Something “new” for Catholic high schools in Cleveland: A radical, revamped Catholic religion curriculum…

Thursday, June 7, AD 2012


The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports that the Diocese of Cleveland has “revamped” its high school religion curriculum which will be implemented when school reopens this fall.

Perhaps the biggest surprise for those who grew up in the pre-Vatican II era is that the term “revamped” today means “redoux.”  Gone is the post-Vatican II “God loves you, so feel good doing it” religious education curriculum which stressed the many and varied pathways to salvation.  The revamped curriculum will feature a traditional Catholic religion curriculum that stresses orthodoxy and moral clarity.


The Superintendent of Schools for the Diocese of Cleveland, Margaret Lyons, says the revamped program will be “Gospel-centered” and “very orthodox.”  In addition, the revamped teaching materials have expunged any “shyness about talking about moral issues” and will convey concepts “known to previous generations of Catholics but absent from more recent instruction.”  The Motley Monk would note that means many of the catechetical “noun-ing’s” representative of that era—“faithing,” “theologizing,” and “deconstructing”—are “out.” 

Moral clarityVery orthodox?  No shyness?

Omigosh!  This is radical!

While the revamped curriculum “underscores Jesus Christ and the Paschal Mystery” as the source of salvation, students will “read and [will be] guided through Church documents” and if it’s to be believed…

They [will be] taught the role and importance of the Magisterium in guarding and passing on the faith, as well as being a sure guide to positive thinking and behavior.

Additionally, students [will be] instructed in ancient prayer practices used throughout the Church’s two thousand years of history, including the Rosary, Lectio Divina, meditation, the Liturgy of the Hours, the Psalms, litanies and readings in Sacred Scripture.

Omigosh, again!  Magisterium? A sure guide?

What happened to magisterium of the vox populi Dei?

Superintendent Lyons also says the purpose of the revamped curriculum is to cultivate an enduring and lifelong faith, one that’s capable of standing up to cultural secularism and moral relativism.

Wasn’t that called forming “the Church militant” in a previous era?


Most Reverend Richard G. Lennon
Bishop of the Diocese of Cleveland (OH)


According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the revamped religion curriculum comes in response to concerns raised by teachers and clergy about the quality of religious instruction in local Catholic schools.  After being appointed Bishop of Cleveland in 2006, Most Reverend Richard G. Lennon listened and assessed the situation, a process that resulted in the 2012 revamped religion curriculum based upon the Catechism of the Catholic Church and guidelines from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The Motley Monk will be watching closely to see if Cleveland’s revamped Catholic religion curriculum will demonstrate significantly better learning outcomes than the post-Vatican II religious education curriculum did.  Since the 1970s, the National Catholic Educational Association’s Assessment of Catechesis and Religious Education has demonstrated very little difference in outcomes between students attending Catholic schools and those attending CCD programs.  All along, the dirty little secret everyone knew—including the nation’s Catholic hierarchy—was that few young Catholics learned anything demonstrably Catholic during those decades.

At a minimum, future graduates from Cleveland’s Catholic high schools will hopefully know something about the Catholic faith and its practice.  That certainly would represent one important step in the right direction.

After all, knowing little-to-nothing about the Catholic faith and its practice, whatever became of the vast majority of those graduates of Catholic high schools students who were taught the post-Vatican II religious education curriculum?

One thing is certain: They surely aren’t attending Sunday Mass but want those big, expensive church weddings…what has been called “an important catechetical moment.”



To read the Cleveland Plain Dealer article, click on the following link:

To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Something “new” for Catholic high schools in Cleveland: A radical, revamped Catholic religion curriculum…

  • This is excellent news! With the extremely weak presentation of Catholic teaching that was in place from Vatican II until recently, the children did not learn their prayers or the content of Catholic teaching. The attitude was almost explicitly, “six of one, half a dozen of the other,” and “Don’t sweat the small stuff.” Now we have adult Catholics who don’t know what the sacraments are or what they are about. They don’t know their prayers, and they think the Church might as well accommodate itself to secular culture. Why not? So to have this correction, this return to what is essential and important is a genuine “Praise God!” moment. Is there any way we could get a look at the actual curriculum?

  • I have to say it saddens me to think that a nice song like Kumbaya has become associated with such theological nonsense.

  • Wow! They seem to have a strong Bishop in Bishop Lennon. He’s also the Bishop who very firmly and decisively acted on the bogus apparition site in his diocese, Holy Love Ministry, that bills itself as “ecumenical” but laden with as many Catholic-ish stuff to draw in the Catholics.

    It’s still going strong, I’m told, but not for wont of trying on the Bishop’s part. I know he issued at least two very strongly worded public letters to his diocese (and the country) that the supposed apparitions are not of a supernatural origin and all Catholics are prohibited from visiting the site (or words to that effect).

    This news about catechesis is great ~ it’d be even more wonderful if they’d start this in grade school when little minds and souls are being formed. But better late than never.

  • OK – now for impetus of the National Catholic Education Association and USCCB to go forth for our children.

  • Yes!!! THE CCC at Catholic schools, what a concept! I thought that at this point Catholic Schools couldnt even teach about religion!

  • I am very proud of my good bishop. Bishop Lennon has been faced with horrible disrespect and malicious attack by the area media, and most painfully, his own people. He has made badly needed changes in our diocese. One of his first actions was to remove Futurechurch, a ultra-liberal “catholic” organization which stridently campaigns for married clergy, woman priests, etc. from the rectory of a Cleveland parish, where it had been conducting business with the full knowledge of our former bishop.

    Please pray for him and my diocese.

  • It seems like a problem to have the Son of God underscored.

Nimitz Reports on the Battle of Midway

Thursday, June 7, AD 2012

My wife has the distinction of being one of the few people born on the Island of Midway.  (We have pictures of her as an infant with some Laysan Albatrosses, better known on Midway as Gooney Birds.  The medical staff was so excited at her birth that they put her in the new incubator, although they did not turn it on.)  This has led to never-ending confusion over the years when she has presented her birth certificate, with puzzled individuals wondering where Midway is.  Seventy years ago today all of America was learning where Midway was.  A battle which has been called a miracle, Midway was the turning point of the war in the Pacific, with the decisive defeat of the Japanese strike force aimed at Midway that Admiral Yamamoto had intended to give a crushing blow to the remaining US carriers.  The victory of Midway was the product of hubris, MAGIC, luck, courage and skill.

1.  Hubris-Since Pearl Harbor the Japanese had won incredible victories on land, sea and in the air, and now controlled a huge Empire throughout East Asia.  Japanese historians have described this as the period of “victory fever”.  Even a very level headed and pragmatic individual like Admiral Yamamoto was affected by this atmosphere of seeming invincibility.  Japanese intelligence as to the dispostion of the US fleet in the Pacific was poor, and Yamamoto’s plan to lure the Americans into battle by threatening Midway was very much a strike into the unknown, and risked Japan’s fate in the war on one battle. 

2.  MAGIC-US cryptographers had broken many Japanese diplomatic and military codes.  The project was collectively known as MAGIC.  In December of 1941 Naval cryptographers had broken the Japanese high command naval fleet code designated JN-25.  Nimitz, the commander in chief of the US fleet in the Pacific, knew as a result that Midway was the target of the Japanese fleet and assembled his three carriers and support ships to oppose the Japanese fleet with its four carriers, two light carriers and support ships.

3.  Luck-It is hard in our era of satellite surveilance and ubiquitous electronic sensoring systems, to realize just how much a deadly game of blind man’s bluff a carrier battle was in 1942.  Radar, still in its infancy, gave the US a critical edge at Midway, but finding the Japanese fleet carriers to attack them was as much a product of luck as anything else.  If the Japanese had been luckier, Midway could easily have been a disastrous US defeat.

4.  Courage-There were many brave men on both sides, however the palm for gallantry has to go to the aviators of Torpedo Squadron Eight from the Hornet and Torpedo Squadron 6 from the Enterprise and their attacks on the Japanese carriers on June 4.  The men had to know that without cover from their own fighters they would almost certainly not survive their attack runs on the carriers.  They went in anyway, and almost all of them died.  Many Japanese observers were stunned while watching this.  Japanese propaganda called Americans weak, decadent and cowardly, and here were American pilots going to their deaths in the best samurai style as they attempted to sink the well guarded carriers.  The attacks failed, but they drew most of the Japanese carrier air patrols away from the carriers, kept the carriers off balance and unable to launch their own strikes and depleted the ammunition and gasoline of many of the Japanese planes guarding the carriers.

5.  Skill-Approximately 30 minutes after the torpedo squadron attacks, three squadrons of American SBD’s from the Enterprise and the Yorktown came upon the Japanese carriers.  They were led by Commander C. Wade McCluskey who decided to prolong the search for the Japanese carriers and found them by following the wake of a Japanese destroyer.  In a matter of minutes the three squadrons inflicted devastating damage on three of the four Japanese fleet carriers, winning the battle of Midway for the United States.

Here is the report of Admiral Nimitz on the battle.  Note the emphasis in his report on lessons learned and improvements that had to be made based upon these lessons:

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Nimitz Reports on the Battle of Midway

  • I’d add one:

    6. The brilliant leadership of Raymond Spruance. New to command, he was the ideal mix of controlled aggression and prudence. Not a gambler like a Halsey, he knew when to walk away from the table. He did the same thing at the Philippine Sea.

  • Spruance probably made the right call Dale, but emotionally I do wish the pursuit of the Japanese fleet had continued after Midway. However Spruance was a great admiral and a greater man as this self assessment indicates:

    “I think that what success I may have achieved through life is largely due to the fact that I am a good judge of men. I am lazy, and I never have done things myself that I could get someone to do for me. I can thank heredity for a sound constitution, and myself for taking care of that constitution.”

    “Some people believe that when I am quiet that I am thinking some deep and important thoughts, when the fact is that I am thinking of nothing at all. My mind is blank.”

    Humor and self-deprecation in a man of his accomplishments says a lot of good about him.

  • I remember the movie “Midway”, where The Duke was one of the pilots.
    Good movie.

  • John Ford served in the Navy in the Pacific during World War II making films. Here is a film that he made as a tribute to the men of Torpedo Squadron Eight. It was originally intended only for the families of those gallant men, all but one of whom died in their attack on the Japanese carriers on June 4th:

  • Divine Providence at Midway — in addition to hubris, MAGIC, luck, courage, skill:

    This week marks the 70th anniversary of the pivotal Battle of Midway (June 3- 6, 1942). I have reviewed numerous accounts of this battle and have concluded that the large number of coincidences that occurred seriatim to give us victory were due to more than luck and planning and other human factors. I submit that the Protection of Divine Providence, upon which the Declaration’s signers relied and for which FDR later prayed on D-Day, was extended to us and is the only way to account for what Gordon Prange called the “Miracle at Midway.”

    Here are 12 things, among others, which had to happen in order for 3 of the 4 Japanese carriers to be vulnerable to the dive bombers for the 90 seconds of destruction and the 4th vulnerable again, in the same manner, 7 hours later.

    1) Our carriers had left Pearl Harbor shortly before the attack came on Dec. 7 — otherwise, they would have been doomed.

    2) 2 of the 6 Japanese carriers in the Pearl attack were damaged in the battle of the Coral Sea, May 4- 8, and could not participate in the Midway attack. That evened things out — the Japanese attack group would only have 4 carriers to our 3 (Hornet, Enterprise, Yorktown) plus the unsinkable carrier of Midway island itself.

    3) US naval radio intelligence had cracked the Japanese Naval code, JN-25 — and was able to decipher some of the messages about the planned Midway attack, enabling us to accurately guesstimate the timing and route of the attack — a few days before the JN-25 was changed again, blocking our decoders.

    4) The navy brass acted on this intelligence (the army wasn’t so sure about it – it was new) and shipped out 3 carriers to lie secretly in wait to the NW of Midway.

    5) Our 3 carriers slipped out of Pearl just before the Japanese picket submarines got there to spy on naval movements — the subs never saw the carriers and couldn’t alert Yamamoto.

    6) As the time of battle drew near, a Japanese scout plane did not accurately transmit information about our carriers until after the first wave of Japanese planes had taken off to hit Midway.

    7) When the Japanese carriers learned of ours (only one had been spotted) – in order to attack the spotted US carrier, they had to recover the Midway attack planes, change their bombs from contact (land) bombs to armor-piercing ones, refuel, all while being under attack. This cost them quite a bit of time.

    8) That time allowed the dive bombers from the Enterprise and Yorktown to find the Japanese carriers.

    9) The Japanese carriers were first under attack by torpedo bombers at a low altitude — resulting in their guns and Zeros being focused low, and not high. The dive bombers were at 15,000 feet and came up unobserved and unattacked.

    10) The US dive bombers originally did not know exactly where the Japanese carriers were and the two groups had two different clues which led them to the specks on the ocean that were the enemy carriers.

    11) The 2 groups of dive bombers arrived at the same time above 3 of the carriers who were turning into the wind to launch, just 5 minutes before the enemy carriers were to launch an attack on the known US carrier, at a time when there were loose contact bombs, all enemy attack planes were on the ships and not launched, and refueling was going on below the top deck for the recovered planes — a time of maximum vulnerability.

    12) a set of similar circumstances occurred for the 4th Japanese carrier, several hours later — she was hit by dive bombers just before she could launch another attack with her planes.

    End result — 4 Japanese carriers sunk, vs 1 US carrier; 2500 Japanese lost — including many experienced pilots, vs 307 US men lost, 322 Japanese planes lost vs 147 US planes

    and more importantly, it changed the balance of sea power in the Pacific from that point on, shortened the war, saved lives, and provided a huge boost to our nation’s war-time morale.

    More than planning. More than luck.

  • As Kipling said Bob:

    E’en now their vanguard gathers,
    E’en now we face the fray –
    As Thou didst help our fathers,
    Help Thou our host to-day.
    Fulfilled of signs and wonders,
    In life, in death made clear –
    Jehovah of the Thunders,
    Lord God of Battles, hear!

  • Recessional Kipling [midway verses]

    Far-called our navies melt away —
    On dune and headland sinks the fire —
    Lo, all our pomp of yesterday
    Is one with Nineveh and Tyre!
    Judge of the Nations, spare us yet,
    Lest we forget — lest we forget!

    If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
    Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe —
    Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
    Or lesser breeds without the Law —
    Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
    Lest we forget — lest we forget!

    For heathen heart that puts her trust
    In reeking tube and iron shard —
    All valiant dust that builds on dust,
    And guarding calls not Thee to guard.
    For frantic boast and foolish word,
    Thy Mercy on Thy People, Lord!

  • Scanning through Shattered Sword by Parshall and Tully what struck me was the flimsiness of the Japanese aircraft carriers which came across as oversized pontoon bridges. The Akagi received only one direct hit and sank nine hours later. Japan was the most backward country of all the major belligerents and it showed. When the Americans put sufficient carriers in play they invariably beat the Japanese. All the emperor worship and racism availed the stupid Japanese nothing against the industrial might of the US once she had started smoking.

Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

Thursday, June 7, AD 2012

A ruling by the New Mexico Court of Appeals has found that Christian photographers cannot refuse to photograph a “gay wedding” on religious grounds. The absurdity and tyranny of this ruling is almost unfathomable, but what is less surprising is the vindictive nature of the entire case. As an entire slew of court cases in Canada demonstrates, the radical homosexual movement is not about fairness, tolerance or equality. Like its equivalents among racial minorities (think Black Panther Party) or feminists, it is about envy, revenge, and domination. As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism. Whether your are Christian or not, whether you have homosexual inclinations or not, the implications of the New Mexico court’s rulings for political liberty, religious freedom and private property rights ought to frighten you if you care in the least about these concepts.

Continue reading...

119 Responses to Gay Fascism & Judicial Tyranny Strike Again

  • This is exactly what happens when a society turns it back on God, and more specifically on it self. The issue here isn’t homosexual marriage (incidentally as long as Christians continue to misuse the beautiful word “gay” to describe sodomy the problem will never improve). the issue is homosexuality at large.

    We have ignored an entire generation that euphemistically describes mortal sin as ” hooking up”. We go to unmarried couples homes and treat them as married, then wonder why their generation doesn’t marry anymore. Anyone with young adult children knows that the entire generation no longer sees homosexuality as deviant. Now if we have turned our backs on God in order to mollify our children, how dare we wonder what has become of our society. Is this travesty of homosexual “marriage” not entirely logical, given the cowardly state of we, who were called by God to resist it.

    These Laws will only be reversed when we have the courage to stand and call homosexuality what it is; sin. Only then, when we have the courage to teach our children that sex is the sacred bond between a married couple that leads to babies (I know it sounds simple, that’s the point!) can we, as Christians, claim the right to our faith. As long as we continue to turn our heads the other way and inadvertently encourage heterosexual sin in our “enlightened” children, have we any right to wonder how things like this happen?

  • “As I have argued and will continue to argue, the homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

    You omitted a prefix. It should read:

    “the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”

  • Leo,

    To quote a famous 20th century American philosopher, John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious!”

    PS: Us knuckle-draggers ain’t forcing youse to accept our “hate, intolerance, etc.” However, you, your presumed moral superiority, and the moral bankrupts on the bench are . . .

  • God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin. Do you get that, Leo?

    By the way, if you want to play with another man’s genitals, then I won’t stand in your way. But kindly do it behind closed doors and don’t call the action marriage because it’s not. It’s filthy dirty. Yet I concede to your “right” to be a filth dirty pervert so long as you do not force the rest of society to follow you in your filthy dirty ways. God does allow you to be a filthy dirty sexual pervert. However, filthy dirty sex perverts like you want to force the rest of us to concede that your filthy dirty sexual perversion should be sanctified as marriage and that filty dirty sexual perverts should be treated the same as those united in the Sacrament of Holy Marriage. You are no different than those filthy dirty sexual perverts in Sodom and Gomorrah who tried to beat down the door to Lot’s house so that they could have anal sex with the angels whom Lot had welcomed inside. See Genesis 19:1-11. And you know the end of those men. First they were blinded (but they still didn’t give up – verse 11) and then their cities of wickedness were destroyed by fire from on high (buckle up, pervert, because God won’t withhold His justice forever. See Genesis 19:12-29.

    Well God says: NO! In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:

    9 Don’t you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don’t delude yourselves — people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality, 10 who steal, who are greedy, who get drunk [addictively and excessively], who assail people with contemptuous language, who rob — none of them will share in the Kingdom of God.

    Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. Demonic and Satanic by any other name. It’s time for disgusting, perverted, rancid sexual filth that your kind supports to be called what it is. We all have to repent – daily – lest we burn in hell for eternity. That include me repenting of my sin. That also includes you repenting of your filth. But you say that this call to repentance is unloving, unkind and unjust. You won’t say that before the Great White Throne of Judgment, but it’ll be too late:

    11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.


    Yes, I want people like you defeated, muzzled and emasculated (politically) so that you can’t drag others to the fires of hell with you.

  • Opps – editing error.

    “In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul in 1st Here is how a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear what Corinthians 6:9-10 says about dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

    should be

    “In fact, this is what the Holy Spirit said through St. Paul (which a certain modern translation of Sacred Scripture makes clear) in Corinthians 6:9-10 concerning dirty filthy sexual perverts like yourself:”

    Arrrrggghhh – got so upset that people like Leo say the fecal stuff that he said that I did not edit correctly.

  • Paul: Thank you for proving my point.

    T. Shaw: You presume to know me. You don’t. I don’t judge others, and I would appreciate not being judged in return. Only God judges (Deuteronomy 1:17).

  • Wow, Leo.
    I really appreciate how you gave your reasons and examples along with your explanation, as opposed to a baseless drive-by accusation.
    Nope, no hate, intolerance, bigotry, or totalitarianism there!

    Keep it up, liberals. If I ever had any doubts on the subject, you’re settling them for me.

    Have a great day and God bless you!

  • Need any more evidence that Satan is sitting on the Throne and God has been thrown out of the window???? But have a heart, people of goodwill….. God has the Final Word and the Casting Vote. And Christ voted on the Cross at Calvary…..stand up Christian Solders and fight for God……yes we love, and embrace sodomites….but we hate the Sin as God does….let all of us practice the First of the Spiritual Works of Mercy here : Admonish the Sinners…..never compromise with Satanic perversions.

  • To you, Leo. I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions. Do not misquote Him on “Do not judge, lest you be judged”. He tells the adulterous woman…..”neither do I condemn you. But go AND SIN NO MORE. You see, Leo, God loves sinners. He died such a horrible death for us all. But He HATES SIN like all level headed, normal, intelligent and decent men and women do. Sodomy, Lesbianism, Abortion, Euthanasia and all those bestialities now dominating the Western World are Satanic, evil and filthy. That is, as I said above, doing what Jesus told us to do : ADMONISH THE SINNERS. And you are sinners par excellence, who are so arrogant and want to force your pervesities upon us all. WE SHALL NOT ACCEPT THAT, NEVER, NEVER AND AGAIN…..NEVER

  • Folks,

    I should never so early in the morning read and respond to the kind of stuff that Leo Salazar writes. The only proper response is what Mary42 gave: “I admonish you in the name of God and His Son, Jesus Christ who condemn Sodomy and all sexual perversions.” Thus do verses 9 and 10 in the Epistle of Jude state:

    9* But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, “The Lord rebuke you.” 10 But these men revile whatever they do not understand, and by those things that they know by instinct as irrational animals do, they are destroyed.

  • Leo,

    I don’t hate homosexuals. Frankly I think most of them are the unfortunate victims of psychological abuse and/or social neglect.

    That being said, I do hate the radical gay movement, which is totalitarian in its ambitions.

  • “the anti-homosexual movement is the movement of hate, intolerance, bigotry, and totalitarianism.”


  • Whether sexual orientation is a choice or is in-born (I think it is neither, by the way)

    This is a bit curious – I have heard some argue it is in-born, others it is a choice, others it is a combination, and others that it can be in-born for some, choice for others, and a combination for yet others. But I have never heard someone say it is neither (which would seem to exclude all of the above). Do you consider cultural conditioning as a distinct cause from “choice”?

  • I think it results from social and psychological conditions experienced at an early and impressionable age. No one chooses the conditions they are brought up in, and they aren’t genetic.

    Like the professional psychiatric establishment did before it began self-thought-policing in the interests of political correctness, I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.

  • I think Bonchamps is correct. The propensity or inclination to homosexual behavior is a disease like alcoholism or drug addiction. Being an alcoholic or drug addict is not sinful. Indeed, millions are in recovery and abstinent from intoxicants. For the person afflicted with same sex attraction, the behavior is his or her intoxicant of choice. Being so afflicted is a cross perhaps similar in certain ways to the cross of alcoholism or addiction. We can choose to take up our cross and follow Jesus, denying our selfish wants, or we can give up and wallow in the intoxicant of our choice: homosexual behavior, alcohol or drugs.

    This is not a condemnation of those who drink alcohol in an adult manner, nor of the abstinent homosexual or lesbian. Not everyone is an alcoholic just as not everyone is a homosexual. Furthermore, there is only one place for sexual activity: in the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between one man and one woman. If a heterosexual is unmarried, then he is held to the same rules that a homosexual is held to: chastity. If a heterosexual is married, then he is not permitted to have sexual intercourse with anyone other than his spouse. It is utter selfishness (not love) to rut in heat like a mindless baboon expecting no consequences for one’s actions, whether that rutting is homosexual or heterosexual. Yet today’s liberal progressive society would have us believe that such animalistic rutting is freedom and liberty instead of what it really is: slavery to whatever titillates the genitals. That, my friends, is drug addiction “par excellence”. We are not baboons or bonobo chimpanzees. We are human beings created in the image and likeness of God Almighty Himself, and He expects and requires that we behave as such. Failure to so behave can result in being cast into the hell of addiction in this life time, never to end in the burning fires of hell in the next.

    Use your God-given brains, Leo, instead of the stirring in your loins. You’re better than that.

  • Both national legislation and international conventions are casting their net ever wider.

    The following is typical:- “Discrimination comprises any distinction applied between natural persons by reason of their origin, sex, family situation, physical appearance or patronymic, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, sexual morals or orientation, age, political opinions, trade union activities, or their membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion.”

  • Leo,

    I apologize.

  • Everything in life is some combination of genetics, environment, and individual decision. I don’t understand the need to pretend to know the ratios. We’re responsible for our choices to the extend that they were freely made and understood. Beyond that, we’re just guessing.

    Leo – I think you missed the point. If someone writes an article entitled “A Penny Saved Is Not A Penny Earned”, you wouldn’t show up and reply, “no, that’s incorrect; a penny saved is a penny earned”. The title of this piece and the image accompanying it are shocking for a reason. They’re intended to jostle your thinking. At a time when the President is depicted with a rainbow halo, an image of a rainbow swastika is incongruent. A vibrant mind would ask why, not just reply that he agrees with conventional thinking. Maybe you did get the point of the article, but nothing in your comments indicates it.

  • Bonchamps said: “I believe homosexuality is a mental disorder.” I do too.
    Paul W. Primavera: I enjoyed reading your posts on Holy Scripture and still say my Hail Mary in Latin.
    Mary @42: You cut to the chase and clarified the issue quickly.
    Leo: What would the Holy Virgin say about your inexcusable defense of sinful behavior? The Holy Virgin weeps…and weeps.

  • Live and let live. Problems, accusations, and anti-stuff only happens when people impose upon other people and form ‘movements’ to do so.

    If aids and abortion didn’t kick up in the 80’s as an alert that something has gone off balance with humanity, then all this antagonizing, righteousness and division could move beyond emotional insanity to rational behavior and growth to calm ‘diversity’.

    We all have the possibility of achieving an integrity of our beliefs which are unique – we don’t need to butt heads or force change for another’s view of ‘integrity’. It’s just not right, practical, or any good to be ‘my way’ or else for anyone.

    This ‘anti’ bit is creepy because it is dehumanizing for all sides. Animals, away from man’s influence, have more intelligence and instinct. We could learn from them – and they are cute and beautiful.

  • As someone who makes a living in the visual arts, (including photography) this kind of ruling is rather chilling. One statement of the ruling stuck out to me:

    By taking photographs, Elane Photography does not express its own message. Rather, Elane Photography serves as a conduit for its clients to memorialize their personal ceremony. Willock merely asked Elane Photography to take photographs, not to disseminate any message of acceptance or tolerance on behalf of the gay community.

    The notion that this sort of photography is being ‘merely asked to take photographs’ is absurd. Artistic photography is as much an expression and message of the photographer as of the client. It’s not simply pressing a button on a camera- if that was the case, no one would hire photographers. Rather, the whole point of selecting a particular photographer over another (or over a family member with a camera phone) is that the photographer has a particular style, quality, etc.- even message- that is communicated by that style. Often times you even have to be careful with the clients you choose to work for so that your style and message don’t get diluted.

    Perhaps whoever made this ruling needs to open a photography business and see how well they do by merely ‘taking photographs.’

  • @Bonchamps

    “I don’t hate homosexuals . . . I do hate the radical gay movement.”

    First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible. If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here), you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article. One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.

    Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise. The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.

    Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.

  • Leo, Bon specifically addressed the difference between the individual and the behavior in paragraph 3. The photographer isn’t objecting to the individual; he’s objecting to the action of gay marraige. Paul Primavers puts it succinctly: “God loves everyone, homo or heterosexual. God hates sin. Homosexual behavior is sin.”

    As for the matter of genetic superiority, well, I don’t think anyone on this site cares about that. The real question is about moral superiority. Some people’s comments here have implied that heterosexuals are morally superior to homosexuals, and they’re wrong. Homosexual behavior and heterosexual behavior are wrong when they’re outside God’s parameters. The parameters for heterosexual sex are limited; those for homosexual sex are nonexistent.

  • There is a difference between having a certain melanin in one’s skin cells and willful perverted sexual behavior. That difference is however lost of enlightened Leo. Nevertheless, regardless of that loss on him, no one may discriminate against taking wedding photographs of a black heterosexual couple, but one may (indeed, must) for reason of conscience refuse to provide such services to two homosexual perverts who demand their ungodly “union” be normalized, accepted and even praised in photography.

    Homosexual union is NOT marriage. Mutual masturbation or insertion of one’s male sexual organ into the orifice of another male is sickening, disgusting, filthy, dirty, perverted and disease-spreading. Just because certain animals engage in homosexual behavior (e.g., dolphins, bonobo chimpanzees, etc.) does not mean that a human created in the image and likeness of God Almighty should so debase and denigrate himself. We are NOT animals (but I do wonder about godless liberal progressive Democrats). God holds us to a higher standard. But in Leo’s world, it is unloving, unkind, unjust and divisive to say that.

    Indeed we all agree that black people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than white people (or any other kind of people for that matter: red, yellow, brown, etc). In like manner, homosexual people are no more or less genetically inferior or superior than heterosexual people. For that reason, those who engage in homosexual behavior will be held accountable before God for the same – because, since they are NOT by their own declaration mental defects, they are fully aware of the grave evil in which they engage. If they were mental defects, then they could be excuse as innocent on the grounds of such mental deficiency or disease.

    Romans 1:18-32 applies, especially the last verse: “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.”

    18* For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20* Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21* for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23* and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, 25 because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. 28 And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. 29 They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 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.

  • Leo;

    I kindly suggest you do some research on Log Cabin Republicans. There is a difference between being “gay” and a “militant homosexual”. It would be nice if you could see there is a diversity in your community and embrace that diversity. I also suggest that you look at the political basis that is the genesis of the militant homosexual movement – you will find it stems from far left socialist/communist ideology. Look at the underpinnings of thoses ideologies, do the research on what influenced the ideologies, look at the times those ideologies grew out of and then look at the public and personal histories of the men/women behind thoses ideologies. It will be enlightening and tragic at the same time. Much of the militant homosexual movement’s money comes from the same organizations or ppl that are sympathic to socialism/communism. I do not mean to be disrespectful but if you do not care to look and challege your beliefs then your ignorance cannot be helped. My beliefs are challenged every day by ppl like you and I have to analyze if I am mistaken – I am only a man and thus fallible. Ultimately, I find the truths contained in the teachings of the one and true Church are infallible.

    Just as you accuss the ppl here of being closed-minded so are you. There is nothing I or anyone that is a faithful Catholic can say that will change your opinion and views. I do not wish to change your views or force you to act in a certain way but you seem to have a need/desire/compulsion to try to change mine or force me to act in a certain way. I just ask you respect my personhood and my basic human dignity as I respect yours.

    There is a difference between a voluntary act, which ultimately homosexuality is, and a color, race, etc. You are trying to claim a similarity between racism and the anti-homosexuality as shown by believers in Christ’s word – there is none. One is based on hate and the differences in man (racism) and the other is based on the love for man (wishing that all could enjoy full fellowship with God) and desire that man live up to his/her potential.

    I hope you can find peace and harmony because you seem angry and troubled. I will pray that you find and feel the true love of God. Peace be with you, my brother.

  • It’d be nice if Primavera gave the next line: “You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.” And that’s serious business. You’ve got to realize, Leo, that we know we’re under the same judgement for all of our misdeeds. Christianity doesn’t single out the homosexual for condemnation.

    We fight the battles we find ourselves in. If this were 1850, we’d be railing against slavery. Thirty years ago, we were mostly talking about abortion and communism. Now we’re talking about this. We haven’t suddenly started caring about homosexuality. We haven’t been secretly obsessed about homosexuality. We’re just playing the cards we’re dealt. And as this article demonstrates, the shift is taking place from protecting the rights of supporters of homosexual unions to diminishing the rights of opponents of homosexual unions. So the fight has been taken to our doorstep.

  • Post Script – my quote of Romans 1:32 doesn’t come across in the right way. In the original Greek of the epistle which St. Paul wrote to the Church at Rome, there were no divisions of chapter and verses. So Romans 2:1-16 immediately succeeds Romans 1:18-32 without the artifical divisions that were created to help the modern reader locate passages. Notice how St. Paul immediately stresses after his discussion about homosexual perversion that there is no partiality before God between the pagan homosexual pervert at the end of chapter 1 and the convert to Christianity at the beginning of chapter 2. The same rules apply to all of us, and none of us are worthy of Heaven. Note also that while St. Paul admonishes the believer NOT to judge, nowhere does he say that the believer is to give assent to sin either passively or actively. Indeed, his words are just the opposite. This gives new meaning to that other verse of Scripture which says, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12)

    1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; 10 but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11 For there is no partiality with God.

    12 For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; 14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

  • Sorry, Pinky!

    We were cross-posting!

    You’re right!

  • Paul – Yeah, I got that. That would’ve been a lot to pull together in six minutes.

    I think it’s important for Leo – and for us – that we mention every once in a while that we’re all trying to work toward perfection. There’s a lot more hetero sin out there, numerically, and there’s no one on this board with a perfect track record. I say this a lot on the threads, but we’re called to be both right and good; when we’re talking about how right we are, it can sound like we’re talking about how good we are. I’d hate to think that we come off as jerks to an outsider.

  • Double ditto to what Pinky just wrote. I know what I deserve. God’s mercy is that I do not get what I deserve. God’s grace is that I do get what I clearly do not deserve.

  • Soon it will be illegal to refuse to attend a homosexual “wedding” if you’ve been invited.

    Just wait! You’ll see!

  • Hear hear Paul

  • Y’know, Leo, I had a whole long, scathing diatribe written out, but then it occurred to me that fascists don’t listen anyway.

    Best of luck. Seriously.

  • Coexist heil!

  • At Mary De Voe’s request, for Leo Salazar, and for all homosexuals caught in the addiction to sexual sin:

    Av? Mar?a, gr?ti? pl?na,
    Dominus t?cum.
    Benedicta t? in mulieribus,
    et benedictus fr?ctus ventris tu?, I?sus.
    S?ncta Mar?a, M?ter De?,
    ?r? pr? n?b?s pecc?t?ribus,
    nunc et in h?r? mortis nostrae.

  • Main Entry: fas·cism
    Pronunciation: \?fa-?shi-z?m also ?fa-?si-\
    Function: noun

    1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race [sexuality] above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
    2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

    So there we have it, textbook fascist behavior by the left.

  • Thank you, Bonchamps for the post.

    May the Lord Jesus reveal His glory to Leo. May Leo come to know the Person of Jesus Christ and be lead to acknowledge Jesus as Sovereign Lord and Merciful Savior. May he be given a thirsting for Truth, and through this thirsting discover authentic Love.

    Amen to the thoughts expressed by Mary 42. Thank you for speaking in power and in the authority of the Holy Spirit.

    Thank you Leo for providing us an opportunity to check our relationship with the Lord…to test our courage to witness His Gospel, It takes little courage to comment on an anonymous blog; the true test is found on the battlefield of our heart.
    2 Timothy 1:14 “guard the Truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”
    We need to engage intellect through faithfully presenting Truth, in order to win hearts for Christ. 2 Timothy 2: 24-26 “And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kindly to everyone, an apt teacher, forbearing, correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.”
    Titus 3:3-7 “For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by men and hating one another; but when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, HE saved us, not because of deeds done by us in righteousness, but in virtue of His own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs in hope of eternal life.”

    We need to prostrate ourselves before the Lord, as His Justice is also His mercy. The earth is blanketed with the spirit of the antichrist. The only response is fervent prayer and fasting.
    2 Timothy 1: 8-9 “Do not be ashamed then of testifying to our Lord…Who saved us and called us with a holy calling, not in virtue of our works but in virtue of His own purpose…”

  • Thank you, Paul W. Primavera. God bless

  • Leo,

    I can’t speak for anyone else. Here’s my reply to your comment.

    “First of all, I find your response disingenuous and indefensible.”

    Well, it’s the truth. Take it or leave it.

    “If there is a difference between homosexuals themselves and the purveyors of the “radical homosexual movement” (whatever that’s supposed to mean – I never realized one existed until I read about it here),”

    Then you’re incredibly ignorant or naive – or a liar. Of course a radical homosexual movement exists, as much as radical feminism, radical race politics, and communism exist. The lawyer for the plaintiff in this very case is a radical gay advocate.

    I defined “gay agenda” in my previous writing: a political movement with the objective of normalizing and legitimizing a homosexual lifestyle in every facet of social and personal life. That is a radical assault on the foundations of human civilization.

    “you haven’t sufficiently defined it in your article.”

    Why should I define what is self-evident? Of course there’s a distinction.

    “One needs to look no farther than the comments from your defenders on this page to see that, perceptually, most people see no difference.”

    Hey, I can’t tell people how to think. I’m not a radical gay activist, that’s not my thing. I would tell any of them that there is a difference between a person who simply lives their life, and a political activist, and that they would have to be brain-damaged not to understand this.

    “Secondly, I lived for a time in the deep South of the US, in lower Alabama. A far different environment from my native Southern California. Even back then, a full 20 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, there were white people living there who saw black people as genetically inferior human beings to whites. There was nothing I could say to them to convince them otherwise.”

    So what? Are you whining because you couldn’t control their thoughts either?

    Do you just lie awake at night cursing the 1st amendment or what? Or does it just bother you that anyone has the temerity to think an unacceptable thought?

    “The same seems to be true of you and your cohorts here: there’s nothing I can say to you to convince you that there is no difference between someone whose orientation is homosexual and you or me.”

    This is just nonsense. No difference? Of course there is a difference. There is a massive difference. There are also differences between black and white cultures, between men and women, between Christians and Jews. Pretending differences don’t exist is ignorant and naive.

    That being said, however, this has nothing to do with whether or not they are “the same” or “different” than me. I know you have this view in your head of us here as a bunch of tribalistic cavemen who want to oppress everyone who isn’t exactly like us – or at least, you seem as if you do. This is false. You’re engaging in prejudice of your own.

    I really don’t desire to dictate what two people of any gender or sexual orientation do. Under our existing conception of private property rights, any two people can enter into the same kind of contracts as anyone else. They can share property and wealth, share a household, grant one another medical and/or legal power of attorney. I don’t believe society can or should make attempts to discern whether or not the people seeking them are gay and deny them on that basis.

    “Gay rights” politics are not about obtaining the legal right to participate in society at the same level as everyone else, as the efforts against Jim Crow were. They are about one thing only: FORCING society, and particularly Christians, to treat them with the prestige and respectability they think they deserve.

    They do NOT have a right to respect, prestige, polite smiles, or anything of the sort. And no one has any right to any good or service. But we’ll get to that below.

    “Lastly, I notice a strong similarity between your “arguments” and those used by the racists I encountered in Alabama back then. Often they would say, “If I don’t want to deal with black people, then I should’t be forced to! It’s my right to refuse.” This is incorrect: if your only justification for denying someone a public service is based on their skin color, or their sexual orientation, then, no, it’s not your right. You are wrong.”

    Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve. I think the original Civil Rights movement was perfectly within its rights to boycott businesses that wouldn’t serve blacks. And if gays want to boycott Christian photographers, that’s fine too.

    But just to be clear: it is an insult, a disgusting mockery, to compare black skin to what is often willfully chosen deviant behavior. And it is no coincidence that it is the black voter who has been the most consistent opponent of “gay marriage” legislation. How do you think black Protestants and Catholics feel about constantly being compared to the sort of filthy degenerates who march in the streets in leather waving sex-toys around? You’re the insensitive lout here.

    You need to think long and hard about this comparison, Leo.

  • The premise of this article is correct and we do need the courage to address this.

    Case in point: the recent expulsion from Dartmouth, prison sentence, criminal record and international humiliation of Tyler Clementi’s roommate who briefly watched part of an intimate encounter between Tyler and a male sex partner. Unfortunately, Tyler, who had many many personal issues prior to going to college, later committed suicide by jumping off the Geo. Washington Bridge. This was a tragic and horrible event.

    But Tyler was NOT the victim of gay-bashing, and this incident was turned into a political statement when it should have been about invasion of privacy–something we all need to confront in this electronic age.

    Tyler’s roommate had already “spied” on straight friends when he was in high school, as a prank. (And for the record, he never posted footage of Tyler on the internet.) He was an insensitive jerk, but there were indeed gay people among his acquaintences. He never referred to them with slurs. He made no complaint about having a gay roommate, other than some initial wisecracks to his friends when he first found out. He does sound like a pompous and insensitive kid, but those aren’t crimes. Tyler was the one who brought a strange “older” man to the room for a sexual encounter, kicking out his roommate, and creating “drama.” (This happens a lot in college–kids are expected to quietly leave the room if the roommate wants to have privacy with a partner. That’s ridiculous–the burden should be on the kid who brings home a sex partner to find a private place.)

    Peeping on your roommate in these circumstances is immature and creepy, but I’m sure it has happened before, even before webcam technology. I am also fairly certain that he would have spied on Tyler if Tyler had brought home a girl. This was an ill-considered dumb act that young people that age seem prone to. That is why we have consequences that are intended to help them learn from their mistakes. He should have been penalizied by the university before this became a criminal matter. Tyler, too, should have been penalized, as I am sure the school has rules for dorm conduct.

    It is conceivable to me that Tyler was depressed, perhaps had been rejected by this “older” guy (and older, to a college kid, may mean 25), and was still dealing with his parents finding out he was gay.

    I am amazed at how many people try to compare this to the Mathew Shepard murder, which WAS an example of a kid being targeted for his sexual orientation. But there is not a war on gay people in this country: gays are tolerated and embraced to a degree that even 20 years ago would have been inconceivable.

    The political Gay Rights movement would have us believe otherwise.

    But this whole thing was about TYLER’S personal struggles, not about GAYS.

    Yet the school immediately launched a lot of “sensitivity outreach” efforts.

  • “You need to think long and hard about this comparison [ black skin color and sexual deviancy ], Leo.”

    He won’t. But it would be nice if he did. His comparison is an insult to people of any race everywhere, particularly the human race.

  • Sparhawk that brings up the question why mess around with your roommate?

  • Valentin, I deleted a comment by you three times with what I consider to be vulgar language in it. I guess you couldn’t take a hint. I am placing you on moderation for the time being.

  • I am sorry Donald I was wondering about that. I tend to talk like a sailor but certain bad things need to be given bad names so that people don’t act like bad things are good. I apologize for the vulgar language and will try to be more discreet.

  • I thought that some of those terms I used seemed much more discreet than what I was thinking of saying before.

  • Good enough Valentin, and congratulations for spending the shortest time in moderation in the history of TAC! 🙂

  • can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.

  • what is TAC?

  • Can you delete the comment on which century I meant? It seems somewhat irrelevent.

  • Thank you for the complement I do hope other people will have more humility than I do.

  • Bonchamps wrote

    “Well, I actually completely disagree with this, and I stand with Ron Paul in his rejection of that particular portion of the Civil Rights Act. It is an intolerable violation of private property rights to force people to serve those whom they do not wish to serve.”

    Let me remind you of what Rousseau says about democracy. “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign [the People] is sole judge of what is important,” for “ if the individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all; the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical.”

    His conclusion is well known, “whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; [« ce qui ne signifie autre chose sinon qu’on le forcera d’être libre »] for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence.”

  • I think the “state of nature” has one advantage, or two, over the current, corrupt system: were-geld, for example.

    On this topic, what is the common superior of which above writes?

  • If people are “born gay”, as the current theory goes, then it follows that they were created that way. And if they were created with that nature, then it’s on the Creator. If, as scripture tells us, He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?
    I find homosexual behavior repugnant but at the same time wonder if gays are truly responsible for being true to their nature. For this reason, I remain agnostic and side with my old friend, Lucretius who put it this way 2,050 years ago:

    Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse paratam
    Naturam rerum; tanta stat praedita culpa
    “Had God designed the world, it would not be
    A world so frail and faulty as we see.”

  • @Joe Green

    “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

    You say “blame,” I say “credit.”

  • Joe Green wrote, “He is the Potter and we are the clay, then who is to blame for the result?”

    Leo Salazar wrote, “You say ‘blame,’ I say ‘credit.’

    Whom God formed in the Garden of Eden were two perfect human beings, male and female. He did NOT create a predisposition to homosexuality any more than He created a predisposition to alcoholism. That some are born with mental defect or disease (e.g., a predisposition to homosexuality or a predisposition to alcoholism) is NOT the fault of God, but the result of the mortal wound of sin to which man wilfully acceded in the Garden of Eden. If indeed people are born this way, then it is a genetic defect that God never ever created. Man yielded out of self-will run riot to satan’s temptation. That in turn resulted in sin, and the wages of that sin are death. No one would be homosexual were it not for man’s initial disobedience. Again, that some are born with a predisposition to same sex attraction is NO different than some having been born with a predisposition to alcoholism. It cannot be overemphasized that God does NOT create the predisposition to defect or disease. Understand this: the mortal wound in the flesh of mankind creates that predisposition. God cannot create or cause evil because God is inherently and intrinsically all-good. Rather, Adam and Eve’s rejection of obedience to God’s commands resulted in evil, and homosexual behavior is evil; therefore, Adam and Eve’s disobedience results in that behavior (as well as the heterosexual sins of adultery and fornication – the rules are the same for everyone).

    That being said, God has mercy on those for whom He chooses to have mercy, and God visits justice on those for whom He chooses to visit justice. It is God’s sovereign will, and in fact we ALL – hetero and homosexual – merit only God’s justice, NOT God’s mercy. That God so love the world to send His only begotten Son (John 3:16) is His divine and sovereign mercy which neither homo nor heterosexual merit.

    As Romans 9:6-29 states:

    [ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Purpose ]

    6 But it is not that the word of God has taken no effect. For they are not all Israel who are of Israel, 7 nor are they all children because they are the seed of Abraham; but, “In Isaac your seed shall be called.”[b] 8 That is, those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted as the seed. 9 For this is the word of promise: “At this time I will come and Sarah shall have a son.”

    10 And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one man, even by our father Isaac 11 (for the children not yet being born, nor having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of Him who calls), 12 it was said to her, “The older shall serve the younger.” 13 As it is written, “Jacob I have loved, but Esau I have hated.”

    [ Israel’s Rejection and God’s Justice ]

    14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? Certainly not! 15 For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” 16 So then it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy. 17 For the Scripture says to the Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth.” 18 Therefore He has mercy on whom He wills, and whom He wills He hardens.

    19 You will say to me then, “Why does He still find fault? For who has resisted His will?” 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

    22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, 23 and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had prepared beforehand for glory, 24 even us whom He called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles?

    25 As He says also in Hosea:

    “I will call them My people, who were not My people,
    And her beloved, who was not beloved.”
    26 “And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them,
    ‘You are not My people,’
    There they shall be called sons of the living God.”

    27 Isaiah also cries out concerning Israel:

    “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
    The remnant will be saved.
    28 For He will finish the work and cut it short in righteousness,
    Because the Lord will make a short work upon the earth.”

    29 And as Isaiah said before:

    “Unless the Lord of Sabaoth[l] had left us a seed,
    We would have become like Sodom,
    And we would have been made like Gomorrah.”

  • @Bonchamps

    I’ve just read your response. I appreciate you taking the time to address my comments to you in detail. You’ve made some excellent points. But you’ve also made some points that seem to me based on gross assumptions and a plain misreading of what I wrote.

    I don’t think it’s useful to go into a detailed reaction to what you’ve written, but I would like to address two things.

    1) The comparison between race and sexual orientation discrimination: You weren’t the only one on this page to make an illogical leap based on my comments. Perhaps my writing lacked clarity. What I said was that I heard a striking similarity between the arguments that I heard racists using and the arguments that people on this forum use against homosexuals. I am very well aware that race/sexuality is apples/oranges. That’s precisely why I find the arguments of gay baiters so stunningly absurd.

    2) Personal attacks: You are a very literate writer and I enjoy reading your work. You sound like an intelligent person (no, I dont think you’re a bunch of tribalistic cavemen). That’s what is so disturbing to read from you, of all people, direct and personal attacks against me. From others on this page [unnamed] it’s par for the course, and I don’t take them seriously. But not from you.
    The key to civil discourse is “attack the ideas, not the person.” I admire very much that @T.Shaw apologized for judging me unfairly. I think we can have a far more productive and positive exchange with each other if we refrain from name calling.

    And, who knows? maybe we’ll learn something from each other.

  • T Shaw

    What Rousseau is saying is that, as between the Public on the one hand and the individual on the other, there is no outsider who has the power to adjudicate on their differences and enforce a decision.

    In other words, you cannot take a sovereign, independent state to court, precisely because it is sovereign and independent; it is subject to no superior person or body

    That is what he means, when he says there is no “common superior”

  • Valentin: Do you mean by “why mess around with your roommate?” that the incident (peeping) never should have taken place? Exactly. Not to get too far off the original topic, but the kid should NOT have been watching from elsewhere what was going on in that room. He should have faced penalties for invasion of privacy. But if he felt “entitled” to peep because he believed he had been edged out of his room to make space for a tryst and that made him uncomfortable–for whatever reason– he could and should have reported Tyler, who would also have faced disciplinary action.

    It’s too bad this was not about invasion of privacy, because people are constantly victimized by this, while they’re totally unaware. This would have been a great warning to technophilic peeping toms. instead Tyler Clementi’s death has been exploited by a cause he did not necessarilly embrace.

  • This civilization’s embrace of homosexual behavior is a sign of the coming apocalypse.

    However . . .

    I tried to buy a house recently. I had almost signed the papers when the owner learned that I was a practicing Catholic. They refused to sell me the house. So I kept looking. I found another house. Almost signed the paper. And again, when they learned I was a practicing Catholic, they refused to sell me the house. The third time this happened, the owner said, “I only sell to devout Muslims.”

    Irate, I told him that this kind of discrimination was deplorable. He said that it was perfectly fine to discriminate against me, “Because it isn’t like you were born Catholic. You chose to be Catholic. You act in certain ways that horrify me. You promote ideas that horrify me. Allah only knows what kind of deviant behavior you will teach your family in this house. I cannot in good conscience allow this house to serve your devil-deity. If you decide to reform your behavior, then I will allow you to buy my house.”

    I tried to tell him that I was indeed born a Catholic, at baptism. But he said, “Look, if you were merely baptized, I’d led you buy the house. It isn’t who you are that bothers me. It is what you do. It’s the fact that you actually act Catholic!”

    Most of us have accepted the idea that certain behaviors can be protected by law: faith being the most important kind of behavior. One may not persecute either Catholics or Blacks — even though being a Catholic depends on choice, and being Black depends on birth. Now ‘persecution’ may or may not venture into private business decisions: may a man sell his house to whomever he wishes, regardless of how vile his reasoning? On individual cases, it seems like government intrusion is unwarranted. But on a societal level, can we allow the mass of men to refuse to sell their homes to Black people, Jewish people, and dare I say . . . practicing homosexuals?

    May a photographer refuse to take photos at a devout Catholic wedding, or a Hindu wedding, or Satanists wedding, or a homosexual wedding? All of those criteria are behavior-based. Once we say, “no, a photographer may not decline a wedding because of behavior”, then we run into those questions.

    Now, many homosexuals want to say there were ‘born’ that way, putting them into the category of White Weddings, Black Weddings, Red-headed Weddings, Blue-eyed Weddings, etc. That puts their argument on firmer ground, because it makes their behavior untouchable. So it’s important to point out that, “No, homosexuality is defined by behavior, not biology.”

    But pointing this out doesn’t make for a solid argument. Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).

    And yet . . . am I correct in saying that businesses may not legally refuse service to Child Molesters who have done their time in prison and are off of probation? Can a car wash say, “We don’t provide this service to Child Molesters”? Can a day care refuse to hire a Child Molester?

    As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.

  • Taking wedding pictures is a “public service?” Since when? Aren’t photographers private citizens running private businesses? If so, then they have the legal right to deny their services to anyone for any reason, whether you agree with their reasons or not.

  • Thanks!

    Obviously, I don’t know Rousseau from Russo. It’s in the USConst, you can petition the gov, you cannot sue it without permission. Now, I get it.

    I recognize one Eternal Superior.

    The World was judged one long-ago Friday on Calvary. John 12: 27-28; 31-33.

  • –Nate Wildermuth…” Because you still have to point out why we may protect certain behaviors (Catholicism), while arguing that other behaviors shouldn’t be protected (Child molestation).”

    First amendment protects Catholicism. Child molestation; No.

  • Nate, your story about a home purchase is fictional, no?

  • Kristin

    A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

    Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

  • The essence of man is the image and likeness of God in him. When a man is born, the government gives him a birth certificate and a tax bill. When a rational, immortal soul is created and endowed with unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, God gives the man His Name: “I AM”. God is Being. God is existence. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God from one second to the next. Therefore, I am able to say: “I AM Mary De Voe.”

  • If someone (hetero or homosexual) needs food, drink, shelter or any of the other necessities of life, then yes, one may and should do business to provide for such services. That’s always the right and correct thing to do.

    But no one needs photographic services. So if I own a photography studio and a homosexual “couple” comes to me to buy my services for photographing their disgusting and perverted “union,” then I may (and would) deny them.

    Homosexual behavior is perversion, to be differentiated from the person. (So, by the way, is adultery and fornication – the same rules apply equally to all, hetero and homosexual.) We must never tolerate or normalize disgusting and perverted sexual behavior. But we are still required to love the homosexual (just as we are required to love the adulterer and the fornicator – again, the same rules apply to everyone). So yes, we are under obligation to help provide what is necessary for life without respect to who or what the person is. Yet there is no moral compulsion to accede to a homosexual’s request for non-necessary services. In fact, there is every reason to compel them understand how harmful and wrongful their perverted sexual behavior is on the rest of society. For example, I’m heterosexual and in my teenage years my Dad made perfectly clear to me how wrongful adultery and fornication are; his exact words were, “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” He deliberately endeavored to be as politically incorrect as possible. And I never got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, and those children to whose genetic material I contributed within wedlock I currently support as is my duty (I do more than that, but the reader gets the idea: responsibility and accountability).

    And I don’t care what passes for the law of the land and what it says when it supports this godless sexual iniquity called “gay rights”. These people have got to be made to realize that their disgusting, perverted behavior will not be tolerated in the public sphere. This is not a matter of judgment. It is a matter of preserving the cornerstone of society – the family: one man, one woman and children. That’s why God’s Law says: no homosexual behavior, no adultery, no fornication. God cares about humanity and what happens to it. So He makes Laws that if obeyed, will ensure its survival, even its prosperity. But the libertine hedonist doesn’t care about humanity, humanity’s survival or humanity’s prosperity. He only cares about his own license to titillate his genitals like a drug addict without regard for whom that will adversely affect or how injurious his behavior of sexual iniquity and idolatry is on the rest of society. This is called “Liberal-ISM” or “I”, “Self” and “Me”.

    Yes, I want the behavior of these people shoved back into the closet where it belongs. It is at best abnormal, but even worse, a destroyer of civilization and a denier of God.

  • PS, At least in the State of Washington, normal people are fighting back and winning against the tide of the facism of sodomy:

    Washington gay ‘marriage’ law stopped after opponents gather 240,000 signatures

  • Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.

  • “can we come up with more discreet and yet effective terms to use instead because it seems like people just assert that homosexuality makes perfect sense without really talking about it.”
    An individual who perpetrates sodomy is called a sodomite. How sad that the atheist must die to learn that he has immortality. Unless, of course, the atheist and the sodomite have confused immortality with heaven. Dante wrote that the devil is frozen, immobile, into the bottom of the pit. That would prevent the devil from soaring with the saints and angels. The devil roams the earth seeking the ruin of souls. The practice of homosexual behavior is the “ruin of souls”. Only one of many.

  • “If you get a girl pregnant and desert her, then I’ll put a two bitted ax in your head.” I Love You, Paul W. Primavera, but only Platonically. I believe that this love is called friendship. Your dad was a feminist. He did right by you. Do you know Paul, that science has determined that when a woman carries a child, some of the baby’s cells with his genome enter the mother’s body and the woman carries her beloved. Pretty awesome. I very much appreciate your handsome knowledge of Sacred Scripture and your generosity in sharing. God bless you.

  • “Mary, that phrasing seems wrong. God gives us our identity, but he doesn’t make us identical to God. That sacred name applies, as I understand it, only to the God who absolutely, unconditionally Is.
    ” God’s “I AM” is infinite. Man’s “I AM” is finite. God creates all things and keeps them in existence. Therefore, the man who exists, exists at the will of God “I AM” from one instance to the next. In Jesus Christ, God’s “I AM” is justified, and redeemed.

  • Leo,

    If you wanted to have a civil, rational, intelligent discussion without name-calling, you really shouldn’t have started out by calling my reply to your first post “disingenuous.” You poisoned this well.

    I don’t hold grudges, so let’s move on.

    As for your first point, let me make this simple: I don’t care if the arguments are the same. It means nothing to me. As far as private property rights go, the argument is valid in both cases.

    And I’d like you to consider my questions. Would any of these comparisons be made if it were a cabal of Satanists demanding that Catholics photograph their ritual desecration of the Eucharist? Would these ridiculous comparisons to Jim Crow Alabama be made on behalf of the poor, persecuted Satanists?

  • Nate,

    “As a Catholic Worker, and thus as a good anarchist and pacifist, I would sweep aside all these laws that protect us from persecution. Let sin boil up. Let all our hidden hatreds come to the surface. Let the truth reign. And then let us pray for the Holy Spirit to wipe us all clean. The government cannot secure human rights. It can’t even identify them.”

    I’m fine with that. If you think I’m arguing that “my” group ought to have protections while gays or Satanists should have none, you’ve misread me.

    For the the record: I do not object to Muslims refusing to photograph Christian weddings, or Satanist real-estate agents refusing to sell homes to Jews, or anything of the sort. I don’t believe in protected categories at ALL when it comes to private property rights. Gays can boycott Christian businesses they don’t like, just as we can boycott companies that support the obscene “gay agenda.”

  • I am concerned about attempts by radical caders representing a tiny minority using the coercive power of the state to impose their will in an authoritarian manner on people they could not rationally persuade to approve of their lifestyles. I am concerned with the preservation of MY right, MY liberty, to disapprove and to avoid behavior that I believe is morally vile and reprehensible.

    If I don’t have that right, then I may as well live in a third-world dictatorship.

  • Joe nobody is born doing homosexual things.

  • I don’t understand the argument for homosexuality or why it would be reasonable so if someone who does have an argument and is friendly enough to post it please do.

  • Sparhawk it seems a little unfriendly to keep a roommate out of the room for such unjustified things.

  • Valentin: Yes, you’re right. As I said, Tyler was in violation of the housing code, not to mention common courtesy, in expecting to have the room to himself and to de facto kick out his roommate. From what I’ve read on the matter, Tyler had problems relating to people and communicating with his peers. Assuming he could make the room off-limits to another person paying A LOT for board takes nerve. And he should have been held accountable.

  • Pingback: Luckless in New Mexico « Blithe Spirit
  • Valentin, of course not, but the inclination is there from the beginning and acted upon as soon as the person reaches sexual maturity. Of course, adultery and fornication are equally condemned in Scripture — which is much ignored by the Bible thumpers, who seem to have a special disdain for homos. However, I must say I find homosexual activity more perverse than either adultery or fornication, which, though “sins,” seem more “normal” to me though no less punishable by the “creator” who allegedly made all of us.

  • Bonchamps

    As far as private property rights go, it is law that distinguishes mere possession (which is a physical fact) from ownership (which is a legal right) and law is an expression of the general will. Hence, Theodore Roosevelt’s words, “Every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.”

    This was treated as a truism, long before Socialism was ever heard of. As the great classical scholar, Charles Rollin (1661-1741), reminds us, “Theft was permitted in Sparta. It was severely punished among the Scythians. The reason for this difference is obvious: the law, which alone determines the right to property and the use of goods, granted a private individual no right, among the Scythians, to the goods of another person, whereas in Sparta the contrary was the case.”

    You can see this principle everywhere enunciated in the French Revolution. Take Mirabeau (a moderate) “Property is a social creation. The laws not only protect and maintain property; they bring it into being; they determine its scope and the extent that it occupies in the rights of the citizens” So, too, Robespierre (not a moderate) “In defining liberty, the first of man’s needs, the most sacred of his natural rights, we have said, quite correctly, that its limit is to be found in the rights of others. Why have you not applied this principle to property, which is a social institution, as if natural laws were less inviolable than human conventions?”

  • Without reading most of the Comments, let me come back again with this simple question, my good people. If I was born with the propensity of being a thief, would it be OK for me to take stealing as my lifelong occupation and not get punished because I was born that way???? Of course, not. Those child abusers who excuse themselves by saying they were born that way, do we say OK continued raping your infant daughter, continue sodomising your pre-teen son, your pupil, if you are a Teacher, your Choir youngsters, if you are a Protestant Pastor???? OF COURSE NOT. And, oooh yes, the Catholic Church has been crucified for the Priests who abused minors. If we accept Leo’s Creed none of those I have mentioned should be admonished and punished.

    And how about a murderer claiming I was born with the propensity of killing people because it gives me great sexual joy to see a person expiring before my eyes????? Surely, we all know where such a person belongs.

    So, again I say, sodomy, lesbianism are perversities that should never be accepted by normal, rational, intelligent human beings. And on this Catholic Website, we must PROCLAIM FROM THE ROOFTOPS…..WE REJECT TOTALLY THESE ABBERATIONS. THEY ARE INTRINSICALLY EVIL, INHUMAN, BEYOND ANIMAL BEHAVIOUR AND MUST BE REJECTED. The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church shall never teach, accept or permit anything with is contrary to God’s and Natural Law. We pray for those with sodomy and lesbianism perversities but they MUST STOP pushing their filthy acts down our throats, forcing us to accept their bestialities, let alone accepting their unnatural co-habitations can be called “Marriage”. Marriage is between One man and One Woman. Even male animals do not mate with male animals. Sheesh, this Culture is Devilish….and once again, in the name of God I pray for these people that they look for a cure to their perversions…….the Medical Science must surely have an answer to cure these dirty disorders.

  • Michael,

    The Church holds that private property is a natural right, and that labor is what confers the status of private property on any object:

    “Now, when man thus turns the activity of his mind and the strength of his body toward procuring the fruits of nature, by such act he makes his own that portion of nature’s field which he cultivates – that portion on which he leaves, as it were, the impress of his personality; and it cannot but be just that he should possess that portion as his very own, and have a right to hold it without any one being justified in violating that right.” — Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, 9

    It is simply false that the law “creates” private property.

    “Nature accordingly must have given to man a source that is stable and remaining always with him, from which he might look to draw continual supplies. And this stable condition of things he finds solely in the earth and its fruits. There is no need to bring in the State. Man precedes the State, and possesses, prior to the formation of any State, the right of providing for the substance of his body. ” — RN, 7

    Private property rights exist prior to the state. The state exists to protect them:

    “the State has for its office to protect natural rights, not to destroy them” — RN, 51

    Of course, the state can “regulate” private property. You can’t use your private property to violate someone else’s rights, or to engage in evil behavior (i.e. pornography or prostitution or something like that).

    “The right to possess private property is derived from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good alone, but by no means to absorb it altogether. The State would therefore be unjust and cruel if under the name of taxation it were to deprive the private owner of more than is fair.” — RN, 47

  • The first Commandments given by directly, in-Person God Almighty are found in Genesis.

    “Go forth and be fruitful (procreate)” is given in genesis six or seven times not just to man, but to all creatures.

  • 10% of the population is left-handed, 3% is queer, and so on. God must have gotten bored making the rest of us perfect. : )

  • If the homosexual activist could give proof positive that the immortal soul of the partner and his own immortal soul will not be going to eternal, infernal damnation, that he is not subject to death, that almighty God Who made all things and keeps them in existence cannot watch over His creation, even while some men abuse themselves through homosexual behavior, for God to see exactly what these individuals are doing, then and only then, will I be free to make an informed choice to give informed consent to aggravated assault and battery of the anus.
    Recently posted was the suicide of a young man, Tyler, who jumped off the George Washington Bridge because his homosexual behavior was broadcast into the public domain. God is watching and sees all homosexual behavior. When, in olden days, Kings and Queens married, their bishop had to present himself into their marriage chamber to verify that the marriage was consummated. So, the bishop did witness to the consummation of the marriage covenant and to the legitimacy of the children who became the next in line for the throne. God watched the consummation of the marriage covenant without the screen the bishop used. God watches every person in every instance of their life. It is called Divine Providence and found inscribed in our Declaration of Independence. So, each and every individual must live accordingly, in grace and dignity, for God is watching.
    P.S. I really do not believe that any individual will be spared death and judgment. This is what the devil, Satan, promised Adam and Eve. Abel was murdered and Adam and Eve both died. The homosexual proponent has embraced a losing argument.
    P.P.S. If a bishop was not present in your marriage chamber, you and your offspring will probably not be the next king and/or queen. Off the cuff: Does anyone know if the bishop was present in Obama’s marital chamber?

  • It is government’s duty to protect private property, virginity, innocence and “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity”. The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. In Executive Order 13575, Rural Councils, Obama arrogated to himself the unauthorized power to seize private property at will.

  • Bonchamps

    But we read in the 2nd book of Institutes and in the 41st book of the Digest of Justinian that “those things that we take from enemies become ours by Natural Law (naturali ratione). In fact, for the Roman jurists, it is the paradigm case of acquisition of ownership. Now, without a law and a ruler, all men are enemies, so there would be no security of possession. His “natural right” is only as good as his natural powers of defending it.

    The Church certainly recognises strict limits to the right of private property. Populorum Progressio (23), citing St Ambrose, “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,” declares, “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

    As an example, the Pope states (24) that “ If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.”

    So there you have it; a right that is contingent (“not absolute”), conditional and defensible (by expropriation). Even Robespierre was asserting no more than that.

  • Not to get off topic here, but I’m not so sure Mary is correct about bishops and royal weddings. I know it was common practice for bishops to bless the marriage bed/chamber of a newly married king/queen or prince/princess on their wedding night…. but did they REALLY have to stick around to witness the, ahem, main event? I rather doubt that. There were other ways of verifying that a royal marriage had been consummated that were, shall we say, a bit less intrusive.

    Returning to our topic…

    I know some people like to compare the photographer refusing to do photos for a same-sex “wedding” to restaurants refusing to serve blacks in the Jim Crow South.

    However, there is another important difference between the two situations (besides the difference between race and sexual preference/orientation/behavior). The segregation that took place in the South was enforced by STATE laws and local ordinances and was not necessarily, or entirely, the result of “free market” choices by individual business owners exercising their right to do business as they pleased. If a restaurant owner had wanted to serve black customers in the Jim Crow era, he/she would have been forbidden by state law to do so, just as a restaurant owner who does NOT want to serve blacks today is forbidden by both federal and state law from refusing such service.

    If New Mexico had a state law forbidding ALL business owners from providing services to couples attempting same-sex marriages, on the grounds that same-sex marriage is illegal in that state (and at last report, it was), then the gay couple in question might have grounds to sue to have that law overturned. An argument could be made that if such a state law existed, it would be an unjust infringement upon not only the rights of the couple involved, but upon the rights of business owners who wanted to provide services for same-sex weddings, or had no objections to doing so.

    But that is not the case here. This is an individual choice by ONE business owner, which leaves other business owners perfectly free to provide the services the same-sex couple is seeking.

  • A photographic studio or shop, offering goods or services to the public was held to constitute “public accommodation.”

    Pretty well anything amounting to commerce or business is covered. The sale of a house, as in Nate’s example, would not be covered, unless the seller was a builder or developer, who makes a business out of selling houses. But a realtor would be covered

    If that’s the case, then it sets a pretty troubling precedent, even if same sex marriages were a-ok. Private businesses should have the legal right to choose their clients – especially if said businesses aren’t essential to life. I think refusing to sell food and water to a same-sex couple would be very wrong, but refusing to take their pictures? Nah.

  • Michael,

    I don’t care about Robespierre. I don’t care about the 54th book of Blah or the 78th Treatise on Blegh. In some contexts these might be relevant, depending upon what you want to establish. As concerns the moral rightness and justification of a thing, only Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium count.

    You’ve ignored the multiple quotations from Rerum Novarum I provided that demonstrate that the right to private property is natural, sacred, and inviolable – subject to some regulations, to be sure, but not to excessive taxation and certainly not expropriation for some social cause.

    “The first and most fundamental principle, therefore, if one would undertake to alleviate the condition of the masses, must be the inviolability of private property.” — RN, 15

    “We have seen that this great labor question cannot be solved save by assuming as a principle that private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable.” — RN, 46

    Meanwhile, this statement:

    “These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.”

    What does this mean, exactly? That “appropriating surplus goods” in such conditions (and if we think globally, this would mean EVERYONE) ought to be illegal? Or that it is simply immoral? If there is an argument here that the “surplus goods” ought to be confiscated by the state and redistributed to the needy, I don’t see it. If it is simply a moral admonishment, fine.

    What we have a natural RIGHT to is the fruits of our labor, which become our property. Whether or not we privately own the fruits of our labor has NOTHING TO DO with the material condition of our neighbor. Of course if we refuse to act charitably towards those in need when we very well could, then we will be held accountable by God.

    I don’t want to get into all the reasons why I find Giovanni Montini’s statements, especially about economics, highly suspect and not deserving of uncritical and immediate assent. But I don’t believe I can be faulted for standing firmly on the foundation laid by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum.

  • Bonchamps your last comment seems dangerous are you saying that the Gospel is the only word of God? or are you saying that if something says something contrary the Gospel should be rejected? because one big difference the Baptists and us Catholics is that Baptists claim that the Gospel is the only word of the lord where as we believe that the Gospel is the word of the lord.

  • I didn’t even mention the Gospel.

    RN = Rerum Novarum. An encyclical by Pope Leo XIII.

  • There should be a “to” in between “the” and “Gospel” as well as a “it” in between “Gospel” and “should”

  • I also clearly said that Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are the sources of authority.

    You need to read carefully before you post.

  • Bonchamps I had a few pretty big typos when you read my comment.

  • Well Ultimately Christ, The Father, and The Holy Spirit are the source of authority because they are the Author, but The Holy Spirit being the protector of Tradition and The Magisterium and God speaking through the Prophets as well as written accounts by the Apostles all three you mentioned do have Authority.

  • A group based on pride does not have Authority because pride is a vice. Therefore Gay Pride groups do not have authority.

  • I don’t care about your typos. Your implication that I was somehow elevating the Gospel above other sources of authority was clear even with the typos, and it is that implication that is completely false. I didn’t even mention the Gospels. So I really don’t know why you would even say such a thing.

  • I was not saying you were doing that I was asking whether you were.

  • The typos were significant typos which should not be there because they change the entire comment.

  • Why would you even ask it?

  • I asked because I was not sure what you meant when you said that The Scriptures, The Tradition, and The Magistereum are the sources of authority.

  • What was unclear about that?

  • Whether you were saying that because those are sources authority there is no other source of authority or whether you were saying that nothing that is incompatible with the sources can have authority.

  • Elaine: I was not there. I will try to find the text. My point is that God is there. Your post on “free market” is excellent.

  • Bonchamps

    I mentioned the Corpus Juris of the Catholic emperor Justinian, because it has been treated by theologians and canonists as an authoritative (but no infallible) source of Natural Law reasoning.

    As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.

    Now, Section 23 gives a clear rôle to the civil authority, “as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.” When “private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,” it is for the public authorities “to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.” Here the Pope is quoting from the Letter to the 52nd Social Week at Brest, in L’homme et la révolution urbaine, Lyon: Chronique sociale (1965), 8-9.

    He then proceeds to give the example I have already cited, “If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.” I call it an example, for it is difficult to suppose that one régime applies to immoveable property and another to movables or to intellectual property, or that one is liable to expropriation and the other is not. Certainly, there is nothing in the encyclical to suggest this

    The balance to be struck is set out in Section 33, “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. Organized programs are necessary for “directing, stimulating, coordinating, supplying and integrating” the work of individuals and intermediary organizations.

    It is for the public authorities to establish and lay down the desired goals, the plans to be followed, and the methods to be used in fulfilling them; and it is also their task to stimulate the efforts of those involved in this common activity. But they must also see to it that private initiative and intermediary organizations are involved in this work. In this way they will avoid total collectivization and the dangers of a planned economy which might threaten human liberty and obstruct the exercise of man’s basic human rights.”

  • Michael,

    “As for the Magisterium, the best interpretation of earlier encyclicals is the light cast on their teaching by later ones and we should read Rerum Novarum in a way that is compatible with Populorum Progressio.”

    If you want to do that, be my guest. I cannot overlook what is a clear conflict of fundamental assumptions about the origin of private property. I also can’t overlook Montini’s left-wing sympathies, including his meetings with Saul Alinsky.

    “Individual initiative alone and the interplay of competition will not ensure satisfactory development. We cannot proceed to increase the wealth and power of the rich while we entrench the needy in their poverty and add to the woes of the oppressed. ”

    This is faulty logic, commonly found among left-liberals and socialists. The “interplay of competition” increases everyone’s wealth – it is not a zero-sum game in which some people grow rich at the cost of other people’s poverty.

    Finally, the idea that you can have “public authorities” establishing goals, plans, and methods – and then graciously allowing private property owners to participate in them – while avoiding a planned economy is rather spurious. The best “plan” is to allow people to make rational economic decisions within a legal framework that protects private property rights.

  • “You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich,”
    “My kingdom is not of this world” The principle of separation of church and state. “You would not have power if it had not been given to you from above.” Caesar belongs to God. In the Old Testament, the Israelites acknowledged God. Every seventh year was a Jubilee Year. The land reverted back to God, its Creator. After the Jubilee year, the land, according to its legal demarcations, usually reverted to its original owners. During the Jubilee year, the soil was left fallow. The soil was left to rest, untilled and the people ate of the aftergrowth.
    The Popes’ encyclicals speak to the sovereign individual person, to the soul of each and every one, literally, to their conscience. Read from this perspective, the Popes’ encyclicals encourage perfect charity and conscientious stewardship. If one has more than one can handle, one probably has more than he needs and ought to share for the sake of the land, if not for brotherhood, knowing full well that if he falls into need, his fellow brethren will share with him, and even in their need. The Popes’ encyclicals are a call to serve God righteously…in one nation under God.
    Proper government seeks to serve, to establish Justice and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our posterity for the common good in good will. Government exists at the will of the people, for the people and by the people.
    Communism denies that it is a creature of the people, existing at the will of the people. Communism is the imposition of unauthorized, usurped power over the people, as in the HHS mandate. Communism is evil because it denies the Creator, the nature of the human being, as a sovereign person, composed of body and immortal soul, redefines the laws of nature to accommodate its evil agenda, and usurps the unalienable rights endowed by “their Creator”.
    Obama’s regime demands good will towards its evil agenda. Hitler made the slaves sing and smile on their way to the work camps… or death. Hitler demanded that Hitler be their “pursuit of Happiness”.

  • The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.

    As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

  • Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.

    Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.

  • Art Deco is correct: “Constitutional provisions will be ignored when the collective culture of the Bar changes. Our appellate judiciary is not overly endowed with integrity. When the wind shifts, constitutional protections for the spoken and written world will matter no more than freedom of contract amongst local businesses.”

    The Constitution means nothing to these collectivists except as it exists to block their schemes. It like manner the Declaration of Independence means nothing. Nor coincidentally do Holy Writ, the Magisterium or Sacred Tradition.

    Their god is themselves. Their religion is hedonistic libertinism. Their goal is the destruction of anything sacred, including but not limited to God. They had their chance and succeeded with murdering God on the Cross, and that proved to be not their victory but their defeat.

    They may ignore or void the Constitution. They may ignore or void the Declaration of Independence. But one day every knee shall bend and every tongue shall confess that HE is Lord of all to the glory of God the Father. Obama and his minions from hell shall NOT escape. Hallelujah!

  • Jim,

    “The New Mexico case is a decision of an intermediate appellate court dealing with state law. I do not know the laws of New Mexico, all the facts of the case, or whether the case will be appealed. But I suspect this article is not telling the whole story.”

    Well, when you discover what part of the story it is I’m not telling through your own diligent research, please share with us all.

    “As for the Canadian cases, Canada is not the United States. Canada does not have a First Amendment. It’s a completely different legal system that has no bearing on US law.”

    No one said it “had bearing on US law.” The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement.

  • It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can and so a married man and woman deserve to be recognised as more in accordance with god than 2 men trying and failing to reach the same position as the married couple.

  • “The point is to highlight the aggressive and totalitarian impulse of the gay movement”

    If a man or woman does not love enough to sublimate their sexual impulses, they do not love at all. Homosexual behavior is not only not marriage, homosexual behavior is not love. The gay-movement seeks to codify the vice of lust as the virtue of Love. The gay-movement seeks to impose corruption and abolish the duty of the state to protect virginity, innocence and the freedom of the people to protect their virginity and innocence. The gay-movement seeks to impose their phallic idolatry on America’s founding principles as an unalienable right endowed by “their Creator”. The gay-movement is not an individual, a unique person created by God. The gay-movement is actually demanding to be recognized as a legal corporation enjoying the freedom of a legal corporation as an artificial person and they are demanding birth as an artificial person from every sovereign citizen. A normal gay-person lives his private life, privately and does not demand that any other person recognize him as an establishment anti-thetical to culture, family and the founding principles. Only individual persons are created equal, with unalienable rights, not so of legal entities or artificial corporations whose so -called “rights” are inscribed by their founders at will, to be imposed by their founders, upon the will of the people.

  • Valentin wrote

    “It is amazing that some people assert that 2 men deserve the same “rights” as a married man and woman, 2 men by natural law cannot procreate we know this whereas a married man and woman can”

    Absolutely. It is very noticeable that, whilst the civil codes of various countries rarely define marriage, they all contain the rule that the child conceived or born in marriage has the husband for father and many jurists have seen filiation as the primary purpose of civil marriage

    It was this consideration that led the highest courts in a country so wedded to the principle of laïcité as France to reject same-sex marriage on equality grounds, as not so much immoral as illogical.

  • Roe v. Wade created an artificial community of individuals who could legally separate the human body from the human soul, literally dismember the soul from the body, and thereby end the begotten humanity yet to be born. The community of Roe v. Wade was superimposed upon our founding principles enumerated in The Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Roe was to have been tried under Freedom of Religion as humanity is a gift from God. Another illegally contrived, superimposed community opposed to God is a different religion. Roe establishes atheism. The Right to Choose community chooses between the Person of God, their Creator and endower of unalienable right to Life, the Giver of Life and the taker of Life, the abortionist.

    Atheism, tried under the penumbra of Freedom of Religion at least acknowledged God and the fact that now, the Person of God was being dispossessed under the artificial legal person contrived called penumbra, a lie and perjury in a court of law.

    Gay-marriage agenda, another artificial illegal community intends to supplant matrimony as the proper relationship between one man’s soul and another woman’s soul in covenant. Matrimony is a covenant between two persons, body and immortal soul, ordained by God. The gay-marriage agenda too, must be tried under Freedom of Religion, since it too, judges what is God’s and what is man’s. God is the source of authority in civil marriages.

    “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” has been used against every virtue and all that is Holy. “Or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” is being used as license by every vice against every virtue. These illegal constructs must be tried under the penumbra of TRUTH, God is TRUTH, Freedom of Religion and the First Amendment. The First Amendment is a single virtue of peaceable assembly to speak, and pray about ‘their Creator”, in public and in private, as all persons are joint and common tenants of the public square.

    The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights declares that all inalienable human rights are derived from the people to whom a person is born, but it does not tell of the Freedom of God WHO endows the people with their freedom and inalienable human rights. Kind of like Human Rights and FREEDOM evolve from America. The evolution of inalienable human rights from other people is another false construct that must be tried under the First Amendment’s Freedom of God and man’s response to the gift of Faith from God, man’s Religion.

    One world government under the bank did not work in the European Union why would it work in America?

They Show Their Love By Insulting You

Wednesday, June 6, AD 2012

Last night marked the darkest hour in all of human history. Humanity has seen pestilence, wars, famine, genocide, and atrocities of all shapes and sizes. But all of that paled in comparison to Scott Walker’s “surviving” a recall victory by a “narrow” 7-point margin.

Why was this the darkest day in human history? Because it was the day democracy died.

It’s the end of the USA as we know it, but strangely I feel fine.

According to Democrats, the recall election was either the moment western civilization marked its inevitable decline or a great sign that Barack Obama is going to roll to re-election. While the truth is probably somewhere in between, either way Democrats expressed tremendous outrage over this election that was bought by Scott Walker and the evil Rethuglicans. Evidently spending a lot of money on elections is a bad thing. Unless of course you’re Barack Obama.

The narrative shift demonstrates a couple of things about the progressive left, neither particularly positive. The first is the blatant dishonesty. It’s quite amusing to listen to these people complain about “the death of democracy” when they’ve spent the better part of the past 18 months organizing, busing people in from other states, staging rallies and sit-ins, ushering their representatives out of the state in the middle of the night to shut the legislature down, and basically just throwing giant hissy fits because they aren’t getting what they wanted.

More importantly, it highlights something that has been an essential fabric of the left since the Enlightenment: their utter contempt for people. According to their vision of how the world should work, Scott Walker would easily have been thrown out on his keister were it not for all the money funneling into Wisconsin on his behalf. The implication is that the people are so dumb that they forgot how angry they are supposed to be with Walker just because of a bunch of 30 second advertisements. I wonder if these people even realize how arrogant and snobbish they sound. Because there is a rather nasty undercurrent to all this talk that makes it seem that they don’t have too high an opinion of most other individuals.

As I said, this really dates back to the Enlightenment, particularly the philosophes of the French Enlightenment. As Gertrude Himmelfarb wrote, it was a common tendency among the philosophes to generalize the virtues and elevate “the whole of mankind” over the individual. The most striking example of this wariness towards real, live, human beings was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Throughout his writings, but especially in his Confessions, he continually wrote of other people in a manner that demonstrated his contempt for them. He felt so isolated from the world that he wrote:

I am now alone on earth, no longer having any brother, neighbor, friend, or society other than myself.  The most sociable and the most loving of human has been proscribed from society by unanimous agreement.  In the refinements of their hatred, they have sought the torment which would be cruelest to my sensitive soul and have violently broken all the ties which attached me to them.  I would have loved men in spite of themselves.  Only by ceasing to be humane, have they been able to slip away from my affection.  They are now strangers, unknowns, in short, nonentities to me – because that is what they wanted.

And yet his entire philosophy was geared towards improving the lot of mankind.

This succinctly summarizes the attitude of much of the left throughout history: they love humanity, but they hate people. Much of what I have read and seen over the past 24 hours has made that abundantly clear.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to They Show Their Love By Insulting You

  • Talk about narratives. Just curious, do you read anything outside your alternative universe? Walker and sycophants like yourself get to spend the past 12 months claiming outside interests and outside money are running the show for the union protests and then you have the gall to complain that people are pointing out that
    1) national democrats and their affiliates eschewed the recall for various and assorted reasons and
    2) Walker was given vast sums of out of state money and support.
    That´s chutzpah.

  • Exhibit A proving my thesis: MZ Forrest.

    Though I do appreciate the honesty here as MZ encapsulates the progressive mindset. Money being contributed from out of state: bad. Voters being bused in from out of state: democracy in action!

  • Nice try MZ. What really happened is that much of the Left exists in an ideological bubble where it was assumed that Walker could be recalled on a wave of popular outrage. The Left has been having a gigantic temper tantrum about Walker since his election, and it was assumed that the general public shared this outrage. The reality based community once again demonstrating that it is anything but.

  • You’ve put into words here the uncomfortable feeling I had when I identified as liberal. I wanted such good things for humanity, but oh how it annoyed me when other people just didn’t get it!

  • Democracy, like Compromise, means “doing what Dems want.”

  • He’s learnt well from his Obamassiah.

    What a wuss!

  • In regard to Rousseau’s contempt for humanity, all you need to know is the way in which he abandoned his newborn kids:

    “In March 1745 Rousseau began an affair with Thérèse Le Vasseur. She was twenty-four years old, a maid at Rousseau’s lodgings. She remained with him for the rest of his life—as mistress, housekeeper, mother of his children, and finally, in 1768, as his wife. They had five children—though some biographers have questioned whether any of them were Rousseau’s. Apparently he regarded them as his own even though he assigned them to a hospital for abandoned children. Rousseau had no means to educate them, and he reasoned that they would be better raised as workers and peasants by the state.”

    The hospital for abandoned children had a very high mortality rate among abandoned infants. Rousseau knew this. That heartless charlatan wasn’t worth being spat upon.

  • If democracy makes people so unstable I am not sure we really want it. Aristotle says that democracy comes from a corruption of constitutional government.

  • Talk about narratives. Just curious, do you read anything outside your alternative universe?


    1) national democrats and their affiliates eschewed the recall for various and assorted reasons and

    Optimization in the use of available resources.

    Walker was given vast sums of out of state money and support.</i

    1. The sums of money are subject to the effects of diminishing returns;

    2. The demonstration of what Gov. Walker has been up to in Wisconsin affects the political dynamic elsewhere (New York, for example).

  • Also want to point out to MZ that the unions picked this fight and poured in resources from out of state to get the recall effort off the ground. They ought not be complaining when they got beaten in the fund-raising effort. (Liberals’ success at fund raising is, of course, proof of their popularity; conservatives’ success at fund-raising is proof of their greed.)

    “Just curious, do you read anything outside your alternative universe?”
    That’s exactly the question the reporter should have asked the guy in clip who insisted democracy died (unless the reporter feared for his safety). I suspect that guy has received nothing but affirmation from his colleagues that victory was at hand. In all seriousness, he may not anyone who supported Walker, he may have no idea how to reach out Walker supporters to get them to change their mind, and seems to think that Walker supporters are all stupid or greedy.

    The reality is that Scott Walker’s opponents overreached to the point of buffoonishness and drove potential supporters (i.e., reliable Democratic voters) away. For instance, one set of exit polls (no link) showed most voters didn’t even think it was legitimate to hold a recall election for a governor unless a serious crime had been committed.

  • As always, they justify evil and hate by invoking their presumed moral superiority.

    Obama definition of compromise, “My way or the highway.”

    Gotta love it!!!

    I’m uneducated in these things. Imus says Slick Willy is sabotaging the One’s reelection efforts.

    AD is right. A. Cuomo is doing much the same (except he keeps the Unions funded with our tax money) as Walker, but he isn’t the devil.

  • Mac,

    Don’t hold back, now.

    Let us know how you feel.

    “That heartless charlatan wasn’t worth being spat upon.”

    Translation: “I wouldn’t pee on him if he was on fire.”

  • Aside from all of the rhetoric regarding the results of this recall election, when the gentleman proclaims that “Democracy is dead”, he is probably correct. As long as we allow money to “buy” elections in America (Super Pacs and other sources of campaign financing), then the every public office will continue to go to the biggest spender, with few exceptions. No wonder people believe that their vote no longer counts.

  • The money count that is tossed about may also not include union money spent.

    Bottom line – the common good won out.

  • The current narrative from the democrats is that republicans bought the governor’s election and they cite $34 million to $4 million (no cite) as proof. If it was true then we should be able to see a change in the polling data from before the money started getting spent to after the money was spent but there is no statistical meaningful change (no cite). The advertising had minimal impact if any. The best spin the republicans can put on spending that amount of money is that it shored up the base or helped hold on to what they had. The second problem with the number is that it does not contain what the unions and other private organizations spent. Once you look at the whole amount spent by everyone then the amounts are much closer (no cite). The real reason that Barrett lost is because he did not put out a viable alternative plans to Walker’s actions – here in Brown County there were just attack ads (non scientific research – when I watched TV & listened to radio). The best attack ads can do is suppress the other sides base but it does not attract voters. Attack ads are important but will not carry the day without a viable positive alternate plan/message. Barrett did not have such a message. Even one of my ultra far left democratic co-workers admitted that Barrett lost because he did not articulate a viable plan.

  • Y’know, MZ, I had a whole long, scathing diatribe written out but then it occurred to me that fascists don’t listen anyway.

    Best of luck. Seriously.

  • @WK Aiken: Your attacks somehow lose their sting when I realize you pretty much cut and paste the same thing for anyone who disagrees with you.

    Perhaps you should look the word up before you use it again:

  • The left is in retreat thanks to [fill in the blank].

    Jenifer Rubin, “Not even Jimmy Carter did this much, I would suggest, to jerk his party to the left and hobble its electoral prospects. No wonder Clinton is on a rampage.”

    I blame Clintion.

  • To all leftists, occupiers, unionists and malcontents:

    Thank you! What an election! We couldn’t have done it without you.

    Without your tantrums, outbursts and boorish behavior we might have

    stayed home for this election. Without your filthy, pot smoking hemp

    -headed minions occupying and violating the Capitol we might have been

    complacent. Without your obnoxious protests, boycotts and other actions

    from your union playbook, we might have sat this one out.

    But you couldn’t hold back. You couldn’t restrain yourselves and behave

    like adults. You couldn’t accept the 2010 election results. We sat and

    watched as you erupted in a juvenile hissy fit that embarrassed

    Wisconsin. The spectacle you created is what motivated us. And thanks

    to your ill-mannered behavior, we won. We turned out. Big time! And now

    we are organized and energized. Committed. “All in”. And we aren’t going

    away. We now have our own organizations (no dues required), an army of

    volunteers and the means to communicate. And countless new sources of

    funding, including a donor base from all 50 states. And we have

    “I verify the recall” to ferret out your infiltrators in our future local


    So thank you Mike Tate, Graeme Zielinski, Fred “loonie” Levenhagen,

    Ismael Ozanne, Maryanne Sumi, Noble Ray, Charles Tubbs, Joanne

    Kloppenberg, Segway boy, John Chisolm, public employee union members,

    UW TA’s, WEAC, SEIU, MTI, AFSCME Council 24 in Union Grove, and WI

    prison guards,. Thanks for the death threats, the intimidation, the

    bullying, belligerence, thuggery and goonish behavior. The lack of

    ethics and the failure to enforce rules and laws. Thank you for putting

    your selfish, greedy motives on display for all taxpayers to see.

    Your antics might have made you feel good but they didn’t make you look

    good. They sickened the rest of us.

    Thank you Shirley Abrahamson and Ann Walsh Bradley. Your petty politics

    woke us up. Thanks you Miles Kristan for dumping the beer on Robin Vos’s

    head. Thank you university doctors for writing the phony excuses;

    Madison teachers for calling in sick or dragging your students to the

    protests without permission. Thank you Katherine Windels for making

    death threats against the Governor. The noontime capitol singers who

    taunted Sheboygan high school students. Thank you WEA trust for raping

    Wisconsin taxpayers. Thank you Gwen Moore for your embarrassing minstrel

    show. And thanks all of you for harassing the Walker family at their

    private home.

    You have all been exposed. Your tactics have been rejected. Your bad

    behavior has been forever captured on youtube.

    Thank you Peter Barca and fellow assembly members for donning your

    foolish orange t-shirts and screaming “shame” at legislators just doing

    their jobs.

    Thank you Mark Miller and all 14 senators for fleeing the state and

    making fools of yourselves in the process. Illinois need a few more

    village idiots. Thanks for showing us what democracy doesn’t look like.

    And Mayor Barrett. How grateful we are that you chose one low road after

    another in your issue-less campaign against the Governor. This was your

    strike three. You are out. Take a seat on the bench and stay there. I

    have a hunch this was your final at-bat.

    All of you helped turn Wisconsin permanently red. Your Governor, Scott

    Walker, will not just complete his first term, he is all but assured as

    many future terms as he seeks. He will be your Governor for a long, long

    time. Get used to it. And his national “rock star” status just might

    lead him to be your President some day. Just think, it couldn’t have

    happened without you! So to all of you blue fisters, thank you from the

    bottom of my happy, red heart.


    A Wisconsin taxpayer

  • As another put it succinctly: The Dems start a fight and pull a knife then complain when we defend ourselves with a gun claiming it wasn’t fair. Classic.

  • “Democracy is dead”? People have been saying that since the Civil War.

  • OK, this is long after the fact -I can’t sleep (again!) it is Monday morning, and there are still “Recall Walker” signs around my neighborhood.

    Because, gee, “when you wish upon a star, your dreams come true.”

    I was never so PROUD of my state as I was last Tuesday. No out-of-stater can comprehend how awful the last 18 months were for us “silent majority” Wisconsinites. I am so happy this is over! My Memorial Day weekend was ruined by an anti-Walker leftist from Madison who spit in my face and called me a “fascist” with imaginary sexual fantasies about Walker. I have no sexual feelings about the man – I admire his bravery and class. He and his family have suffered through death threats and the vilest insults were thrown at him every time he made a pulic appearance and yet the man never once lost this temper or responded in kind. He is not Catholic, he is the son of a Protestant minister, and I believe I have never seen such an example of a true Christian in public office.

    MZ, doesn’t the hate, the bile, the sheer evil and ugliness on your side ever give you pause? The secular left would send you to the camps too – you are just a useful idiot for them.

  • SAY not the struggle naught availeth,
    The labour and the wounds are vain,
    The enemy faints not, nor faileth,
    And as things have been they remain.

    If hopes were dupes, fears may be liars;
    It may be, in yon smoke conceal’d,
    Your comrades chase e’en now the fliers,
    And, but for you, possess the field.

    For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
    Seem here no painful inch to gain,
    Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
    Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

    And not by eastern windows only,
    When daylight comes, comes in the light;
    In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly!
    But westward, look, the land is bright!

15 Responses to Internet Hitler Ticked at Loss in Wisconsin

  • No doubt so close to the truth it is frighteningly funny.

  • …..They’ll put free hookers and cocaine on our health plan……..

    😆 Love it. 😆

  • “they will accept it as long as we say it’s for the children” “until the bankruptcy trustee comes”

  • Lol…. Sacramento

  • Also, love the bit about keeping poor kids out of charter schools . . .

  • “The ignorant rubes will believe what we tell them! They’re just taxpayers!”

    Internet Hitler channels all our Democrat betters in DC.

  • Let me see if I get this …. using this comedic comparison, the democrats are Nazis and the Tom Barrett is Hitler or very least leader of Wisconsin democrats are Hitler. Ahhh — yeah. Such comparison, known as Reductio ad Hitlerum as well as Godwin’s Law (Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes some comparison to Hitler and the Nazis. — Wikipedia).

    Such comparisons are Socratic in nature, for it could be said:

    Hitler was a Nazi.
    Hitler hated smoking.
    Hating smoking is Nazi ideology.

    Bottom line — democracy worked in Wisconsin. And this article and video isn’t funny. As Catholics, we can do so much better.

  • I thought it was funny.

    The more truth in a farce, the more funny the farce.

    Besides, tolerant people spent most of eight years calling Dubya Hitler . . .

  • I thought it was funny. And the syllogism posted by Defender was neither Socratic nor valid; and had nothing to do with the video. Finally, the chronic citation of Godwin’s Law is far more tiresome than than the reference to Hitler in on-line discussions. Usually, those references are for the purpose of demonstrating the invalidity of an asserted principle, and instead of the principle’s proponent acknowledging that the principle’s defectiveness he lamely cites Godwin’s Law.

  • Yes. Truth is uplifting and a little laugh is medicine for the ills caused by current realities.
    Lies aren’t and they hurt, too.

  • “And this article and video isn’t funny. As Catholics, we can do so much better.”

    My heart always goes out to the humor impaired, the largest minority among us.

    To quote myself on the subject of using Hitler as a buffoonish figure:

    “Some people think it is in bad taste to use Nazis in a humorous fashion. I respectfully disagree. Laughing at the Nazis is one of the best ways to remember them on the ash heap of history. Too often they are given almost demonic status as avatars of evil which is precisely the wrong way to remember them. I agree with the late Werner Klemperer, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who served in the US Army during WW2. Decades after the war he would play the bumbling Colonel Klink on the television show Hogan’s Heroes. Klemperer said that he would go to his grave happy knowing that he had helped make the Nazis look ridiculous.”

  • I think the Nazis show that you can be very intelligent for some very stupid reasons.

  • “IT IS INVESTING!” lol.

  • Defendor Hitler was also a vegetarian, encouraged promiscuity, and thought of everything as a matter of power (as do feminists).

2 Responses to Ronald Reagan Speech: 40th Anniversary of D-Day

  • And what will the Obamanation of Desolation have to say? Whatever it is, I shall ignore it.

    I hope that President Reagan is in Heaven enjoying that beatific vision to which we all aspire.

  • I don’t have the education, thus the correct words to pay proper tribute to this great American, but I know one thing, after George Washington, he is the greatest leader this nation has ever known! Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln not with standing. Could there be any more illuminating times than now to clarifie what this man was all about and to focus on what this country is supposed to be about and IS about? In other words, when you don’t have a thing, when you’ve lost your way, when the ship of state is taking on water and sinking, one harkens back to the true captains, the good ship mates, the real leaders………………………

Father Ranger

Wednesday, June 6, AD 2012

Monsignor Joseph R. Lacy

The men of the 5th Ranger Battalion could barely keep from laughing when they first saw their chaplain, Lieutenant Joe Lacy, a week before D-Day.  These were young men, in peak physical condition.  Father Joe Lacy was old by Ranger standards, knocking on 40, overweight by at least 30 pounds, wearing thick glasses and short, 5 foot, six inches.  He was described by one Ranger as “a small, fat old Irishman.”  No way would he be able to keep up when they  invaded France.

On the trip across the Channel to France,  Chaplain Lacy told the men:  “When you land on the beach and you get in there, I don’t want to see anybody kneeling down and praying. If I do I’m gonna come up and boot you in the tail. You leave the praying to me and you do the fighting.”  A few of the men began to think that maybe this priest was tougher than he looked.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Father Ranger

Letter from Granddaughter of General Gorostieta

Wednesday, June 6, AD 2012



Here is a translation of a letter from a granddaughter of  General Gorostieta, who is portrayed by Andy Garcia in For Greater Glory, to Andy Garica.  Go here to read the letter in the original Spanish.   Hattip to commenter Rogelio Núñez Ruiz. Translation is by my hard working and deeply appreciated better half Cathy:

[Opening commentary by Fernando Banuelos, Editorial Director of the Cine 3 film news website:]

Letter from Maria Teresa Perez Gorostieta to Andy Garcia about Cristiada [AKA For Greater Glory ]

This is an emotive letter sent by Maria Teresa Perez Gorostieta, granddaughter of General Gorostieta, to Andy Garcia for his role in Cristiada.  Although I’m not a fan of Mexican films, especially Mexican history films in another language and with non-Mexican actors, I believe that this film falls in the “top-priority must-see” category of films, just to see what they say about us, and to see how faithful this adaptation is to what history tells us.

[Maria Teresa Perez Gorostieta’s letter follows:]

Mr. Garcia:

I saw the film last week, and I enjoyed the character of my grandfather, even though I don’t share the legend that he was an unbeliever and converted in the Movement; it seems to me that [portraying him that way] brings him to people in a better way than if they had portrayed him as being too religious.

I congratulate you for having accepted the role on behalf of my mother, who unfortunately died 4 days before they finished filming it; she was happy that it would be you who would interpret it.  His death scene is lovely and, as the Bible says, the applause that counts is in Heaven, and the whole family is there, so that the Glory of the Cristeros is now that they’re with God.

I don’t know if you read the letters which we sent to you through the Director, but I believe that my grandfather had the arrogance with which you characterized him, and the tenderness he showed his people.  He had a great love for his family:

[Quoting a letter from General Gorostieta to his family:]

“For my little children, who I can’t give a kiss to, who I can’t buy a ball for, who I can’t, as I did so often, let sleep in my arms, on such a great date for the world, on a day in which even wild beasts become tender with Glory!, by your conduct I send them this gift:  all the privations which they suffer, all the sorrows which you and I suffer, are only obedient to one end – leaving them a road, marking for them a route.  I know well that there are smoother roads in the world, and God well knows that I know how to walk them.  But those aren’t the ones that I will leave marked for them.  It’s the same bitter, gloomy road that their grandfather marked for me, the only one that exists, if one is to be forever content to have finished it and able to give an account of the journey.  The only one which, having been walked, imparts true peace.  I give them as a gift, the privations and the sorrows which the road is giving me.  Give them many kisses, and never rest from preventing – I don’t say now, but [even] within many years – that they should lose their faith on such a road.”

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Letter from Granddaughter of General Gorostieta

  • Very touching and powerful letter. I’ll venture to say (I hope) that Andy Garcia was equally moved and humbled by it.

  • I just saw this movie today with my mother and it is very moving. It gave me a deeper resolve to face whatever minor challenges in faith that I face and a greater love of the sacrament of reconcilliation.

  • No movie has moved me more Chris since I saw The Passion of the Christ.

  • Can’t wait to see it!!!

  • Unparalleled seems like an over statement considering how long the Hmong Catholics have ad to deal with General hatred of the faith by other Vietnamese as well as Communism and they still get arrested and used to get killed and hung quite often for their faith The problem they have is that there a lot more Cuddhists and Communists in the country of Vietnam than there are Catholics.

  • I wrote Cuddhists when I should have written Buddhists.

  • It’s a great film and one that I have been posting about on Facebook, Twitter, and my own blog. As a Catholic, the film was deeply moving since we are watching now canonized saints and blessed’s who died for the cause of religious freedom and most importantly for Christo Rey. The Church has recognized their convictions and heroic virtue in the face of evil. Andy Garcia a fine job and hope that he makes more films like – For Greater Glory. Viva Christo Rey!

  • I was deeply impress with the story and made a parallel of the Russian civil war , when the killing of priest and desecration of churches was part of the communist agenda
    The world is divided between evil and good , no matter the place , the time or the people.
    More stories like this should be presented to the world .
    thank you Gorosieta, you are an inspiration for future generations .
    Kira Mihailtichenko

  • It is important remember that Evil is simply the destruction twisting and lack of Good. Therefore Evil to exist there has to be Good but Good can exist without Evil therefore Good is much stronger and integrated than Evil. That is the ultimate reason the Soviet Union collapsed because it was based on corrupt things things that fall apart.

  • Andy Garcia did a superb performance of General Gorostieta. As a Mexican American individual I was not aware of the cristero civil war. This movie along with research has opened my eyes and heart to the people who fought for this strong stand. From someone who loves her God thank you all for fighting and dying for your belief.

  • Did not know this history at all. Andy Garcia did a wonderful job as did the young actor who played Jose. The development of the story and the movement of scenes were so well done. All stayed to watch the credits and catch the bios of the characters.
    I wish the creators well and that they continue to bring similiar stories to audiences. People think that evil is old. This story is less than 100 years old. We must know our past to find our future.

  • i saw this movie yesterday and i can say that i had been waiting for it for years. i have a personal interest in this movie because my father became an orphaned in this christero war because my grandfather was involved in this christero movement and was killed in 1929. the mexican govermment due to being victorious in this horrific war has been very succesful in erasing the atrocities it commited during this era. when i saw the christero soldiers in battle uniform, it was like seeing my grandfather coming back to life.

  • Clementina one of the great things about the films is that we recall the heroes, like your grandfather, who stood up for the faith and paid for their lives as martyrs.

  • There is a verse in the book of Proverbs from the ” Holy Bible ” that says, ” A man plans his way but the Lord directs his steps. ” Because I believe in a sovereign Lord, I have no doubt that General Gorostieta was a man placed by our Lord at the time of the Christero movement for such a time. No different than when the Lord chose Moses many years ago. The most moving statement of the movie to me was when Mr. Garcia as General Gorostieta said to his wife, ” I believe in FREEDOM !!! ” Tyranny, oppression, starvation, and other horrible atrocities may for a time have their way but the final word will be GODS !!!!

  • It was a wonderful movie inspiring faith and courage in the face of evil, and very timely considering the current war against Catholic beliefs in the USA.

    What a shame that a faithful Catholic wife is played by Eva Longoria who is supporting Obama despite his war against the Catholic Church.
    I find her playing that role disrespectful to the memories of all those who lost their lives for religious freedom.

    Just as there were Catholics amongst the “federales”, we will see the same in the upcoming battle over religious conscience here in the USA… Those who will choose government over God and the Church.
    Hopefully, the USA will never get to this point. But who would have believed it could happen in Mexico?

  • Saw the movie yesterday. Very,very impressive! Can’t stop thinking of so many courageous believers especially that of a 14 year old, Jose Luis Sanchez del Rio. When I am in need of this virtue, I will definitely be thinking of him. Que Viva Cristo Rey.

  • This film makes us to reflect in the great blessing to practice our religious belief with FREEDOM. But it goes beyond; it shows up to what extend we should fight for what truly believe. Even without having FAITH this film speaks about FREEDOM, CONVICTION, HONESTY, LOVE and overall how the WORDS FAITH, PRINCIPLES and SACRIFICE are really spell.
    It is a very important film in a timely way, since our core Catholic principles are under attack right now not only in Mexico but here in the USA. That is why is important that our society really knows what does it mean to be Catholic. History has failed to give credit and acknowledges to these brave Catholics who gave their life, just like Jesus did for love to us.
    It would be an honor to have you in our church to hear your personal stories about your great-grandfather and to inspire our community with your family portraits.
    With Sincere affection;
    Jose Luis Villeda
    Viva Cristo Rey!

  • Brenda I will say something which I heard which is “hope for the best and expect the worst.”

ABBA Open Thread

Wednesday, June 6, AD 2012

Well, Governor Walker won last night in Wisconsin, we have had more than two million visits to our website, and I am on vacation next week, so I am in a good mood!  Time for my ABBA guilty pleasure, and, besides, we haven’t had an open thread in a while.   The usual open thread rules apply:  be concise, be charitable, and, above all, be entertaining!

Continue reading...

25 Responses to ABBA Open Thread

  • Great news! A victory for life. Maybe things are beginning to turn now so that Catholic values can regain some sway in the public square over against the extreme secularism of the Obama government. Americans, in their hearts, cannot really want the socialist/secular world Obama promotes. It so goes against the “hope” he campaigned on the first time around. How deceived we were! What were people hoping for from him? What a bait and switch he pulled. I hope, too, that this victory will put the LCWR on guard. They are in a power struggle, using contemporary politics, to try and run the Catholic Church according to their feminist, New Age platform. Not gonna happen! The young will not be deceived by this. May we all, old like me and the middle aged and the young, see clearly what is good, what is true, and what is beautiful. Those things are of God and the rest is dross.

  • ABBA! Your poor wife. 😉

  • (Guest comment by Don’s wife Cathy:) Fortunately for Don, I like ABBA, too!

  • Now if I could only convert her to the culinary magnificence of mustard sandwiches and barbecue potato chips! 🙂

  • “Fortunately for Don, I like ABBA, too!”

    As the lady likes ABBA I will not debate the merits of the group further. Merits which are mysteriously hidden to me. 😉

  • We ate mustard sandwiches and coffee when we were kids. My poor mother.

  • What about a bit of Neil Diamond then? …..or Bread?……or ELO?…..or Queen?
    All from the same era. (I won’t mention John Denver 😉

  • I Do, IDo, I Do, I Do, I Do……their best.

    My compliments to Catherine and Don. Your taste is wonderful.

  • That would be a bit hard core even for me Mary!

  • Thank you Karl. We ABBA lovers have to stand together against the Philistines! 🙂

  • JD cannot be mentioned here John, lest the angels of good musical taste appear with fire and sword! 🙂

  • As I’ve got a few minutes to kill before I head off to Cambridge (NZ – not England 🙂 ) for my diaconate lectures, I thought I should instruct you, Don, on some real dinkum 70’s music. 😉 Try this.

    Last week, as my personal time clock ticked past 70years, and I commenced my 8th decade, I still love this music.

  • ABBA is great fun — I bought their “ABBA Gold” CD a few years ago and listen to it frequently. And I applaud Don the Kiwi’s choice of Creedence Clearwater, also one of my favorites from that era.

    Then, of course, there is the other genre of classical music of which my favorite is the Emperor Concerto by Beethoven –a bit longer, deeper, and wider than the pop stuff, but truly magnificent to savor when there is the time.

  • I would have to say if I were a fan of ABBA, I don’t think I would say it publicly. However, the 70s did produce some great folk and fl/lrock music like Jim Croce, Dan Fogelberg, Gordon Lightfoot, Loogins and Messina, Bread, Cat Stevens (his unfortunate becoming Yusuf Islam notwithstanding he still has it musically though) and yes Henry John Duescthendorf Jr (better known as John Denver). If the “angels of good musical taste” haven’t come to exact their just pound of flesh from the ABBA lovers, those of us who appciate JD are more than safe. But then again maybe they have:

  • Don: We, the kids, made the mustard sandwiches for ourselves, rye bread, butter and onion sandwiches, sugar sandwiches (on rye bread), anything to make us keep going until the bats came out to eat the mosquitos. I had almost forgotten. Thank you. John Denver is my favorite, but you and your wife, Catherine are in my children’s era.

  • Oh Fernando!!

  • For JD’s sake Greg, I hope being a bad singer involves only temporal punishment to those of us forced to listen to said singer. I recall working in a factory one long summer in the seventies when every other song on the speaker system seemed to be by JD. The factory lacked air conditioning and it was a very hot summer. If I end up in Hell, God forbid, I hope that summer was not a foretaste of what to expect! 🙂

  • Actually, JD was one of the best singers of that era.

  • Only if “best” encompasses annoying, derivative, schmaltzy and banal. However arguments regarding preferences are the most futile type of argument.

  • For an ABBA fan to call John Denver a bad singer is the pot calling the kettle black with an Al Sharpton model bullhorn. That being said, arguments based on preferences are indeed futile.

  • Bravo Greg.
    I had this………discussion??….with Don a couple of years ago. Love JD or hate him, he had a very distinctive tenor voice which put him, musically, well ahead of many of his contempories. Having said that, his lifestyle choices, although trendy, were not what I would have done….nor, I’m sure, our mutual brother (nemesis on this matter 😉 ) Don would have done – perhaps he was a little younger than, certainly me, in that era. 🙂

    Its pleasing to get some support – after all, arguing from the south Pacific against a Flatlander is difficult. (I did not say Flatuslander 🙂 )

  • Well, Don the Kiwi:

    The lifestyles of many artists of that era were less than desirable by a long shot. His song Annie’s Song is one of the most substantively beautiful love songs ever. “Come let me love you. Let me give my life to you.” has a very Catholic ring to it. However, his marriage to Annie Martell, the subject of the song didn’t survive. John was also a very
    good songwriter (he actually wrote Leaving on a Jet Plane which Peter, Paul, and Mary made a big hit) with a brilliant sense of melody. The main guitar riff in Rocky Mountain High is one of the most distinctive in all of folk/rock. And he vocal melody he sings against that riff is a stroke of genius. not to mention tricky to do. something I know from experience.

    Since Don M. is a fan of Gordon Lightfoot, there is at least some hope for him afterall.:-D

  • Today at noon.
    Copied the rally guidelines for this open thread post just in case.
    I think the time choice has to do with Good Friday in the Christian world, but many of us have weekday obligations and other distance limits. Looking at the list of locations around the country, it’s a stretch to make a “lunch” time visit. Many areas have nothing planned, sadly Lukewarm. Maybe, it would be good to remember the rallies at noon to Our Lord.

    Rally Guidelines and Protocols

    The Nationwide Rally for Religious Freedom welcomes all participants, of whatever religious persuasion — and even those of no religious faith — who are united by support for and desire to protect the United States Constitution’s First Amendment right of religious liberty currently under attack by the HHS Mandate.

    It is not the purpose of these Rallies to promote or advocate for any political party or political movement. Thus Rally participants are asked to not bring political party or candidate signage to the rallies or distribute such literature.

    All those who attend are expected to comport themselves peacefully at all times while asserting their Constitutional right to freedom of assembly.

    Families, even those with small children, should feel at home and comfortable attending this Rally.

    If opposition protests are conducted, Rally participants will not engage counter demonstrators or hecklers with loud verbal argumentation, name-calling or derogatory remarks, nor will such opponents be physically engaged in any way.

    Any interference with Rally participants’ rights to freedom of speech and assembly will be referred to police authorities by local Rally leaders.

    If Rally participants are approached by media for comment, they should refer reporters and journalists to local rally coordinators for an interview

Walker Wins

Tuesday, June 5, AD 2012



Pro-life Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin has won the recall election decisively.  His victory is a clear sign of how the political winds are blowing in Wisconsin and strongly indicates that Wisconsin may well end up in the Republican column in the presidential election this year, which is devastating for Obama.  One little statistic that should send shivers down the spine of Democrat strategists this evening.  When Walker won in 2010 he won the Catholic vote by two points.  Exit polls show him winning the Catholic vote by ten points tonight.  More and more Catholics are realizing that they have no home in the modern Democrat party.  When a conservative Republican like Walker can win in a traditionally Blue state like Wisconsin, largely due to the Catholic vote, the political landscape is changing rapidly.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Walker Wins

  • Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ!

  • This is great news. (I, somehow, know you would post this 🙂 )
    Have been following this for a few days, and have been waiting for the news item to come up on Fox – Hannity.

  • The best part is Obama’s dumbfounded look in the video’s preview image.

  • I am beginning to ponder that maybe Obama’s election in 2008 was an aberration. A last gasp of liberalism as we know it. Yeah, we’ll have other liberal candidates winning the White House, but none do the depth and degree of this president and his European-Socialism idealism.

    I pray and hope that we’ll have a flowering of Christianity in this country due in part to the moral depravity and emptiness of President Obama.

    I hope he doesn’t devolve into a modern day Nero if he sees the writing on the wall.

  • What a day!
    Congratulations to Gov. Walker, to Queen Elizabeth on her Jubilee, and to NASA for showing the transition of Venus from evening star to morning star.

  • Tito-
    I’m not as hopeful as you; I’m just hoping a lot of folks went: “HOLY CROW! This ain’t what I thought!” and swing back the opposite way.

  • It’s a wonderful win for those who want to have less government spending and more fiscal sanity. Congratulations to Governor Walker and the people of Wisconsin. More work to be done before November.

  • According to CNN he narrowly retained office. I didn’t know 60/40 was a squeaker

  • Heh, I just noticed that as well Dave. Even better was Lawrence O’Donnell claiming that the big winner tonight was President Obama.

    The big spin now is that Walker only won this because of the money. Evidently now Democrats are against big spending on elections. I hope Barack Obama is apprised of this fact. But even if Walker outspent Barrett, so what? Wasn’t the idea that people in WI were so enraged that they had no choice but to oust Walker. Do you mean to tell me that it only took a bunch of 30 second tv ads to convince voters that they weren’t as upset as they were told they were?

    Make no mistake, this is a very scary sign for the Democrats. Sure all the polling leading up to tonight had Walker winning, but by a much smaller amount. The actual results would seem to indicate that voters are turning away from the Democrats in ways that polls are not accurately reflecting, suggesting that polls about November might be even less rosy for the Dems than people think.

  • There is hope…….I was starting to wonder.!!! God bless Gov. Walker.

  • Good.

    November will be 10 times harder and 100 times more vital.

    Don’t get cocky.

  • Yeehaw!

    Yeah, Democratic strategists should be worried. If they go down 60/40 trying to recall a union-busting GOP governor in Wisconsin on all places, they have got trouble come November.

    Either, as Paul says, this indicates that people are turning away from the Dems more than polls would indicate, or else it underlines how unmotivated the Democratic base is these days. If unions can’t get out the vote in their own recall election, will they be able to create an Obama wave again in the general?

  • There is one small consolation prize for Dems: in addition to Gov. Walker, four GOP legislators were also up for recall and one of them was defeated, which turns the state Senate back to Dem control. However, the legislature isn’t scheduled to meet again until after the November election so this “victory” isn’t likely to make much of an impact. (A commenter on another political blog compared it to a last-place team winning its last game of the season and trumpeting that as “proof” of a comeback.)

  • An amen to that! But optimism, for me, is a long way off.

  • Very happy with the outcome.

  • I’m never one for triumphalism.

    However, I am thrilled to see the communist teacher’s unions get a richly deserved, well-placed bloody nose.

  • As a Wisconsinite, I’m proud of my RED state and the taxpayers sticking it to the union thugs once again — this time by a wider margin. On the downside, the bill for this farce came to $63 million. As a reporter, I’ve interviewed Walker a couple of times when he campaigned and found him honest and direct, but his offer to reach across the aisle is disconcerting. There can be no compromise with baby killing, homosexual-promoting, tax-and-spend neanderthals. They’re total losers; screw ’em.

  • Don, I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in “exit polls,” which are a) a very small sampling and b) not accurate given people’s penchant to lie about their vote for various reasons.

    Early on last night, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel web site, CNN, Fox, etc. all had the race “neck-and-neck” despite the fact that Walker was up 61-39 and widening his lead. The outcome was never in doubt even though Madison/Milwaukee results came in late to close the gap somewhat. This was an old-fashioned political whuppin’.

  • There is one small consolation prize for Dems: in addition to Gov. Walker, four GOP legislators were also up for recall and one of them was defeated, which turns the state Senate back to Dem control.

    They are actually still fussing over the results of one state senate race. The preliminary margin is 800 votes out of 72,000 cast.

    The legislature does not convene until another round of state senate contests in November.

    According to CNN he narrowly retained office. I didn’t know 60/40 was a squeaker

    The earliest results had that margin. The last ballots counted were in Milwaukee, so the completed tally was a 7-point margin. (Still outside the conventional bounds of ‘narrow’).

    Surprised we haven’t heard from MZ

  • Don, I wouldn’t put a lot of stock in “exit polls,” which are a) a very small sampling and b) not accurate given people’s penchant to lie about their vote for various reasons.

    The sample sizes are adequate, but these polls do appear in the last decade to be a good deal less reliable than they were prior to that, for reasons not well explained.

  • The Democrat Party left us, we did not leave it. If it is the Democrats vs saving our eternal souls, they don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell. Coming from a long line of card carrying union dems, (meat packers, John Deere,) they have lost nearly all of this big Catholic extended family. When my father-in-law was in the Wisc State legislature, he fought so hard against the far left that was infiltrating them, he lost and so did the country. It took a lot, and it hurt a lot to walk away from what was a huge part of this families life. We have never looked back. The pubs aren’t perfect but at least there is a glimmer of hope. Praise The Lord for last nights results!

  • Yeehaw!

    That is the most emotional I have ever witnessed Darwin, evah!

  • Surprised we haven’t heard from MZ

    Ain´t much to really say. The idea that someone elected 18 months ago was somehow easily defeated was a narrative I didn´t subscribe to, although a lot of activists did. When the signatures were being gathered, I placed the odds of recall at 40%. The reason for the loss was gross under performance (or over performance by Walker) in northeastern Wisconsin. Barrett lost 60/40 in Brown Country (Green Bay); winning democrats carry that county. My speculation is that the Milwaukee crime statistics ad was really effective out-state. But even that had more to do with margin than simple outcome. Simple outcome was explained by Walker polling at or above 48% since about January. Where things will get interesting is the next biennial budget. Walker likely won´t be able to do a cram down again or at least not to the degree he did this time. In particular, the road builders are likely going to have to take a hit which will alienate one of his constituencies. Despite the rhetoric, this budget was easy choices like urban funding, cramming down salaries of democratic constituencies, and postponing health care eligibility for the marginally poor.

    As far as Obama goes, the polling has been pretty clear for several months that there is a significant cohort of pro Walker and pro Obama voters. I don´t understand how one could accommodate that dissidence, but some folks have managed. I´m personally surprised at the strength of Obama´s numbers. As for the Catholic vote, there were no discernible Catholic concerns. Without looking at the numbers, I would guess that Catholics voted a little less for Walker than white people generally.

  • Is Walker first US governor to survive a recall election?

    For MZ, enjoy:

More on the “instruction”: Sr. Margaret Farley, RSM fires back…

Tuesday, June 5, AD 2012

It didn’t take long for the New York Times to report a statement issued by Sister Margaret Farley, RSM, whose 2006 book concerning sexual ethics was deemed unfit for Catholic consumption.

In her statement, Sr. Farley wrote:

I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.

Sr. Farley is a crafty thinker.  Note her use of the phrase “official Catholic teaching.”

Invoking that phrase, Sr. Farley communicates something subtle: She was not intending to write a book that would reflect what the Vatican teaches.

Crafty indeed!

What Sr. Farley is distinguishing between is what the Vatican teaches about sexual ethics and what she believes is an authentically Catholic sexual ethics.

At the same time, however, those who serve on Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) also happen to be clever.  Its members possess decades of experience in spotting such crafty linguistic games.

The Motley Monk thinks this distinction earned Sr. Farley a slap on the wrist.  After all, the CDF’s instruction makes clear there is no authentic Catholic teaching that is not official Catholic teaching.

In contrast, Sr. Farley would like others to believe that her book is eminently suitable for Catholics, even though it does not present official Church teachings. That’s unacceptable to the CDF.

Consequently, if Sr. Farley wants to write ecumenical theology, she remains free to do so.  But if her theology does not square with the teaching of the Magisterium, then Sr. Farley should expect that the CDF will not allow Sr. Farley—or any Catholic theologian who plays the same crafty linguistic game—to pass her speculations off as suitable for Catholics.

In short, “Just Love” is not suitable for Catholics to use to form their consciences.



To read the New York Times article, click on the following link:

To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:

Continue reading...

30 Responses to More on the “instruction”: Sr. Margaret Farley, RSM fires back…

  • In an earlier day and age a person who advocates sexual perversion would be given a chance to repent, and failing that would be publicly excommunicated perhaps in a terribly painful and mortal way. I am certainly not advancing the idea of painfully and mortally excommunicating this heretic. However, there is a reaon why God commanded the Children of Israel to wipe out all the pagans from the Promised Land: exposure brings contamination.

    BTW, why is it that lesbians are almost always horrificly ugly?

  • As i wrote yesterday, Sr Farley made no contribution to a genuinely feminine contribution to human sexuality, which may be lacking since the field is dominated my celibate males. i said MAY be lacking, it has been said often, she had a chance and missed, unless the celibate men at the CDF overlooked it.

  • Your last line seems wrong. Did you mean to write, “Just Love is NOT suitable for Catholics to use to form their consciences”? Perhaps you meant that it is suitable in the “it is good to expose yourself to false teachings so you know what is not true” sort of way. I’m pretty sure that’s not the case though.

  • Thanks for the “heads up.” I’ve corrected the error.

  • ” statement, Sr. Farley wrote:

    I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether. ”

    The word ‘current’ reveals an ignorant disregard for the Gospel, the Magisterium, and all that can be ascribed to the words Catholic and love. Maybe the ‘current’ reveals her hope for a change that would immortalize her as a forerunner.

  • Fire Marshall Biff Lohman of the Wacko County, New Jersey Department of Fire Safety, has written and published a handbook for homeowners and renters called Conflagration Your Way! in which he dismisses traditional concerns about running power through wires with frayed insulation, and about storing flammable substances such as gasoline in open containers. He also advocates a rather unorthodox method to bring a charcoal fire up to cooking temperature rapidly: light your charcoal, then after your fire has been going for a minute or two, squirt lighter fluid directly onto the coals from a distance of three feet.

    In several interviews and articles, Lohman has repeatedly stated that Conflagration Your Way! is not intended to represent trends in thinking among the current, official fire safety community.

    “But,” Lohman philosophizes, “how many of those other guys have been knocked unconscious by a flaming ceiling beam crashing down on their head? Not many!”

    “Those who haven’t woken up in the burn unit or head trauma room have little business telling the rest of us about the safe ways to handle fire and ignitable substances!”

  • I am eagerly awaiting sister’s impending, unintended reinterpretation of Church teaching on etrenal damnation.

  • “Current” official Catholic teaching. So, either she’s a bad researcher who thinks that the Church has changed its teachings in the past, or she’s bad at ecclesiology and thinks that the Church will change its teachings in the future. Or she’s a bad writer who doesn’t chose her words carefully. Whichever the case, I’m not gonna buy her book.

  • Nope…professor emerita from Yale Divinity School.

  • excuse me, same church, different pew. I loved J Pelikan’s volumes, sad he did not understand his own scholarship and became Orthodox instead of coming all the way home.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • I think what she’s trying to do with her statement is create the impression that this is a book on sexual ethics that just happens to be written by a nun & really no concern of the Church at all … in which case, nice try sister! but you know it won’t fly … the writings of any religious are liable to Church approval … I wonder what will happen if sister is told that all future writings require approval of a Church appointed censor?

  • After all, the CDF’s instruction makes clear there is no authentic Catholic teaching that is not official Catholic teaching.

    Looks like she’ll have to crack open the thesaurus to further the spin. Maybe “genuine Catholic teaching”?

  • Doctor and Rev Sister Margaret Farley is a scholar and a loving, caring nun and teacher. I have read her book a few years ago and fail to see the justification for the uproar from the Vatican. Why would the “official teaching of the Roman Catholic Magisterium” possibly be so vehemently opposed to LOVE? I just do not get it. The major truth that I found in Dr. Farley’s clear and well-written book was focused on the constructive principles of LOVE. Jesus Christ’s teaching were focused on “Just Love.” The reactions of the CDF and some of the narrow-minded thinking expressed in some of the comments here are focused on judgment and condemnation and even bitter calls for “burning the heretic.” I cannot see for the life of me where Jesus’ teachings are reflected in the work of the CDF or in the scandal brewing from the Pope’s papers being circulated in the Italian press recently. Margaret Farley is asking readers to think about the truth about JUST LOVING. The CDF is preoccupied with the scandal of negative administration taking place recently in the walls of the Vatican. Which is closer to Jesus Christ and His beautiful and caring and loving teachings?

  • Why would the “official teaching of the Roman Catholic Magisterium” possibly be so vehemently opposed to LOVE?

    Rolls eyes.

    It’s lovely that you can reduce a very serious discussion about faith, morals, and the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church to a series of cliches that could be found in a Hallmark card, but this is utterly vapid. There is no love in telling people what they want to hear as opposed to what they need to hear.

  • PZ: It is all cliches. This is how the left cheats in the war of ideas.

    Seems, cw doesn’t know that Love (along with Faith and Hope) is a Spiritual Virtue and is far different from a gratitous, sterile, or unnatural orgasm. I bet sister doesn’t get it, either.

    The Spiriual Works of Mercy:

    Instruct the ignorant.

    Counsel the doubtful.

    Admonsh the sinner.

  • Cwagner’s comment is that of a typical liberal for whom love is defined as giving assent for and advocacy of sexual perversion, murdering of babies, and the fornication and adultery that goes part and parcel with the contraceptive lifestyle.

    Jesus does NOT give assent to sexual perversion, nor to baby murdering, nor to contraception, and people who do those things (even worse, people who advocate doing those things) and don’t repent will find themselves burning forever and ever in hell because they have foresaken the love of the Cross, that is to say self-denial which to a liberal is a four letter word.

    What planet do liberals come from?

  • Sr. Farley and her companions seem to have forgotten: “Just because you have God’s unconditional love does not mean that you have His unconditional approval”

  • Cwagner,

    with all due respect, to reduce our Lord’s teaching to ‘just love’ is soundbite theology. He did indeed tell us to love one another, but he also said a great deal more … much of which was about sin, including sexual sin.

    Incidentally, part of what Sr Farley is called to as a ‘loving, caring nun’ is to love, cherish, protect, & disseminate what the Church teaches. To otherwise is neither loving nor caring.

  • Cwagner – It doesn’t even seem like Sister Farley herself considered her book to be an accurate description of Catholic teaching. She may be loving and caring, but you also called her a “teacher”. Don’t you agree that her book could cause some confusion if it’s taken as authentic Catholic teaching?

    I haven’t read the book. If it could be perceived as describing the Catholic viewpoint correctly, but doesn’t do so, then it’s reasonable for Catholic officials to point that out.

  • Liberals ignore what Scripture says about holiness in all their hype about “love.”

    “Having therefore these promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.” 2 Corinthians 7:1

    “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:15-16

    “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48

    “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Romans 12:2

    “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.” Philippians 3:15

    “According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love.” Ephesians 1:4 (note that holiness comes first)

    “That he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” Ephesians 5:27

    “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” Romans 7:18-25

    “Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.” Hebrews 12:14


    The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about conversion away from and repentance of sins. It is NOT about this hippie-yippie luvy-duvy “approve of my sex habits or you’re being mean to me” mentality. He came to save souls from hell, not to give assent to sexual perversion under the false guise of “if you don’t, then your being unkind.”

    Holiness before the Lord God is NOT an option. Without holiness, no one can see God. And what this fruit cake nit wit of a nun advocates is the exact opposite of holiness.

    Justice begins and ends with holiness and righteousness. Love blossoms because of holiness and righteousness. If you’re not trying to live a holy and righteous life, then all you’re squawking about love is mindless noise.

  • Jesus’ Love: Self sacrificing of oneself towards the beloved for their good.

    Liberal Love: Self Pleasure of whatever rocks your boat saecula saecolorum!

  • As a member of LCWR, and as LCWR has not distanced themselves from her or any of her works, it sure seems that Margaret Field and LCWR are trying to set up a separate Magisterium of nuns, a Magisterium that says “forget Catholic, this is the church of what’s happnen now!”

  • “I can only clarify that the book was not intended to be an expression of current official Catholic teaching, nor was it aimed specifically against this teaching. It is of a different genre altogether.” Umm… what genre would that be, sister??

  • Sr Farley’s tactic is not new, as can be seen from some of the propositions of the casuists, condemned by Pope Innocent XI on 4 March 1679

    For example

    “ 48. Thus it seems clear that fornication by its nature involves no malice, and that it is evil only because it is forbidden, so that the contrary seems entirely in disagreement with reason.

    49. Voluptuousness is not prohibited by the law of nature. Therefore, if God had not forbidden it, it would be good, and sometimes obligatory under pain of mortal sin.”

    As the Holy Office tersely expressed it, “All condemned and prohibited, as they are here expressed, at least as scandalous and in practice pernicious.”

    I would only add that I prefer the old succinct and precise method of condemning errors, to the present discursive productions of the CDF, but that is a minor point

  • “Which is closer to Jesus Christ and His beautiful and caring and loving teachings?”

    Jesus condemned entire cities to hell (see Mt. 11:23). It’s not all rainbows and lollipops. In fact there’s very little of that.

    I think the difference between people who confuse moral indifference for love is really simple: one group hasn’t actually read the Gospels, and the other has.

  • I’ll also add that what the liberal media decries as a modern-day Inquisition strikes me as a series of half-measures.

    If they think the current pope is mean, I can’t even imagine what they would say if I were in charge. The rack might be back in business.

  • “But as he which hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:15-16

    “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48

    “But as he WHO hath called you is holy, so be ye holy in all manner of conversation; because it is written, Be ye holy; for I am holy.” 1 Peter 1:15-16

    “Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father WHO is in heaven is perfect.” Matthew 5:48

    Mary, which writes this comment, must be addressed as WHO, because Mary is created in the image and likeness of God, the Supreme Sovereign Being.

    If Sister Farley does not love God, Sister Farley does not love man.

  • Jesus Christ is a virgin. If sister Farley has a problem with that, it is her problem, not Jesus Christ’s problem or the Catholic Church’s problem. That Sister Farley cannot accept the virginity of Jesus Christ is Sister Farley’s problem, the NYT’s problem, homosexuals problem and all dissenters problem.

The Fugitive (1947)

Tuesday, June 5, AD 2012

A Fugitive: I have a question, Lieutenant. When did you lose your faith?

 A Lieutenant of Police: When I found a better one.

The film For Greater Glory has reminded me of director John Ford’s forgotten The Fugitive (1947).  Very loosely based on Graham Greene’s The Power and the Glory (no priest in an American film in 1947 was going to have the moral failings of Greene’s whiskey priest) the film did poorly at the box office and soon fell into oblivion, except among film critics who regard it as one of Ford’s more interesting works.  Ford said it was  his favorite film.

The film is set in a nameless country, obviously Mexico where the movie was filmed, where religion has been abolished by the government.  Henry Fonda is the last priest hunted by a police lieutenant, played maniacally by Pedro Armendáriz.  Armendariz is a whole-hearted convert to atheism, and views the capture of Fonda as a noble task.  

Continue reading...

7 Responses to The Fugitive (1947)

  • Yeah, this is the film I meant! It’s got some gorgeous, gorgeous scenes in it.

    I don’t think I’ve ever seen the beginning of the movie, though, because TCM was always airing it at weird times.

  • “All in all, an interesting film. However, I wish Ford’s main leading man, John Wayne, had been cast in the role of the fugitive priest. While he is on the run he rounds up a hard riding band of Cristeros. In the climactic fight scene he leads the Cristeros in liberating the village, taking out the police lieutenant in a mano a mano epic fight, and ends the film saying mass for the newly liberated villagers! Whatever the critics might have said in after years about the film, I guarantee it would have been a smash hit at the box office!”

    Yea, Donald, and I wish that Mel Gibson would have had the lead in The Passion and led the apostles and his followers in a violent revolt against the Romans like in Braveheart and instead of being captured and killed at the end he would have cut off all their heads like he and Homer Simpson cut off the heads of all the other senators when they remade Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.

    With all your militaristic ramblings Donald . . . do you get the point of the Gospels.

  • Glinda, how long have you suffered the dreadful malady of being humor impaired, and have you sought treatment for this grave affliction?

  • Glinda,

    What you write about what happened during Christ’s first coming is absolutely correct. Below is what is going to happen when He comes again, and it is going to make the Cristeros’ rebellion against an evil and vicious atheist dictator look like a child’s game of Cowboys and Indians. Buckle up, “baby”, because the wrath of God is going to come. He will not indefinitely tolerate baby murdering to the tune of 1 million per year in this country, and the heretical nuns who give assent and approval for the same. His justice is the other side of the coin whose head is love; and He loves babies, He loves His Church, He loves righteousness and holiness.

    11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:


    17 Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, “Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, 18 that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great.”

    19 And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. 20 Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. 21 And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh.

    Revelation 19:11-21 [ Did you read that, Glinda? – it’s agonna be horrible because that’s what sin does. ]

  • Mr. McClarey, thanks for the heads-up. I’d never heard of this film before,
    and I’ll be sure to check it out.

  • I think you will enjoy it Clinton. It is a film that is worthy of careful examination since, at least in my case, there are nuances that flew right by me the first few times I watched it.

Sex-Selective Abortion Follow-up

Tuesday, June 5, AD 2012

I recently posted on the topic of sex-selective abortion. After seeing an article on LifeSiteNews on the recent Congressional vote on the sex-selective abortion bill, I felt a little bit of a follow-up was in order. LSN’s Steve Mosher writes:

 [T]he vote on PreNDA has exposed dozens of Democrats, along with a handful of pro-abortion Republicans, as pro-abortion extremists. After all, what else are we to call those who favor abortions performed for the sole purpose of eliminating unborn baby girls because of their sex?

Call me the perpetual nay-sayer if you will, but I find this entire statement to be flawed from top to bottom.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Sex-Selective Abortion Follow-up

  • Bon, I suggest you read Professor Hadley Arkes’ brilliant analysis on the topic on “The Catholic Thing” web site before reaching any final conclusions.

  • First, unless it is really justifiable, I really dislike throwing around the word “extremist.” Whether we like it or not, roughly half of Americans support the abortions status quo and even more believe it should be legal in certain circumstances deemed sufficiently sympathetic. It can hardly be considered “extremist” to simply vote pro-choice, and labeling it as such is really a distortion.

    Seriously, read that again.

    I don’t think any other word but “extremist” can define pro-choice, or better labeled pro-abortion. If ever something deserved the label extremist, a pro-choice mindset does.

    On a side note, but within this topic you have to watch this political ad by Joe the Plumber.

    Its Brilliant!

  • Mosher’s early experience, of course, was with China. There, probably, sex selection is the main motive for abortions, particularly the uncoerced ones. In China, as it happens, sex-selective abortions violate the law–but the law is unenforceable. If one is inclined to oppose the bill in Congress, this would be a sounder reason than adducing the opportunism of its proponents.

    Mr. Bonchamps’s  refusal to rank-order reasons for opposing abortion makes a certain abstract sense. If, say, we make a fuss about partial-birth abortion, this could be taken to imply that we have nothing against abortion in principle, only a particular procedure.

    But the world is not an abstract place, and the pursuit of opportunistic targets can perhaps serve to bring the reality of abortion home to a public which, if truth were told, does not want to think about the issue at all (it’s icky; people with strong views on things are annoying–whatever). But fussing about partial birth abortion forces people to realize this really is butchering s baby. And fussing about sex-selection exposes the lie that it’s all about the welfare of women. And maybe some who facilitate these horrors will come eventually, in the depth of theirs souls, to rethink just what it is they are trying to accomplish.
    The logic in the abortionist camp is the mirror image of Bonchamps’s. Of course they don’t want to slaughter baby girls for the sake of slaughtering baby girls. But they are scared to death of anything that would legitimate any restriction on abortions, since, in their mind, any concession is bound to lead to others, and to the destruction of any pretense that there is a morally-valid rationale for abortion. I,for one, hope they are right about this. I can’ claim to be the “historian, philosopher, and strategist” Mr. Bonnchamps informs us he is; but I think attacking an enemy line its weakest points is often a valid tactic.

  • For the record: we are all historians, philosophers, and strategists.

    A few get paid to be so.

    As for the rest, its not the specific tactic of attacking an enemy at the weak point that I object to. It’s the subtle distortions of reality, such as the claim that voting against the SSA ban necessarily indicates that one believes it is a “good” thing. That has the air of overt propaganda.

  • It’s not shocking at all to me. If you’re pro-choice, then you’d logically support sex-selective abortion if it’s what the mother truly wants. That’s no more extreme than being pro-choice in itself; it’s simply consistent.

  • What? It is exactly this line of liberal thinking that gave us “abortion on demand” until the very delivery date, euthanisia, infantacide. As well as all of the anti life agenda. 4,000 unborn babies a day, for the last 39 years, untold babies being “allowed to die” in their bassinets in cold sterile hospital utility rooms. Call a spade a spade. The rationalization of abortion by anyone is extreme. “Sing a little Louder”. As the boxcars moved passed the churches filled with worshipers, they, being loaded with discarded humanity, the worshipers were advised to “sing a little louder” so as to not hear the whining of the steel wheels upon the tracks. By not labeling a spade a spade on the anti life issues as Catholics are we not just advising people to “not feel uncomfortable” with their deadly opinions and their deadly votes?

    loads of humanity, the congregants inside were told to “sing a little louder”.

  • Jeanne,

    I don’t think we get anywhere by calling things that are accepted by half the population, and have been accepted by many different civilizations throughout history, as “extreme.” If anything, evil is usually mundane, ordinary, and normal. It is Christianity that appears on the scene as extreme, as an extreme challenge to the evil everyone has become comfortable with.

    I LIKE extreme things. I hate that the word has come to mean something bad. To be a deviant in dominant culture of death is a good thing.

    I also like my words to represent reality. I always call spades spades. I think we may just define spade differently.

  • It’s the subtle distortions of reality, such as the claim that voting against the SSA ban necessarily indicates that one believes it is a “good” thing. That has the air of overt propaganda.

    Well, if you vote for it you certianly don’t think it’s a “bad” thing.

  • Voting to preserve “choice” doesn’t necessarily mean that one likes one of the potential choices. Plenty of “pro-choice” Dems believe it is a bad choice, but ought to be a legal one.

    Of course we disagree with this view. Of course their logic is flawed and their morality compromised. But I simply don’t believe that anyone voted against the ban because they think sex-selective abortion is actually a good thing. They were protecting a larger interest. That’s what politicians are elected to do. I refuse to react with faux outrage.

  • PRM I thik that Bonchamps point is that just because we getting angry about a particuler type of abortion doesn’t mean we are properly being about the main problem with abortion which is denying life at such a innocent and early age that the person has not even seen the light of day.

  • I am so sorry I posted the same comment three times because I did not think it posted please delete two of them.

Morrissey on Converts, Faith and Politics

Monday, June 4, AD 2012

Ed Morrissey had a great post inspired by the conversion, so to speak, of Jo Ann Nardelli. She is the former Democratic party official in Pennsylvania who left the party, prompted in part by the Democratic party’s embrace of gay marriage. Joe Biden’s appearance on Meet the Press sealed the deal. As a result, she has not been treated kindly by former colleagues.

The longtime Democrat from Blair County quit the party and registered as a Republican, and then boldly walked in a Memorial Day parade in support of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

“A couple of people who I thought were friends turned their backs on me, literally, as I was walking in the parade,” she said on Tuesday. “I have to admit it made me sad, but that is the way it is.”

Morrissey discusses this as well as the case of Artur Davis, who also has quit the Democratic party. Then he explains, in very charitable terms, the reasons that some Catholics remain in the Democrat party, despite it holding positions that are antithetical to the Catholic Church on most social issues. He does a great job of explaining the nuances of Catholic economic teachings to an audience that is mostly non-Catholic. The following succinctly captures the tone of Morrisey’s post:

However, even while we do our best on a personal and institutional level within the church, our community, state, and nation have an impact on the scope and depth of the societal and human ills we hope to alleviate.   Some Catholics feel that significant involvement of representative government represents the best and most direct way to achieve our mission, and support the political party that more closely aligns itself with that philosophy and agenda — Democrats.  Others feel that the mission is best directed at a personal and institutional level and oppose significant government involvement as wasteful, impractical, and counterproductive, and those Catholics are more likely to be Republicans.

As such, these fellow Catholic liberals (many of whom do oppose abortion) do not deserve our scorn or a condescending attitude; they come to these positions honestly and faithfully.  We may disagree on the best approach to the mission at hand, but we are at least united on the mission itself.

In a sense it might be more difficult for conservative Catholics to accept this than for conservative non-Catholics, particularly because we are so close to the issue. We can get easily frustrated by fellow Catholics who persist in supporting a party that upholds so many terrible positions on life and death matters. And I do think that a handful of left-leaning Catholics offer up merely token opposition to their party on social issues, but who largely ignore these matters so as not to distract from the more important (to them) economic issues. Yet there are leftist Catholics  who are genuinely committed to the pro-life cause and who struggle with their party’s stance on social issues. And it is with regards to these individuals that we ought to heed Ed’s words.

Another thing strikes me about all this, and it’s that many of these political conversions have occurred due to differences of opinion on social issues. We have been told more times than I can possibly count that this election is all about the economy, and nothing but the economy. Yet we’re seeing more and more Catholics leaving the party that has been not only their home, but likely their parents’ home and their grandparents’ home. And they aren’t leaving the party because of its stance on income taxes. For those who insist that social issues are a losing proposition for conservatives and the Republican party, they might want to reconsider that position in light of the mounting evidence.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Morrissey on Converts, Faith and Politics

  • Amen, and amen!

    I’m an Black Catholic. Born and raised in the South (Archdiocese of Atlanta). I’m old enough to remember seeing the civil rights struggles of the 1960’s play out on the evening news. My mom spied on the Klan for the SCLC because she could “pass”. And I was a life-long Democrat…until my heart changed on *social* issues.

    THis is hy I stopped supporting the Democrat Party’s candidates. And it is, incidentally, why I don’t support the Republican Establishment’s candidates either.

    The patry would do well to learn something from the experience of people like me…

  • What about the republican party do you oppose? I know that I certainly find very little in the Democrat party as tasteful for example the idea that the government gets to rule how people run their land and now even their religion.

  • I am from Europe and I know how insane and awful socialism and bureaucratic governments are.

  • I think it is a huge mistake to think about these things in terms of parties which seem to be more like cliques.

  • God Bless you Deacon Chip. I have been a lifelong Republican who has wanted to leave the party for a very long time, but for those social issues where the Republicans are “less bad” than the Democrats. I’m convinced the Republicans only give lip service to them. In my state a pro-choice Republican got the nomination in the last election. I wrote in Alan Keyes in the primaries. I’m of the opinion that Romney is only “Reduced Calorie” Obama. So I will once again vote for the lesser of two evils. I’d register with the Constitution Party because I like their platform, but those people are nuts. One of the people in my state connected to the Constitution Party wrote a column that states the government is watching us through RFID tags in clothing. I believe more and more that there is no home for a Catholic in current American politics. It’s a sad situation.

  • I use to consider myself an independent but now more of a republican although I would prefer having a third party as an option. I’m a fiscal conservative but very upset about the separation of religion & state that is being ignored by this administration. I do have a close friend, who went to Catholic schools like I did, but will only vote for democrats because it is the party she was raised in. I just can’t understand why anyone would vote for a party as I vote for the person. I do like Romney & his personal life is to be admired. There is no perfect candidate.

  • “I’d register with the Constitution Party because I like their platform, but those people are nuts.”

    Really? ALL of them? MOST of them? Or just the nut that you encountered? I’m not a member of the Constitution Party, but I’ll be voting for Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode in November. I can assure you that he is not “nuts”.

    And why register with any party? It’s not required for voting in the general election (and in many states, not even required for voting in the primaries).

  • I left the Democratic Party after 30+ years over the HHS Mandate. Social issues DO matter.

  • Thanks to Deacon Chip for sharing his experience. I can relate as I was also a committed Democrat earlier in life. The GOP, while better on most social issues, also does have its blind spots. It is time for committed Catholics to get serious about a social movement that embraces political involvment while transcending it, and moves beyond involvement and support of our two major parties, neither of which encompass what it truly means to be Catholic. We need to devote ourselves in our public witness in a way that does not require us to be muted or apologetic about who we are, but free to live the faith and witness fully as Our Lord intends us to.

  • “Really? ALL of them? MOST of them? Or just the nut that you encountered?”

    Actually, this person received the nomination to run for governor in 2006. In addition, I wasn’t to pleased about their treatment of Alan Keyes in 2008.

  • I am a Pacific War historian (author of One Square Mile of Hell, American Commando, and others) trying to contact Tom Looney, who has posted comments on this site before. I am researching a book about Guadalcanal and want to include material about Father Reardon. If you receive this posting, Tom, please contact me by phone (734-676-5473), email ([email protected]) or via my website ( Father Reardon deeply interests me, and I hope to view the first year of the war through his eyes and the eyes of three other main characters. Thanks for any help you can be.

  • Well, we may just have to agree to disagree over Alan Keyes’ alleged “treatment” at the hands of the Constitution Party.

  • Deacon,

    Thank you for being a deacon.

    All parties could benefit from the experiences of people like yourself.

    Pray for the best outcome. Prepare for the worst.

  • In my personal experience, among several, but not all, of the Catholic liberals I know, it is a matter of doing nothing while feeling good. People who want to “help the poor”, but are too lazy to actually get out and give their time and efforts to a worthy organization, or on a one-to-one basis, can feel so self-satisfed by pulling the lever in the voting booth for someone else to do what they don’t want to do personally. These same people, of course, tell you how open they are to people of other races, etc., but they cannot name one minority member who is a personal friend, or even been a guest in their homes. As I have always contended, if you scratch a liberal, you find a hypocrit! Just examine the words and actions of our last two democrat leaders!

The Memorial to Ike and Ugly Design

Monday, June 4, AD 2012

Dwight Eisenhower is getting a memorial in Washington, DC. That’s the good news to those who are fans of Ike.

The memorial is being designed by Frank Gehry. It’s about what you would expect from the king of post-modern design.Eisenhower Memorial

I guess it could be worse, but it’s certainly not a design befitting a figure like Eisenhower. This is an opinion shared by Eisenhower’s family and a growing number of Congressmen. The family issued this statement on May 30:

The scope and scale of the metal scrims, however, remain controversial and divisive. Not only are they the most expensive element of the Gehry design, they are also the most vulnerable to urban conditions, as well as wildlife incursions and ongoing, yet unpredictable, life-cycle costs. This one-of-a-kind experimental technology, which serves as the memorial’s “backdrop,” is impractical and unnecessary for the conceptual narrative. For those reasons, we do not support a design that utilizes them.

Indeed, not only is the design not very attractive, it’s a nightmare from a conservator’s perspective. It’s so bad that the National Civic Art Society has developed a website dedicated to fighting against the design.

As the Daily Caller article mentions, Representatives as diverse as Jim Moran and Darrell Issa are expressing their objections to the design. This is one of those rare times where you might be able to contact your local Congressman and persuade him to take action.

I know that art is a subjective matter, but is it possible to create designs in the 21st century that are actually attractive?

Continue reading...

6 Responses to The Memorial to Ike and Ugly Design

  • Not one Patton tank to be seen anywhere.

  • Can’t wait till they design the Reagan Memorial! (I really doubt that will ever happen though!)

  • The family’s concerns are well-founded. Another example of extremely expensive
    yet unsound architectural innovation can be found in I.M. Pei’s new wing for the
    National Gallery, also in DC. In Pei’s case, he ignored centuries of stone mason’s
    wisdom and clad his building in marble without allowing for spaces between slabs
    for the marble to ‘breathe’. Seems the gaps would have disturbed the unbroken
    surfaces he wanted for his effect.

    Within a decade or so, moisture buildup behind the slabs caused them to buckle
    and pop off the masonry walls, crashing to the street below. I believe the cost
    of removing all the marble and reinstalling it in such a way that accounts for the
    laws of physics was about as much as the original building.

    I can understand the temptation architects might feel to design something truly
    novel, and I’m sure it looks great on the CV. However, the metal scrims of this
    proposed memorial are an expensive experiment. Ike’s family and the National
    Civic Art Society are right to be apprehensive.

  • I’d have a statue showing Ike at the Ohrdruf death camp:

    On the statue I would have this quote from a letter that Ike wrote to General Marshal:

    “I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in a position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to ‘propaganda.’”
    I would call the statue by the name of Ike’s war memoir: Crusade in Europe

  • I have a beef with Eisenhower simply because is involved in instituting the doolittle report which stated that any notion of morality has to be taken out of the military if we are to win any wars. Look where we are now ninjas are considered cool and people who hide while shooting is considered a good soldier.

  • Look where we are now ninjas are considered cool and people who hide while shooting is considered a good soldier.

    Yeah, we always wore bright red and marched out to enemies on the field, no laying low until we saw the whites of their eyes!

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith slaps Sr. Margaret A. Farley, RSM, on the hand…

Monday, June 4, AD 2012

In a notification dated March 30, 2012, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) stated that the book, “Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics” written by Sister Margaret A. Farley, RSM, contains “erroneous propositions, the dissemination of which risks grave harm to the faithful.”

In her 2006 book, the CDF states that Sr. Farley—now retired from the faculty at Yale Divinity School—“does not present a correct understanding of the role of the Church’s Magisterium as the teaching authority of the Bishops united with the Successor of Peter, which guides the Church’s ever deeper understanding of the Word of God as found in Holy Scripture and handed on faithfully in the Church’s living tradition.” 

In addition, Sr. Farley’s treatment of specific moral issues—including masturbation, homosexual acts, homosexual unions, the indissolubility of marriage, and the problem of divorce and remarriage—are erroneous and ambiguous.  The CDF notes:

…either ignores the constant teaching of the Magisterium or, where it is occasionally mentioned, treats it as one opinion among others. Such an attitude is in no way justified, even within the ecumenical perspective that she wishes to promote. Sr. Farley also manifests a defective understanding of the objective nature of the natural moral law, choosing instead to argue on the basis of conclusions selected from certain philosophical currents or from her own understanding of “contemporary experience”. This approach is not consistent with authentic Catholic theology.

Because Sr. Farley’s affirms positions that are in direct contradiction with Catholic teaching in the field of sexual morality, the notification states:

The Congregation warns the faithful that her book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics is not in conformity with the teaching of the Church. Consequently it cannot be used as a valid expression of Catholic teaching, either in counseling and formation, or in ecumenical and interreligious dialogue. Furthermore the Congregation wishes to encourage theologians to pursue the task of studying and teaching moral theology in full concord with the principles of Catholic doctrine.

While the focus of the notification is the content of Sr. Farley’s book, The Motley Monk notes that Pope Benedict XVI approved it and ordered its publication.

Might this notification, approved and ordered before what The Motley Monk called the “hostile takeover” of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, provide another signal that the Vatican is going to take a more activist stance in “truth in labeling”?

The warning is gentle, but it’s there.

The CDF wants to “encourage theologians to pursue the task of studying and teaching moral theology in full concord with the principles of Catholic doctrine.”


To read the CDF’s notification, click on the following link:

To read The Motley Monk’s post on the hostile takeover of the LCWR, click on the following link:

To read The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:

Continue reading...

27 Responses to The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith slaps Sr. Margaret A. Farley, RSM, on the hand…

  • For the liberals it always boils down to permission – even praise – for sex without responsibility. They want to rut in heat like wild baboons and not be held accountable for their actions. They are like an addict to heroin, cocaine or crystal methamphetamine, except that sex is their drug and they want the Church to sanctify what they do – fornication, adultery, homosexual sodomy and lesbianism – in all its filthy forms. They demand in the case of those acts which can give rise to pregnancy that permission and assent means the Church must pay to murder the consequence of their sexual idolatry. God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for what these people do. If LCWR fails to curtail itself into obedience, then He may yet do the same to the hippie nit wits therein. Or perhaps He will simply allow them to peacefully die out as youthful orthodox nuns and sisters take their place.

  • So sad that this book is another effort to pile shame on the head of the CDF and thus the Pope to give more fuel to the fire of the ant-Church-Pope-Hierarchy fire. it does not sound like she came up with any insights that would advance the understanding of human sexuality. There is a legitimate place for the feminine contribution to the topic but Sr Farley is not the one. Also a distraction from the global concern for women’s integrity, dignity and sexuality in a war on all of it from DC to Hollywood to Delhi, Nigeria and China

  • I admit that I haven’t read the book. I’m not sure how many of those offering opinions have.

    I suspect that Sr. Farley is not basing her work on natural law theology. Some views might make perfect sense if we assume natural law theology, which might be completely incompreshensable if we do not.

  • John Paul II once gave a speech to the Vatican court judges that they must speed up their processes. This book warning is another molasses experience. The warning is in 2012. The book was published in 2006 and may have sold the bulk of what people would have bought already. I suspect Vatican City is a place where people are rarely fired but that means…no one’s rushing. The other question is this: what percent of US Catholics are going to be aware of the warning if the news like today’s NY Times is the main conduit of the warning? If people then skip todays news conduits, they won’t even know of the warning.

  • Bill, both the Pope, the Vatican Judges, and the Cardinals have do deal with a boatload of stuff ranging from marauding Muslims to sex slavery to this book.

  • There is an old saying “The Church thinks in centuries,” so when the book was published and this warning are irrelevant, it re-states the natural law which is even more relevant today. As to whether Sr Farley was writing from a NATURAL LAW position is interesting, the CHURCH teaches from a Natural Law position, on which the biblical truths are based and we slowly plough/ plow our way through them as culture-Church with Grace and Sin dueling for our allegiance and the Dove weaving in and out through the mix. Sr Farley may have been dipping into the Sin bit, judging by the summary of her teachings which the CDF read and published.

  • Lone Teacher,
    The Church wisely takes centuries to change areas like liturgy where this is no emergency and where there are human sensitivities.
    The Church offices need updating if they take too long for other areas in which speed is relevant….remember Christ with the whip of cords. He acted quickly.
    U.S. Court records showed that this same CDF office had an audio tape of the gay ideas of pedophile Fr. Shanley in 1979. Years later he molested several boys in the mid 80’s because the CDF wrote Boston about him but then accepted from Boston an evasive letter that simply said
    they were working on all such propblems but they would address Shanley in particular. By 1990
    Shanley, on Bostom Diocese medical leave money, was running a gay motel in California. Fortunately state prosecutors didn’t take centuries and he’s now in prison.
    This book in question by now is probably sitting in multiple…not all… Catholic college libraries. The Vatican needs to have an email connection to all Catholic institutions of such a nature that a Vatican email must be read and confirmed as received whereby they could order the book removed and from Catholic book stores also.

  • correction: they did not address Shanley in particular in the letter.

  • mr bannon: The Church THINKS in centuries, not the same as acting but the human tendency we have to delay and that institutions engage in with snail speed is a curse for all of us and our institutions. There seems to me to be no need to drag up the Shanley case, same principle at work. It takes murder sentences 12 years to make their way through several layers of courts and appeals. Not efficient but beats “off with their heads” as the NCCB did at Dallas and “W” did for Iraq 11, both of which cost personnel, cash and horrific loss of moral integrity Jesus was God-Man, knew His OT and Temple Law so did not need to refer His case to the corrupt hierarchs whose Cash Cow he whipped

  • Lone Teacher,
    If your nephew got molested in 1985 in Newton by then Pastor Shanley and you found out the CDF had the audio tape in 1979, I think you would be enraged and less accepting of human slowness in these areas that require quickness. What if there’s another book by a Catholic of odd ideas being published right now this year, if warning time is irrelevant, then the CDF can wait 50 years and then warn about it….70 years. Reality is that with one billion plus Catholics, the Vatican offices are probably a decimal of the size they should be in terms of workers. Solution: each Catholic send Rome $2 one time donation. Half will do it. That’s one billion dollars to fund a large building at Castel Gandolfo and salaries for decades for many more workers in any offices that need exponentially more help which translates into more speed.

  • i agree with you, but have lots of experience with Government and Church bureaucracy and cash does not seem to have much influence on moving any of it forward. I heard a story once of a caller to the New York City school system HQ and was sent through several phone numbers for answer to a specific question (forget which now) and did not get the answer. Same caller called the archdiocese of NY Catholic school system, one call got her to one person who answered the question immediately. We all have to accept the things we cannot control as the serenity prayer says, accept reality and do what we can to change what we can. Very little at a time gets changed. I am still waiting for the prosecutor to file charges against a man who stole my property in 2008/7? – the thief was allowed to slip away because the detective said he was in the next county and he did not want to do that. He was busted back to night patrolman and my experience was that he was only one example. I called the whole sheriff’s section in that County red neck Keystone Cops. I guess i am older than you are and have more experience of “liberty and justice for all” IF we get around to it!!

  • Lone Teacher,
    Coincidence. I came upon my second house being robbed a year and a half ago by a guy who slammed the side door as I was entering the front door….he had the Kevin Garnett, bald black Celtics look going on. I tracked him, jumped him, brought him inches away from the particular judgement, and got everything back…including a lethal weapon he would have sold to my guilt……and I still thank God I didn’t murder him which was close but for God’s mercy. But I have to sleep with a tactical shotgun when I work on that inherited house which I’m fixing for sale…..because he hinted he’d return with a glock. The police came ten minutes later. I confessed what i did to him….but had to let the dude go because I didn’t know who was with him or what they were carrying. The one cop said,
    ” Ehh….ehhh….Yuu did what yuu hada duu.” ( NY harbor)….”now hide that pistol grip shotgun before the detectives see it…it needs a stock to be legal.”
    I got my things back….but I never sleep too deeply at that address.

  • good for you. At one point the Red Neck sergeant threatened to haul my a** off to jail, his phrase because a man who was supposedly working for me, was actually a crack-head and went ballistic on me, called the cops after he left the house, came back and told them I had tried to push him out the door when he was smashing what he had already constructed. I was on a walker, did not know at the time I had a fractured hip, he was in his 20s. I was the first aggressor, I was not arrested because he said I was an old man and he did not want to press charges. They ran his record and arrested him when he got home, his G/F called me and called me a F**** white cracker because she blamed me! Ugly human beings and clueless cops.

  • LoneTeacher seems to have an animus against red necks, conservatives, etc. A corrupt police sergeant or a group of officers acting like “keystone cops” are not indicative of all red necks everywhere. I am proudly a red neck. But I suppose all is fair in love and war for this is indeed a war against godless liberalism and progressivism.

  • i do not make generalisations. I described the ones I met like that, I did not use the n word for my attacker nor call his G/F what she called me an F** cracker, FL black slang for whites. I told one of my protagonists one day in front of a SD that he gave the word N a bad name. He and a class I taught for a private college where the back three rows were all controlled by one lying &^£^%$ set my human rights record back pre-Lincoln.

  • We all need to pray for your safety here on out and get calcium everyday. The plus of your situation: you could save those two young people’s souls by offering up some of your health problems for them in the Eucharist. I always pray for my bald thug…I’d kill him tonight if he broke in looking for me with a pistol….but I will his salvation every week in prayer specifically. God assigned those two young people to you. A man in a walker can save people’s souls uniquely through acceptance. Calcium….skim milk…intercession for the children of wrath….you’re all they’ve got perhaps. I may be the only intercessor for my Kevin Garnett clone.

  • thank you, In my sane hours I pray for forgiveness for them and myself and was more than kind to them when they were actually taking advantage. I think that is what Jesus expects, yea, demands but it is not easy 24/7/365. one day at a time is easier to handle. I never realised how addicts lie and steal and deny reality so much.

  • @ LoneTeacher:

    “I did not use the n word for my attacker nor call his G/F what she called me an F** cracker, FL black slang for whites.”

    How interesting! A black red-neck conservative keystone cop! How do you know that he / she wasn’t liberal? Or is it impossible for a keystone cop who uses expletives to be liberal?

  • The attacker was not the sergeant. This topic is ended fir me, we have usurped the space reserved for an apparently theologically-biblically clueless Caucasian Irish-American nun, retired from Harvard.

  • “…we have usurped the space reserved for an apparently theologically-biblically clueless Caucasian Irish-American nun, retired from Harvard.”

    I agree. So then don’t go making jabs and innuendos about Bush, the 2nd War in Iraq, conservatives, red-necks, etc. If you do, then expect to be questioned on it. I am sick of this kind of passive aggressive “we all know conservatives are wrong” attitude. It was you who used descriptors and examples not germane to the topic just to get a dig in at conservatives.

    So yes, back to the libweral progressive Democrat nun who thinks that the following are OK: (1) the sexual perversion of homosexual sodomy, (2) the murder of the unborn and (3) the contraception of new life to permit adultery and fornication without consequence.

    Liberal. Progressive. Democrat.

    Not red neck. Not conservative. Get it now?

    PS, George W. Bush II was pro-life, this apostate heretical nun is pro-baby murdering.

  • Pingback: St. Augustine CDF Sr. Margaret Farely Fr. James Martin LCWR | Big Pulpit
  • Drop it, including your own labelling of Sr Farley. BTW: Mr Bush was against abortion,” pro-life” is a broader biblical topic and cannot be usurped by any Party or candidate. it helps to have a sense of humour and not take oneself or one’s cause too seriously.

  • @LoneTeacher:

    Liberals don’t like labels because it points to who and what they really are. That’s why I referred to this apostate and heretic nun in the way that I did. But the liberal response is what that man said to Blessed Jose in the movie, For Greater Glory, when he admonished him to say death to Cristo Rey: “They’re just words. They don’t mean anything.” Words and labels, however, mean everything as Blessed Jose knew so well. (Why is it that a child knows what a self-proclaimed teacher cannot fathom?)

    But I do agree that pro-life cause can’t be usurped by any one party. That’s why I prefer the Constitution Party whose platform is closest to Church teaching. No liberal would ever support such a thing. But while the pro-life cause can’t be usurped by any one party, the Democratic Party has fully adopted Satan’s policy and program of death and sexual perversion. Thus we have Sr. Margaret A. Farley, RSM – liberal, progressive, Democrat, a public supporter of the murder of the unborn and the sanctification of the filth of homosexual sodomy.

    Words and labels mean everything.

  • And PS, LoneTeacher, your label that this person is a “…Caucasian Irish-American nun” is irrelevant. Her skin color and her national origin are not germane, but you thought to include that label anyways while admonishing others not to use labels.

    What is, however, germane is the liberal progressive bent of her philosophy and theology. And that bent makes her heretical.

  • Aw lighten up, It’s springtime, primavera. See my pattern of comments and decide IF I am being racist, politically incorrect or prejudiced OR if I am being all sarcastically for some and taking the mickey out of serious comment-ators.

  • Farley’s book should be immediately removed from all Catholic schools and university libraries and book stores or what would be the point of the prefect’s letter. After they are removed another announcement should be made. The findings of the Congregation should be read from the pulpits across the country so everyone hears this news forget the media–they barely carried the Catholic lawsuits against HHS).
    Next they should focus on the heresy of Raymond E. Brown (see Traditional Catholic Scholars Long Opposed Fr. Brown’s Theories).

  • Unfortunately, in our American system of education, Lone Teacher is not unique…nor is her morality or ethic…!!! The Church’s basic teachings on these issues have survived centuries, wars, heresies, and martyrdoms…!!!