonwood Falls, Kan.
    Committee: Executive

    Monica Hill
    Director, North Carolina Scholastic Media Association,
    University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
    Committee: Audit

    Christopher J. Ison
    School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota

    Seth Lewis
    School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of Minnesota

    Samuel Terilli, J.D.
    School of Communications, University of Miami
    Committee: Finance & Investment

    Alan Weintraut
    Annandale (Va.) High School
    Committee: Finance & Investment

    Laura Widmer
    Assistant Professor of Mass Communication, Northwest Missouri State University
    Committee: Executive

    You have to hand it to higher education. Every day they give you a new reason to take away their funding.

  • Don’t any of you find it funny that you can’t refute what Dan is ACTUALY saying?

    Your bible teaches that it’s okay to be violent towards homosexuals BUT it also says “don’t eat shellfish”. LOL!!!. It also says that if you mix fibers together while knitting you should be killed. Hmmmm.

    Paul said to Phielomon (sp) pretty much “you’re a slave, you don’t have the right to be free”.

  • Actually it is easily refuted. The shellfish prohibition was one of the hundreds of ritual purity laws in the Old Testament which the Church at the Council of Jerusalem decided not to impose upon Gentile converts. Go to the link below to read a post on the subject:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/09/01/council-of-jerusalem/

    The Council also maintained in full force the Old Testament prohibitions against sexual immorality. Mr. Savage is not only a bully and a bigot, he is also deeply ignorant of the Bible and the theology and history behind it.

  • Free Thinker,

    Read this, then we can begin a more fruitful discussion:

    http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/curp/05378.html

  • Don’t any of you find it funny that you can’t refute what Dan is ACTUALY saying?

    While we are working on our refutations, why not answer a few other questions?

    1. Why is it that this organization holds multiple annual conventions all over the country for youths who volunteer to produce high school yearbooks and newspapers? What is the purpose?

    2. Where do they come by the funds to hold these? Is is parent funded?

    3. Why would one need a keynote speaker?

    4. Why would one select a foul-mouthed sex columnist to deliver said keynote speech?

    5. Why is a convention of high school yearbook staff considered an appropriate locus for a comprehensively uneducated man’s discourses on Sacred Scripture?

    6. Why cannot the knuckleheads who run the sponsoring organization and sat on the salient organizing committees manage a simple apology? The public statements that have made it into the record have been repulsive exercises in condescension (reason #47010 that academics are seldom the sort of people with whom a normal human being would want to associate).

  • Yes Art, it is rather as if indoctrination is what they they have in mind rather than education.

  • FT: Can you edify us with a few Q’ran quotes?

    And, your “heroes”: Pol Pot, Che, Mao et al were such nice guys.

    The Holy Bible I’ve been reading says, among many other things, to love your enemies and pray for those that oppress you.

    I just read “Romans”: there is nothing about assaulting gays. St. Paul warns against sexual immorality, because adulterers, fornicators, perverts likely won’t be getting into Heaven.

    Just giving back to you what you gave above.

  • I’m working on a post that examines the “Bible endorses slavery” meme, in all of its ignorant, know-nothing, decontextualized, idiotic unglory.

    I’ll post it in a day or two.

  • Okay – I didn’t know much about the shellfish. And that does kind of make sense. But be alittle patient with me. I live in a world, a time were there is none of this “ceremonial cleanliness”. I’m not saying that stuff is wrong…. it’s just a foreign concept to me.
    But I will admit – it’s not as goofy as saying “oh yeah, and don’t eat any shellfish or we’ll kill you.”

  • You know, I can’t find any references to Dan Savage having any connection to the Obama Administration. Hot Air calls him the “de facto” czar, which implies that he doesn’t have any formal connection. The article that Hot Air linked to doesn’t even mention Dan Savage. The president has been supportive of Savage’s “It Gets Better” campaign, but that’s it. I’m all for criticism where it’s warranted, but let’s not spread an internet rumor here.

  • Pingback: beauty distributism gay bullying southern baptist nfp prom | The Pulpit
  • Swindle, lies, cheat, bait and switch, fraud, satisfaction not guaranteed, insulting and dangerous.
    The attendees to the anti-bullying conference ought to demand their money back, as when, in the old days one went to a movie and was violated by vice, impurity, everything but the truth and joyful entertainment. God did not put any one of us on earth to be lied to. The attendees to the anti-bullying conference were not given the information to be able to end bullying or prevent bullying, but in fact were bullied. The attendees need to demand damages for their costs and time, as they were a captive audience being preyed upon. Don Savage needs to be prosecuted for truth in advertizing, and bullying. Fat chance as the bully-in-chief has discarded any semblance to truth, as Obama proceeds forward to “inalienable “ rights bestowed by the United Nations, extruded from the humanity of the human race and formed by the inbred conscience and freedom of other people, who, when they fall into enslavement to vice we, too, must fall, as long as it is called progress and proceeding forward toward the brink of extinction and into hell. Well, maybe not hell, Hell.

  • “You know, I can’t find any references to Dan Savage having any connection to the Obama Administration.”

    Check out the link below Pinky. Savage is clearly the White House’s de facto Tzar on the anti-bullying project.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/i-wish-republicans-were-all-fking-dead-dan-savages-history-of-bizarre-rhetoric-ties-to-the-obama-white-house/

  • Supportive?
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/it-gets-better
    It’s got its own section on the “issues” drop-down of whitehouse.gov, under civil rights, explicitly as about homosexuality. Obama cut his own video. (as did a bunch of other gov’t officials)

    My search for something like “Obama bullying savage” had this link as the #1 non-“did you mean this news story?” result, with links that I got the above information from.

  • Pinky,

    I think anyone with common-and-garden sensibilities, ca. 1985, would have put a country mile between himself and Savage. That Obama lends his name to the “It Gets Better” humbug says something unpleasant about the institutional culture of the Democratic Party and the sort of bourgeois types Obama has been hanging with much of his life.

    I will wager the origin of this rude business would be a homosexual in a crucial gatekeeper position in one the other or both of the two organizations sponsoring this conference. Every aspect of it is non sequitur at a convention of adolescent yearbook and school paper aficionados, but there lacked a critical mass of people on the relevant committees, on the staffs, or on the boards of directors to say “whiskey-tango-foxtrot” and put the kibosh on this. That does not say anything kind about the decency and seriousness of purpose of the adults involved. And you know what? This sort of thing has ceased to surprise.

  • I read the article that Donald linked to. Aside from the administration’s connections to the “It Gets Better” campaign, Dan Savage attended the White House once. That’s it. That being said, I agree that that’s one more invite than GWB would have given him.

  • Some parents tell me that their children attend these conferences and return home and their parents cannot recognize them, anymore. They are uncommunicative and like zombies. Kidnapping the souls of our children.

  • @Defender. The problem is that the anti-bullying movement is code, and not very deep code at that, for homosexual normalization. So when high-school student Brandon Wegner was wrote the “con” side in a same-sex marriage debate and got hauled before the assistant principal and berated and threatened for hours on end, that’s not the kind of bullying Savage and his ilk are interested in fighting.

    As someone bullied as well (until I managed to stand up for myself), I know that bullying is one of those things that exists in unofficial culture so to speak. It takes place in the cracks and shadows where authority isn’t watching and can never really fully monitor. Thus, the new spate of anti-bullying initiatives are not going to be effective and frankly, it’s not hard to think that that is the way progressives like it. By being largely unsolvable, there is no end to the intrusive power that progressives can aggrandize and the ideological social engineering that can be imposed in the name of fighting it.

  • P.S. I recall in the 90’s the peak of Political Correctness college campuses around the country more or less instantly caving to a whole host of obnoxious leftist harassment policies. Invading the high schools and elementary schools has always been a little tougher with parents being close to the school and while they let plenty of junk in, they could circle the wagons when it got out of hand. Anti-bullying provides the Trojan horse progressives have been looking for.

  • Dan Savage’s column is one of the most disgusting things I have ever read. Savage is no journalist. He is a radical, Christian-hating homsexualist extremist. His column is carried in those nearly worthless free weekly newspapers available in most cities (City Paper, Scene, and other screeds of garbage).

    I am not surprised that the Obumbler Misadministration would hire this man. He has no business speaking to high school students in any official setting.

  • Pinky-
    I guess the rest of us consider an administration raising funds for, devoting a section of the official White House website to and cutting multiple commercials for person and their themed cause to be a pretty solid connection. His campaign took the place of the “Safe School Czar” that got disowned because of the dangerous and nasty sexual stuff (including rape) that he’d promoted.

    You are perfectly correct that his actions were those of a classic bully; I think I’ve observed here before that the folks on my “friends” list that are fastest to jump on this campaign are the same ones who bullied me in school.

  • @Scott W: I agree with you. That is why we as Catholics must take a high road, and stand up to this outrage while at the same time teaching our children to lead moral lives. Shall we stand aside while a gay student is bullied? Does this not make as as bad as the people in the story of the Good Samaritan?

    Furthermore, terms such as ‘Obumbler Misadministration’, ‘this pig Dan Savage’, ‘disturbed crapweasel’ as used in some of the comments here in, only fan Mr Savage’s hatred, for they are as bad as his name called of ‘pansy-a**ed’. I do not expect people to refer to him or the President as angels, for you have every right to point out their errors. We must never stoop to the level that Mr Savage did in his presentation

  • Fox – My point is, if one of us gets into a debate six months from now and cites the statements of Obama’s anti-bullying czar, he’s going to look silly if the other guy fact-checks it. We’re the good guys, and that means we have to win our arguments with facts.

  • This is another one of Obama’s sleazy minions. They are getting bolder now because they feel that they can’t loose and momentum is behind them. I say bring it on. Don’t underestimate Christians and God…….Don’t underestimate true Americans either.

  • Defender-
    No, they are not as bad as Savage’s diatribes- for starters, because Obama and Savage are not a high school girls.
    False equivalency doesn’t help.

    Pinky-
    and mine is that if someone wants to go “yeah, he invited the guy to the White House, dedicated the only subcategory on civil rights at the Whitehouse.gov to his campaign and cut a ton of commercials, including one by the President himself, but they didn’t officially call him an anti-bullying czar!” then they aren’t going to bother with arguing in good faith. It’s like suggesting that you lower crime by redefining what’s a crime.

  • @Foxfier: Consider, please, that ‘adult to adult’ name calling, a la ‘sleazy minions’ sends a message that teaches youth that at a peer to peer level such behavior is acceptable. Consider also that Mr Savage’s taunting of Rick Santorum via his Spreading Santorum website is then also acceptable social discourse,a nd not bullying. (I will not post the URL to this tasteless site and advise those who desire to gogle for it). Such things are unacceptable at any level.

    I ask those who engage in name calling and other such actions this. If your teenage son or daughter came home and began railing about a fellow student as being a f_gg_t or a d_ke, or that he or she stood around and laughed while a student was beaten up for being gay, how would you react. What if your own son or daughter, who is heterosexual, was taunted in a similar because he was active in the arts or she was active in sports, was made the target of bullying, what would you do? Mr Savage’s approach to this, as shown by his actions and words, is totally wrong to be sure. However, we as parents and Catholics, must teach our children to ‘love the sinner hate the sin’. I feel that we don’t do this, if we ourselves fail to respect each other and those in authority, especially when disagreeing with their stances.

  • “I ask those who engage in name calling and other such actions this. If your teenage son or daughter came home and began railing about a fellow student as being a f_gg_t or a d_ke, or that he or she stood around and laughed while a student was beaten up for being gay, how would you react. What if your own son or daughter, who is heterosexual, was taunted in a similar because he was active in the arts or she was active in sports, was made the target of bullying, what would you do?”

    I’d be appalled and tell him or her to stop it immediately.

    The trouble is, there’s a difference between taunting/bullying of children/teens and–yes–mere insult slung between adults. Like it or not, invective between adults is something of a given even within the long, rich history of Catholicism. It’s not to be used often, but it never has been abjured. Adults are expected to have thicker skin, and recognize that fact. It does not authorize extremes of behavior, but an insult-free world is not possible, and, if you want a free society, not even desirable.

  • Defender-
    if you think that standing by when someone is assaulted is the same as an adult in a position of power screaming profane insults at a teenage girl is the same as adult-to-adult name calling is the same as derogatory but arguably accurate descriptions, I’d have to question your judgement.

    What I would tell my girls to do would depend on what happened. Most likely, since they are my girls, I’d find out about there being physical bullying when I storm into the school to rip a new one from the administration that expels them for defense. It’s a family tradition. If they stood by when someone was assaulted, they’ll get a tongue lashing and guilt trip from heck– that is not acceptable.
    Beyond that, response depends on details. I was taunted as a supposed homosexual all through high school and was borderline verbally bullied by a teacher. (borderline because she was within acceptable behavior between adults, and I responded as an adult) I derailed the physical bullying that probably would have followed on pure instinct when a guy grabbed my book bag and I not only caught up to him, but sent him rolling when I snatched it back.

    I will teach them that a lot of bullying is simply pathetic losers using what ever power they have to make themselves feel better without having to work or risk anything. Those who spat on my uncles when they came back, the vandals who attacked the church in Portland, most vandals, fifty year old men who have to harass teens that disagree with them, even combox trolls and gankers. It doesn’t make it better, but understanding motivations is an important first step, especially since bullies generally style themselves as victims. (how conscious that styling is varies, though)

  • “I will teach them that a lot of bullying is simply pathetic losers using what ever power they have to make themselves feel better without having to work or risk anything. Those who spat on my uncles when they came back, the vandals who attacked the church in Portland, most vandals, fifty year old men who have to harass teens that disagree with them, even combox trolls and gankers. It doesn’t make it better, but understanding motivations is an important first step, especially since bullies generally style themselves as victims. (how conscious that styling is varies, though)”

    Bingo.

  • Defender,

    Here we have two service organizations, one run by an amalgam of J-School professors and high school teachers and another run by high school teachers. They teach journalism – they surely knew of Dan Savage, who he is and what he is. Other than the crew who write for and edit The Village Voice, he might just be the most prominent denizen of the “alternative press” in the United States. In any case, he is easy to research. They invited him anyway. The invitation makes no sense whatsoever – except as a manifestation of the social tendency you see among ‘activists’ to parasitically colonize organizations and put them to work on behalf of their personal political propaganda. No set of ‘activists’ is more assiduous than the gay lobby about this sort of thing.

    A second aspect of this is the sheer vulgarity of the man and the degree to which he manifests arrested development in the grossest way. There was no secret about this. He flaunts it. They invited him anyway. You can call it ‘declining standards of classiness’, but that is an anodyne way of putting it.

    Given all this, I see in your wisdom that the problem here is that people use terms like ‘Obumbler Misadministration’ and ‘crapweasel’. Kindly learn to set priorities, and buzz off until you do. (That was not ‘name-calling’, by the way).

  • @Foxfier: I do not feel that standing by when someone is assaulted is the same as an adult in a position of power screaming profane insults at a teenage girl. I do know first hand that word have the power to inflict as much damage though based upon personal experience. The verbal abuse I took as teen from my mother for being gentle, studious and kind, if not exhibiting somewhat feminine attributes, even through totally heterosexual, still haunts me to this day.

    Can you tell me that using terms like ‘Obummer’ or ‘Democraps’ or ‘Libtards’ as seen in comboxes on Fox News is arguably accurate or even acceptable? Can you tell me that Rush Limbaugh’s demeaning description of Sandra Fluke, even if she met the dictionary description of the term, was acceptable?

    My bottom line here is If a teenager or child see this done at home in adult to adult discourse, or peer to peer discourse, it will signal that it is okay to do amongst there own peers. The signal sent by Mr Savage to his allies is that it is okay to bully Christians because they believe in ‘bullsh_t’, just don’t bully us. Do we not send the same signal when we do the same Mr Savage or the President or Democrats because they believe in ‘bullsh_t’?

    I shall not engage in such such discourse.

  • I do not feel that standing by when someone is assaulted is the same as an adult in a position of power screaming profane insults at a teenage girl.

    Then why did you equate them?

    The signal sent by Mr Savage to his allies is that it is okay to bully Christians because they believe in ‘bullsh_t’, just don’t bully us. Do we not send the same signal when we do the same Mr Savage or the President or Democrats because they believe in ‘bullsh_t’?

    No, it doesn’t.

    Again, you’re equating enormously different things– in this case, a 50 year old man in a position of authority screaming ignorantly incorrect insults at a teenage girl with an adult mocking another adult on the basis of rationally defensible views.

  • I shall not engage in such such discourse.

    Fine. Just don’t expect everyone else to act like everything you find disrespectful contributes to bullying.

  • Defender – For what it’s worth, I agree with you. It’s both strategically and morally necessary for us to be readily identifiable as “the good guys”.

  • While Pinky is likely correct, Obama is receiving exactly what the liberals gave (and continue to give) former President Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney (who they now maintain did not deserve his recent heart transplant).

  • BTW, bullies like Dan Savage never come to a good end, as 2nd Kings 2:23-24 points out:

    23 [ Elisha ] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” 24 And he turned around, and when he saw them, he cursed them in the name of the LORD. And two she-bears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the boys.

  • Paul W Primavera-
    I must disagree, Obama is getting a faint echo of what Bush got. Probably just because conservatives tend to be older, and folks that are young are often more…um… hotblooded.

    Pinky-
    Defender isn’t suggesting tactics, he’s claiming it’s the same. You can think NObama stickers are a bad idea without thinking they’re the same as “F Bush” stickers.

  • Foxfier,

    I stand – er, sit – corrected – again! Thank you. The news media treats Obama with tender kid gloves while they bashed (and continue to bash) former President Bush and former Vice President Dick Cheney.

    I wonder if God still has those she-bears in reserve?

    😉

  • *grin* Sorry, Paul, I know I’m being a bit hard-line here, but it’s a common rhetorical tactic to make claims that are too expansive, but correct enough that the other side doesn’t deny them. Used by bullies and other abusers, it ends up with the person who didn’t correct the too broad brush being responsible for what is done to them.

  • Oh, Dan Savage. If you’re going to critique a religion, learn about it first. I’ve heard high school and college students engage in more nuanced debate that this man.

    And even if the kids walking out were in the wrong, did that justify calling them “pansyasses?” What good are they going to take away from your speech?

    Not to mention that walking out on a speech you find seriously offensive rather than cheering along with your peers or sitting quietly actually takes some serious guts, especially for a teenager.

    It’s a shame, really, because elements of the “It Gets Better” campaign are positive. Unfortunately, the speech and the movement in general imply that condemning behavior equals bullying, and that’s not the case.

  • I’m not aware of a rule of morality, ethics, manners or civility that was violated by the students who walked out. Good for them for standing up for their beliefs and showing that they are not sheep. Savage behaved like a complete jerk, and there is no reason one is required to listen to another ridicule his religious beliefs without a fair opportunity to respond. I cannot imagine what theory that would be based on.

  • I completely concur Mike. Savage lived down to his name, and the students who walked out were refusing to be bullied, and provided a good example of how to deal with a foul mouthed bully.

  • Can you tell me that using terms like ‘Obummer’ or ‘Democraps’ or ‘Libtards’ as seen in comboxes on Fox News is arguably accurate or even acceptable?

    Not acceptable. However, contextually, it is nearly irrelevant.

    Can you tell me that Rush Limbaugh’s demeaning description of Sandra Fluke, even if she met the dictionary description of the term, was acceptable?

    Crude, but acceptable.

    My bottom line here is If a teenager or child see this done at home in adult to adult discourse, or peer to peer discourse, it will signal that it is okay to do amongst there own peers.

    Up to a point, but that is not the motor of intramural brickbats among the young nor is it much of an influence on the gay lobby.

    The verbal abuse I took as teen from my mother for being… [bad form, buddy]

    FWIW, I grew up in a social world where manners were meticulously observed among the older generation, even in their cups. Their children were still quite capable of treating each other like crap.

    What is interesting here is that you are chewing over school bullying (and attributing it to Ed Morrissey’s rude combox denizens) when nothing of the sort could be divined as occurring from the original post or the incident it described.

  • Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.com (there is a link to that site on the right side of this page under “Catholic Punditry) has a great commentary on this topic. It shows Savage is hyping the bullying angle as pure propaganda…and that Savage is crude and rude, a pure bully in his actions.

  • Pingback: Song-a-week IX | Cor Sanctum

Glenn Miller’s Over There

Saturday, April 28, AD 2012

America means freedom and there’s no expression of freedom quite so sincere as music.

Glenn Miller

Something for the weekend.  Glenn Miller and the Army Air Corps Band give a very lively version of James M. Cohan’s Over There.  The rendition of the song is made poignant by our knowledge that Major Glenn Miller would never come back from Over There, dying on December 15, 1944 when the plane he was flying in was lost over the English Channel.  Miller, too old to be drafted at 38, was rich and famous as a band leader in 1942 and could have sat out the War in safety and comfort without reproach.  However, Miller was above all a patriot.  He first tried to join the Navy and was turned down.  He then joined the Army Air Corps, commissioned as a Captain, and was placed in command of the Army Air Corps Band.  His goal was to present music that the troops would enjoy, frequently to the dismay of senior officers who usually had little love for Big Band era music.  Miller and his Band helped raise the morale of American troops and civilians alike, not an easy task in a War as bloody as World War II, especially among Army Air Corps troops in Europe with their high casualties.  May his soul rest in peace.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Glenn Miller’s Over There

Father Miscamble Defends Bishop Jenky

Friday, April 27, AD 2012

 

 

Father Wilson Miscamble, a priest of the Congregation of the Holy Cross and a history professor at Notre Dame defends Bishop Jenky from the attacks of members of the Notre Dame faculty:

Do you know Bishop Jenky?

I do, indeed. He’s, of course, a member of the Congregation of Holy Cross,  and I’ve known him since I came to the order as a seminarian 30 years ago. He’s  a terrific priest and a great bishop.

 

Have you worked with him closely?

He was the rector of Sacred Heart Basilica in my younger days as a priest  here on campus and was the superior of the Holy Cross community here during my  early days on campus. That was in the late ’80s and early ’90s, when I was part  of the community of which he was local superior.

But then he was taken away from us and made auxiliary bishop here in Fort  Wayne-South Bend, and then was made bishop of Peoria about 10 years ago. So, for  the last 15 years or so, I’ve seen him periodically. He comes back to visit, and  so on.

 

What do you think of this brouhaha over his remarks?

I have found the reaction of my faculty colleagues quite embarrassing — embarrassing because these academics disgracefully misused Bishop Jenky’s words  by taking them out of context. It has been a little disappointing, to say least.  Bishop Jenky was making remarks about the religious-liberty issue, and some of  my colleagues implied that Bishop Jenky was suggesting that President Obama was  on his way to adopting the entire Hitler-Stalin agenda. It’s a  mischaracterization that is unworthy of supposedly serious scholars.

 

You’re a historian, albeit your specialty is American history.

I am a historian, and I challenge the signatories to this letter criticizing  Bishop Jenky to point to one part of his homily that is historically  inaccurate.

 

Is he historically accurate?

Absolutely. By the way, Bishop Jenky was a history major when he was an  undergraduate here at Notre Dame. He’s read quite a bit of history in his day.  And he is a good student of it.

 

Why do you think they would take his remarks out of context?

Well, this is to engage in speculation, and I probably shouldn’t go down  this path myself; one should be cautious. But I think this very poorly crafted letter says  more about the rather predictable and ideological bias of the signatories than  it does about Bishop Jenky’s courageous homily.

 

But do you feel that he might have overstepped any kind of line?

 

No. His homily was a courageous homily which pointed to a pattern of  behavior of a number of regimes to limit religious freedom and to attack  religious institutions.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Father Miscamble Defends Bishop Jenky

  • I am so inspired to know that not all Notre Dame professors are Obama syncophants. Fr Miscamble speaks well for the Holy Cross order. Fr Peyton would be proud!

  • God bless Bp. Jenky. Its great to see courageous bishops speaking up in defence of the Church and people, and what is right.
    We are due for a new bishop in our diocese this year, by September all going well.
    Most of the NZ bishops (6 of the 7) are quite liberal – affected with the liberalism that came post V2. Ealier this year, probably the most liberal Bp. of Palmerston North diocese retired, and the new bishop had spent time at the Vatican, writing some of B XVI homilies – he is good and orthodox.
    Our bishop, Dennis Brown, is a good man but quite liberal, and was preventing our younger priests who wished to do the Traditional Latin Mass from doing so – that has recently changed, and we have the TLM in our parish once a month. Only a few attend, but the number is growing slowly. As an institued Acolyte, I enjoy serving at Mass, and its amazing how quickly the Latin has come back to me from my youth as an alter boy, and my 5 years of Latin at college.
    Rumour has it that our new bishop is one of Cdl.George Pell’s auxiliaries, from Sydney, Australia. He is quite an academic – has written several books, and is strong on Catholic education and proper evangelisation – both of which are desperately needed in our diocese. It’ll also be interesting to have an Aussie bishop – but he follows rugby, instead of rugby league, so that’s a point in his favour 🙂
    Time will tell, fingers crossed.

  • It just occured to me: he’s one of the very few Latin Rite bishops sporting a beard. As a fellow member of the Fraternity of Facial Fur I’ll bet it’s the beard that makes him brave!

  • Greg, he is a great jovial bear of a man with a loud booming laugh. I have always thought of him as Friar Tuck come to life, and recent events have underlined that thought for me. Prince John of course is obvious!

  • Let’s hope he doesn’t have a shave – remember Samson? 😉

  • Bishop “Samson” jenky and the Notre Dame faculty signers of the letter attacking Jenky have a confab at the beginning of this video clip:

  • Gee…..
    Victor Mature as Samson. Haven’t seen him for a while.
    Age betrayal? 😉

  • Pingback: sacred music Bishop Jenky St. Catherine of Siena | ThePulp.it
  • The classic Cecil B. DeMille version of the tale Don. DeMille had a talent for getting good performances out of his actors and actresses, and here he gets a superb one from Mature.

  • I’m just thinking… Bishop Jenky was right in pointing out the murderous regimes that denied religious freedom to their citizens. I would like to see the ND signatories point out all of the instances in the 20th century when religious freedom was denied in a country and other freedoms increased. There is a reason why those who want to take all of our freedoms need first to silence religion, especially Christianity. They need to silence the country’s conscience.

  • This is a direct betrayal of the very purpose of higher education and is part of a goal of too many in academia to replace education with indoctrination. <<< Well said! How disingenuous for supposedly learned professors to indoctrinate rather than educate intelligent students. Anyone's assumption that they can is hysterically funny and…for this parents are expected to pay handsomely? The leaning heavily on an institution's reputation while not meritoriously adding to it is one successful way of stealing, is it not?

  • “I have always thought of him as Friar Tuck come to life”

    Looks to me like he’d make a great Santa Claus… come to think of it, the real St. Nick WAS a bishop!

  • Well, Don, beardliness is often a sign joviality.

    On a more serious note, I hope he starts talking about the importance of subsidiarity and its direct impact regarding the whole HHS mandate issue. I know I have played this like a broken record, but unless Catholics understand this principle and our bishops start articulating it, we might as well surrender to lord Barry O right now. Paul Ryan’s injecting it right in the middle of the whole economic problem (a stroke of brilliance on more than one level) gives us and them a golden opportunity. Unfortunately, Ryan is already getting blow back from some individual bishops and apparatchiks in the USCCB.

    Now is the time that we as Catholic faithful citizens take back our responsibility to help our neighbors in need and push back against federal usurpation. And the bishops need to lead that fight.

  • The Church in this country Greg got way too comfortable with Caesar and Caesar’s coin. I trust now that most of the bishops understand what Church history tells us over and over again that Caesar is never to be completely trusted and that the more the Church depends upon Caesar the weaker the Church becomes.

  • The problem is Don that all indications thus far point to the opposite of what you are saying and that the bishops still don’t get it. I think your trust is misplaced. By the way, it isn’t Ceaser’s coin that’s getting wasted by greasing the palms of political cronies, it’s ours, especially the most productive among us.

  • We are Caesar in this land Greg which heightens our moral responsibility. I see little evidence that the bishops don’t get it and quite a bit of evidence that most of them do.

  • What evidence are you speaking of. Can you provide any documentation? Give me one quote from one bishop who says ANYTHING regarding the importance of subsidiarity, especially as it applies to the HHS problem? The only thing we find is had wringing about religious liberty, an important issue, but that’s beside the point. Documentation as to my assertions are plentiful in that you have some bishops as well as USCCB mouthpieces already going after Ryan’s legitimate proposals.

  • Archbishop Naumann and Bishop Finn in 2009:

    “This notion that health care ought to be determined at the lowest level rather than at the higher strata of society, has been promoted by the Church as “subsidiarity.” Subsidiarity is that principle by which we respect the inherent dignity and freedom of the individual by never doing for others what they can do for themselves and thus enabling individuals to have the most possible discretion in the affairs of their lives. (See: Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, ## 185ff.; Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 1883) The writings of recent Popes have warned that the neglect of subsidiarity can lead to an excessive centralization of human services, which in turn leads to excessive costs, and loss of personal responsibility and quality of care.

    Pope John Paul II wrote:

    “By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.” (Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus #48)

    And Pope Benedict writes:

    “The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person—every person—needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need. … In the end, the claim that just social structures would make works of charity superfluous masks a materialist conception of man: the mistaken notion that man can live ‘by bread alone’ (Mt 4:4; cf. Dt 8:3)—a conviction that demeans man and ultimately disregards all that is specifically human.” (Pope Benedict XVI, Deus Caritas Est #28)

    While subsidiarity is vital to the structure of justice, we can see from what the Popes say that it rests on a more fundamental principal, the unchanging dignity of the person. The belief in the innate value of human life and the transcendent dignity of the human person must be the primordial driving force of reform efforts.”

    http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/09/kansas-city-bishops-issue-joint-health.html

  • Bishop Aquila in 2009:

    “There is a danger in being persuaded to think that the national government is the sole instrument of the common good. Rather, according to the classic principle of subsidiarity in Catholic social thought, many different communities within society share this responsibility,” Aquila wrote. “These various strands of community life within society build up a strong and cohesive social fabric that is the hallmark of a true communion of persons.

    “States, towns, fraternal organizations, businesses, cooperatives, parishes and especially the family have not only legitimate freedom to provide the goods they are rightly capable of supplying, but often times do so with far greater efficiency, less bureaucracy and, most importantly, with personalized care and love.”

    http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2009/sep/09090208

  • Bishop Doran of Rockford in my state:

    “4. The fourth principle is subsidiarity which commands us to seek the most effective approach to solving the problem. Our federal bureaucracy is a vast wasteland strewn with the carcasses of absurd federal programs which proved infinitely worse than the problems they were established to correct. It perhaps is too extreme to say that competent government is an oxymoron, but sometimes it seems that way. The moral principal of subsidiarity implies decreasing the role of government and employers in health care when lower order groups can better serve individuals and families. We need to think of health care as more of a market than a system.

    The Catholic Medical Association has warned that: “The clear historical experience in the United States assures that a unitary, or a single payer, system of health care financing and administration would profoundly subvert the sanctity of human life” (from the Association’s publication, “Health Care in America: A Catholic Proposal for Renewal” in Linacre Quarterly, 2004, available at http://www.cathmed.org/publications/health%20CARE.pdf).

    It was observed by the ancients that usually the problem with totalitarian governments is not that they do not love their people; the problem seems to be that they love them too much — they just do not trust them. To establish control, these governments have always tried to control food. Remember why Jacob’s sons went down to Egypt in the Book of Exodus. But since homo sapiens is an omnivore, this proves increasingly difficult.

    Modern socialist governments like to control not food but the means to protect and extend life. Some have called the current efforts of our federal government “senioricide” or “infanticide.” That perhaps is too severe, but we as Catholics should take care that health care does not morph into life control.”

    http://catholickey.blogspot.com/2009/09/bishops-offer-various-criticisms-of.html

  • First of all, Don. These quotes from these bishops are from 2009. None of them are recent regarding the present crisis. But yet, you will find that the bishops, as we are seeing with their attacks on Paul Ryan, try to undermine any even modest attempt to put into practice what the quotes from Bp Aquila speaks of. Nice try though.

  • Bishop Nickless:

    “Third, in that category of prudential judgment, the Catholic Church does not teach that government should directly provide health care. Unlike a prudential concern like national defense, for which government monopolization is objectively good — it both limits violence overall and prevents the obvious abuses to which private armies are susceptible — health care should not be subject to federal monopolization. Preserving patient choice (through a flourishing private sector) is the only way to prevent a health care monopoly from denying care arbitrarily, as we learned from HMOs in the recent past.

    While a government monopoly would not be motivated by profit, it would be motivated by such bureaucratic standards as quotas and defined “best procedures,” which are equally beyond the influence of most citizens. The proper role of the government is to regulate the private sector, in order to foster healthy competition and to curtail abuses. Therefore any legislation that undermines the viability of the private sector is suspect. Private, religious hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, should be protected, because these are the ones most vigorously offering actual health care to the poorest of the poor.

    The best way in practice to approach this balance of public and private roles is to spread the risks and costs of health care over the largest number of people. This is the principle underlying Medicaid and Medicare taxes, for example. But this principle assumes that the pool of taxable workers is sufficiently large, compared to those who draw the benefits, to be reasonably inexpensive and just.

    This assumption is at root a pro-life assumption! Indeed, we were a culture of life when such programs began. Only if we again foster a culture of life can we perpetuate the economic justice of taxing workers to pay health care for the poor. Without a growing population of youth, our growing population of retirees is outstripping our distribution systems. In a culture of death such as we have now, taxation to redistribute costs of medical care becomes both unjust and unsustainable.”

    http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/bishop/13-bishopcolumn/861-seeking-ethical-health-care-reform.html

  • “Nice try though.”

    Nice attempt not to admit Greg that you were speaking in ignorance after I cited chapter and verse. Religious liberty is the key argument against the HHS mandate, but more than a few bishops were arguing against ObamaCare on the grounds of subsidiarity. I could go on citing several more, but you would simply pooh-pooh those too.

  • Notice the obscurity of these bishops you are quoting. None of these are well-known. I will admit that I was speaking a bit too broad brushedly. However, the overwhelming number of the most influential bishops, other than then-Bp Lori of Brideport, Conn., actually seemed to support Obamacare, sans the abortion coverage. In fact, Cdl. George, who was president of the USCCB at the time of the Obamacare debate, urged republicans to support the version of Obamacare that contained the Stupak amendment.

    But my main assertion that the bishops, in practice, still don’t get it as far as the where the real problem here lies stands on solid ground.

    Where are these very same bishops reiterating these statements in light of recent events? Yes, religious liberty is the most serious violation here, but this would not have come about if the bishops have spoken half as loudly for subsidiarity as they did for big government interference in the economic sphere. And the bishops need to speak, and speak very loudly, to that point.

    Furthermore, do not be surprised if you find statements from these very same bishops supporting taxpayer funded welfare for illegal aliens or similar things like that. Square tht with the principle of subsidiarity.

  • P.S. I would love to be absolutely dead wrong about what I say about the bishops not getting it. But I am afraid it seems I’m not.

  • If one may dodge this pissing match and return (sort of) to the subject: I wonder if the Notre Dame signers would, back in the day, have showered praise on the many, many, many German bishops who remained silent when Hitler did start encroaching on the liberties of the Church and did start enforcing public policies contrary to good morals.

  • Pingback: Notre Dame Holy Cross priest defends a brother « Blithe Spirit
  • I wish Catholics would step back from their hysterical paranoia and read WHAT the Bishop said and analyze it to judge if it is correct:

    “Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services and health care,” the bishop said at an annual Catholic men’s event in Peoria. “In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama — with his radical, pro-abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”

    Is President Obama “intent on following a similar path”? Which path? “Barely tolerate some churches remaining open”? NOT true. “Not tolerate any competion with the state in education, social services and health care”? Also NOT true.

    Please – THINK before you write something. DON’T make a fool of yourself. Anyone in their right mind knows that the President is NOT tolerating and allowing only “some” churches to remain open. Likewise, he has NO desire or plan to restrict any [religious] “competion with the state in education, social services and health care”. You know that if he even attempted any of those actions the Supreme Court would prohibit it. The President is too intelligent and moral a man to do that.

    The Bishop was wrong to make those comparisons, and he should be man enough to admit it. For our part, we should be honest and sincere and criticize him for his mistake.

  • From another thread when I answered Don Maswell when he made a similar statement:

    Don, argument is so much more convincing when one uses facts rather than bluster. Go to the link below where the Bishops cite chapter and verse:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/13/our-most-cherished-freedom/

    Go to the link below to read an address by Pope Benedict where he cites his concerns about religious freedom in the US:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/01/20/pope-benedict-religious-freedom-under-threat-in-america/

    Go here for an explanation of the distinction between freedom of religion and freedom of worship:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/02/20/father-barron-explains-what-the-obama-administration-means-by-freedom-of-worship/

  • “The President is too intelligent and moral a man to do that.”

    Bwahahahahahahahhahaha!

    Thanks for the morning laugh. The irony is also delicious, given that such a view of the man would naturally prejudice you and prevent you from being able to see all the ways in which he is pursuing a viciously anti-Catholic policy.

    Of course, as I said before, I’d liken him more to Bismarck than Hitler.

  • As Don Maswell knows, when the entire section of the speech is presented rather than the truncated Hitler and Stalin section, it is clear what the Bishop is referring to:

    “Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room.

    In the late 19th century, Bismark waged his “Kultur Kamp,” a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

    Clemenceau, nicknamed “the priest eater,” tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.

    Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

    In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”

    We have already seen this in Illinois, Obama’s home state, where the State government has gotten the Catholic Church out of adoptions by mandating that homosexuals must be given an equal right to adopt. Other states have implemented legislation mandating the morning after pill be provided at Catholic hospitals. The HHS mandate is part of a pattern of liberal Democrats attempting to control what the Catholic Church does in direct defiance of the teachings of the Catholic Church.

  • “The President is too intelligent and moral a man to do that.”
    As to the President’s intelligence, I will let other commenters deal with that. As to morality he has raised political funds by trumpeting his support of partial birth abortion:

    http://www.jillstanek.com/partial-birth-abortion/michelle-obamas.html

    Abortion, the one cause Obama will not betray for political expediency.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy:) Bonchamps, Bismarck’s Kulturkampf probably would be a closer analogue to the current situation. However, I suspect most members of the general public probably only recognize “bismarck” as a type of filled doughnut. 🙂 (While on the other hand, everyone’s heard of Hitler, so his name tends to get invoked as “close enough,” even if some less well-known historical figure would make a better analogy with whichever politician is being criticized.)

  • You’ll find a very interesting defense of Bishop Jenky at http://www.adoration.com/

Watch Illinois…And Do The Reverse

Friday, April 27, AD 2012

My beloved State of Illinois is a shining example of what not to do if a state wishes to be prosperous, cursed as it is with probably the worst state government in the Union.  George Will sums up the state of my State in a column this week:

After trying to tax Illinois to governmental solvency and economic dynamism, Pat Quinn, a Democrat who has been governor since 2009, now says “our rendezvous with reality has arrived.”

Actually, Illinois is still reality-averse, so Americans may soon learn the importance of the freedom to fail in a system of competitive federalism.

Illinois was more heavily taxed than its five contiguous states (Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Iowa, Wisconsin) even before January 2011, when Quinn got a lame duck Legislature (its successor has fewer Democrats) to raise corporate taxes 30% (from 7.3% to 9.5%), giving Illinois one of the highest state corporate taxes, and the fourth-highest combination of national and local corporate taxation in the industrialized world.

Since 2009, Quinn has spent more than $500 million in corporate welfare to bribe companies not to flee the tax environment he has created.

Quinn raised personal income taxes 67% (from 3% to 5%), adding about $1,040 to the tax burden of a family of four earning $60,000. Illinois’ unemployment rate increased faster than any other state’s in 2011.

Its pension system is the nation’s most underfunded, and the state has floated bond issues to finance pension contributions — borrowing money that someday must be repaid, to replace what should have been pension money it spent on immediate gratifications.

Go here to read the depressing rest.  Illinois is now rated A2 by Moody’s, the lowest credit rating of any state.  When it lowered Illinois’ bond rating Moody’s made the following observation:

Illinois’ general obligation bond rating was lowered to A2 from  A1 on January 6 because of the state’s failure last year to implement  solutions to its largest credit challenges: severe pension under-funding  and chronic bill-payment delays. It remains to be seen whether  the state has the political will to impose new pension reforms and other  measures that restore fiscal strength in the near term.

Not a chance.  No serious reforms will be undertaken until State payroll checks begin to bounce.  Illinois has the worst, most feckless political class in the country.  Louis XV, he of apres moi le deluge, was a dedicated reformer compared to the idiots, crooks and empty suits who misgovern the Land of Lincoln.

 

Continue reading...

46 Responses to Watch Illinois…And Do The Reverse

  • “No serious reforms will be undertaken until State payroll checks begin to bounce.”

    Actually, it’s more like “No serious reforms will be undertaken until the bond markets say “jump” and the State has no choice but to ask “How high?” because the State is so dependent upon short-term borrowing.

    The threat of a bond downgrade was sufficient to get pension plans changes for FUTURE employees (i.e. those hired after 1/1/11) rammed through the General Assembly and signed into law in less than a week last year, before the unions even had a chance to organize a serious protest.

    Now the threat of a further downgrade has Gov. Quinn proposing changes for CURRENT employees and retirees that include raising the retirement age for most state employees from 60 to 67 (That’s actually the age at which one CAN retire though not necessarily with the greatest possible benefits; many wait longer in order to maximize their benefits or get on Social Security or Medicare before retiring). Other possible changes include increasing the share of salary workers contribute to their pensions by 3 percentage points (the employee’s share will go up from 4% to 7% if you are in Social Security, and from 8% to 11% if you are not, like many teachers and university employees) and requiring retirees to pay for all or part of their health insurance.

    Of course, how much of this actually becomes law remains to be seen, as does how much of what DOES become law survives a court challenge based on the clause of the Illinois Constitution that says pensions are a contracted benefit that “cannot be diminished or impaired.”

    If nothing else, however, the proposal has already had one tangible effect: it’s gotten just about every state employee who is eligible to retire now but had been delaying for whatever reason, to consider getting out NOW while the getting is good. My own agency, which has less than 2 dozen people, has had 2 retire in the past year and there are 3 more getting ready to bail out if the pension plan is changed. If one of Quinn’s goals was to trigger a mass exodus of older and higher-paid state workers, he seems to be succeeding in spades.

  • I’ll bet Lincoln is spinning fast enough in his grave to turn a turbine big enough to provide enough power to make fossil fuels obsolete.

  • Meaningful fiscal reform will remain unlikely if the federal government makes
    bailouts an option for irresponsible states like Illinois. With this administration’s
    ties to Illinois, I’d say the politicians in that state have a reasonable expectation
    of not being made responsible for their poor choices.

    Even if a bailout never happens, the perception that the federal government
    would step in, that Illinois is ‘too big to fail’, acts as a drag on meaningful reform.

  • “the perception that the federal government would step in”

    Sorry, but I’m not seeing ANY such perception here on the ground in the Land of Lincoln. I think it MAY be finally starting to sink in that the bag of fiscal tricks is empty and we are on our own.

    A subtle but potentially significant clue: a bill has been introduced and sponsored by none other than powerful House Speaker Mike Madigan, that would abolish the current statutory obligation the State has to subsidize retiree health insurance. If passed and signed, the state COULD, legally, abandon retiree health insurance completely (currently, retirees get subsidized coverage based on their years of service; those who worked 20 years or more get a 100% subsidy and pay nothing for their health insurance).

    My suspicion is that since a direct attack on pension benefits may be hamstrung by the “no diminishment” clause in the State Constitution, the powers that be will instead use health insurance as the vehicle for pension reform. If all the current pension rules stay the same but retirees have to pay full freight for their health insurance, then no one in their right mind will retire until they are old enough to go on Medicare. This would in effect raise the baseline retirement age to at least 65 and prevent people from retiring in their mid to late 50s or early 60s under the current provisions — which is what’s really killing the pension system.

  • Illinois, like the countries of the Eurozone is in trouble. because it is unable to monetize its debt.

    After all, for a government with its own currency, such as the UK or USA, it is immaterial whether its debt is in the form of government bonds or banknotes, except that bank notes are issued in smaller denominations and pay no interest. It is simply exchanging one liability for another.

    Indeed, there is an advantage in replacing bonds with notes, as this increases inflation and erodes the real value of both domestic and foreign debt (providing it is denominated in the currency in question), as a comparison of the purchasing power of the pound or the dollar over the last hundred years will make abundantly plain.

  • George Will has absolutely no political motives. Nor does the Church hierarchy. Politics is the antithesis of Faith, at it best it is hypocritical; it’s only concern is self interest. To mix Faith with political agendas or parties ends with a corruption of Faith. To me it is becoming more and more evident in Catholic culture. A political ideology with a cover of religiousity. Trust in the Holy Spirit not in political motives.

  • Well, Pesqueira, I suppose you have a political agenda judging from these comments that I assume were left by you at the National Catholic Register:

    “Posted by Pesqueira on Friday, Apr 27, 2012 3:08 PM (EST):

    I found the Bishop’s remarks offensive.

    Posted by Pesqueira on Friday, Apr 27, 2012 3:23 PM (EST):

    In the name of the Holy Spirit, I found the Bishops remarks purposely inciting and offensive.”

    Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-jenkys-assessment-of-religious-liberty-battle-raises-question-about/#ixzz1tMaKMSW2

    How you pulled in the Holy Spirit to support your opposition to Bishop Jenky’s comments attacking the HHS Mandate is beyond me, but I assume that you and the Holy Spirit, in your opinion, see eye to eye on politics.

  • I stand by my statements. Unlike some my Faith dictates not politics. Nor do I not hide an agenda or use my Faith to express a political opinions unlike some.

    My “beloved state” sounds designed to garner sympathy. Perhaps sympathy for a political agenda? Your words.

  • As far as the Bishops words, his defenders state he was alluding to a progression of a policy when comparing the President to Hitler and Stalin. Is the Bishop a prophet that he sees the future? If not he has maligned the President. Maligning someone is tantamount to bearing false witness, a mortal sin. I donot condone his statement. I do not stop anyone else from invoking the Holy Spirit. Perhaps if you were so certain of your rhetoric you not be so fearful about doing so.

  • My use of the phrase “beloved state” Pesqueira was to convey that I love my native state where I have lived all but three years of my life.

    “Unlike some my Faith dictates not politics. Nor do I not hide an agenda or use my Faith to express a political opinions unlike some.”

    Yep, just you and the Holy Spirit handing down the Truth from on high. Got it.

  • correction – Perhaps if you were so certain of your rhetoric you might not be so fearful about doing so.

    Thanks for the interest in my comments. I wish I could say the same.

  • “Perhaps if you were so certain of your rhetoric you not be so fearful about doing so.”

    I tend to think that my political opinions and those of God might not coincide, so I tend not to invoke the Holy Spirit when expressing a political opinion as you did. In regard to Bishop Jenky, he mentioned Hitler and Stalin as granting some churches tolerance as long as the churches limited themselves to performing religious services while the State is controling everything else. That is the type of religious freedom that Obama believes in.

  • I often invoke the name of the Holy Spirit in prayer. Do you have a problem with that?

  • “Thanks for the interest in my comments. I wish I could say the same.”

    You came to my blog Pesqueira and I did not seek you out. I assume you read the post you commented upon, so that indicates some interest on your part. As to your comments, yes I found them fascinating as I rarely see anyone invoking the Holy Spirit to lend support to what they are stating in a combox.

  • “I often invoke the name of the Holy Spirit in prayer. Do you have a problem with that?”

    Not at all Pesqueira. You were not praying however when you attacked the comments of Bishop Jenky and enlisted the Holy Spirit to support your statement.

  • “That is the type of religious freedom that Obama believes in.’

    I have no idea what President Obama believes in these regards. What I know is that the Constitution limits the power of the executive in many ways, one being term limits. Term limits would never allow any President to become a despot as implied by the Bishop.

    Religious freedom is also guaranteed by the Constitution so your argument that the President can supercede the Constitution is fear mongering.

  • “You were not praying however when you attacked the comments of Bishop Jenky and enlisted the Holy Spirit to support your statement.

    “That is the type of religious freedom that Obama believes in.”

    Assumptions on you part. You seem to think that you know what people are thinking.

  • Assumptions on you part. You seem to think that you know what people are thinking.

    It tells me something about a person when they make assumptions about people they do not know.

  • “Term limits would never allow any President to become a despot as implied by the Bishop. ”

    Obama is a symptom Pesqueira and not the disease. The mentality he reflects, that the Church must bend to whatever the State dictates, is very much alive among the elites in our society.

    “Religious freedom is also guaranteed by the Constitution so your argument that the President can supercede the Constitution is fear mongering.”

    Which is not an argument that I nor the Bishop have made Pesqueira. Our argument is that the HHS mandate violates the First Amendment. However, the fact that a law is unconstitutional is no guarantee that it will not be enforced. It was clearly unconstitional for the Supreme Court to overturn all laws against abortion in Roe v. Wade, but the Court did it nonetheless and deemed the laws to be unconstitional rather than the Court’s usurpation of power.

  • “Assumptions on you part. You seem to think that you know what people are thinking.”

    No, I know what Obama has done in this area and that is why I made my statement.

  • “It tells me something about a person when they make assumptions about people they do not know.”

    It tells me rather more when someone clearly has a political agenda, claims not to have a political agenda, and enlists the Holy Spirit to support that political agenda.

  • Just say in the name of the Holy Spirit I believe all that I have stated is not done for a political purpose as I have done. Much like testifying in a court of law, then I will believe you are sincere. If you can not do that I will continue to doubt your veracity.

    Stop with the accusations and assumptions.

  • Politics hiding behind religiousity.

  • “Just say in the name of the Holy Spirit I believe all that I have stated is not done for a political purpose as I have done.”

    No, for two reasons. First, because I believe it is near blasphemy to invoke the Holy Spirit in almost all political discussions, and your doing so I find extremely distasteful. Second, I have a political agenda. I want the State of Illinois to elect new leadership since the current political class has spent the State into near bankrupcy.

  • “Politics hiding behind religiousity.”

    Yes, Pesqueira, you really need to stop doing this.

  • “Obama is a symptom Pesqueira and not the disease. The mentality he reflects, that the Church must bend to whatever the State dictates, is very much alive among the elites in our society.”

    Sympoms of a disease. I am reminded of a glass house and a parable about a twig and a log. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I make no apologies for expressing a truth and have no problems enlisting the protection of the Holy Spirit when doing so.

  • “Yes, Pesqueira, you really need to stop doing this.”

    You first.

  • “I make no apologies for expressing a truth and have no problems enlisting the protection of the Holy Spirit when doing so.”

    You expressed no truth, but rather an opinion. I doubt if the Holy Spirit has any interest in protecting your political opinions, but you obviously have a direct pipeline to what is on the mind of the Holy Spirit so perhaps I am mistaken.

  • “In the name of the Holy Spirit, I found the Bishops remarks purposely inciting and offensive.”

    Is this statement you consider political? I don’t see it.

  • “You first.”

    Truly a bizarre comment since you intervened in a combox discussion about a purely secular topic.

  • We all have a direct line, some chose not to use it. Tell me that’s not true.

  • “Is this statement you consider political? I don’t see it.”

    More is the pity.

  • “We all have a direct line, some chose not to use it. Tell me that’s not true.”

    On almost all political topics Pesqueira, it isn’t. The Holy Spirit has bigger fish to catch.

  • “Truly a bizarre comment since you intervened in a combox discussion about a purely secular topic.”

    Resorting to attacks again instead of defending your use of religiousity to promote a political agenda.

  • R”esorting to attacks again instead of defending your use of religiousity to promote a political agenda.”

    Nope, making a simple statement of fact. My post was on a purely secular issue and no one breathed a word about religion until your initial comment.

  • On almost all political topics Pesqueira, it isn’t. The Holy Spirit has bigger fish to catch.

    The Holy Spirit doesn’t care about the size of the fish. None too small.

  • “The Holy Spirit doesn’t care about the size of the fish. None too small.”

    I keep forgetting that the Holy Spirit guides your political stances, so I guess I will have to stand corrected.

  • Mac!

    Don’t you have something more pleasurable to do?

    Like cleaning out the gutters, or scouring the toilets?

    I’m watching ND Men’s (#4) Lacrosse play Syracuse on ESPNU.

  • After getting paid all week to argue T.Shaw, one would think that I would have my fill of it, but, alas, that is often not the case!

  • I get it.

    I get paid to annoy people, as necessary.

    Pity my poor wife.

    ND defense is excellent and the goalie has made two spectacular saves. Our Lady is ahead 4 – 0.

  • “I believe it is near blasphemy to invoke the Holy Spirit in almost all political discussions”

    Then Gov. Quinn himself might have skated pretty close when he said, in reference to the pension reform plan, “I know that I was put on earth to get this done.”

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-20/news/chi-quinn-wants-government-workers-to-pay-more-toward-retirement-20120420_1_state-pension-pat-quinn-today-pension-funding-crisis

  • Quinn and blasphemy are old drinking buddies Elaine:

    “Governor Quinn recently announced that, on November 17, he will be presenting an award during a luncheon sponsored by Personal PAC, a pro-abortion, non-partisan political action committee.

    Quinn’s argument in defense of his decision is that it is the “proper, Christian thing to do.” The female recipient, Jennie Goodman, to whom Quinn is presenting the award is a victim of rape who, according to Quinn, is a very strong advocate for helping women who have been sexually assaulted. But regardless of this woman’s heroism and desire to help other victims, the point is that even though Goodman did not have to choose to abort her own child because she did not get pregnant as a result of the rape, she associates herself with a state-wide pro-abortion organization. She appeared in a political ad prior to the last election, speaking out as a victim of rape and against the pro-life Republican running against Quinn. ”

    http://www.all.org/article/index/id/OTQ2OQ

  • Getting back on topic, consider this: the proposal that caused teacher’s unions all over the nation to go nuclear on Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was to have teachers START paying their 6.2% (of income) share of their pension instead of making local school districts pay that. In Illinois, teachers ALREADY contribute 8% or more (unless the local school district picks up the cost — some do, some don’t) and Quinn’s proposal would raise that to 11% or more. Also, Illinois teachers are NOT in the Social Security system, while (I think) Wisconsin teachers are. So tell me again, who’s the real bad guy here (from a labor union point of view)? Methinks the union protesters who turned out in Springfield to protest Gov. Walker’s speech to a business group should have focused their wrath a bit closer to home….

  • T Shaw.

    Mac!
    Don’t you have something more pleasureable to do?”

    Oh, I think, after a hard week plying his profession, Don was having some light relief fun, T Shaw. A bit like a cat playing with a mouse 😉

  • Pesqueira,

    If you do come back, I remind you that it is a cardinal sin to take the Lord’s name in vain specifically in support of one’s own idiosyncratic interpretations. It is a violation of the Second Commandment. Since Jesus Christ alluded to the terrible fate awaiting those who go against the Holy Spirit, I am rather afraid of Him and would counsel you not take these matters lightly.

  • Pesqueira

    “We all have a direct line, some chose not to use it. Tell me that’s not true.”

    As Joseph Butler, the celebrated Anglican divine, philosopher and apologist, as Bishop of Bristol said to John Wesley, the noted ranter and enthusiast, “Any pretension to revelations or gifts of the Holy Spirit is a horrid thing, sir, a very horrid thing.”

For Your Weekend

Friday, April 27, AD 2012

I have a long weekend and very busy next-week ahead of me, so I won’t be here posting and commenting for a few days. Until then, enjoy this music! Amadeus is one of my favorite films, and Mozart one of my favorite composers. Here is the full finale of the opera that had “too many notes.”

Have a wonderful weekend TAC!

Continue reading...

One Response to For Your Weekend

33 Responses to Paul Ryan: A Catholic Champion For Liberty?

  • I am surprised that I agree with you. But I would completely oppose Ron Paul about whom you wrote, “Nor can I possibly count my political support for Ron Paul as support for the GOP…” He’s delusional and anti-semitic. And the GOP is infinitely preferrable to the Demokratik Party of Marxism, Atheism, Homosexuality and Abortion. True, God’s kingdom isn’t of this world and the GOP isn’t the party of God, but the Demokratik Party is the party of satan.

    Romney 2012, NOT Obama. That’s our choice, like it or not.

  • The complexity of the tax code is the result of several things, one of them of course attempts at social engineering – at least in the sense of rewarding those actions the drafter sees as positive, and punishing that seen as negative. But another big driver of the complexity is the attempt to “work around” the tax code. The code will tax a transaction X, so taxpayers (at least those who can afford advisors), structure the transaction as Y. The IRS picks up on this and gets the code changed to now address Y. Then the taxpayers start to use Z, and so on.

    How much of the second complicating factor can be eliminated by “simplifying” the code is difficult to gauge. Regardless, my hat’s off to Ryan if he is truly sincere about incorporating CST into the fed budget. Even if he is not particularly successful, at least he is taking it into account and making the effort.

  • I suppose when the entire world is crazy, the one sane man would appear delusional.

  • c matt is correct about the Code, but the other driver of complexity is fairness. Fairness and simplicity are often not in alignment. After all, the simplest tax would be a head tax, but few people would consider that fair. There are other drivers of course, such as the desire to hide true tax incidence by taxing business entities which pass on these costs through some unknowable combination of reduced earnings/dividends, higher prices, or reduced wages, all accomplished somewhat organically and randomly. Trust me there are lots of others having to do with accounting complexity and division of tax bases among jurisdictions, etc. Any CPA (or even accounting major) knows that accounting rules and theory are not simple and can be subject to debate and uncertainty; it stands to reason that taxes will be at least as difficult.

  • “I suppose when the entire world is crazy, the one sane man would appear delusional.”

    Anti-semitic, conspiracy theorist Ron Paul is still delusion by any sane standard.

  • That’s a great Ryan quote. I’m sure I’ll use it when the old charge of objectivism resurfaces.

  • It could be just me, but Ryan sounds like he’d be a great running mate for a presidential candidate with no fiscal/business experience.

  • Truly pathetic turnout of protestors against Paul Ryan during his speech at Georgetown:

    http://twitchy.com/2012/04/26/protest-outside-of-paul-ryans-speech-at-georgetown-univ-lacks-actual-protesters/

    The Left just can’t turn out the numbers anymore for their street theater, even at a liberal university like Georgetown.

  • Mr. McClarey: Failing to “man the barricades”, er, get protesters to show up for a demonstration, is one result of over-dependence on slackers. See Instapundit

  • You know you are living in strange times when a politician does more to explain Catholic social teaching in a year than the bishops have done in over four decades.

    Like I said before, among the many things I like about Paul Ryan, his clear understanding of the importance of taking the Catholic social justice mantle away from the left and his efforts to do just that is far and away the thing I lke the most.

  • Pingback: LCWR Medjugorje Armenian Genocide Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie | ThePulp.it
  • Paul P.,

    Your comments about Ron Paul are the most delusional thing here.

    Charges of “anti-Semitism” are the last refuge of political scoundrels.

    This is what I think of 99% of the pathetic whining about “anti-Semitism”:

    http://youtu.be/TYZBKqemQrU

  • That said, I bloody well know that the options are Mitt vs. Barack. And I’ll probably vote for Mitt, only because of Obama’s assault on the Church – otherwise I was going to stay home or vote Constitution Party.

    What Ron Paul has accomplished is setting the stage for Rand Paul in 2016.

  • Bonchamps,

    We’ll agree to disagree.

  • Oh yes, we most certainly will.

  • Paul,

    If you think I haven’t already heard about and rejected this nonsense, you’re denser than I thought.

    Ron Paul isn’t a racist or an anti-Semite. I will not “wash my hands of him.” I’ve seen the charges against him and I’ve already decided “not guilty”, so you are completely and totally wasting your time with this garbage.

  • Wow! Believe what you want. I am done with this thread. No more reading what you say.

  • Fine with me! You have a nice day.

  • Ron Paul, nuttier than a fruitcake.

    http://hoystory.com/?p=7411

  • I will say that anyone, as Ron Paul did, who equates the U.S. going into Pakistan without their permission to kill bin Laden (never mind the fact there is good evidence that he was being harbored by the Pakistani government and would have been tipped off by them) with agents of the Chinese government doing the same to kill a Chinese dissident or that a nuclear armed Iran poses no threat has no business running for office of any kind.

  • I don’t want to debate foreign policy or Ron Paul here.

    I’ll post about both in the future and we can discuss them then.

  • On page 3 of The Catholic Herald, Superior Diocese, the headline reads, “Ryan budget proposal worries bishops”.

  • “You know you are living in strange times when a politician does more to explain Catholic social teaching in a year than the bishops have done in over four decades.”

    “On page 3 of The Catholic Herald, Superior Diocese, the headline reads, ‘Ryan budget proposal worries bishops’.”

    I would suggest the latter has something to do with the former. I might also suggest that the latter is due to a rather selective reading of CST by most bishops and the former, at a minimum, a lack of desire to teach the fullness of CST.

  • What he says seems pretty solid but why is he on the Democratic party?

  • Here is a budget indicator which ought to really worry Bishops.

    The US economy (GDP) last QTR grew by $142.4 billion. The US public debt grew $359.1 billion.

    This illustrates the fact that takers are taking 2.5x faster than makers are making.

    “The poor will always be with you.” Soon, we all will be poor.

  • “The US economy (GDP) last QTR grew by $142.4 billion. The US public debt grew $359.1 billion. ”

    One doesn’t need to be a rocket scientist or a nuclear engineer to understand simple arithmetic. Thus will the Gospel of Social Justice die under the burgeoning and inexorable weight of its own illogic. Sadly, too many innocent victims will be (and are being) taken along for the ride.

  • I have unapproved several comments because Bonchamps will not be around to respond, and since several of these comments are critical of him, I believe it only fair that he deal with them as he sees fits.

    The American Catholic is a group blog. Each of us deal with comments in our threads as we deem best. I would note also that we each determine the topic of our posts and normally we do our best to keep the comments on topic. This thread was about Paul Ryan, and not Ron Paul, and I believe Bonchamps made it clear that he did not want to debate the merits or demerits of Ron Paul in this thread. That declaration of his should be respected by commenters on this thread. Let us also avoid personal attacks. That is not what this blog is for. Bonchamps is a talented writer and an original thinker and he has much to contribute to the blog. So everyone take a deep breath. I will be around this weekend and if any of our commenters wish to cross swords with anyone my threads are always available! 🙂

  • “On page 3 of The Catholic Herald, Superior Diocese, the headline reads, ‘Ryan budget proposal worries bishops’.”

    I am still hoping (against hope itself perhaps) that what Ryan is doing will force the bishops to actually address the issue of subsidiarity and its importance in a proper understanding of CST. If they had taken the opportunity during the Obamacare debate as well as at other times in the past to do that, we probably wouldn’t have had this HHS mandate problem to deal with. It seems they have thus far chosen to stick with being ideologues as oppsed to pastors and teachers on this issue and others like it.

  • The left often crows about “income disparity”, although income disparity is not, in and of itself, a problem. After all, if I am satisfied and reasonably comfortable with the my income, why should I care about the disparity between mine and some super rich guy?

    But there is a real disparity problem. And that is what we spend on these so-called entitlement programs and what actually goes to the recepient. I would like to see people like Ryan point these things out in a way that the common person can understand. I suspect if people knew how bad this particular problem is, they would clamour for something that would make Ryan’s budget like modest by comparison in terms of cuts in actual spending.

    To be sure, the next Reagan does not seem to be on the conservative horizon. But you don’t have to be Reagan to do many of the things Reagan did. One of which was the clear persistent pedagogical appraoch he took in making his case to the American public.

    In any event, I am optimistic about what Ryan is doing and that there is more where that coame from.

  • I simply cannot get ENOUGH of our bishops wondrous proclamations about politicos such as Paul Ryan and Arizona’s state legislators for example. Arizona’s resolute need to control its deluge of illegal immigrants prompted Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahony to the cheers of other such Catholic pro illegal immigration advocates, to comment that Arizona immigration law is, essentially, akin to Nazism. The bishops’ who responded to Ryan’s budget proposal are as equally misguided, and they illustrate a manifest tunnel vision blindness to the practicalities of real governance. What they, and the organizations they foster, have themselves deemed necessary to do in light of Catholic America’s fiscal and moral crises of the last three decades, and to some degree by virtue of their own ineptitude; lock church doors or close the church altogether, close hospitals, schools, convents, seminaries, and adoption agencies is nothing that they would ever seemingly permit government similarly do. As one who has tried to avidly defend our beautiful Church against the onslaught of accusations from this secular, all the more atheistic society of ours, I in general find that the bishops make it ever so difficult to succeed at it.

  • Pingback: Paul Ryan and Catholic Social Teaching (Roundup) | The American Catholic

Nanny State Down on the Farm

Thursday, April 26, AD 2012

 

Proving once again that nothing must be outside of the control of Leviathan, the Obama Labor Department has proposed the following:

A proposal from the Obama administration to prevent children from doing farm  chores has drawn plenty of criticism from rural-district members of Congress.  But now it’s attracting barbs from farm kids themselves.

The Department of Labor is poised to put the finishing touches on a rule that  would apply child-labor laws to children working on family farms, prohibiting  them from performing a list of jobs on their own families’ land.

Under the rules, children under 18 could no longer work “in the storing,  marketing and transporting of farm product raw materials.”

I have lived in rural Illinois all of my life.  My family was not fortunate enough to own a family farm, but I did agricultural labor for cash from the sixth grade on up, through the summer after my first year in law school.  I found out three things from this experience:  1.  I loved earning money;  2.  Farm work was hard and I didn’t want to be doing it for the rest of my life;  3.  Showing up on time and working hard was 90% of doing well on a job.  I benefited quiet a bit from those simple lessons, in addition to getting a lot of exercise and gaining respect for how hard it is to make a living from farming.  Now the federal government has decreed that kids, even in many cases on farms of their own families, should not have these opportunities.   The only possible response to this is for me to once again summon the shade of the late Ray Walston:

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Nanny State Down on the Farm

  • Would this rule simply go into effect? What’s the mechanism here?

  • Donald,

    Have you ever gotten into any of the (so called) anti-Federalist papers? There are many good (and telling) passages – one in particular which I think had much more force with the passage of income tax is from Brutus #6 on taxation – http://constitution.org/afp/brutus06.htm – namely:

    “This power, exercised without limitation, will introduce itself into every comer of the city, and country — It will wait upon the ladies at their toilett, and will not leave them in any of their domestic concerns; it will accompany them to the ball, the play, and the assembly; it will go with them when they visit, and will, on all occasions, sit beside them in their carriages, nor will it desert them even at church; it will enter the house of every gentleman, watch over his cellar, wait upon his cook in the kitchen, follow the servants into the parlour, preside over the table, and note down all he eats or drinks; it will attend him to his bed-chamber, and watch him while he sleeps; it will take cognizance of the professional man in his office, or his study; it will watch the merchant in the counting-house, or in his store; it will follow the mechanic to his shop, and in his work, and will haunt him in his family, and in his bed; it will be a constant companion of the industrious farmer in all his labour, it will be with him in the house, and in the field, observe the toil of his hands, and the sweat of his brow; it will penetrate into the most obscure cottage; and finally, it will light upon the head of every person in the United States. To all these different classes of people, and in all these circumstances, in which it will attend them, the language in which it will address them, will be GIVE! GIVE!”

  • Anything that teaches personal responsibility and accountability is opposed by the Obama Administration. Any that teaches libertine license without personal responsibility and accountability is not just supported, but encouraged.

    “Though they know God’s decree that those who do such things deserve to die, they not only do them but approve those who practice them.” Romans 1:32

  • Because destroying what little profitability farms still have and ruining the training of the next generation of farmers is obviously the best way to build up the economy.

  • “Have you ever gotten into any of the (so called) anti-Federalist papers?”

    Other than what Patrick Henry wrote, not really. The quote from “Brutus” has certainly proved prophetic.

  • More on the proposed regulations from Senator Jerry Moran (R. Kan.):

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75364.html

  • In related news, Farm Fascism erupts like an irritated cyst in Michigan:

    http://kellythekitchenkop.com/2012/04/where-oh-where-has-common-sense-gone-communism-anyone.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+kellythekitchenkop+%28Kelly+the+Kitchen+Kop%29

    This is not an isolated incident. The FDA and various state agencies pair up with large-scale producers to quash family farms and dairies on a regular basis in the name of “food safety” even though there isn’t a shred of evidence they can use to support their jackbooted tactics.

  • The legacy of Hamilton and Lincoln lives on. (will be surprised if this gets by the censors).

  • Hard work on a family farm gives children a respect for work and a skill for solving problems. No keyholed skills are allowed, they become Jacks of all Trades and are able to cope in good weather and bad. No mamby pambies on the farm. It’s raining, do your chores. It’s snowing, do your chores. It’s Sunday, do your chores. It’s dark, and early, do your chores. It’s a school day, do your chores.

    It’s a very practical way to earn an Engineering degree without leaving home.

  • Ah, the letters of Robert Yates, aka Brutus.

    He became my favorite “founding father” (anti-founder, perhaps) as I studied early American history.

    He was absolutely right about the impossibility of a large republic remaining a republic for very long. Republics that endure for centuries are small, like the Italian city-states. A confederation of republics could theoretically work as well.

    We will find out this June if the Constitution is the least bit relevant in actually securing the rights and liberties of the people when the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare. If Obamacare is Constitutional, then anything is. The Wickard v. Filburn case during FDR’s time already pretty much established the theoretical grounds for a command and control economy; Obamacare would be the full fruition of what started then.

  • As a farm woman all my life, and having raised 6 children, all still living on the farm with their families this is a little ditty we have been fighting ever since BO came into office. The the thing is people, they want the small farmers off the land. They have done everything to make life harder and harder to contend with. We are so regulated, and taxpayer funded that they think they now have these rights. Without our children and their friends and our grandchildren we would never have been able to keep this farm going. Because of their devotion to our way of life they were each given a piece of land to start their lives with if they chose. We never could pay them a regular wage and as I used to tell them, “this is a FAMILY farm”. Not one turned down the acreage. Our oldest is 43 and the youngest is 32 with the middle son and his family running the operation now. If they take this right away from family farmers it will destroy the remaining small farmers left. There is no way we can pay outside help and hang onto the land. All new wealth comes from the land. Who controls the land controls the people. They determine who eats and who doesn’t. In the 1950’s Agriculture Think Tanks were initiated to figure out every conceivable way to “force farmers(ie small) off the land”. One notable quote by Professor Kenneth E Boulding was that “we will squeeze them like toothpast out of a tube”. If this law passes, it will end working with the animals, 4-H, every conceivable farm job there. Our kids have milked cows, fed cows, pigs, beef cattle, chickens and horses since they were at least 5. They have baled hay, combined, worked up the land with every piece of machinery on this farm Our granchildren bring great big football players out here every summer to pitch manure and throw bales. They love it and want to come back. That will all stop. along with the unique opportunity to see what goes on to feed this world. They love to gather around the table at noon, and hear the stories and eat and eat and eat. I don’t think the general population realizes how close we are to losing control of the food supply in this country. It is not normal for 500-8000 cow dairy herds. It is not normal for cattle to be standing with thousands of other cattle being forced fed and shot up with meds to keep them calm and grow them faster. It is not normal for grains to be grown on hundreds of thousands of acres and never rotated or contoured for the health of the land and the plant. This has all been carefully programmed and instituted by every adminstration to seize control of the land and along with it the food supply of this country. Look at Russia, look at any of the Third World countries. They had the capablitiy to take care of their own until the “planners and controllers” took them over. It is here, and this is just the tip of the ice berg. Some of us have outsmarted them and they are really ***!!!! over it. They know this will kill the canary and they can stand wiping the blood of the American food system off their evil hands. Land control= food control=people control=birthcontrol=abortion on demand=death with dignity. It’s all there if you want to study your history. All most farmers have ever wanted is a fair price at the farm gate. Instead we have had nothing but more and more government control. Instead of farmers we became “agri-business people”. Instead of farm animals, we now have “production control units”. It’s pretty darn scary. With this fuel situation every thing you eat is affected. EVERYTHING. I just hope that the American public can rise up and see what we have been hoodwinked with. If you eat, you are involved!

  • Jeanne Rohl :
    Outstanding comments Jeanne Rohl. May God Bless you and yours.

  • It would be an interetsing exercise to see where the “Farm Aid” music folks are on this. *snort*

  • My dad used to say: Gold and land, the two things God is not making any more of. Jeanne Rohl, my heart is breaking for you. I am from New Jersey, where the “government” was taking farms at eminent domain at below value with tax payers’ money and reselling the farms to their buddies. The Cornell Dairy Farm, five generations, the Otken farm, four generations and founding members of North Brunswick, and parts of Michael Smith’s farm, three generations. Michale Smith’s farm was a cranberry bog of which the EPA took 40 acres as “wetlands”. These went into housing developments. But wait until the “government” tells you what kind of genetically engineered seeds you will plant (Monsanto). Through Executive Order 13575 Rural Councils Obama has taken the unauthorized authority to take any private property at will without compensation, without the consent of Congress. Cass Sunstein has written many books on making animals sovereign persons and givng them legal status and civil rights. This will enable Obama to seize livestock and further take control of our food chain. It is not coming. It is already here.

  • Jeanne Rohl it amazes me that farmers cannot even grow their own seed. How did this control happen? I grew up in MO, both grands owned farms, small in acreage but large enough to sustain them and enough left over to take to market for a little “egg” money.
    I married a farmer/engineer and we farmed the family farm the first year of our marriage. He also was a member of the National Guard, burning the candle at both ends and in the middle. The farm is still in the family. They run 48 row planters via GPS which amazes me, but they are not wealthy by any imagination and probably owe their souls to the company store. I wonder how many more generations of our kin will be farmers. Sad to think.

    As of last year we have planted a garden and are considering growing chickens, with maybe a goat thrown in to save on lawn maintenance. It may be a very long winter, even if O loses cause he’ll be like a tiger backed into a corner.

    Lord, give us just and reasoning men to represent us.

  • “Would this rule simply go into effect? What’s the mechanism here?”

    From what I understand of federal rulemaking processes, the answer to your first question is “yes.” When federal agencies promulgate rules, they allow a period of public comment (usually 60 to 90 days) before the rule takes effect, and then they adopt it. Period. A federal agency has no obligation to modify a rule in response to said comment. No one outside an agency, except Congress and the President, can force an agency to revise its rules, and Congress can only do so by changing the federal law underlying the rule in question. (The Blunt Amendment was an attempt to do just that with regard to the HHS mandate.)

    At the state level, however, most states (41 or 42 last time I counted) have some kind of oversight agency which reviews regulations of state executive agencies before they take effect. (I work for one, that’s why I know more than I ever wanted to know about rulemaking 🙂 The oversight agency may consist of a committee of legislators, or of other appointed officials. In some states the oversight committee/agency has authority to prevent rules from taking effect unless changes are made; in other states it is merely advisory. If Congress had a similar agency to oversee federal rulemaking and there were Congressmen or Senators from one or more farm states sitting on the committee, chances are this rule would have been nipped in the bud.

  • Wouldn’t child labor laws apply only if the child draws a pay check?

  • Seems that the Osama Admin has blinked on this one.

  • “The decision to withdraw this rule – including provisions to define the ‘parental exemption’ – was made in response to thousands of comments expressing concerns about the effect of the proposed rules on small family-owned farms.”

    The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. Turn your back on these people for one moment, and you will lose everything. At least we know they can be swayed by public pressure. At least in some cases.

  • Thanks, Elaine.

    “Lord, give us just and reasoning men to represent us.” If such men exist . . . I believe that “just and reasoning” and “politican” are now mutually exclusive.

    Better yet, Lord give us the strength to tear down Leviathan and rely solely on You.

  • I want to see what would happen if a kid would refuse to follow this law, what would they do? arrest him?

  • Valentin: They would arrest and charge his parents with violating the rule, child endangerment, unfit parent, they would throw the book at them. The child is not old enough to have informed consent except for abortion and sexual activity, in the eyes of the government.

  • Just had to make a few comments. First of all I know all about the “monsanto” devil. I have suffered for many years from chronic leukemia caused by being poisoned by a chemical called “Thimet”(bug killer) and human killer. Monsanto knows of thousands of folks out here who have inhaled this garbage before it was recognized as dangerous and precautions were advised when working with it. My mistake was working fields to the north of property owned by an adverstising executive(from Mo who nevers sees his property) who sends a crew in to plant corn on corn on corn year after year. What takes us several weeks takes them about a day. They dump every kind of chemical on it possible and come back in the fall to harvest. At the time I could smell this smell as it was a windy day and the wind what coming out of the west. That night I could smell a bad smell in my skin. I asked my husband if he could smell this odor and I held my hand out to him(after a shower) and he said, “You smell like Thimet!” It led to one long life of being miserable putting up with every ridiculous ailment. I had never been sick a day in my life! It hasn’t killed me yet but it has made my life pretty miserable. Monsanto will never accept responsibility and recently when lawsuits have made it to the courts the latest judge ruled against the farmers. Monsanto is too important to the world is how I would paraphrase her ruling and I was thinking “people are just collateral damage”. Anyway the privately owned farm land in this country is so minimal now and the number of family type farms are in such peril, which tells me the real food source is in peril. The genetically modified brand of Monsanto is such that it will rule the world and is causing much sickness in many South American countries. Many of these places have pure strains of corn which are being mutanated(my word) by the exposure to cross pollination from the poisoned corn. Children who walk past these huge fields of government or multinational organizations or companie owned are experiencing these diseases as well as sores on their little bodies. We can plant a seed that is not tainted but everyone around us which are mega farms uses the gmo seeds so it makes it hard. So there’s a little of what I know about that. The great migration from the family farm of the 20’s and 30’s was not because of ineffiency of family farms but the realization of these think tankers that it was gonna be darn hard to GET THEM off their farms and only through government coersion would they succeed. The great love of the land and what folks would go through to hang on to it they didn’t expect. Land is power. What else has every war ever been fought over. The great “planners and thinkers of our government and land grant colleges” had to figure out how to shove their progressive ideas into the American system. You talk about your Alinsky, your Soros, these and their forebearers are the defining movement to get the people off the land. Land is power, land is money, land is ultimate control Think of what the land provides(God Almighty) No food, no oil, no gold, no silver, no urnaium, no coal, no natural gas, no fish, no sand, no gravel no water. the list goes on and on. The situation of the food and fiber of this country is in such grave danger. Oh it looks like they pulled back on the labor rule for now but they will keep trying.

Mark Clark-Almost the First American Ambassador to the Vatican-On What’s My Line

Thursday, April 26, AD 2012

“A few days after the liberation of Rome, Lieutenant General Mark Clark, Commander of the Fifth Allied Army, paid his respects to the Pope: “I am afraid you have been disturbed by the noise of my tanks. I am sorry.” Pius XII smiled and replied: “General, any time you come to liberate Rome, you can make just as much noise as you like.””

The show What’s My Line makes a rather good time capsule for informal looks at major figures in mid twentieth century  American history.  On February 19, 1956 General Mark Clark, commander of the US Fifth Army in the Italian campaign during World War II, and commander of the United Nations forces in Korea from May 12, 1952 to the truce ending the conflict., appeared on the show.

It is an ironic commentary on the relative obscurity of the Italian campaign during World War II that the panelists were unable to guess his identity.  Clark was nominated by President Truman to be the first ambassador of the United States to the Vatican due to his excellent personal war time relationship with Pope Pius XII.  Opposition by Protestant groups and powerful Senator Thomas Connolly of Texas caused Truman to shelve the plan. 

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Mark Clark-Almost the First American Ambassador to the Vatican-On What’s My Line

  • I Knew that Truman sent the first US representative to the Holy See but not that he wanted to give him ambassadorial rank. Not bad for a 32nd degree [?] Mason who once flirted with the Klan.

  • One of Truman’s best friends was Monsignor L. Curtis Tiernan who served as chaplain in the 129th Field Artillery during World War I along with Captain Harry Truman. During World War II, Tiernan became chief of chaplains in the European Theater of Operations. Many of the men under Truman’s direct command in World War I were Irish Catholic and he got along famously with them. When it came to Catholics Truman had absolutely no prejudice.

  • General Clark, RIP, was not (I think) a Roman Catholic. it shows how rabidly anti-Catholic some were.

    One of my mother’s uncles was in the same division as Audie Murphy – they had the “record” of being (I think) 56 days in the line.

    Italy was so not well known: maybe because it was a bloody, slow meat grinder. German propaganda leaflets calculated Allied “progress” and estimated they’d reach the Po Valley by 1972.

    One assault across the Rapido River killed a regiment in 20 minutes. Darby’s Ranger battalion was destroyed in one day at Anzio. See Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle.

  • Was not Fr. John Bannon first American to the Vatican…at the personal request of President Davis in 1863?:

    http://www.usgennet.org/usa/mo/county/stlouis/johnbannon.htm
    http://www.pricecamp.org/kelly.htm

    I suppose there could be others I am unaware of.

  • The US had consular relations with the Holy See from the time of George Washington.

    More on Father John Bannon and his diplomatic mission linked below:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/01/16/father-john-b-bannon-confederate-chaplain-and-diplomat/

    Archbishop John Hughes, better known as Dagger John, served as Abraham Lincoln’s personal envoy to the Holy See in 1862.

    http://almostchosenpeople.wordpress.com/2011/04/20/dagger-john-and-honest-abe/

  • It should be remembered that the ‘liberation’ of Rome was not a strategic priority and Clark deliberately disobeyed clear orders in order to indulge his vanity and egotism. The whole thing was a publicity stunt and one can take some satisfaction from the fact that his ‘triumph’ of 5 June 1944 was eclipsed by events in another theatre the following day. This, however, was of no comfort to the Allied troops who lost their lives as a result of his selfish and vainglorious behaviour.

    He should have been relieved of his command, but his superior, Harold Alexander, was weak-willed and overly diplomatic, and Clark was a favourite of Churchill’s. Winston’s main fault was always his poor character judgement. Among his favoured generals was another whose talent for self-publicity was greater than his military abilities. I refer of course to Bernard Law Montgomery.

  • Pingback: Aquinas College of Nashville Planned Parenthood Satan | ThePulp.it
  • No dissing of the” American Eagle” John! 🙂 Basically your criticism is just, although I think it was less than clear at the time that Clark’s decision to take Rome was the mistake it turned out to be in hindsight. Here is a good overview:

    http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_14.htm

    As for Montgomery, I rate him fairly highly. I think his Market-Garden plan was brilliant although the execution was wanting. I also agree with this Churchill quote about Montgomery: “Indomitable in retreat, invincible in advance, insufferable in victory.”

  • General Clark had some pretty rough going in Italy what with Salerno, Anzio, Monte Cassino.

  • True Richard. In retrospect I think the whole Italian campaign was a mistake. That deducts not an iota from the courage of the men who struggled there, but the campaign simply allowed the Axis, at minimal cost, to tie down immense Allied resources and men.

  • Don, I have to agree. I don’t think either the Americans or the British in the Second World War ever established a qualitative superiority over their German adversaries in the way the BEF did in 1917 and 1918. It was arguably different in the Far East, and I would rate Bill Slim as the most capable British general of the war.

    The British in particular seem to have lacked the offensive spirit which carried their fathers to victory in August – November 1918. And political and personal rivalries bedevilled the Allies in WW II. Eisenhower emerges with credit; I don’t think you can say the same for Monty. According to him he won the Battle of the Bulge, getting the Americans off the hook, and nearly a decade and a half after the end of the war he was unbelievably rude about Ike’s generalship on American TV when he was actually a guest of the then President.

    However, the Americans and British did agree one one point – the man you least wanted as an ally was Charles Andre Joseph Marie de Gaulle.

  • “However, the Americans and British did agree one one point – the man you least wanted as an ally was Charles Andre Joseph Marie de Gaulle.”

    You can say that again John! Speaking of wasted resources, I think the entire Free French effort was in that category.

    “rude about Ike’s generalship on American TV when he was actually a guest of the then President.”

    Monty took arrogance and bloody mindedness and made them almost an art form.

  • I think it’s ridiculous to say that the French didn’t do anything in WW2 because the French had to deal with the Nazis from the start .

  • “because the French had to deal with the Nazis from the start .”

    And they did so well.

    Snark aside my point was that the resources poured into the Free French movement under De Gaulle was a waste. The Free French were unable to prevent an initial conflict between the Vichy French and the Allied Forces during Operation Torch in 1942; likewise in Syria in 1941. All the Allies got from the money and other resources they spent on the Free French was De Gaulle’s disdain, some translators and several divisions of mixed quality. The Resistance movement in France largely existed in Free French imagination until 1944 with the looming Allied invasion. Most French did what they were told under German occupation and evinced little desire to resist. Some heroes and heroines there certainly were in the Maquis, but I think they would have been active, most of them, even without the Free French movement.

3 Responses to I Don’t Normally Watch Television, But When I Do, I Prefer. . .

Notre Dame Faculty Attacks Bishop Jenky

Wednesday, April 25, AD 2012

 

In a prior post, which may be read here, I detailed a speech by Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Peoria Diocese, my Bishop,  in which he blasted the attack of the Obama administration on religious liberty.  Bishop Jenky is a graduate of Notre Dame and was ordained as a priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross, the Catholic religious order which runs Notre Dame.  Bishop Jenky is quite fond of Notre Dame and often speaks of his days there.  He serves on the Board of Fellows of Notre Dame.  Professor Charles E. Rice, Law School Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame, details what happened at Notre Dame after Bishop Jenky’s speech:

On April 14, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C., of Peoria, Illinois, delivered a courageous homily at Mass during “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith.”  Bishop Jenky said, “This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries—only excepting our church buildings—could easily be shut down.  Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.”

Forty-nine members of the Notre Dame faculty denounced Bishop Jenky in a Letter to the  University President, Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Richard C. Notebaert.  The Letter called on them to “definitively distance Notre Dame from Bishop Jenky’s incendiary statement.”  The signers, said the Letter, “feel” that Bishop Jenky should resign from the University’s Board of Fellows.

The faculty Letter claims that Bishop Jenky “described President Obama as ‘seem[ing] intent on following a similar path’ to Hitler and Stalin.”  They accuse Bishop Jenky of “ ignorance of history, insensitivity to victims of genocide, and absence of judgment.”  The astonishingly simplistic and defamatory character of those accusations can be appreciated only by looking at what Bishop Jenky actually said:

Continue reading...

41 Responses to Notre Dame Faculty Attacks Bishop Jenky

  • If I were Jenky, I would distance myself from Notre Dame…weren’t they the “Catholic” university that invited Obama to speak? Their Catholicity is questionable in my mind.

  • As in my mind Sister Colleen. In 2009 Notre Dame awarded an honorary degree to Obama and had him speak at commencement, in direct defiance of the Bishops:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/03/20/notre-dame-honors-pro-abort/

  • Notre Dame faculty and the American people condemn Bishop Jenky because of his hate speech. Name calling is not a positive or helpful method of communication. Think of all the terrible things the Bishop,the Pope and other Catholics have and can be called and you will realize the error of his ways.

  • “Notre Dame faculty and the American people condemn Bishop Jenky because of his hate speech”

    Don, nice of you to speak for all of the Notre Dame faculty and all of the American people. Hate speech is not defined as speech that Don Morgn opposes. The only thing that Bishop Jenky was guilty of was “speaking truth to power” in the trite pc phrase.

  • It is NOT hate speech to condemn abortion, contraception, fornication, adultery, and homosexual activity. This is essentially what St. Paul did in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10. For his efforts the Romans beheaded him. Who really was hateful?

  • So, Don-who-needs-to-buy-a-vowel, by that same logic, you’d say Jesus was crucified for His “hate speech.”

    ‘Nuff said, I think.

  • I hope the good Bishop tells these folks to pound sand.

  • Jesus did engage in hate speech – against idolatry, depravity, perversion and every sort of sinful wickedness. He was quite pointed with all the “right thinking people” of his day – Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, etc. – who thought just like today’s well educated liberals that they “knew” what was good for everybody. Indeed, those who love sin cannot stand the kind of talk that Jesus gave.

  • Notre Dame, along with Georgetown and a few other “Catholic” schools, have long since strayed by taking a more secular path, promoting “diversity” and supporting social issues that are anathema to the Church. Jenky would do well to quit ND altogether. I hope the rest of the bishops rally around him.

    In the words of Chesterton:

    “From all that terror teaches, from lies of tongue and pen,
    From all the easy speeches that comfort cruel men,
    From sale and profanation of honor and the sword
    From sleep and from damnation, deliver us, good Lord.”

  • Of course Obama is nothing like Hitler or Stalin.

    He’s more like Otto von Bismarck.

  • I wasn’t aware of Bismarck’s Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church. Why is none of this taught in the history classes of public schools?

    From wikipedia:

    Bismarck launched an anti-Catholic Kulturkampf (“culture struggle”) in Prussia in 1871. In its course all the Prussian bishops and many priests were imprisoned or exiled.[26] Prussia’s population greatly expanded in the 1860s and now was one-third Catholic. Bismarck believed that the Catholic Church held too much political power; he was further concerned about the emergence of the Catholic Centre Party (organised in 1870). With support from the anticlerical National Liberal Party, which had become Bismarck’s chief ally in the Reichstag, he abolished the Catholic Department of the Prussian Ministry of Culture. That left the Catholics without a voice in high circles. In 1872, the Jesuits were expelled from Germany. More severe anti-Roman Catholic laws of 1873 allowed the Prussian government to supervise the education of the Roman Catholic clergy, and curtailed the disciplinary powers of the Church. In 1875, civil ceremonies were required for weddings, which could hitherto be performed in churches. The Catholics reacted by organizing themselves; they strengthened the Centre Party. Bismarck, a devout pietistic Protestant, was alarmed that secularists and socialists were using the Kulturkampf to attack all religion. He abandoned the Kulturkampf in 1878 to preserve his remaining political capital; indeed, he needed the Centre Party votes in his new battle against socialism. Pius IX died that same year, replaced by a more pragmatic Pope Leo XIII who negotiated away most of the anti-Catholic laws.[27][page needed][28][page needed]

  • I remember Bishop Jenky, before he became bishop, while still rector of Sacred Heart ( I think he was anyway). He was full of joy and radiated Christ like no other. My kids loved him ( which was no easy feat as they were naturally resistant to clergy as teenagers). I also observed his homilies were Christ oriented, not the usual pc stuff given by some of the other csc priest. Praise God for him and others who are willing to shine the light of truth!

  • We have seen it over and over again: Gallicanism, conciliarism, Josephism, laicism, Kulturkampf, Cristeros War, communism, sexual revolution.

    I’d like to say the Church bounces back stronger every time. In reality, each one of these episodes takes a piece out of her. That is why Christ must come again.

  • The only question I have is, “What took them so long?”

    Apparently, the progressive propaganda glossary has evolved – There’s that word, again!

    In 2012, the drones term preaching the Gospel: “incendiary.” Formerly, Clinton’s press secretary, Joe Lockhart, used the phrase “ancient religious hatred.”

    One lesson learned. I knew the clueless college profs teach their minions what to think, not how to think. Now, I see that credentialed cretins themselves don’t know how to think, either.

  • Ignatius of Antioch, whose life covered the second half of the first century, wrote “”Follow the Bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the Bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the Bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Epis Smyrn 8,1-2″ and the same teaching can be gathered from all the old holy fathers and catholic doctors, from the apostles’ time down to our own day.

  • Pingback: notre dame, bishop jenky, quebec, kosovo, science, yolo# | ThePulp.it
  • Those who get worked up about comparing Obama to Hitler and call his talk hate speech ought to think before they write. The analogy does not compare Mr Obama’s policies to the genocide of Hitler it compare their policies towards religion. That is a valid comparison. If the good bishop would have compared validly Obama’s religious policy to that of the leaders of the French Revolution that would have worked also but it is somehow off limits to compare policies to those of Hitler.

  • I think what made them angrier than anything else was the fact that Bishop Jenky unashamedly proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ by stating that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is therefore the Son of God He claimed to be. Just try saying that to a few liberals if you want to see their heads start spinning and green vomit start to come out of their mouths.

  • Don

    A modest proposal.

    The Congegation of the Holy Cross could suggest to Rome that that their borther Daniel Jenky Be amde a titular Archbishop and appointed President the University of Notre Dame. It may take him a few years but no one would doubt the School is Our Ladies.

  • I like it Hank, except that he would no longer be my Bishop and I would hate to see him go!

  • Readers of this thread may find interest in the short book: How Do You Kill 11 Million People? by Andy Andrews. It’s a recent NYT best seller available on Amazon, et al. In the book Andrew succinctly explains tactics employed by the Nazis to lull an ostensibly God-fearing and altruistic German populace into a mass state of apathy and denial as freedoms were stripped-away, the Holocaust was engineered and a world war ensued. His premise is that without vigilant and informed citizens demanding integrity and accountability from their leaders, a similar loss of freedom may one day happen here or anywhere. Perhaps that day is already here, and instances such as this-with the reactions imbued-are proof.

  • Fire the Forty-Nine!

  • What did Bishop Jenky say?

    “Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
    In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama—with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path”.

    Hitler and Stalin do NOT belong in the same speech or in any comparison with President Obama! If he or anyone else do not understand why, they should return to school and study the political and military history of the 20th century. Sorry if you do not understand that.

  • Don Maswell,

    You don’t get it. Obama is just like Hitler – supporting baby murdering to the tune of 1 million per year.

    Hilter, Stalin, Robespierre, Obama – they are all antichrists.

  • Dial it back Paul. Don, here is the entire quote:

    “Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room.

    In the late 19th century, Bismark waged his “Kultur Kamp,” a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

    Clemenceau, nicknamed “the priest eater,” tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.

    Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

    In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”

    The statement of the Bishop is completely accurate. Under the vision of the Obama administration the Catholic Church, and all churches which oppose him, are to be restricted to conducting services and submitting themselves to government control in all other matters. The point that the Bishop was making is that this type of “religious freedom” was granted to some churches by both Hitler and Stalin, which is also completely accurate. Of course critics of this part of the Bishop’s speech conveniently overlook the references to Bismark and Clemenceau since those references make clear the point the Bishop was making and spoil the fake outrage of critics to the mention of Hitler and Stalin.

  • Vincednt: Obama is not done with us yet. Hitler and Stalin started by taking power over the church and ended by killing millions of people.
    Don: Good thinking.

  • Vincent: I am sorry I fumbled your name

  • I used to be proud of the many ND graduates from our family, but I am so disillusioned by recent ND anti-Catholic positions, that we will no longer fund ND. Also, are actively encouraging other alumni and family members to do the same.

    Pray for those in leadership positions at ND. Ask our Lady’s intersession with Jesus Christ, her son, to redeem their minds, their hearts and their souls.

    God forgive them for they know not what they do!

    Aloha ke Akua
    Malia

  • “Under the vision of the Obama administration the Catholic Church, and all churches which oppose him, are to be restricted to conducting services and submitting themselves to government control in all other matters”.

    Trash talk like the big Nazi lie! PROVE IT.

    If you really believe this, I pity you and will pray that you come to your senses.