Top Ten Reasons Why Obama is Not the Anti-Christ

Friday, February 28, AD 2014

Obama and Cross

At a recent event, President Obama was called the anti-Christ by a heckler.   This is so unfair!  Here are the top ten reasons why Obama is not the anti-Christ.


10. Obama can’t be the anti-Christ because he is a Christian…O.K., make that the top nine reasons why Obama isn’t the anti-Christ.

9.  Obama fears that 666 is the number of daily calories that Michele will allow him on his next diet.

8.  Satan has not taken possession of Obama, although some sort of lease arrangement is a possibility.

7.  Elijah and Enoch haven’t been killed by drones. Yet.

6.  The anti-Christ would never vote present.

5.  Putin doesn’t fit into his Gog costume.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Top Ten Reasons Why Obama is Not the Anti-Christ

Harry Reid: Liar

Friday, February 28, AD 2014

Washington is a town filled with liars, but even with all of that competition Senator Harry Reid (D.NV.) can be considered to be in a class all of his own when it comes to lies.  He lies constantly and with brazen effrontery because he realizes that with almost all of the mainstream media serving as unpaid press agents for the Democrat party, the chances of him being damaged by his mendacity will be remote.  Time, past time, to strip of his post as Senate Majority Leader by electing a GOP controlled Senate in the fall.



Continue reading...

22 Responses to Harry Reid: Liar

  • Good luck with that. And with the Pope’s strong stance against unfettered capitalism, you no longer have the Church in your Koch shilling back pocket.

  • Are you just being a troll Tom M. or are you really that dim?

  • “Time, past time, to strip him of his post as Senate Majority Leader by electing a GOP controlled Senate in the fall.”

    God help us with this one. We all know how precious little differences there are between Democrates and many Republicrates! I really do not sense a sufficient increase in the intelligence or the integrity of voters to have much hope for this republic. We are way down that slippery slope…..

  • Donald,

    What did I say that makes you think I’m dim? You really don’t believe the influence of Pope Francis’ anti-capitalism is going to make a difference in this years elections?

  • What did I say that makes you think I’m dim?
    I’m gonna take a stab that has to do with that fact that a) you pretty much misrepresented, or at least exaggerated what the Pope had to say, b) grossly overestimate how much his words will impact an American electorate, and c) reveal that you are fairly unacquainted with polling data and a political map that signal that Democratic retention of Senate control is much less than a 50/50 proposition.

    I would also suggest that Koch brothers line further suggests that you are a fairly unoriginal thinker incapable of doing anything but parroting talking points you’ve heard from other media sources.

  • “Pope Francis’ anti-capitalism is ………….”

    Pope Francis is NOT anti-capitalist. He simply pointed out – as many other popes have done – that we should avoid the excesses that capitalism can produce.
    On the other hand however, along with the other eight popes who have preceded him, his condemnation and rejection of Socialism is very severe.

  • Paul,

    Those are all reasonable points but in response I would say that I think you underestimate the power of the Pope’s words and actions. Remember, Catholics helped elect President Obama even with nearly the entire episcopate lined up against him in their “fortnight for freedom” mania. He’ll make a difference in places like Louisiana.

    As far as the Koch brothers, they themselves admit to pouring huge amounts of money in to these 2014 races. So far to little very effect as even someone like Kay Hagan is essentially tied with Tillis in North Carolina.

    Anyway, it’s going to be a very close election and I think the Pope could provide just enough oomph to keep Harry Reid as the majority leader.

  • “Tom M.”– the trolling and misdirection is strong in this one…

    Back on topic, I’m curious how Senator Reid could ever justify his claims. He
    seems to think that just because horror stories have been publicized in anti-
    obamacare commercials that have been sponsored by ‘a billionaire’ (Oooooo!,
    cue scary music!), that they cannot be true. Just take his word for it.

    Who are we going to believe– Senator Reid, or our lying eyes?

  • “What did I say that makes you think I’m dim? You really don’t believe the influence of Pope Francis’ anti-capitalism is going to make a difference in this years elections?”

    1. You mentioned the Koch brothers. That is a substitute for thought on the left and is hilarious since the left depends to a far greater extent than conservatives on large cash donations from very rich individuals.

    2. You mentioned Pope Francis and I think he will have zip influence on these elections.

    3. Your comment was non-responsive to the post.

  • Don,

    Pope Francis like all his predecessors have always condemned both socialism and capitalism. But, aside from the Senator from Vermont, who is a socialist? Certainly not our Wall St. loving president. The Holy Ghost chose Pope Francis precisely because the dangers we face today are from the advocates of unfettered capitalism. Those who would treat labor as a commodity to be bought and sold no different than a car or house.

  • He’ll make a difference in places like Louisiana.
    Yes, I’m sure Mary Landrieu’s bacon is going to be saved because of some comments the Pope made about economics. Your political analysis here rivals that of Michael Barone.
    As far as the Koch brothers, they themselves admit to pouring huge amounts of money in to these 2014 races.

    And? They are hardly the only people who contribute financially to political races. In fact, the amount of money they contribute is dwarfed by other individuals and organizations.

    The Holy Ghost chose Pope Francis

    And now we throw some bad theology into the mix. How many times must it be repeated that the Holy Spirit does not choose the Pope? The Holy Spirit guides the Cardinal electors.

    because the dangers we face today are from the advocates of unfettered capitalism.

    Yes – unfettered capitalism, which is practiced pretty much nowhere on planet Earth – is the single greatest threat humanity faces.

  • I have probably worn out the hospitality of the host so I won’t stick around but I stand by my comments and don’t think them trollish.

    Heck, I’m probably more conservative then most people on the right. I mean which right wing politician wants to do anything about this from Pope Pius XI:

    “It is an intolerable abuse, and to be abolished at all cost, for mothers on account of the father’s low wage to be forced to engage in gainful occupations outside the home to the neglect of their proper cares and duties, especially the training of children.” – QUADRAGESIMO ANNO

  • Heck, I’m probably more conservative then most people on the right.

    And hopelessly confused.

  • Back to the seemingly pathological lying of Harry Reid and others who have become so Partisan- such Party men- that they have lost balance in their thinking. It seems their goals or ends justify any means. The conscience is maybe not dead, but totally distorted

  • Perhaps many professional lefties are so accustomed to moral relativism they cannot tell the difference between plain truth and lying fiction. The first lie told is to oneself.

  • William Walsh’s comment about leftist politicians not being able to tell the difference between the plain truth and lying fiction reminded me of a similar phrase that Bill Wilson wrote concerning alcoholics in the Big Book of Alcoholics Anonymous. I am certain this is not a coincidence given the alcoholic addiction that leftist politicians have to the public treasury and the votes of the masses. Sadly too many RINOs by the same addiction make a similar stain on what could otherwise be authentic conservativism. 🙁

  • Ah ha! I finally found the phrase on page xxvi of “The Doctor’s Opinion” in the Big Book at

    “The sensation is so elusive that, while they [i.e., alcoholics] admit it [i.e., alcohol] is injurious, they cannot after a time differentiate the true from the false.”

    Yes, I cheated because my Big Book is still buried in a box somewhere after having moved apartments.

  • The gem within is: “The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken”. —– Samuel Johnson – It wonderfully describes our dilemma. Our political and economic situation is in an abnormal condition due to the unrestrained influence of the political left. They have managed to mainstream radical falsehoods. Those in political control of the country are immovably mired in their own ordure. They’ve convinced the masses that the world owes them a living but they can’t provide it. In the town square, the guillotine awaits.

  • William P Walsh again hits the nail on its proverbial head:

    “The chains of habit are too weak to be felt until they are too strong to be broken”. —– Samuel Johnson

    Only St. Paul had a better description of addiction:

    15 I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. 17 So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.

    Romans 7:15-20

  • Thank you – Paul but take care not to feed my ever lurking vanity. Saint Paul speaks for each and all of us. He describes the big sins we may have by grace left behind and the little sins so small we cannot see them. It is comforting to know that it’s not our efforts that draw us out but Christ’s sacrifice.

  • Harry Reid is but a symptom of Potomac Fever. Immune to term limits, detested by many, likely even in his own party, Reid’s machine has locked up Nevada by owning Las Vegas casino worker unions.

    The media has been in the Democrat back pocket since FDR, for the most part, and it has only grown worse. Reid lies whenever he opens his mouth – not a unique trait among politicians, but he has raised the bar for being obnoxious.

    Off to Mass. Today is Quinquegesima Sunday (in the old calendar, a time for preparation for Lent, Bugnini didn’t like it). Let us all prepare for Lent, which begins tomorrow for many Eastern Catholics.

  • Pingback: Spanish Devils - God & Caesar

February 28, 1864: Beginning of the Kirkpatrick-Dahlgren Raid

Friday, February 28, AD 2014


Portrait of Colonel Ulric Dahlgren

One of the more hare-brained schemes of the Civil War, a cavalry raid towards Richmond with 4,000 Union troopers under Brigadier General Hugh Judson Kilpatrick, a reckless blustering officer fully deserving of his nickname “Kill-Cavalry”, began on February 28, 1864.  Colonel Ulric Dahlgren’s brigade was detailed to penetrate the Richmond defenses, ostensibly to free Union prisoners.  The raid ended in a complete fiasco on March 2, with 324 of the raiders killed or wounded, and 1000 taken prisoner.

Among the dead was Dahlgren.  The Confederates found two interesting documents on his body, including one that contained this sentence:

“The men must keep together and well in hand, and once in the city it must be destroyed and Jeff. Davis and Cabinet killed.”

The sentence was part of two pages written by Dahlgren, which appear to be instructions for his men.  The other document was a speech to his men which contained this sentence:

‘We hope to release the prisoners from Belle Island first & having seen them fairly started we will cross the James River into Richmond, destroying the bridges after us & exhorting the released prisoners to destroy & burn the hateful City & do not allow the Rebel Leader Davis and his traitorous crew to escape.’

The Confederates made huge propaganda hay out of this and were justifiably outraged.  Calls went out to hang the raiders, a call successfully resisted by General Robert E. Lee.  The Union denounced the alleged documents as  forgeries, but after the fall of Richmond, Secretary of War Stanton made certain that the documents were brought to him, and they were never seen again, although the Confederates had made photographs of them, so we know their contents.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to February 28, 1864: Beginning of the Kirkpatrick-Dahlgren Raid

  • It wasn’t until late 1864 that the Union cavalry could best the Confederates on a consistent basis. Wilson’s Raid in 1865 showed how devastating repeater-armed cavalry could be. A modern historian called it “the Yankee blitzkrieg.”

  • I think the attitude of Confederate cavalry to Union cavalry until quite late in the War was aptly summed up the song Old Unreconstructed by the late great Waylon Jennings:

  • I rode with old Jeb Stuart, and his band of Southern horse,
    And there never were no Yankees, who could meet us force to force.
    No they never did defeat us, but we never could evade,
    Their dirty foreign politics, and cowardly blockade.

    Well we hadn’t any powder, and we hadn’t any shot,
    And we hadn’t any money to buy what we ain’t got.
    So we rode our worn-out horses, and we ate on plain cornmeal,
    And we licked em where we caught em, with Southern guts and steel.

    We sunk the ship at Sumter, and we broke her plumb in two.
    We showed them bully Yankees, just what we aimed to do.
    At a little creek called Bull Run, we took their starry rag,
    To wipe our horses down with, and I ain’t here to brag.

    Well there aren’t as many left of us as rode out at the start,
    And then there are the weary, weak, and body sad of heart.
    We fought a fight to tell about and I am here to say,
    I’d climb my horse and follow Marse to hell come any day.

  • A common quip among Union infantry was, “I never saw a dead cavalryman.”

    Until Gettysburg. There, B/G’s Custer’s and Gregg’s cav stopped cold Wade Hampton’s cav behind the Union south/center on the third day. Meanwhile, Kill-cavalry mounted disastrous charges against the Rebels in the east/front. Thereafter, despite Kill-cavalry and a few other cav maniacs, the Union cavalry became an effective combat arm. The book, Custer Victorious, is an excellent read and details Union cav successes (mainly Custer, who fortuitously was not ordered on the Richmond raid) from Gettysburg to Appomatox.

    Coincidently, my son served in a cav outfuit in Afghanistan. They still have stetsons, sdatble calls and officers earn (unofficial) spurs (made from shell casings) in addition to their CIB’s. The officers are infantry or armor MOS. The enlisted soldiers are cavalry scouts. The org is reg’t, squadron (= batt.) and troop (= company), and platoon. A platoon is four up-armored Humvees, two with .50 cal MG; one an automatic grenade lauincher and one a TOW missile.

  • Pingback: Spanish Devils - God & Caesar

PopeWatch: Pope Emeritus

Friday, February 28, AD 2014


John Allen, from his new perch as a Boston Globe columnist, notes recent actions taken in support of Pope Francis by the Pope Emeritus:


First, his closest aide and confidante, German Archbishop Georg Gänswein, gave an interview to the Reuters news agency on Feb. 9 in which he insisted there’s “a good feeling” between Francis and Benedict, and that the two men see one another often.

Second, Benedict XVI made a surprise appearance at a Feb. 22 consistory ceremony in which Francis elevated 19 new cardinals into the church’s most exclusive club, sitting in the front row and beaming during the event.

When Francis made his way over to wrap Benedict in a hug, the pope emeritus removed his white zucchetto, a skullcap that’s one of the symbols of the papal office — a small gesture that told insiders he was acknowledging Francis as the new boss.

Third, Benedict responded in writing to questions by veteran Italian journalist Andrea Tornielli concerning speculation that he’d been pressured to step down and therefore his resignation was invalid under church law. Following that reasoning to its logical conclusion, it would suggest that Francis isn’t really the pope.

Benedict dismissed the hypothesis as “simply absurd.”

“I took this step in full awareness of its gravity and novelty but with profound serenity of spirit,” Benedict wrote in comments published Feb. 26. “Loving the church also means having the courage to make difficult, painful choices, always keeping the good of the church in mind and not ourselves.”

Fourth, Gänswein, who still acts as Benedict’s private secretary and who lives with the former pope in a monastery on Vatican grounds, gave another interview to the Washington Post in which he said the two pontiffs didn’t know one another well at the beginning but are becoming steadily closer.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to PopeWatch: Pope Emeritus

  • “is why PopeWatch believes the retirement of a Pope is a very bad idea and hopes that Pope Benedict’s retirement will not be something his successors emulate.”

    Amen and Amen!!

  • ” . . .the retirement of a Pope is a very bad idea and hopes that Pope Benedict’s retirement will not be something his successors emulate.”

    I agree.

  • I can’t say one way or the other that future papal resignations would be a good idea, but definitely a Pope Emeritus who does not follow the example of humility that Benedict is setting would be very bad for the Church. Just imagine the scandal of such dissention! Thanks to the media and the internet it would be worse than the papal schisms of Avignon and Pisa, even if the actual words and deeds were minor by comparison.

    One thing about the resignation that I find positive is that it undermines many of the nasty criticisms of Benedict. Not that he or any pope should resign in the face of criticism – far from it! – but I love to see his critics proved wrong.

    In the matters of the resignation and election of a Pope we can only pray for God’s inspiration and direction. The fact that God’s will can be manifest in the actions of good but imperfect men should be seen as a comfort for us all.

  • Wow “….just imagine if the Pope Emeritus were right now airing differences he had with Pope Francis and imagine the chaos within the Church that would result. “. That opens some interesting possible concerns for me.
    Is it that the pope Emeritous would not have freedom to express his real and deeply held concern, if such were to be the case. Would he have the duty to speak or the duty to keep silent ? Would he have to choose Order over Truth?

  • Good questions, Anzlyne. Cardinals, especially the papabile, must face the same issues from time to time to some (hopefully small) degree. It is all likely resolved the same way: Order and Truth both get served, in private.

  • Anzlyne,

    It would not and never should be ‘order over truth’, but always ‘truth with charity’ and that is expressed in communion. Communion is what we all need and should strive for-from the ‘last’ member of the Church to the ‘first’

  • I agree Botolph there shouldn’t be a conflict between Truth and Order! God IS Truth and we see His mark of Order in everything He has revealed of Himself. We know there is no contradiction in God. …and Justice and Peace shall kiss .., but not in this temporal world
    My thoughts were just about a hypothetical bind possible for a pope Emeritus who strongly disagreed with the pope and how obliged he would be to speak or to keep silence in order not to unleash chaos ( or you might say- Protestantism ). Sorry. My own wacky sense of humor there
    And of course you are right. Communion is the answer.

  • On the other hand, what if Benedict were as nasty as the press thinks, and Francis were as liberal as they think, and Francis stepped down too, and then a new pope was elected and the three of them had to live under the same roof at St. Peter’s! And they had a sassy African-American secretary who wouldn’t take no lip from any of them. And the janitor is a Muslim fundamentalist who keeps trying to kill them. My Three Popes, coming this fall on ABC.

  • Pinky,

    You are a riot!

  • “My Three Popes, coming this fall on ABC.”

    I volunteer to be the surly “uncle” who keeps house!

  • Pingback: Pope Francis the Evangelical Catholic -

Freedom and the Left

Friday, February 28, AD 2014



John C. Wright, Catholic convert and science fiction author, has a brilliant post at his blog, John Wright’s Journal, in which he examines the threat to freedom posed by the contemporary left:


It is darker than you think. Perhaps you have heard about speech codes on campus, about the intolerance of the Left, about their mob tactics, their fetid hypocrisy, and you thought we who complain about it were exaggerating.

You perhaps thought that, at least here in America, certain ideals and values were so much a part of our way of life, so deeply embedded into the hearts of the people, that there was no real threat to our beloved freedoms.

Those ideals and values are not a part of our way of life any longer. They have not been for twenty or thirty years. We are past the tipping point, and it will be a very, very difficult struggle to get back up the pebbly slope to the brink of the cliff down which we fell.

I could list any number of examples from my own field, starting with the expulsion of Theodore Beale from SWFA based on a false accusation by a leftist, going through my editor at Tor books having his child taken from him based on a false accusation, and ending with my agent at Tor books being fired due to a false accusation by a leftist.

I will content myself with a single item of evidence; you can find countless additional items from sources as wide ranging as the monstrous Peter Singer to the absurd Pajama Boy Ethan Krupp.

A creature named Korn writing in the Harvard Crimson calls for an end to Academic freedom.

I am not kidding, I am not exaggerating, and I am not making this up. Here is the link:

Allow me to quote at length, lest I be accused of misrepresenting the true sewer depth of evil being promoted here, the bland banality of the call for chains and gags.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Freedom and the Left

  • It seems Ms. Korn’s views are being roundly rejected by the commenters in the Crimson. May hap’s hope lingers still.

  • Ms. Korn, if that is her real name, has no sense of humor, nor sense of decorum, nor sense of her destiny. Often Ms. Korn transgresses the principle of separation of church and state. The virtue of modesty is counseled by the church. The law against lewdness or public nakedness is made by the state. (and ought to be enforced by the state, especially in San Francisco) Private nakedness, as in a doctor’s office, is granted.
    The greatest argument against totalitarianism is that Ms. Korn, if that is her real name, has a rational immortal human soul and that her soul is sacred and therefore sanctions against inflicting anything less than the truth are enforced by the church and by the state for she is a sovereign person. Inflicting half-truths is criminal, called heresy in the church, perjury in the state, and lies in the public domain.
    An education is learning how to think, not what to think. Enforcing indoctrination of politically correct ideas is totalitarianism. The questions must be asked:”Why are some people more equal than others? Why is a particular idea more advantageous to some than to others? And WHO wants to know? The people want to know.
    Academic Justice must be equal academic Justice for all.
    There must be a moral principle involved for the state to make law. A moral principle points to God and to the human soul.

  • Sandra Korn at the Harvard Crimson talks about academic justice. One day she and all of us are going to get God’s justice. It will be a terrible awakening. Lord have mercy, Christ have mercy, Lord have mercy.

  • If we do nothing, we fail, we know whats right, and it’s our job to “sound off” & make our case “loud & clear” that Gods given us rights, true, and absolute, for All mankind…..ask yourself, if not me, who?????????

  • I fear the Left at home more than any enemy abroad. Truth will make you free and Lies will enslave you. I cannot think of any of the Bill of Rights, with the possible exception of the Third Amendment, not routinely transgressed if not trampled by the Left when in power.

  • Pingback: Same-Sex Marriage & Religious Liberty - God & Caesar

Private Discrimination Is As American As Apple Pie

Thursday, February 27, AD 2014




Ben Domenech at The Federalist actually understands what the law is regarding homosexuals and private vendors:

Let’s get a few things straight. Jim Crow for gays was not prevented by Jan Brewer’s veto of their religious liberty bill last night. Indeed, most Arizona businesses – like most businesses across the country – are free under the law to discriminate according to sexual orientation or anything of the kind. The bipartisan group of law professors who helped draft legislation like this in other states – many of whom support gay marriage themselves – were the ignored parties in all the coverage of this story, as amateur legal minds screamed of legalizing all sorts of terrible things which are in reality already legal. Ilya Shapiro, one of Cato’s brightest thinkers, went even further in undermining the case against this law:

SB 1062 does nothing more than align state law with the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which passed the House unanimously, the Senate 97-3, and was signed by President Clinton in 1993). That is, no government action can “substantially burden” religious exercise unless the government uses “the least restrictive means” to further a “compelling interest.” This doesn’t mean that people can “do whatever they want” – laws against murder would still trump religious human sacrifice – but it would prevent the government from forcing people to violate their religion if that can at all be avoided. Moreover, there’s no mention of sexual orientation (or any other class or category). The prototypical scenario that SB 1062 is meant to prevent is the case of the New Mexico wedding photographer who was fined for declining to work a same-sex commitment ceremony. This photographer doesn’t refuse to provide services to gay clients, but felt that she couldn’t participate in the celebration of a gay wedding. There’s also the Oregon bakery that closed rather than having to provide wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies. Why should these people be forced to engage in activity that violates their religious beliefs? For that matter, gay photographers and bakers shouldn’t be forced to work religious celebrations, Jews shouldn’t be forced to work Nazi rallies, and environmentalists shouldn’t be forced to work job fairs in logging communities.

Some context is necessary here. In the wake of the curtailing of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, states have pursued a host of mini-RFRAs which include protections for religious liberty. Attorneys and law professors who support gay marriage, such as Doug Laycock, have worked alongside attorneys from national faith groups to create legal language designed to follow the national RFRA’s model. This movement has recently fallen prey to the problems of any movement led by lawyers: it has seen a host of things that are benign in a legal context being misconstrued – or purposely lied about – to foment rage against things which are already legal, and ought to be in a society which values religious liberty. Kansas became the most recent example for pushback over the language proposed by these legal experts, though freelance efforts in other states have been even less successful (South Dakota didn’t even get out of committee).

The majority of the language in these bills, such as that related to maximum extent, is a cut and paste from the federal RFRA (of course, it’s a real question whether Chuck Schumer’s bill could pass today).  These lawyers have attempted to ensure that those with sincerely held religious beliefs retain their ability to live and work in the public square without being compelled by the force of government – likely due to the ruling of a court – to do something which runs against their beliefs. Kevin Williamson notes the danger of this judicial fiat: “If anything, it is much more likely in 2014 that a business exhibiting authentic malice toward homosexuals would be crushed under the socio-economic realities of the current climate. That is a good thing for two reasons: One is that genuine hostility toward gay Americans is today a distinctly minority inclination but one that still should be challenged. The second is that it is a far healthier thing for that challenge to take place on the battleground of civil society rather than in the courts and legislatures.” But then again: “We are a Puritanical nation, which doesn’t mean we hate sex (the Puritans loved sex). It means that we are profoundly anti-Catholic and prone to stamping out dissenters. We used to use social consensus and economic pressure where we didn’t use convictions to accomplish this. Now we use the Supreme Court.”

The reality is that discrimination on the basis of sex in public accommodation and in numerous other ways is for the most part totally legal at the state level. Yes, this crazy Jim Crow reality that has been fearmongered to death is already the law in most states. Most people think it’s illegal, but it isn’t – last night I heard a sports radio host describing America as a place where “no one has any right to deny anyone any service any time for any reason”, which is pretty much the opposite of freedom of association. But while it is legal, it rarely comes up – because it is so infrequently an issue! It turns out most Southern Baptists are perfectly happy to take gay couples’ money and bake them a cake. The pursuit of a positive Yelp review can be a powerful motivator.

But – and here’s the real focal point of this issue – they should be free to choose not to. And those who favor human liberty should be in favor of defending this status quo. Elizabeth Scalia writes: “I feel like I’m watching my gay friends get mauled and then watching my Catholic friends get mauled, both by people who have lost the ability to do anything but feel and seethe.” Elevating emotion (even understandable emotion) over reason is precisely what statists do and have done for centuries, and something libertarians (and too few conservatives) rightfully decry. The end point of overreaching government is a reality where believers are forced to bake a cake to celebrate an act they view as sinful, but under no circumstances can they serve unlimited brunch.

If you believe markets work, if you believe people work, then you should have faith that legitimate bigotry will be punished by the marketplace. So Hobby Lobby and Chick Fil A and all the cakemakers who only make heteronormative cake will see their business drop because they were anti-women or anti-gay or what have you. Giving the government the power to punish them – which really amounts to giving elite trial lawyers that power – is madness if you believe in people and markets. Decisions made by free people within markets will sort themselves out better than giving courts and government and bureaucrats the power to do the sorting. No one will shop at the Nazi store without being judged for shopping at the Nazi store, so we don’t need government to ban the Nazi store.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Private Discrimination Is As American As Apple Pie

  • “The Civil Rights Acts that banned discrimination on the basis of race by private vendors were unusual legislative acts based on an unusual situation: state governments that mandated such discrimination by private businesses. It took government action to break down such government mandated discrimination.”
    The state does not own the sovereign person. The sovereign person constitutes the state.

  • in the case of the cake/baker…I would make the cake and make it with a really bad recipe or not get the order right or something like that! Or say that proceeds of all sales go to trad marriage groups.

  • Diane: When one’s heart is not in creating a beautiful cake, believe you me, that cake will not be, without any help from God.

  • The requirement that people exercising certain public callings are obliged to deal with all comers is very ancient and can be traced back to the rubric in the Praetorian edict Caupones Nautae Stabularii. It included innkeepers, livery stables and common carriers, wharfingers and the like. It is linked to their strict liability for loss and may have been intended to protect travelling strangers from exploitation.

    In Scotland, the acts of 1537 c 61 and 1587 c 91 oblige an advocate to plead causes whether he chooses or not, if in the one case a client and in the other the court pleases to insist on it, unless otherwise engaged (sometimes known as the “cab rank principle”) This is based on the Faculty’s exclusive right of audience – the price paid for a monopoly. I believe the charters of the Royal Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons contain similar provisions, but whether they would ground an action, I do not know.

    Certainly, freedom of contract is the rule and, until very modern times, exceptions were rare.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Certainly, freedom of contract is the rule and, until very modern times, exceptions were rare.”
    In any contract violation, damages must be proven. Here the plaintiffs are charging violation of their civil rights as damage, insult to their God-given freedom of peaceable assembly, but is it peaceable assembly? indoctrinating the entire nation in sodomy is not peaceable assembly. Using the power of the state to demand license against the civil rights of all other people, and extort tribute in the form of assent and penalties.
    Having read my last statement it appears to me that it describes the state of affairs of Obamacare.

  • True : “people who thought conceding gay marriage would end this argument were deluding themselves -” DMcClarey

  • Is it no different than having apartment complexes and being forced to rent to gay couples? Is it no different than having an antique shop and having a large portion of your customers who are gay? Is it no different than having to rent to unmarried couples when it goes against everything you believe in? These laws are forced down our throats and whoa to the person who says one thing! The “norms” of society have changed? Such a mess we are in. There is a big difference it seems in the cases of businesses that offer the consumer to come in and shop, vs me gay person insisting that you bake me a cake or take my picture when you know how uncomfortable you are making me feel. If there are 50 photographer/cake bakers in your city and I am the ONLY one who does not want your business why would you even want me to do that? Unless you are trying to prove your nasty right. Kind of reminds me of Roe v Wade. No one even had an abortion but they proved their nasty point now didn’t they?

  • Liberals already discriminate against us. Turn about is fair play.

  • Pingback: Same-Sex Marriage & Religious Liberty - God & Caesar

Don Speaks!

Thursday, February 27, AD 2014




Over the years I have often referred to my work in the law mines.  Yesterday I argued a case before the Third District Appellate Court in Illinois, Coal City Redi-Mix, et al, v. Pontiac Exchange.  The dispute was over which of these entities has the right to a motorcycle.  The case has a bit of significance under Illinois law since it will set a precedent as to the impact of citation to discover assets, a legal mechanism by which a creditor can find assets of a judgment debtor, liens on third parties, if the third party is a lender or a bona fide purchaser.  The case is somewhat technical in nature, but the oral argument was fun, and I thought some of my regular readers might find it enjoyable.  Go here and click on the audio link to Coal City Redi Mix v. Pontiac Exchange if you wish to listen to the oral argument.  If you do, I am sure you will come away thinking, “Don makes a living doing this type of thing?”.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Don Speaks!

  • I have not read the post but my immediate response to “Don makes a living doing this type of thing?”. is: Somebody has to.

  • I just always figured you made your fortune on blog-hits.

    …Bloggers don’t make a fortune on blog-hits? What do you do it for then, to impress the ladies?

  • For fun Pinky, which shows how easily amused I am!

  • Before I go listen, will your voice be lower or higher than I expect? 🙂

  • Well Mr. McClarey, you earn it!
    Tomorrow at 9?
    Please give us a follow up.

    It’s great to have a voice to your pen. (key’s)

    Your final argument was simple and clear. Oct. Mr. Cavanaugh didn’t own motorcycle, may have had privileges to “buy back” but at that time of service didn’t “own” bike.(?) More to it, but is that the meat of it?

  • That is the nub of it Philip. The statute exempts from the citation lien lenders and bona fide purchasers. By the time my client was served with the third party citation the defendant had pawned his motorcycle to my client. Either as a lender or a bona fide purchaser no lien could attach to the motorcycle once it was pawned to my client. In about two weeks I should see whether the appellate court agrees with me.

  • Interesting. Concur with Philip.
    But I think the old method of pistols at dawn provides a much more efficient and conclusive outcome. 🙂

  • Don the Kiwi-


    I see Mr.McClarey with sword..on-guard.
    Fencing comes to mind in his pursuit for his clients interests. Pistols at dawn is poetic however. 🙂

  • Don your voice sounds younger than I expected.
    Does this sort of thing happen all the time to pawnbrokers? Folks who are try to liquidate assets just prior to judgment/discovery? I can see how it could get out of hand. But, what is the alternative?

  • “Does this sort of thing happen all the time to pawnbrokers?”

    Probably not, since this is the first case of this type in Illinois. A more common scenario is where people attempt to pawn stolen goods. The law is clear then that the pawnbroker will not have title, and therefore most pawnbrokers make strenuous efforts to assure that someone attempting to pawn an item is the actual legal owner.

  • “A more common scenario is where people attempt to pawn stolen goods.”

    This is the case in Scotland and it has led to some wire-drawn distinctions between theft, where the pawnbroker gets no title and cases of “breach of trust and embezzlement” and of “falsehood, fraud and wilful imposition,” where he (usually) does. This is based on the Roman maxim that, where one reposes his trust, there he must seek it.

  • Neat!

    I wonder whose idea it was to start uploading those.

  • Pingback: Narrative Collapse? - God & Caesar

PopeWatch: Pope of Silence?

Thursday, February 27, AD 2014


Sandro Magister has some riveting commentary at his blog Chiesa:
But one morning, on November 18, instead of the devil he  took aim at the “single form of thinking that is the fruit of worldliness,” that wants to subject everything to “hegemonic uniformity.” A single form of thought, he continued, that already dominates the world and even legalizes “the death penalty,” even “human sacrifices” complete with “laws that protect them.” And he cited one of his favorite novels, the apocalyptic “Lord of the World” by Robert H. Benson.

When early this February he leafed through the sixteen pages of the UN report,  which peremptorily enjoin upon the Catholic Church that it “correct” its teaching on abortion, on the family, on sex, Francis must have become even more convinced that events were proving him right, that the prince of this world was really at work and by heaping praise on his vaunted “openness” wanted to associate even him, the pope, with the enterprise of making the Church conform to the hegemonic school of thought, in order to annihilate it.

It is not easy to enter into the mind of pope Bergoglio. His words are like the tiles of a mosaic whose design is not immediately apparent. He also makes tough and biting remarks, but never at a moment in which they could generate conflict.

If he had pronounced that tremendous homily of his against the single form of thought that intends to hegemonize the world the day after the publication of the UN report and explicitly in response to it, the event would have entered into the “breaking news” of global information. But it was not to be. Delivered on an arbitrary day, that same homily did not cause the slightest chagrin. It was ignored.

And yet it is precisely there that the concealed thought of the Jesuit pope is to be found, his judgment on the present era of the world.

“The view of the Church is known, and I am a son of the Church,” Francis says and says again. His thought is the same as that which is written in the catechism. And sometimes he recalls this combatively for those who expect him to change doctrine, as in the least-cited passage of his “Evangelii Gaudium,” where he has the harshest of words against the “right” to abortion.

But he never proclaims Church teaching out loud at a moment when the dispute over an issue has become heated.

He has kept quiet now that the euthanasia of children has been permitted by law in Belgium. He keeps himself apart from the millions of citizens of every faith who in France and in other countries are opposing the dissolution of the idea of the family made up of father, mother, and children. He has remained silent after the unprecedented affront of the UN report.

With this he intends to blunt the weapons of the adversary. To defeat him with the immense popularity of his figure as pastor of the mercy of God.

There is a Jacobin-style attack against the Church, not only in France, that simply wants to exclude it from civil discourse.

But there is also a more subtle attack that cloaks itself as a consensus for a Church refurbished and new, up to date, in step with the times. There is also this in the popularity of Francis, a pope “like never before,” finally “one of us,” molded through a copy-and-paste of his open, adaptable statements.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to PopeWatch: Pope of Silence?

  • “”A single form of thought, he continued, that already dominates the world A single form of thought, he continued, that already dominates the world and even legalizes “the death penalty,” even “human sacrifices” complete with “laws that protect them.”
    “”and even legalizes “the death penalty,””
    What does the Catechism of the Catholic church say? What does Aquinas say about bringing capital one murderers to Divine Justice? as self defense?
    Today, The Dialog, paper of the Diocese of Wilmington, headline reads: Anti-death penalty is Pro-life.” Sister Helen Prejean of “Dead Man Walking” is giving a talk at St. Josephs in Middletown, Delaware. The poor capital murderer who laid in wait and executed his victim does not deserve to be brought to Justice.(or let him go to hell?)
    Do to the capital one murderer, as he has done to his victim. “Do unto others as you would be done unto”
    Any person who supports this anti-death penalty says he is not willing to die for his cold blooded plotting and killing of another, his neighbor. Justice be damned.
    If Sister Helen Prejean conspires to murder you, obtains a lead pipe wrapped in a rubber hose and crushes your skull, kicks and drags your body into a ditch and leaves you there to bleed to death, she should be housed and fed and cared for by the remaining citizenry while she daily enjoys remembering, reliving and re-enacting her triumphant rejection of our living God. Justice?

  • Capital punishment is the temporal punishment due to capital one homicide. Temporal punishment is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance. To repudiate capital punishment is to repudiate the Sacrament of Penance instituted by Jesus Christ, Himself. To repudiate Jesus Christ is to repudiate the Catholic church.

  • Before you ask. My brother’s skull was crushed by a lead pipe wrapped in a rubber hose. The murderer just happened to have the lead pipe wrapped in a rubber hose handy. My brother’s body was kicked and dragged into a gutter where he was left to bleed to death.
    The murderer hanged himself eight years later.
    Jesse Timendaquas lured seven year old Megan Kanka into his house, raped and strangled her to death. The ban on capital punishment was in effect in New Jersey and to this day Jesse Timendaquas is in solitary confinement reliving, reenacting and enjoying his crime. Justice

  • Mary, I’m terribly sorry for your loss.

  • I read the Lord of the World recently. Among other things, it is very prescient in its depiction of euthanasia clinics in Europe.
    The final pages of the book describe the Lord of the World looking, looking, looking for the Pope. Does Francis remind us that the World is looking for him now for the same reason? And, who will spring the trap on whom?

  • “The view of the Church is known, and I am a son of the Church” While I am sure the Pope does not mean to come off that way, to me it sounds like he is really just ” towing the (Vatican) line” and may not not really believe it , but he is going to go along with it because he is simply being loyal. Like he has put no real thought into being pro-life or standing against divorce. JPII was clearly anti-abortion and opposed contraception. Benedict as well. You could believe they opposed it independently of what the Church said. Francis does not inspire the same confidence for me.

  • tamsin: Days before his death, my brother was radiant, his cheeks were rosy and there was a joy in him even he had never known. Known only to God. Remember him at Mass.

  • In the past, popes may not have been silent, but they were often remarkably sparing of ink and paper.
    When Pope Innocent X issued his bull, Cum Occasione, against Jansenism, he selected and condemned five propositions taken from Jansen’s book in the following words:

    1.” Some of God’s precepts are impossible to the just, who wish and strive to keep them, according to the present powers which they have; the grace, by which they are made possible, is also wanting” – Declared and condemned as rash, impious, blasphemous, condemned by anathema [anathemate damnatam], and heretical.

    2. “In the state of fallen nature one never resists interior grace” – Declared and condemned as heretical.

    3. “In order to merit or demerit in the state of fallen nature, freedom from necessity is not required in man, but freedom from external compulsion is sufficient” – Declared and condemned as heretical.

    4. “The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of a prevenient interior grace for each act, even for the beginning of faith; and in this they were heretics, because they wished this grace to be such that the human will could either resist or obey” – Declared and condemned as false and heretical.

    5. “It is Semi- Pelagian to say that Christ died or shed His blood for all men without exception” – Declared and condemned as false, rash, scandalous, and understood in this sense, that Christ died for the salvation of the predestined, impious, blasphemous, contumelious, dishonouring to divine kindness [divinae pietati derogantem], and heretical.

    That, omitting formal parts, is the whole of the bull – no arguments nor explanations, but a simple ruling, clear and definitive.

    Modern popes would be well advised to follow suit.

  • Mary De Voe,
    As Ludwig Ott stated in section 8 (Introduction) of “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” back in 1952…” the ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible”. We’ll get more of the new anti death penalty error when someone translates the new findings of the international theological commission on monotheism and violence. Their introduction hinted at continuing Benedict’s dark passages theme from section 42 of Verbum Domini which itself insinuated that the dooms or bans God ordered were really sins of
    the ancient Jews. Unfortunately theology is meshing with image making and with problems in modern biblical scholarship simultaneously. There is also the feminization of males talked about by Plato in Book three of the
    Republic…ie if males are all culture and no sports, they will become feminized. I’m not saying our theologians should do time in the UFC octagon…but it wouldn’t hurt. I know many loved Benedict for sexual conservativism but biblically, you were in for a surprise if you read him closely in Verbum Domini sect.42. The man ordered his own personal fragrance…he was not going to accept the bans or dooms of the OT. Ironically he and his commission I’m sure have not noticed that the largest doom was in 70 AD and predicted by Christ…between 600,000 and 1.1 million killed.,.and it wasn’t in the Old Testament. By taking the Bible as an open cafeteria on the death penalty issue, the last three Popes have undermined the sexual strictness that is also biblical. How can you tell gays to bow before Romans chapter one’s condemnation of gay acts when three Popes have circumvented Romans 13:4 that calls for the state’s sword to administer not our wrath BUT GOD’S WRATH. You can’t. You can’t be biblically cafeteria on your issue and tell the gays their issue is inerrantly condemned while your issue of violence needs a textual critic, a redaction critic, a source critic…all from Harvard to help you remake the Church into Joan Baez on this one area of violence. The girl could sing by the way. But we need clergy who attend concerts less and at least watch LeBron last night play with a broken nose and score 31 points. The last three Popes are adamantly anti violence. Or are they? Not one has taken the Sig Sauer pistols and Heckler and Koch submachine guns away from the Swiss Guard. Not one. Very expensive and reliable killing machines…those guns. Will Francis switch them to mace after the new report gets translated? I think not.

  • “that option is not available for a Pope”

    What about Pope Pius XII’s alleged “silence” on the Holocaust — i.e. not making repeated public denunciations of the Nazis when to do so would NOT have prevented their actions and would only have enraged them further to attack Catholics? Maybe there is room for exercising prudence in just when and how much fuel to toss on a burning issue, so that it doesn’t flare up out of control?

  • “What about Pope Pius XII’s alleged “silence” on the Holocaust”

    Which is a complete and total myth:

    People arguing that the silence of a Pope can be a prudent course must choose someone other than Pius XII.

  • Mary De Voe,

    I read with horror the story you shared about the murder of your beloved brother. I am so sorry for your horrendous loss. I will keep him in prayer and you as well. In the meantime I will not enter into the death penalty aspect of this conversation with you out of respect for your brother and you. I never lost anyone to murder. Be assured of my thoughts and prayers

  • “People arguing that the silence of a Pope can be a prudent course must choose someone other than Pius XII. ”
    Gary Krupp is a Jewish supporter of Pope Pius XII. His Pave the Way Foundation records the facts of the Jews saved by Pius XII.
    Botolph: ”
    I will not enter into the death penalty aspect of this conversation with you out of respect for your brother and you. I never lost anyone to murder. Be assured of my thoughts and prayers.”
    Thank you for your prayers.
    I hope this helps. To understand the death penalty one must understand separation of church and state as John Henry Cardinal Newman explained it.
    “It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine, the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation, and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the Creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the Church. Lastly, he is tied up and limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that alongside religious society there is civil society, that alongside the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy there is the power of temporal Magistrates, invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally permitted, and belonging to the domain of civil society.”
    Also: “But when a man kills another after maliciously scheming to do so, you must take him even from my altar (compassion, mercy) and put him to death.” Exodus 21:14 Capital One Homicide. Premeditated murder. The condemned murderer must expire with grief over his crime. The victim’s innocence is impugned. Did the victim deserve to be put to death? The victim’s life is taken from him. The victim’s innocence must be vindicated. The only way to ban capital punishment, the death penalty, for capital one murder is to expunge homicide.
    The Sacerdotal priesthood, ordained and sacred cannot execute the death penalty, even while still enjoying citizenship. Many of the priesthood of the laity so pronounced by Vatican II have conscientious objection to the death penalty for reasons of love for God and His creation, human life. For this reason, capital one death penalty must be tried on a case by case basis “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional ) posterity” as posited in our Constitution…In Thomas Aquinas’ words…self defense. These persons, guilty of murder, cannot be at liberty to desecrate other innocent person’s souls.
    Banning the death penalty denies equal Justice for the victim. The murderer must run jeopardy of life for his crime. The murderer must be tried for his life. If the murderer is truly repentant, he will expire with grief over his crime, or, as the capital one murderer is brought to Justice he will meet his own persona through power of attorney on the gallows in the person of the executioner.
    Reliving and remembering his offense against God and man cannot be allowed by the state, nor by the church. Capital punishment must be observed by the Catholic Church as a remedy and as a means of salvation for the offender.
    Vatican II did not render the Old Testament meaningless or obsolete.
    The state does not own the victim, nor the offender. The church does not own the victim, nor the offender. God owns all souls. God says the capital one murderer “must be taken from my altar (of compassion and mercy). He must be put to death.” Exodus 21:14.
    Now, we have Sister (no sister of mine) Helen Prejean preaching that the people who hunger and thirst for Justice are “hateful” and using the Catholic Church as a venue for her insipid stupidity. The woman has nothing good to say about letting condemned capital one murderers live, because there is nothing good to say about letting condemned capital one murderers live. Prejean wrote a book, made a movie and gets plenty of press, but the blood of my brother cries out from the ground. The victim’s family are too busy burying their dead to respond.

  • The church forgives sins. The state prosecutes crime.
    Capital one homicide is one of only two reasons the state executes a person. The other being the bloodguilt of treason.
    The state does not have the authentic authority to forgive capital one homicide because the victim is dead. The state cannot forgive the crime of capital one homicide by banning capital punishment because the state does not own the citizen.
    The church cannot execute capital punishment because the church is instituted to bring souls to Christ. Jesus said: “My kingdom is not of this world.” Capital punishment is of this world.

  • Mary De Voe,

    Mary, I still am against the USE of the death penalty, but let me say that in all the various arguments I have heard and read what you just wrote is the most cogent point that indeed does need to be made (on both sides of the argument) The Church forgives sins; the State does not and cannot forgive sins. The victim is indeed tragically dead and the State does not own the citizen.

    With all arguments pro and con I still fundamentally believe (with the Church by the way) that the State has the duty/right to protect its citizens-thus the State’s duty/right to protect the unborn, children, the disabled, elderly, infirm, and its general citzenship in a ‘just war’ [Yes I believe in the just war principles taught by the Church]. It is how that duty/right is exercised that I think people (can) differ.

  • Botolph: “[Yes I believe in the just war principles taught by the Church]. It is how that duty/right is exercised that I think people (can) differ.”

    At the end of the movie Judgment at Nuremberg, somebody asks: “Where did we go wrong?” and the judge answers: “When you killed the first innocent person.” Many people have conscientious objections to a just war and one is free to hold those objections.
    My vehement objection is to the making of the anti-death penalty position into a pro-life position for that is nonsense. A true pro-life position on the death penalty can be seen only through the lens of heaven and hell, with denying to the capital one murderer the time to relive and enjoy his crime. Can God accept insult heaped upon injury?
    P.S. In New Jersey, the law says that a prisoner returning to society must be given his old job back. I worked with a murderer, an unrepentant, arrogant murderer waiting for another opportunity to kill somebody to watch them die. He bragged about his homicide. And then there was Scot Johnson who said: “I am going out to kill somebody.” and then there was the rapist who hacked his victim’s head 47 times with an ax. The court said that it did not know if he wanted to kill her or only inflict serious bodily injury. Oh, How I wish these guys would move in with Sister Prejean.

  • Mary De Voe,
    New Jersey is nightmare on self defense. They have just reduced magazines to ten shots so if you are shooting in the dark at three home invaders, you had better be an ex sniper. Outdoors they permit only an amount of pepper spray sufficient for two attackers maybe…if there is no wind. If it’s windy, you’re up the creek sans paddle. I have broken their laws by using epikeia in good conscience since there exists one eminent gentleman in N.J. who has promised to glock me into kingdom come. I feared he was on the Hoover St. Gangsta Crips after I beat him in a street fight after he robbed my house…but they would have ended me by now so I think he is on his own. I wear blue most days just in case he links up with them in prison and they all do a drive by. I’ll yell…”can’t touch me, I’m wearing blue…I be crippin”….pop…pop,pop,pop….pop. “New Jersey and you…perfect together”… one of our state ads from the Tom Kean past.

  • “Which is a complete and total myth”

    Yes, I know that, which is why I put “silence” in quotes and added the term “alleged”. I am simply pointing out that not beating a topic to death at every possible opportunity, and not loudly and publicly denouncing every evil action particularly when such denunciations are not likely to improve the lot of the people who are suffering and may in fact lead to further crackdown against them, does NOT equal “silence” on the subject.

  • “out that not beating a topic to death at every possible opportunity”

    In my experience most priests talk about abortion once a year in their sermons, and the next sermon against gay marriage I hear will be the first one. I have never heard one sermon against contraception or divorce. Most priests I think need little encouragement from the Pope not to talk about things which might distress the “go with the flow” wing of Catholicism.

  • particularly when such denunciations are not likely to improve the lot of the people who are suffering and may in fact lead to further crackdown against them,

    What further crackdowns should we expect if the Pope dared to actually speak out against something?

    Donald, fortunately my experience has been better than yours in that the Priests at my parish have regularly spoken up about such controversial issues.

  • Botolph: “The victim is indeed tragically dead and the State does not own the citizen.”
    The power of the state, since the state is constituted by the sovereign personhood endowed by our Creator, God, to mankind and mankind constitutes the state, it may be said that our Creator, through His creatures’ sovereign personhood and free will, endowed by God to man, constitutes and creates the state. Therefore, it follows that the state is an arm of God created to defend and distribute the Wrath of God to people who deserve to have the Wrath of God down upon them for having willfully and unmercifully murdered others.
    The execution of capital punishment, the death penalty, is the state acting as an arm of God.
    I am grieving over the use of the “anti death penalty” position being proclaimed as being “pro-life”. If this is what you, Botolph are being inducted to, or as being supportive of, look at the sovereignty being denied to your very soul, for you are being used as a pawn to actually destroy the pro-life position and the prolife movement in the church, a very subtle but very real swindle.
    Separate the two positions as being unequal. The differences, as usual, are the innocence and virginity of the newly begotten sovereign person in the womb and the unmitigated, unrelenting murderous deeds of the criminal. Destroy and obliterate the innocence and virginity created by “our Creator” and you will have destroyed and obliterated the virtue of JUSTICE. Without JUSTICE, man becomes a beast, devoid of the use of his rational, immortal human soul.
    Being anti-death penalty removes the guilt and equal Justice demanded by the human soul.
    Quietly, the demons, carry us, the human beings, into darkness and hell.

  • Bill Bannon, Yes, “New Jersey is nightmare on self defense”. “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that it has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are of such a nature. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” ~Cesare Beccaria – 1764. We left New Jersey in 1965, and miss friends, relatives and good Jewish Rye Bread but not the draconian gun laws that make it a felony to carry an unloaded shotgun in a soft case in the back of a station wagon on one’s way home from a duck hunt. The Devil delights in a world turned upside down.

  • William P. Walsh,
    You’ll laugh. They just tightened the home to gun range restrictions so that you can’t drive off course several blocks to visit Aunt Bea on the way to or from the range. I think of Pacino in Scarface saying, ” I said to tell him you were in a sanitarium not in sanitation”. Here in N.J., we’re in both.

  • Bill Bannon,
    When we were kids, going to the dump to shoot rats was common, no big deal. Now the rats are running the State. 😉

  • “Bill Bannon, When we were kids, going to the dump to shoot rats was common, no big deal. Now the rats are running the State.”
    There is much hope in Chris Christi. He is pro-life, refused to fund Planned Parenthood for several years and put the teachers’ union in their place. Chris Christi refuses to be bullied. Now, back to shooting rats.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis the Evangelical Catholic -

Priest of Andersonville

Thursday, February 27, AD 2014


I normally take great pride in being an American, but there are passages in our history which all Americans should be ashamed of.  During our Civil War in many prison camps, both North and South, POWs were treated wretchedly with inadequate shelter, clothing and food.  The worst by far was Andersonville. The vast tragedy at Andersonville came about for a number of reasons.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Priest of Andersonville

February 27, 1864: First Union Prisoners Arrive at Andersonville

Thursday, February 27, AD 2014

An Andersonville Survivor

One hundred and fifty years ago Union prisoners began arriving at the Andersonville prison camp.  A blot on American honor is the callous way in which many prisoners of war were treated during our Civil War, north and south.  (For a Union prison camp that had a death rate of 25%, google Elmira prison camp, or as the Confederates imprisoned there referred to it, Helmira.)   45,000 Union soldiers would be held at Andersonville and 13,000 of them would die through starvation, bad water, no sanitation and disease.   Accounts of what went on inside Andersonville beggar description.  Jesus wept, sums up the reaction of any decent soul to this abomination.  See the accompanying post for today for the grim details, and for a shining example of humanity by a man motivated by God’s love to love his enemies.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to February 27, 1864: First Union Prisoners Arrive at Andersonville

AZ “Anti-Gay” Bill Vetoed

Wednesday, February 26, AD 2014

As I expected, Arizona governor Jan Brewer has vetoed SB 1062. Though it has been described in the media as a bill that establishes a “right to deny service to gay and lesbian customers”, this is quite false. The aim of the bill was to provide the same protections currently afforded to religious institutions under state law to  “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church,” “estate, trust, foundation or other legal entity” and to allow religious defense to be used as a defense in lawsuits by the same entities.

In itself, the bill is harmless. It makes no reference to homosexuals, even though the outrageously unjust decision of Elane Photography v. Willock, which may be heard by the Supreme Court at some point in the reasonably near future, was the impetus behind it. In context, however, the bill was quite unnecessary and I believe will ultimately end up causing more harm than good.

In the first place, Elane v. Willock took place in New Mexico, wherein homosexuals are a “protected class” under NM state law. No such protections exist in AZ; ergo, no legislation along these lines was really needed at this time. The actual threat to religious liberty, at least from the vindictive sort of activism that has brought photographers and bakers to court, was non-existent. The summary and background written by proponents of the bill made Elane one of its core concerns without recognizing that NMs distinctive protections for homosexuals were responsible for the legal conflict in that state (as an aside, I do not believe Elane Photography refused service simply because Willock was gay).

Because the bill wasn’t really necessary and a tangible threat in the form of an actual lawsuit against a Christian business owner was not in play, it was easy to see it as an irrationally spiteful measure (as I would see the actions of Vanessa Willock against Elane Photography, by the way). Now it is one thing to have to put up with the left-wing media’s triumphalism when we have a moral duty to make a stand, as Elane Photography and other businesses have; it is another thing to have to witness the spectacle of melodrama from the homosexual political movement and its straight allies as Brewer announced her decision. The passage, veto, and failure of SB 1062 gave aid to our enemies who would trample our religious liberties into dust, and did harm to our own cause. I do not blame Brewer for this. I blame imprudence on the part our well-meaning friends in Arizona. As the governor herself put it:

Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific and present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard of one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.

We must only fight battles that need fighting. Preemptive strikes didn’t work out too well for George W. Bush and they aren’t going to work out well for the social conservative movement. Right now this country is split – roughly half of it agrees with our basic proposition that the right to free exercise of religion and conscience outweighs a gay couple’s right to have any business they like participate in their gay weddings. If we push for unnecessary legislation against vague or non-existent threats and hand PR victories to the enemies of liberty, that balance could shift against us in short order.

The moral high ground never belongs to perceived aggressors. Only those who strike back in legitimate self-defense can strike with overwhelming force and the moral support of the people. If this lesson is not absorbed, then our cause will never prevail.

Continue reading...

123 Responses to AZ “Anti-Gay” Bill Vetoed

  • I respectfully disagree. It is the veto that sends the wrong message. I don’t think the people of Arizona acting through their legislature has to wait until the situation becomes critical to take proactive measures. This law would have sent a signal to state courts that protection of religious freedom was of paramount concern and that any infringement must be in the interest of a compelling state interest only. They can see in Arizona as we all can elsewhere that advocates of same-sex practices will stop at nothing to advance their agenda. State boundaries mean nothing to those pursuing legitimacy of the “gay” lifestyle at the expense of people of faith. There is no placating such a mindset and there are no lengths that activists will go to harass those who get in their way. The question is will they have the coercive power of the state to back them up. The veto of this bill suggests that in the future in Arizona, they will.

  • Chris,

    I get your objection. I think we are on the defensive, though. I could have told you from day one of the bill’s final draft that Jan Brewer was going to veto it, and for exactly the reasons she said. Her reaction was all but inevitable. I do not think that this means that the totalitarian fanatics will have their way in AZ. I believe Gov. Brewer is an ally – she is pro-life and pro-family. I think she had good reasons for the veto.

    Put the blame with the imprudence behind the bill. Somewhere between “there is no threat” and “its too late” is the sweet spot in which it is safe to take defensive measures. The AZ legislature acted too soon and with an ultimately flawed argument about the implications of New Mexico. Of course the fanatics don’t care about state laws, but they don’t have absolute power. They were able to win in NM – for now, at least – because of NM law. They could not win in AZ – for now, at least – because of AZ law. What AZ social conservatives should focus on is preventing NM-style “protections” from becoming law, if and when those are proposed.

    We have to play it twice as smart and three times as safe because most of the national news media is against us and is looking for ANY reason to paint us as vile bigots destined for the ash heap of history. We are on the defensive and that changes everything about how we play this game.

  • Leading up to her veto, do you believe any of the arguments that AZ was going to suffer financial blow-back if she would of allowed the bill to become law?


    I found that argument absurd.

  • From the AP.
    The national Hispanic Bar Asso. canceled its convention plans in AZ for 2015.

    I just came across this on associated press. It wasn’t absurd afterall.

    It’s sad that businesses that refuse to serve this lifestyle are going to be dragged into court on discrimination complaints. Because this hasn’t happened yet in AZ was a large factor in her decision to veto? I’m slow. Just catching up. Coffee soon.

  • The gay gestapo, again, wins.

    Next, they’ll sue a parish for refusing to perform Nuptial Rites for a show, sodomy regularization.

    A paltry, few (older religious) black Civil Rights leaders expressed outrage at the false comparison of this fake issue to Solid Democrat south Jim Crow/segregation – it’s a Democrat Party thing.

    In America, Catholics no longer have any right.

  • “A paltry, few (older religious) black Civil Rights leaders expressed outrage at the false comparison of this fake issue to Solid Democrat south Jim Crow/segregation – See more at:

    And they are right to do so. There is no way that the discrimination of most ‘protected’ groups in America today can be compared to that of slaves and their descendants.

    But such is the heritage of the civil rights movement. That movement created two things that are not healthy in our body politic. The first is a template that can be followed by anyone who can claim some victimization from invidious discrimination, no matter how paltry (instead of the more reasonable view that the discrimination against blacks was unique and so the template should not have been reused). The second is an addiction to righteous emotions that requires the civil rights movement to never end.

  • (as an aside, I do not believe Elane Photography refused service simply because Willock was gay).” The repugnance of the gay militant agenda is enough to make gentle people avoid it. Its nasty demands covertly assume innocent homosexuals’ lives and smear the virtue of chastity as evil and against their so called license to unnatural marriage and freedom to sodomize each other…(then us).

  • TomD.
    “The first is the template that can be followed by anyone who can claim some victimization from insidious discrimination…”

    Except the unborn.

    What a world.

  • I have mixed feelings about the AZ bill. A few weeks ago I basically supported such an idea. Today I am not so sure. Please permit me to lay out my reasoning.

    It is obvious that homosexuals are using the power of the state to redefine marriage to their advantage (though it has been pointed out that the main advantage of gay marriage is gay divorce).

    It is obvious that other radicals are waiting in the wings to add further redefinitions of marriage (poly-whatever) that will make marriage almost meaningless.

    It is obvious that orthodox Christianity (Catholic, Eastern, and Protestant) considers marriage to be a ‘mystery’ or ‘sacrament’ that cannot be redefined in the manner that is now underway. Please note that I understand that some but not all Protestants are orthodox in their views on marriage.

    So what is happening today, from a Christian viewpoint, is that the secular state is usurping to itself the power to define a sacrament. Arguably the state did this centuries ago when it began to issue marriage licenses and to prohibit clergy from officiating at marriages without a license. This legal power to redefine marriage have lain dormant until now, and the changes in Western societal mores are now driving the state to use this power.

    If the state redefines marriage away from the Christian definition, and if the power of the state and of powerful non-state institutions such as the media are used to defend and propagandize the redefinition of marriage, then Christianity is to some degree being discriminated against, and persecuted. The state is telling Christians that their churches are wrong in a major question of faith and morals. Religious liberty is being undermined.

    The only way out of this insipid persecution is to either return to the original civil definition of marriage, or for the state to get out of the marriage business entirely. The state could stop issuing marriage licenses, and issue only civil union licenses. Marriage thus becomes a purely religious institution. The Church defines marriage for me, and if you don’t like it you can go start your own church and have your own definition of marriage. I’m staying put.

    Think about it. This is precisely what we do regarding the Eucharist. Different churches have different definitions about the Body of Christ. The analogy of the current situation would be that, say, the state has decided that the Lutheran definition is the correct one because it is more inclusive and non-discriminatory, and so the law will recognize it over the non-Lutheran definitions.

    Today Christians who own businesses that serve the public do not discriminate against Lutherans or non-Lutherans. Today’s Christians do not even discriminate against heterosexual adulterers in their businesses. Is homosexuality really that different? Yes, today homosexuals are in the forefront of the de-Christianization of our society, but others (such as divorcees and unmarried contraception users) were in the forefront before them. I personally think that this is the real reason why the AZ bill was supported.

    So, is the fight against gay marriage wrong for us to fight? No, it isn’t. But I would argue that the fight should not be against gay marriage per se, but rather against the state’s support of it. I think we need to say that our Church is important, and it’s teachings on family and sexuality are important, and that we therefore have to right to put our wagon train into a circle and demand the right to not change no matter how the anti-Christians deride us as “haters”. We must demand the right to not have the state cram the redefinition of marriage down our throats and to imply that it agrees with anti-Christians that we are “haters”. Since we have the right to resist all this, we have the right to oppose being forced to give business services to support this state redefinition of marriage.

    In the final analysis, we cannot mount such a fight if we cannot be this particular about our reasons. We cannot use the legal power of the state to keep our society ‘good’ (think of the lack of ‘good’ in an improperly consecrated Eucharist), but our opponents need to see that they can’t use the state in a similar manner. At least over our dead bodies. Your thoughts?

  • I don’t like giving in to bullies, but I don’t think the bill was a good idea– it placed requirements along the lines of “prove it” on folks refusing service.

  • Philip, you are exactly right. The unborn and the profoundly mentally challenged cannot “claim” victim status or anything else without aid from another person. The great god Autonomy recognizes them not.

  • The devil is a liar. When a person says: “I Will, til death do us part”, gives informed consent freely without impediment and then changes his mind, recants his informed consent, his “I WILL, ’til death do us part”, he becomes a liar, a minion of the devil. A liar, a minion of the devil, cannot be trusted in a court of law, not in a church or a court of law without repenting his sin, his crime, his untruth.
    The truth is defended by the Catholic church and must be defended by the court of Justice. If an impediment exists, such as faulty consent, an annulment is given, saying that no marriage, no sacrament was brought to bear. Divorce says that a marriage, a sacrament exists, and that the Church or the state has the power to eradicate a sacrament or a contract made of a man’s free will.
    This is plainly a lie and son of a devil, any and every devil whose name is legion.

  • Mary, you want courts of law to recognize the existence of the devil? Why bother, they already recognize the existence of lawyers. (Sorry Don. Sorry Dad)

  • 🙂 funny….but to easy a target Dave.

  • I know the-devil-and-lawyers is a trope, Philip, but I couldn’t help myself.

  • It’s funny until we need one!

  • We all need to think like lawyers. Jesus did command us to be “as wise as serpents” after all, even as he called on us to also maintain our innocence.

  • “Mary, you want courts of law to recognize the existence of the devil? Why bother, they already recognize the existence of lawyers. (Sorry Don. Sorry Dad)”

    “In Hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed.”

    Grant Gilmore

  • TomD

    Here in Scotland, until 1940, the state did not regulate marriage. Marriage required —no notice, no formality and no record of any kind. Mere consent of parties, deliberately given, was alone sufficient to constitute a marriage without a moment’s delay without any consent of parents or guardians or any notice to them; add to which that a mere promise of marriage, followed by consummation, or a living together as man and wife, without either formal consent or promise, amounted also to a marriage, being deemed by operation of law to involve presumptions of consent.

    As late as the 1980s, actions for declarator of marriage were a commonplace, often brought 40 or 50 years after the alleged event, usually when the man (it was mostly the man) had died. Widows and children, threatened with disinheritance often enough bought off claims that were little more than blackmail.

    The reasons brought forward for changing the law were obvious:

    1) As regards the rights and interests of the parties themselves, it is obvious that, in order to constitute marriage, the matrimonial consent should be given in a manner which secures previous deliberation, and that, whatever formalities the law may require in the mode of expressing consent, it should be so expressed that neither party can, at the time, entertain a doubt as to the validity of the engagement into which they solemnly enter.
    2) As regards consequences affecting others the matrimonial consent should be given in a manner and accompanied with evidence easily accessible; so that the rights and interests of others may not be exposed to the imminent hazard which arises from any uncertainty with regard to the effects of previous latent subsisting engagements, whether arising from the fraud of one of the contracting parties, or from causes of a less culpable nature, in consequence of uncertainty attending the legal effects of previous conduct.
    3) As regards the rights and interests of future generations, it is of the utmost importance that questions of legitimacy should be avoided, by rendering the proof of marriage so easily accessible, by means of public records, that the claims of future generations by inheritance in the course of lawful descent, may be traced in the most certain and effectual manner.

    I consider these reasons for state regulation unanswerable

  • Michael Paterson:

    I’m not so sure that your points are unanswerable. Point #3 in particular would be moot in a society that cares not a whit for future generations, and shows its intent by contracepting and aborting them out of existence. And all of your points to one degree or another have been only weakly supported by modern ‘government regulation’ – the decay of the traditional family being the chief proof. If this is what marriage is for then government has largely failed.

    But my main (halfhearted) point still stands: all of the positive things you argue for can be gained via civil unions. My argument is that we rename the civil institution of marriage to something else, and let government work toward its just goals through that something else. In the meantime we Christians get to have the marriage we want to have, and no one holding secular power can say we are wrong. Once government leaves the marriage arena the debate over the nature of marriage becomes a theological debate only.

  • TomD-
    when your solution involves the same goals as the Freedom From Religion foundation, perhaps you should re-examine them?

    Incidentally, please stop slandering an entire culture based on the loud idiots. Yes, too many people sin sexually. That is no reason to dynamite the support for those who aren’t, or are trying not to.

  • Foxfier: “when your solution involves the same goals as the Freedom From Religion foundation, perhaps you should re-examine them?”

    I assume this group is one of those, as I put it above, are “radicals [who] are waiting in the wings to add further redefinitions of marriage (poly-whatever) that will make marriage almost meaningless”? Yes, you put your finger on the weak spot in this argument, which is why I am “halfhearted” about it: break the connection with Christian marriage, and the state will come to support ANY combination of legal relationships and will try and call it ‘marriage’. But, they are already doing this. I am making an argument similar to a damage control party who counterfloods a sinking ship: break the connection, and we just might save marriage, though only for us Christians. Haven’t you noticed that the ship is already sinking?

    Slander is a rather strong word. Who did I slander and how? Slander requires untruthfulness. Where was I untruthful?

  • I assume this group is one of those, as I put it above, are “radicals [who] are waiting in the wings to add further redefinitions of marriage (poly-whatever) that will make marriage almost meaningless”?


    They try to remove all religion from the public sphere.

    Haven’t you noticed that the ship is already sinking?

    1) No, it is not. It’s damaged, but not sinking. Even the “50% of marriages end in divorce” statistic is false.

    Your solution is to look at the USS Cole, with a huge hole in the side, and decide the solution is to blow a hole in the other side, and then declare that those who say stop doing damage are fools who will kill us all because all is lost.

  • Foxfier wrote: “Your solution is to look at the USS Cole, with a huge hole in the side, and decide the solution is to blow a hole in the other side, and then declare that those who say stop doing damage are fools who will kill us all because all is lost.”

    A ship the size of the USS Cole lacks transverse bulkheads, so they do flood all the way to the other side when holed, but on larger naval ships that is almost precisely what damage control teams do, though they don’t actually blow a hole. I brought up the analogy because of your “when your solution involves the same goals as the Freedom From Religion foundation, perhaps you should re-examine them” comment. It occurred to me that years ago the Imperial Japanese Navy strove to flood U.S. Navy ships, and U.S. Navy damage control strove to flood them, and so the uninitiated would think that the IJN and USN goals were the same. They both flooded the same ships, right? Therefore, it does not logically follow that an idea of mine is suspect because a spiritual enemy of ours advocates it. My reason is not their reason, and I think I was clear on that.

    BTW, a fun digression: naval architects will tell you that the first priority in designing a ship is “that it does not sink”. A no-brainer, right? The second priority is “that if it sinks the people can get off it”. Paramount to this second priority it to avoid designs that could cause a ship to turn turtle. The U.S. Navy refused to allow transverse bulkheads in cruisers, and felt vindicated after a few Royal Navy cruisers turned turtle in WW2. Better to flood a ship all the way across than to lose a crew.

  • Oh, one more thing. The “ship” I hade in mind for sinking is not the Church, that is in fact growing around the world. It is our Western society that is sinking – remember that current German birth rates will lead to the extinction of Germans by 2500 AD, and the Western elites who think this is a good thing to emulate have their countries on the same path, only slower. I don’t think it need sink, damage control is still possible, and it ought to be saved. But it is slowly sinking.

  • They both flooded the same ships, right? Therefore, it does not logically follow that an idea of mine is suspect because a spiritual enemy of ours advocates it. My reason is not their reason, and I think I was clear on that.

    It does not matter what your reason was, when your result is the same.

    Major difference being, ie, when those who flood both sides are there is still a ship, while when you blow out the other side the wounded ship sinks.

  • Your original point was on “society”.

    Which, amazingly enough, I am a member of– and which has not even hit a 50% failure rate, let alone an “abandon all hope” type failure rate.

    I frankly do not give a fig what assumptions based on people doing the same blessed thing they’re doing right now for five hundred years would result in, because past evidence holds that PEOPLE DON’T KEEP DOING THE SAME THING FOR FIVE HUNDRED YEARS.

  • “In Hell there will be nothing but law, and due process will be meticulously observed.” Grant Gilmore .
    Jesus descended into hell. The laws of hell refused Him entrance. Jesus took the patriarchs and ascended into heaven.
    “when your solution involves the same goals as the Freedom From Religion foundation, perhaps you should re-examine them?”
    The Freedom From Religion Foundation can say nothing to me or to the courts or to the state.
    Atheists are tolerated. Atheism is unconstitutional. The First Amendment: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof” is freedom of religion to me in the public square.
    God gives us this: genius
    “The Civil Rights Acts that banned discrimination on the basis of race by private vendors were unusual legislative acts based on an unusual situation: state governments that mandated such discrimination by private businesses. It took government action to break down such government mandated discrimination. Absent such government mandated discrimination, I think most Americans, if they truly ponder it, would be all in favor of businesses discriminating in some cases. For example, I assume few people are against restaurants discriminating against nudists by mandating clothes. I imagine few Americans would feel comfortable telling a black owned barbecue restaurant that they must cater a Klan rally. A Jewish run deli really should not be required to provide take out for the group calling for divestiture from Israel. I am not going to represent the owner of an abortion clinic under any circumstances. In theory Americans might be against private discrimination in commerce, but when it comes down to actual cases, I suspect that almost all Americans are not non-discrimination absolutists. When businesses discriminate they of course run the risk of losing customers, but freedom of the consumer goes along with freedom for the vendor.”

    – See more at:
    Laws that the government makes and that are or that become unjust, the government must unmake. Otherwise, government used to engineer its citizens through corrupt laws is government without law.
    Capitalism, like social Justice, is about giving to persons what they truly need as opposed to what they want.
    Do gays need unnatural marriage? Or cakes for their counterfeit vows? Does the gay agenda need to arrogate the office of husband or wife and militate against virtue? Does gay addiction lead to happiness?

  • Foxfier, past evidence shows that people often DO do the same thing for five hundred years. And you know what? Even if they don’t the damage is often irreversible. Europe is dying, the birthrate implosion is real and will not change unless there is Divine intervention. America is not dying but there are those here who want us to be like Europe. If you are going to argue these facts are wrong then I’m simply going to give up on you.

  • Thanks Mary for reminding me that I have to read that “apple pie” article. I’ve been away for much of the day.

    When I took my business law courses the first thing I was told was that “law creates discrimination”, and the section you quote shows that very well. This fact is why civil right law is based on outlawing “invidious” discrimination – in effect civil rights law discriminates among different discriminations: a few are bad, but most are good.

  • Tom D.
    Lying in a court of law is still called perjury. The child is evidence of the marital act between a man and a woman. It is no small reason why abortion is prevalent. The courts may uphold the marriage vow as a legal contract between two persons.

  • “3) As regards the rights and interests of future generations, it is of the utmost importance that questions of legitimacy should be avoided, by rendering the proof of marriage so easily accessible, by means of public records, that the claims of future generations by inheritance in the course of lawful descent, may be traced in the most certain and effectual manner.”
    Somewhere I learned that any child born into a marriage, although he may be illegitimately begotten, is a child who is legally a member of that family.
    “I consider these reasons for state regulation unanswerable”
    If you mean, Michael Paterson-Seymour, that the state has nothing to say about the matter, except to uphold the law, you are correct.

  • TomD

    A great Scottish judge. Lord Meadowbank famously declared (Gordon v Pye (1814)) that private pacts “cannot impede or embarrass the steady uniform course of the jus publicum, which, with regard to the rights and obligations of individuals affected by the three great domestic relations, enacts them from motives of political expediency and public morality and nowise confers them as private benefits resulting from agreements concerning meum et tuum, which are capable of being modified and renounced at pleasure. Accordingly, the case of Campbell of Carrick in rejecting the competency of any personal objection to bar a pursuer of declarator of marriage establishes by the highest authority the incompetency and inefficiency of any obligations, not sanctioned by the common law, to operate on matrimonial rights.”

    Speaking of foreign marriages, he said, “Matrimonial rights and obligations, on the contrary, so far as juris gentium, admit of no modification by the will of parties and foreign courts are therefore nowise called upon to inquire after that will or after any municipal law to which it may correspond. They are bound to look to their own law and it is with all deference thought to be in a particular degree contrary to principle to make that law bend to the dictates of a foreign law in the administration of that department of internal jurisprudence, which operates directly on public morals and domestic manners… This category of law does not affect the contracting individuals only, but the public and that in various ways; and the consequences would prove not a little inconvenient, embarrassing and probably even inextricable, if the personal capacities of individuals, as of majors or minors, the competency to contract marriages and infringe matrimonial obligations, the rights of domestic authority and service and the like were to be qualified and regulated by foreign laws and customs, with which the mass of the population must be utterly unacquainted.”

    This applies with equal force to the notion that every sect might establish its own laws governing these matters.

  • Tom D.

    Apology owed. I mis-quoted you.
    Unintentional. Invidious! “insidious” was used. Excuse me.

    Mary DeVoe.

    “Freedom of the customer goes along with freedom of the vendor.”
    It makes sense.
    So the Gay mafia is feeling the power swing that’s been propelling their agenda, so they are riding the wave and complaining in a court of law whenever they feel insulted?
    This is honestly more of a offensive move on their part then defending themselves aginist discrimination.
    It’s part of the war on Christian values.

  • Have there been any cases of devout Catholic vendors being sued for refusing to cater/photograph/host, etc. the wedding or reception of a couple who had been divorced (without obtaining a decree of nullity) from their previous spouses, or who were otherwise marrying outside the Church? According to Catholic teaching, those unions are also not true marriages and Catholics must not endorse or cooperate in them. The usual pastoral counsel for individuals in these cases is either 1) decline to attend or participate in the wedding or reception and don’t send gifts because that would be cooperating in a sinful act, or 2) attend in order to keep family peace but make clear ahead of time that you believe their action to be morally wrong.

    That said, I’ve never personally heard of a Catholic photographer, caterer, etc. asserting or being told that he/she has a moral obligation to refuse service should he/she discover that the couple in question are Catholics marrying outside the Church. Nor have I ever been told that a Catholic court clerk has a moral obligation not to sign off on marriage licenses for couples remarrying after divorce or Catholic couples not marrying in the Church (provided, of course, that they KNOW the couple is in this situation — which is one significant difference, a same-sex couple is always obvious while a male-female couple attempting a marriage not sanctioned by the Church isn’t.)

    I bring this question up for two reasons: first, to discover whether there have indeed been any such cases that I just don’t know about, and second, to make the point that if Catholic vendors, etc., have not previously shown any moral qualms about serving opposite-sex wedding ceremonies that, according to their beliefs, were illicit, might that not be undermining their present argument that they have a grave moral obligation to refuse same-sex couples? And if that’s the case, does this mean that for consistency, maybe Catholic vendors need to also start being more selective about which “traditional” opposite-sex couples they serve? Or maybe just not do weddings at all except as a personal favor to people they know and trust? For example, if a baker normally just sold regular baked goods and didn’t advertise to the public that they had any means for doing wedding catering.

  • Elaine.
    You ask good questions.
    A baker having to be worried about being sued if they decide to protect their conscience. Weird times.
    Here’s one; From Vision to America this morning. The girl scouts named their NYC “Girl Experience Officer” as Krista Kokjohn-Poehler. An openly gay/lesbian who has a partner, and now holds this interesting title in the organization.

    Girl experience officer. Watch your cookies. As for our family…no thanks.

  • Elaine,

    None of the high-profile cases thus far have involved Catholics, to my knowledge. We are well represented when it comes to the HHS mandate but not when it comes to the individual business issue.

    It could be because more Catholics (self-identified, at any rate) defy Church teaching on both issues than evangelical Protestants do on the gay wedding issue.

  • Hi Elaine! You wrote “…second, to make the point that if Catholic vendors, etc., have not previously shown any moral qualms about serving opposite-sex wedding ceremonies that, according to their beliefs, were illicit, might that not be undermining their present argument that they have a grave moral obligation to refuse same-sex couples?”

    That is very much the point that I making in a more backhanded way, although I mostly cited the Eucharist as the affected sacrament. I think this is a very valid point. And why did it happen? Because people see the possibility of conflict between standing up for church teaching and charity. They did years ago, of course, but charity didn’t win out as often as it does today. Oh, and I am deliberately using today’s definition of charity, since the very valid concept of “false charity” have very little traction anymore.

    So, if Christian business owners serve illicit heterosexual ceremonies, can they logically still reject homosexual ceremonies? Up until now they have, and they have justified it on natural law arguments, which tell us that homosexuality IS different. Natural law has, not coincidentally, come under attack. The ABA, for example, has done its best to remove natural law as a philosophical underpinning of constitutional law, which is why courts so rarely cite the Declaration of Independence anymore. Many people today still basically follow in natural law for judgment on the morality (or lack thereof) of homosexual acts, but thanks to pro-homosexual propaganda have trouble using it in discriminating circumstances.

  • Foxfier, past evidence shows that people often DO do the same thing for five hundred years


    Where is your past evidence that it is reasonable to expect Germany to be depopulated in 500 years due to the birth rate not changing at all in that time?

  • Philip: “Mary DeVoe. “Freedom of the customer goes along with freedom of the vendor.”
    This common sense comes from Donald McClarey.

  • Elaine

    It could be that Catholic moral theologians have often taken a generous view on when “remote material co-operation” is permitted, with a suitable “direction of intention.”

    The 17th century Casuists were very lenient. Thus, Étienne Bauny SJ says, “Let confessors observe that they cannot absolve servants who perform base errands, if they consent to the sins of their masters; but the reverse holds true, if they have done the thing merely from a regard to their temporal emolument.” He instances carrying letters and presents to the ladies their master wishes to seduce.

    Similar considerations apply to tradesmen. So, according to Vincenzo Filliucci SJ, a locksmith may sell picklocks and skeleton keys to a thief, for use in his general business as a housebreaker; he is not complicit in the sins the thief subsequently resolves to commit with them. It is otherwise, if the locksmith copies the keys of a particular house that he knows the thief is planning to break into. In that case, he is art and part of the particular theft.

    I am sure the theologians could have relieved the scruples of florists and bakers.

  • Mary DeVoe
    Donald McClarey.

    Thanks. I didn’t realize it was Donald’s comment.

  • Foxlier, many people, including Germans, allowed their societies to be anti-Semitic in one form or another for more than 500 years. Islam as practiced by many has been a destructive societal force for far more than 500 years. I could name others. So I can conclude that it is possible for the modern Western pseudo-utopia to provide for the next 500 years the contraception and abortion and television and vacations that will basically eliminate their populations.

    BTW, you have a bad habit of misrepresenting my statements. I did not maintain that Germany will be depopulated, and even by inference depopulation is not the most reasonable conclusion. Germans will not disappear by dwindling to four, then two, then one. They will disappear because they will intermarry with their more numerous replacements.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: I agree with Lord Meadowbank on civil marriage. I don’t think his view is really counter to mine, which is that an ahistorical Lord Meadowbank cannot use Scottish law to tell the Church what the nature of Christian marriage is, and that the Church has every right to resist the ahistorical Lord Meadowbank’s attempts to better it in moral and sacramental theology.

    I really liked your post on the Casuists. There is so much to history.

  • You said:
    It is our Western society that is sinking – remember that current German birth rates will lead to the extinction of Germans by 2500 AD, and the Western elites who think this is a good thing to emulate have their countries on the same path, only slower.

    This is not on par with “being anti-Sematic, in one form or another” nor is it on par with “being Islamic.”

    You also then accuse me of misrepresenting you because:
    I did not maintain that Germany will be depopulated, and even by inference depopulation is not the most reasonable conclusion.

    So you believe the Germans will be extinct based on extrapolating current birth rates if they go on for 500 years, but the only evidence you can offer are ideas?
    I suppose I should be glad you didn’t decide to defend it by saying “people have been eating for a long time!”

    You have not defended your claim, and your false accusation that I am misconstruing you is just silly.

  • Don, what do you think is up with this Foxfier? A troll, a paid troll, or what? I normally reply to posts like these because I assume that a teen might be reading it, but this baiting has gotten out of hand.

  • Foxfier is a co-blogger TomD and a master at combox to an fro. This blog is as much hers as it is mine.

  • OK, I agree, I clicked on the avatar and found the Head Noises site, so its legit. But I’m sorry, I’ve counted two serious misrepresentations, so I see nothing masterful about this. Hyperbolic misquoting does not engender respect from the quoted.

  • False accusations do even less.

  • If you apply your standard of truth to yourself you could not prove anything by anyone to be false.

  • You made a silly claim that assumed that birth rates would stay the same for 500 years because I objected to your slander about us being “a society that cares not a whit for future generations, and shows its intent by contracepting and aborting them out of existence.”

    Never mind actually offering some sort of support for this defeatism– basic logic would indicate that the portion of society that is preventing and killing their progeny isn’t going to be taking over the culture. Familiarity with how younger folks tend to be more pro-life than the older ones is one point of support.

    Nope, the reasonable reaction is to remove religion from the public sphere. To save the ship, or something.

  • If you apply your standard of truth to yourself you could not prove anything by anyone to be false.

    That is false.

    The only “standard of truth” I’ve been promoting is going beyond assertion and hand-waving; you made a specific claim, and when asked to support the assumption that a half century would not change birth rates, pointed to things not even vaguely similar.

  • The birth rate claim is not silly. Mark Steyn and Theodore Dalrymple (who you approvingly quote on your Head Noises site) have made it. Their writings convinced me that it is a reasonable position to take.

    Who is the “us” that I am slandering? I still don’t know. Is the U.S.? Europe? The West?. Again, I am just quoting Steyn and Dalrymple about Western trends, so after you let me know who the “us” is please tell me, are they slandering “us” too?

  • You keep making claims of “misrepresentation,” but the one time you tried to support it the problem is… well, not clear– you say “current German birth rates will lead to the extinction of Germans by 2500 AD,” I say that extrapolating birth rates without change is silly, and you object that of course the reasonable way to read that is not that you’re assuming birth rates will stay steady, but that they will dwindle and intermarry.

    Which has nothing to do with what I said.
    Showing how a population at one point did keep the same birth rate for 500 years would be relevant, even if it was something like consistently having replacement +1 for women, without averaging more than a decade into the stats. That would be really good evidence. “People follow a religion and hate outsiders,” not evidence.

  • If you can’t figure out that we’re all part of society, you’re either foolish or being willfully obtuse– AKA, trolling.

    The birth rate claim is not silly. Mark Steyn and Theodore Dalrymple (who you approvingly quote on your Head Noises site) have made it.

    Steyn’s observations do not assume that nothing will change. That is a major difference between him and yourself.

    Dr. D doesn’t assume that all is lost so we should abandon ship. That’s another major difference.

    They do both recognize that the culture is in trouble, and that there is a major drop in birthrates– but they’re calling attention to it to change it, not to throw their hands up and surrender.

  • Foxfier & Dave.
    It’s The American Catholic, not The American Protagonist.

    You both have acquired so much and share in your wealth of experience knowledge and virtue. Please share more virtue between yourselves.

    From the freshmen class.

  • I think you mean Donald?

    Not clear what you’re talking about either way, Philip.

  • Philip, Foxfier seems to have developed a personal animus towards me. Also, note the answer to me about Mark Steyn: “Steyn’s observations do not assume that nothing will change”. This is a half truth. What Steyn has written is that these trends, if unchanged, will lead to one outcome that Foxfier disputes, and if changed will lead still lead to a slightly different outcome because it will come too late, but Foxfier disputes this too (actually, Foxfier acts as if they are one outcome, because this makes it easier to argue with me). At least I can find the Steyn quotes if Foxfier demands it. I do recall one: “These countries are going out of business”, which sounds a lot like my “slanders”.

    Right before I wrote this note I picked up my youngest from school and dropped into the office to pick up what I need for work tomorrow. I was thinking “I hope Foxfier just says that ‘Steyn and Dalrymple are silly too, and here’s why…'” because then I would know that it’s not personal. Alas…

  • Europe is dying, the birthrate implosion is real and will not change unless there is Divine intervention.

    No. There has been a recovery in fertility rates in much of Europe, excluding the Germanophone states, the Balkans, Italy and Spain. British and French fertility rates are at replacement levels and Russia’s are improving. The World Bank puts the mean fertility rate for “Europe & Central Asia” at 1.95 children per woman per lifetime. If you bracket out the Muslim states therein, that’s north of 1.8 for the remainder. The nadir for total fertility rates was in 2002 at 1.85, so a recovery to replacement levels for quondam Christian Europe is conceivable within a generation.

    Mark Steyn is a talented commentator but he makes errors with the math.

  • Oops, I’ve found that I’ve made a mistake, can’t remember everything these days. AD 2500 is not the year that Germans will disappear if their birthrates are unchanged, it is the approximate year of humanity’s disappearance if the entire globe were to adopt current German birthrates starting today. This implies that the Germans probably won’t even make it to 2500. Sorry.

  • Art, do those World Bank statistics for Europe include their Muslim populations? I think they do, and based on the observations of Steyn and Dalrymple and others I’d conclude that the “recovery” is simply due to more Muslims.

  • Per the Pew Research Center, non-indigenous Muslims make up less than 6% of Europe’s population and France has a proportion only slightly larger than that. The main source countries (Turkey and the francophone Maghreb) do not have exceptional fertility rates (around replacement rates for Turkey, Algeria, and Tunisia, somewhat higher for Morocco).

  • Algeria’s fertility rates have improved in recent years, so Algeria and Morocco are both around 2.8. Steven Mosher was speculating a while back that European Muslims had fertility rates around 4.0, but you only see rates like that in Tropical Africa these days and a two or three equally impoverished countries elsewhere.

  • What is the definition of “non-indigenous Muslims”? Since the Islamic immigration to Europe began in the 1950’s, it is possible that there are now two to three generations in Muslim families that are native born, and some intermarriage with the “indigenous” population has occurred. I must confess that I have had some suspicion of European statistics since I found that most European countries count children who die 2-3 days after birth as stillbirths.

  • Oy….

    You accuse me of this, that and the other thing, refuse to support what you claim, grudgingly admit that a contributor might, possibly be legit…and I’m the one with animus against YOU?

    You’re not that important.

    You’re annoying in that you smear the entire of society with the sad, sick and lied to that are poisoning themselves and killing their kids, but no, insistance on something of substance to back up your claims is not about you.

  • Art, is that Stephen W. Mosher? If so please know that I hadn’t heard of him and just looked him up. Very interesting, I’m going to read more on him and by him. Thank you!

  • Thank you for confirming the animus

  • “grudgingly admit that a contributor might, possibly be legit” Sorry Foxfier, but it’s your hostility that sowed the doubt in my mind. I’m glad to have put it aside.

  • Just made it back.

    TomD and Foxfier.

    Please pardon my intrusion.
    I was loosing sight of your debate because of the dust being stirred up.
    That was my mention of virtue in a (drama sequence) that unfolded between two good people. I’m sorry to bud in Foxfier. I respect your positions ( prove it comment you made relating to the AZ bill that was killed) Good point!
    I respect the opinions of TomD. I was enjoying your debate but soured on the insults that transpired.
    So. Instead of moving on I was beating around the bush that We are Catholics.
    We forgive. We encourage each other just as your many posts and topics have done in the past on this site.
    Peace to both of you.

  • Philip- I thought that was what you were going for.

    Thing is, you can’t forgive someone who not only doesn’t repent, they find the very mention that they’ve done something wrong to be justification for doubling down, then escalating to every wilder accusations.

  • Foxfier.

    Thing is I Can forgive someone whom I believe wronged me, and based upon past actions, very well may wrong me again.

    Unforgiven is a good Western movie starring Gene Hackman. Unforgiven in real life is more violent than the movie.

  • Returning to an earlier topic… thanks to all who responded to my question. I guess what I really want to know is, in Catholic teaching, where do you draw the line between “just doing your job” with no endorsement of the customer’s/client’s action expressed or implied, and engaging in morally unacceptable cooperation with an evil action? Obviously we cannot just blindly “follow orders” like Nazis marching Jews into the death camps, but neither can we rigidly avoid ALL cooperation or potential cooperation with actual or potential sin without becoming hermits who live off the grid. It’s not always easy to find the middle ground here.

  • Elaine: I hope this helps.
    Justice, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Justice is predicated on intent.
    Capitalism itself is giving to people what they need, not what they want.(The generosity of the vineyard owner giving a day’s wages to those who worked only a few hours to save their very lives is charity. The vineyard owner’s act is also Justice to an equal person.)
    Fulfilling people’s wants through the burden of the law is nonsense.
    Christ overturned the money changers tables because there was no charity in the moneychangers’ transactions. In America we are bankrupt because there is no charity in over the counter business. There must be charity. When God is exiled from His creation there is no charity or Justice.
    In the matter of bakers and photographers, the militant gay agenda is not seeking cakes or photos. The militant agenda of the gays is inciting to riot (violating peaceable assembly for the shop owners who have a civil right to peaceable assembly) until they have achieved their goals which is to inflict sodomy on our nation and our future generations and it is within our power to prevent this vice.

  • Somehow, this keeps coming up…. to forgive or not. Folks tend to skip over the asking for forgiveness part, even indirectly. I’ve got a theory that it’s because the “rebuke” part is so hard. In our culture, even the implication than an individual did wrong (as opposed to an amorphous group) is treated as a wrong in itself. Judgmental, in the language of the 60s.

    Part of the problem with a discussion about forgiveness is the assumption that if you haven’t forgiven, you’re actively holding the wrong to your chest and polishing it. That’s what works best for dramatic purposes, after all, and a baked in cultural assumption that someone who has done wrong wants forgiveness. (and not permission) Another is the point #2 at Catholic Answers.

  • Pingback: Putin Goes for Checkmate in Ukraine - God & Caesar
  • Elaine

    Bl John Henry Newman recounts the story of Cardinal della Somaglia and M. Emery, Supérieur of St. Sulpice and a noted moral theologian. The Cardinal told M Emery that, after the most painstaking research, he was convinced that he could not, in conscience, assist at the Emperor’s second marriage to the Archduchess of Austria. M, Emery told him that he should, for no consideration, act against his conscience.

    When word got around amongst the other twenty-six Cardinals, then in Paris, Cardinal Fesch (who by the by was the Emperor’s uncle) wrote to M. Emery, asking why he had expressed the contrary opinion to him and had told him that he thought the Cardinals might attend, in good conscience.

    M. Emery replied that he was indeed of the opinion that the Cardinals might attend; he had given the advice he had to Cardinal della Somaglia, because one may never go against conscience, even an erroneous one – « qu’on ne pouvait, qu’on ne devait jamais, agir contre sa conscience, même erronée. » M. Emery added that, whilst inconveniences can never be a reason for acting against conscience, they can be a very good reason for considering carefully, whether one’s conscience may not be in error.

    In the event Cardinal della Somaglia kept to his view, contrary to M. Emery, and did not attend the marriage ceremony. And who shall say which of them was right? Often, in the application of agreed principles to particular facts, we have no other guide than our own conscience.

  • Judging from history I would say that the consciences of most people are infinitely flexible when it comes to doing what they have decided to do. Rather than a conscience being a guide, for many people it is merely a rubber stamp.

  • Foxfier.
    Catholic Answers link was very helpful. My thanks to you and apology for “my” misunderstanding. Peace.

  • *bow*

    I like semantics. It fits how my brain works.

    As I understand it, you’re right in YOUR meaning, and I’m right in MY meaning, but we’re using different meanings– you are very right that we can’t go “oh, he wronged me, I will polish that wrong and hate his guts.” That’s how forgive gets used commonly, and looking around it’s a very common problem, especially if someone has been seriously wronged.

    Part of what is so awesome about the Church is how things ARE explained, if you can find it; part of what’s great about the ‘net is that you can find the stuff, if you know who to ask.

    Kind of freaky, turned on Sacred Heart radio– not an all that common occurrence– and got their lady’s program, where they were talking about the exact same topic, with the same emphasis repentance and then you forgive.

    Enough to make ya think…..

  • Foxfier wrote: “Thing is, you can’t forgive someone who not only doesn’t repent, they find the very mention that they’ve done something wrong to be justification for doubling down, then escalating to every wilder accusations.” This is exactly how I feel about Foxfier’s writings about me, especially after I produced a Mark Steyn quote “These countries are going out of business” that was very close to what I wrote. As far as the AD 2500 statistic, yes, I had a senior moment, misremembered the exact meaning of the statistic, and I owed up to the confusion it may have caused, even though the basic truth was not affected. Senior moments are not sins and don’t require repentance. They just don’t.

    Here are how the two other exchanges that I found questionable appear to me:

    Exchange #1:
    Me: I’m arguing in favor of something like counterflooding in damage control.
    Fox: You don’t blow a hole in the side of a ship to save it
    Me: I never wrote anything about blowing a hole (thinking to myself ‘damage control parties don’t usually blow holes, the open seacock valves’)
    Fox: Yes you did

    Exchange #2
    Me: Germans will go extinct by 2500
    Fox: You cannot say that Germany will be depopulated
    Me: I never wrote that Germany will be depopulated (thinking to myself ‘the Germans will intermarry and merge with their replacements, Germany as a place will stay populated’, I even typed this out)
    Fox: Yes you did.

    I was misunderstood in these two exchanges and I tried to correct the misunderstanding, even to being very explicit in the second exchange. The corrections were not accepted. Go back and read them, I am not making this up. What choice do I have but to consider them to be misrepresentations if they persist? BTW, the differences in these exchanges are really small and unimportant, it is the hostility apparent in Foxfier’s replies that really bothered me. Foxfier came after me and after me over and over in a very hostile manner. It was almost cyberbullying as far as I am concerned. The only other time I ever faced this on a Catholic site was a time Mark Shea misrepresented my writing at NCReg, and this was worse. I am not happy.

    Frankly, the uncharitable language that I used is something I do regret and I am morally sorry. I really didn’t want to use it. I’ve been here on and off for only a few months and I never met Foxfier, so I suspected trolling. Don set me straight on that, but he also green-lighted Foxfier’s posts that I found objectionable. You will note that I only got personal and uncharitable after Don’s post. That is NOT how I like to do things, and I apologize to Philip and to others who were bothered by it.

    The funny thing about all this is that right at the beginning I conceded that Foxfier was right about the most important point: the moral corruption of government that is being caused by the redefinition of marriage for homosexuals and eventually others. I threw a proposal on the table that I felt had some merit but also had real moral problems. Foxfier picked it right apart, very good, I’m happy, we even agreed on the fundamentals even if in a few details we did not agree. But the “slander” term was used in the same breath, as far as I’m concerned I slandered no one, this was a personal attack, and it went downhill from there. I still for the life of me cannot understand how I can be slandering the people of Western civilization by pointing out the truth about their use of contraception and abortion. Forty million abortions in the USA alone is proof that our society doesn’t really care about its future in any realistic way. Is that untrue? If so why? I really want to know.

  • Oh, and as J. Jonah Jameson put it “Don’t you tell me that it’s slander, it’s not slander, it’s libel”

  • slan·der [slan-der] Show IPA
    defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
    a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
    Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

    Somehow, it makes perfect sense that JJ was a lawyer before he was a newspaper guy.
    But the “slander” term was used in the same breath, as far as I’m concerned I slandered no one, this was a personal attack, and it went downhill from there.

    You made a false claim about the entirety of society; the entire cast of the contributor’s page here– if you want to be suspicious, just the priest and the folks with at least three kids– are obviously not “contracepting or aborting” the next generation out of existence.
    A lot of the non-Catholics I know aren’t using contraception, but can’t manage to have kids because they were told only crazy religious people get married before they’re done with college, have a career established, are 25, whatever.

    Use the fertility rate because that helps correct for the changes from people living longer.
    Assume, just to have a number that is obviously high, that a 3.5 fertility rate is a natural average.
    We’re now at about a 2.0 fertility rate.
    That is a 1.5 drop; if you assume that a quarter to a half of the population hasn’t changed, and the rest is killing off/preventing their kids at value zero, one or two, then stir in people (especially women) being told that they are insane if they wish to be married before they graduate college and that motherhood is a waste.
    That, of course, doesn’t touch on the couples that I know who have been trying for years to have even ONE child, but can’t, and the only medical help they are offered is IVF or “hire a womb.”
    The problem with calculating out of wedlock births is that being married removes you from the pool for a lot of benefits, and that illegal immigrants (at least per the nurses in Spokane, when I gave birth to Princess) frequently gave birth under a false name and claimed to be unmarried, even when wearing a ring that matched the guy who stayed in the room with the new mother.
    For the rest-
    you are so set that I misrepresented you that you misrepresent me. That suggests the only path to peace is to throw our hands in the air and say “not speaking the same language.”

  • (sorry for ANOTHER lawyer joke, Donald)

  • TomD.

    No worries Tom. I seriously was enjoying your overview and opinions on (so-called same sex marriage and the role of the State in these matters in relationship to redefining Marriage.)

    I also appreciate Foxfier’s knowledge and opinions on current events issues and challenges. Actually MPS,Elaine,Mary,Don,(kiwi too) and you get the idea, they all bring so much to the table, and I’m grateful.

    “slandering an entire culture based on loud idots…” That’s her choice of words.
    Okay. God bless freedom to express yourself. For some, it seemed a tad harsh. She wasn’t speaking to me, however I did feel the tone that “kicked up some dust” in my opinion.
    The best part is this.
    We take the good and leave the rest.
    Foxfier helped me understand an important distinction relating to forgiveness today. I’m in her debt.
    You have ideas that I get to ponder on in this whacked out liberal laden landscape of 2014. I visit this site for many reasons, mostly for my continued supplement of faith.
    Take good care..all of you.
    ……and Paul P…all of you are great gifts.

  • Art Deco.

  • “slandering an entire culture based on loud idots…” That’s her choice of words.
    Okay. God bless freedom to express yourself. For some, it seemed a tad harsh. She wasn’t speaking to me, however I did feel the tone that “kicked up some dust” in my opinion.

    How would you characterize the “abortion is a sacrament” type folks? Or their cousins, down to “oh, but birth control is a basic human right!”?

  • In response to your questions I would say they are in great need of prayers.
    They do not share my views, nor do they share the Catholic Churches view point.

  • I’d be more willing to be generous if I wasn’t a victim of the “just pray for them” notion.

    There’s a reason a huge number of folks– weekly church goers, put the kids through CCD, youth group and weekly catechism classes– don’t know that IVF and contraception are against Church teaching, much less WHY that would be so.

  • “Foxfier helped me understand an important distinction relating to forgiveness today. I’m in her debt.”
    Philip, you threw in the towel too soon. Foxfier is wrong, and you would have been better served turning to the Catechism and to the Bible. (Both commenters at Catholic Answers disagreed with Staple’s analysis, by the way.) Thus:
    2838 This petition is astonishing. If it consisted only of the first phrase, “And forgive us our trespasses,” it might have been included, implicitly, in the first three petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, since Christ’s sacrifice is “that sins may be forgiven.” But, according to the second phrase, our petition will not be heard unless we have first met a strict requirement. …
    2840 Now – and this is daunting – this outpouring of mercy cannot penetrate our hearts as long as we have not forgiven those who have trespassed against us. Love, like the Body of Christ, is indivisible; we cannot love the God we cannot see if we do not love the brother or sister we do see. In refusing to forgive our brothers and sisters, our hearts are closed and their hardness makes them impervious to the Father’s merciful love; but in confessing our sins, our hearts are opened to his grace.
    2844 Christian prayer extends to the forgiveness of enemies, transfiguring the disciple by configuring him to his Master. Forgiveness is a high-point of Christian prayer; only hearts attuned to God’s compassion can receive the gift of prayer. Forgiveness also bears witness that, in our world, love is stronger than sin.
    Compare that selection (especially at 2840) with what Foxfier wrote: “Part of the problem with a discussion about forgiveness is the assumption that if you haven’t forgiven, you’re actively holding the wrong to your chest and polishing it.”
    Can we forgive an enemy who may yet sin against us again? Ask yourself, can we receive forgiveness even if we are uncertain of our own heart? Let’s argue about it, let’s go to the Catechism:
    2091 The first commandment is also concerned with sins against hope, namely, despair and presumption:
    By despair, man ceases to hope for his personal salvation from God, for help in attaining it or for the forgiveness of his sins. Despair is contrary to God’s goodness, to his justice – for the Lord is faithful to his promises – and to his mercy.
    It is precisely because you can be forgiven for what you did in the past in spite of what temptations may lead you astray in the future, you must forgive those who did you wrong in the past in spite of what you think they may do in their future.

  • Spambot-
    Please bother to address the points made in the Catholic Answers post, rather than going free-form on the Lord’s Prayer.
    1. We are not called to go beyond what God himself does when it comes to forgiveness. Many Christians believe with Robert that they are obliged to forgive even those who are not in the least bit sorry for their offenses against them. And on the surface this sounds really . . . Christian. But is it true? God himself doesn’t do it. He only forgives those who repent of their sins. II Cor. 7:10 says, “[G]odly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation.” I John 1:9 says, “If we confess our sins, he . . . will forgive our sins.”

    Our Lord obviously has not and will not forgive the souls in hell right now for the simple reason that they did not ask for forgiveness. This seems as clear as clear can be. The question is, are we required to do more than God does when it comes to forgiveness?

    Jesus seems to answer this question for us in Luke 17:3-4:

    [I]f your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him; and if he sins against you seven times in the day, and turns to you seven times, and says, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.

    According to this text, and as we would suspect, Jesus requires his followers to forgive only those who are sorry for their offenses, just as God does. And this only make sense. Colossians 3:13 says we are to called to forgive each other “as the Lord has forgiven [us].”

  • We are told that anything will be forgiven if we just ask; that does not mean that we must forgive those who do not ask.

  • The sin against hope is to believe that we have done something that cannot be forgiven– not that we don’t assume we’re forgiven for every wrong we do.

  • I don’t care how Merriam-Webster or any other popular dictionary defines slander. My undergrad law books define slander as spoken defamation, and libel as written defamation. Defamation is the generic term for both. So if I or anyone here perpetrated defamation, then we perpetrated libel, because we wrote it and did not say it.

    But I really wasn’t trying to be picky, I was quoting a funny line from the Spiderman 2 movie. Apparently I can’t even be funny around here.

  • OK, Foxfier, I’m starting to get a bit of your position.

    It seems to me that you are in effect rearguing the famous conversation between Abraham and God. “Would you spare the city [of Sodom] if there were 45 righteous in it?” “Yes, I will spare it” Etc. You an I both know that there are millions of decent righteous people in our country, and many in other Western lands. Far more than 45. And there are millions more who are weak but admire the righteous. I get it.

    If I had intended to slander these people that means I would have intended to slander the people I love most, family and friends alike. Do you really think I wanted to do that?

    No. I was not criticizing our society in its entirety, unto the last individual. Not my intention. I was criticizing what it is on balance, and I believe that on balance we are the minority now. I really do believe that, with God’s help, we can turn it around. What I also believe is that the die is cast and that without God’s help we will not turn it around. Will God help us? I don’t know, and I’m not going to presume anything one way or the other. I dare not presume.

    That is what I really believe. I hope that its good enough for you.

  • My opinion on forgiving: in general, I think Christians should forgive people who are unrepentant. The one exception is when the very act of forgiveness is seen by the unrepentant as validation that they were right in the first place. I’ve seen that dynamic firsthand, and it turns a commandment to Christians into the enabling of sin. I think in that situation it can be better to withhold forgiveness with an explanation as to why. Perhaps that is why we are told to forgive “seventy times seven” times: it may take nearly that number to prove that an enabling dynamic is underway.

  • Thanks Spambot3049 for your thoughts.
    Many helpful brothers and sisters in Christ frequent this site. Blessings to you. Good night. 🙂

  • I don’t care how Merriam-Webster or any other popular dictionary defines slander. My undergrad law books define slander as spoken defamation, and libel as written defamation.

    It may be a shock, but common use isn’t legal definition; the legal definition is the third down on meaning of the word, so acting like that’s the only meaning is foolish.

    You’re welcome to your views, but that doesn’t make them any more factual than when you were using assertion as the sole basis of claims.
    t seems to me that you are in effect rearguing the famous conversation between Abraham and God. “Would you spare the city [of Sodom] if there were 45 righteous in it?” “Yes, I will spare it”
    One must wonder exactly how few folks you think were in Sodom for that to be the parallel that comes to mind for a half to a third of the population.

  • Foxfier wrote, “God himself doesn’t do it. He only forgives those who repent of their sins.”

    That is true, but God Himself produces that repentance in the first place. As St Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, says, “the effectiveness of God’s mercy cannot be in the power of man to frustrate, if he will have none of it. If God wills to have mercy on men, he can call them in a way that is suited to them, so that they will be moved to understand and to follow.” He also says, “Who would dare to affirm that God has no method of calling whereby even Esau might have applied his mind and yoked his will to the faith in which Jacob was justified? But if the obstinacy of the will can be such that the mind’s aversion from all modes of calling becomes hardened, the question is whether that very hardening does not come from some divine penalty, as if God abandons a man by not calling him in the way in which he might be moved to faith. Who would dare to affirm that the Omnipotent lacked a method of persuading even Esau to believe?” (Ad Simplicianum 13-14) That is why scripture says, “I will have mercy on whom I will, and I will be merciful to whom it shall please Me” (Exod. 33:19).

    The Council of Toucy (PL, CXXVI, 123) explains the text, “Whatsoever the Lord hath pleased he hath done, in heaven, in earth, in the sea, and in all the deeps.” (Ps 134:6) in this way: “For nothing is done in heaven or on earth, except what God either graciously does Himself or permits to be done, in His justice.” That is to say, no good, here and now, in this man rather than in another, comes about unless God Himself graciously wills and accomplishes it, and no evil, here and now, in this man rather than another, comes about unless God Himself justly permits it to be done.

    In other words, God first (in the order of causality, not of time) wills to forgive a person’s sins and then He efficaciously wills that that person shall repent of them. That is why St Paul teaches, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.” (Rom 9:16)

  • N o L o v e

    N o C h r i s t

    But if you truly know Christ you will know love. Is it ego that fuels the will to refuse extending an arm of goodwill?
    As it pertains to this thread.

  • How is it goodwill to “forgive” someone who is not repentant? Are you claiming we should be more loving than God? Have more good will than Christ?

    God wants people to repent and be forgiven. Himself doesn’t try to skip the other person being a willing party– we have to choose to accept it.

    There is a major difference between being willing to forgive– offering forgiveness– and trying to force it on someone.

  • I’m a day late and a dollar short but I thought I’d post these lines from “A Man for all Seasons” which seem apropos in light of Gov. Brewers actions:
    Sir Thomas More: [More has been condemned to death, and now for the first time breaks his years-long adamant silence on Henry VIII’s divorce of Queen Catherine to marry Ann Boleyn] Since the Court has determined to condemn me, God knoweth how, I will now discharge my mind concerning the indictment and the King’s title. The indictment is grounded in an act of Parliament which is directly repugnant to the law of God, and his Holy Church, the Supreme Government of which no temporal person may by any law presume to take upon him. This was granted by the mouth of our Savior, Christ himself, to Saint Peter and the Bishops of Rome whilst He lived and was personally present here on earth. It is, therefore, insufficient in law to charge any Christian to obey it. And more to this, the immunity of the Church is promised both in Magna Carta and in the king’s own coronation oath
    [Cromwell calls More ‘malicious’]
    Sir Thomas More: … Not so. I am the king’s true subject, and I pray for him and all the realm. I do none harm. I say none harm. I think none harm. And if this be not enough to keep a man alive, then in good faith, I long not to live. Nevertheless, it is not for the Supremacy that you have sought my blood, but because I would not bend to the marriage!
    Sir Thomas More: When a man takes an oath, he’s holding his own self in his own hands like water, and if he opens his fingers then, he needn’t hope to find himself again.
    The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!
    Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

  • Goodwill is lacking from you sister, and atleast TomD made an effort. You decided to belittle it.

    See you in the confessional line Foxier.

  • “God wants people to repent and be forgiven. Himself doesn’t try to skip the other person being a willing party– we have to choose to accept it.”

    Why would He, seeing that He produces that will in them – Proverbs 8:35 For my issues are the issues of life, and in them volition is prepared from the Lord.

  • Foxfier,
    “How is it goodwill to “forgive” someone who is not repentant?”
    Suppose a commentor at a blog offended you and she was blocked from further comments. How would you know that she later repented? Suppose your favorite park were vandalized and you were hurt by the offense. Even the vandal does not know precisely who his victims are and could never reach out to you to ask your forgiveness. Would you carry around an unforgiving heart for the rest of your life?
    People who forgive me before I am repentant, perhaps even before I am able to acknowledge to myself that I did wrong, free themselves of the burden of unforgiveness and in doing so, offer a prayer on my behalf.
    “Please bother to address the points made in the Catholic Answers post, rather than going free-form on the Lord’s Prayer.”
    The two commentors there at Catholic Answers could do a better job than I, but I will give it a try. (The “free-form on the Lord’s Prayer” was quoted from the Catholic Catechism. The specific section numbers are provided in my comment for reference.)
    “Our Lord obviously has not and will not forgive the souls in hell right now for the simple reason that they did not ask for forgiveness. This seems as clear as clear can be.”
    Whether or not a person who harmed me is going to Hell is something I cannot know. The harm done to may or may not have been intentional. The person doing the harm may or may not have had the capacity to understand he is doing wrong. As scripture indicates, judgment on who will go to Hell is for God alone. We all deserve Hell, but we are saved by our faith, and if we love God, then we extend our love to others.
    FWIW, I maintain (with little proof to offer) that forgiving someone in exchange for something else of value (such as a request for forgiveness) can be explained by evolutionary science alone with no need for supernatural grace. (I suspect the Freedom From Religion Foundation would support that view. cf. )
    Unconditional forgiveness is by the grace of God.

  • “People who forgive me before I am repentant, perhaps even before I am able to acknowledge to myself that I did wrong, free themselves of the burden of unforgiveness and in doing so, offer a prayer on my behalf.”

    I think that such easy forgiveness, without a request for it, actually encourages people to engage in cost free bad behavior and therefore harms them spiritually. Imagine if the father in the parable of the prodigal son had assured him while he was engaging in his debauchery that he always could come home, because Daddy forgave him no matter what he did. The prodigal then would never have had brought home to him the deadliness of his sins and the necessity for repentance and amendment of life. In our age of cheap grace, we do not understand repentance, amendment and forgiveness. We recall Christ’s forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery, but his admonition to her to go and sin no more is utterly forgotten. I have had people accused of crimes tell me that since God had forgiven them, why couldn’t every one else. In our time we confuse forgiveness with amnesia and amnesty.

  • Philip-
    A predictable dark side to the idea of unilateral forgiveness; not doing what the supporters want lets them pronounce on the state of your soul.
    Conflating love with forgiveness is not just a bad idea, it’s dangerous; you either pretend that someone did nothing wrong, or you bleach forgiveness into nothing.
    There is nothing promoting another’s good about agreeing with the false idea that I am contracepting and aborting my children out of existence, nor in apologizing for someone’s assumption of malice in a misunderstood metaphor.

    following that logic, God wills people into hell, rather than it being a result of their refusing the available grace. He gives us the ability to choose– it’s up to us to make the choice.
    Catholic Answers has a nice explanation; anything I tried would be an inferior paraphrasing.

  • Would you carry around an unforgiving heart for the rest of your life?

    “Unforgiving” means “unwilling to forgive,” not “hasn’t had the opportunity to forgive.”

    “Our Lord obviously has not and will not forgive the souls in hell right now for the simple reason that they did not ask for forgiveness. This seems as clear as clear can be.” Whether or not a person who harmed me is going to Hell is something I cannot know.

    It is establishing a standard of comparison, not saying those who harmed you is going to hell.
    By your formula for “unconditional,” God Himself doesn’t offer unconditional forgiveness.

  • 982 There is no offense, however serious, that the Church cannot forgive. “There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest. Christ who died for all men desires that in his Church the gates of forgiveness should always be open to anyone who turns away from sin

  • Thank you Foxfier.

    I obviously have had difficulty with this.

    My snide remark about seeing you in the confessional line was absent of goodwill. Jesus said he desired mercy not sacrifice when the Pharisees complained about His eating with sinners and publicans. Matt.9:13.
    The mercy you give will be the mercy you receive…yet you and the faithful witnesses responding to this thread have felled some scales from my eyes.

    Thank you. All.

  • St. Therese the lil’ flower has much to say about Love and forgiveness.

    She entered in as I have been rereading the many good supporting views as you have given. In the Story of a Soul, she forgives and even takes blame for injustices she didn’t commit. As you can see, not all off the scales have fallen off.

    She strove for the Highest good not to be “above Christ”, but to give Christ the absolute all of her being. She succeed, no?

    There’s a search for truth here. I don’t believe it is my wanting to be right, rather I wish to know how love and forgiveness must be separate. I said must, because your valid points in this discussion point to this end. Was the lil’ flower wrong? I have her Story of a Soul.
    I’ll open it up for a second read.

  • I don’t believe it is my wanting to be right, rather I wish to know how love and forgiveness must be separate.

    Because they are different (but related) things. Himself said in Matt 9, it’s the sick that need doctor. You don’t make someone well by keeping them away from a doctor, but you don’t make them well by just visiting him, either. There has to be a change from sickness to health. “Go forth and sin no more,” etc. The wronging is the sickness, and it’s not fixed by pretending it’s not there.

    We offer the forgiveness because we love– “wish the good of”– the person who did wrong.

    As Donald mentioned, we can look at the wandering son– would it have done him any good if his father had kept shoveling money to him? Or, without a change, would it have been destroying him?

    If you wish the good of someone, will you support their destructive behavior, or tell them they should stop?

  • Foxfier.
    I do understand the concept of enabling behavior and the prolonged agony the party suffers.

    As I mentioned, I’m going to read the lil’ flowers story again, and closely observe the intent and application of her love of neighbor and trust in Jesus.

    Each of the commentators examples are driving home the important fact that one must ask for forgiveness, and truly be sincere in the asking. I do get it…even though admittedly I am thick up stairs. 🙂

    I might find something in St. Theresa’s book that I had misinterpreted, but none the less I’ll be at peace knowing that you truly have my interests in mind.
    That I am able to serve my neighbors in harmony with the truth.
    Thanks once more.

  • “[F]ollowing that logic, God wills people into hell, rather than it being a result of their refusing the available grace”

    No, that is the heresy of Calvin. St Augustine teaches that, after the fall of Adam, God wanted to save some, through an absolute will based on his mercy alone, entirely pure and gratuitous, leaving the other part in the state of damnation in which it was, and in which he could justly have left the whole. Nevertheless, God does not command the impossible, and grants even to those who do not actually observe His commandments the power of observing them. Theologians call this grace truly but merely sufficient: “truly” because it really confers the power; “merely” because, through the fault of the will, it fails in its effect, with respect to which it is said to be inefficacious, but sufficient.

    St Thomas teaches that “Since the love of God is the cause of the goodness of things, no one would be better than another if God did not will a greater good to one than to another.” [ST Ia, q. 20, a. 3] Now, it is evident that the man who, in fact, observes the commandments is better than the one who is able to do so but actually does not. Therefore he who keeps the commandments is more beloved and assisted. In short, God loves that man more to whom He grants that he keep the commandments than another in whom He permits sin. This theologians call “efficacious grace.” St Paul says, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

  • Michael-
    No, that is the heresy of Calvin.

    Which is why I objected.

    I’m trying. (Mandatory joke: in more ways than one.)
    Rephrasing the same thing in different ways sometimes works….
    Situation isn’t helped by the gap between what one says and another hears; a lot of popular stuff seems to use “forgive” to mean “I don’t hate you.”

    I’d guess that the Little Flower reacted to outside things, rather than it being about herself. Being willing to forgive. (And the related “let go of the anger” thing.)

  • *ahem* Returning once again to our original topic… here’s an interesting “Dear Abby” letter I saw posted online just a few minutes ago:

    “DEAR ABBY: My nephew is getting married next year. I was very excited because I love him and I’m a baker. I had planned on making the groom’s cake as I did for his brother’s and sister’s weddings. The problem is, they have decided on a hunting theme for their wedding — including a camouflage wedding dress for the bride.

    “Abby, I am an animal-rights activist. I’m against any form of hunting. I am also involved with several animal-protection groups. My nephew and his fiancee know how hard I work for animal rights — just the thought of a hunting theme for a wedding makes me ill.

    “I don’t even want to attend, let alone make a cake. What can I do so there will be no hurt feelings if I don’t want to attend or participate? — BAKER IN THE MIDWEST

    “DEAR BAKER: The theme for your nephew’s wedding is certainly unique. The concept of a camouflage wedding dress is practical because the dress can be worn after the nuptials, which isn’t the case with many bridal gowns.

    “Feeling as strongly as you do about not attending, write the happy couple a warm letter wishing them a lifetime of happiness together and include a nice wedding gift — I’m sure there will be no hurt feelings.”

    Since the letter writer describes herself (to make things simpler I’m going to assume she’s female) as a baker, implying that she does it for a living, I’d love to know whether she’s ever refused to bake cakes for hunting/camo themed weddings before and if so, could the rejected couple now sue her for said refusal.

  • Remember how bothered the Jews were at the claim of Jesus to forgive sins, believing that no human could forgive sin.of course they didn’t know Jesus Is Lord.
    I think on a human level we can forgive sin if by that we mean:
    Excusing a fault or an offense; pardon.
    renouncing anger or resentment against. Or absolving from payment of (a debt, for example). (Dictionary meaning) even if the other person is not sorry nor asks for forgiveness . We can still ignore or forget it of we want to. But we can do nothing about the lingering effects of sin, already committed, nor about the guilt still retained by the sinner. We can forgive, let it go, forget about it, but we can’t take away the persons guilt – even if we were to decide to continue to prosecute the issue. Only God can deal with that, perhaps in purgatory also our continued unforgiving attitude doesn’t increase his guilt- has no effect but to keep us tied up. Forgiving is a benefit to the forgiver.
    We don’t have to worry about “cheap grace” since grace giving is not ours to do. God will balance the books.

  • Since the letter writer describes herself (to make things simpler I’m going to assume she’s female) as a baker, implying that she does it for a living, I’d love to know whether she’s ever refused to bake cakes for hunting/camo themed weddings before and if so, could the rejected couple now sue her for said refusal.

    I’d guess yes, and no. 😀

  • Elaine Krewer

    Baking is not a “common calling,” something hitherto confined to innkeepers and common carriers (and millers, where the land is thirled or adstricted to a particular mill).

    Accordingly, a refusal would only be actionable, if the parties belonged to a “protected class.” Under the EU directives,: “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, union activities, or their membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion. Discrimination also comprises any distinction applied between legal persons by reason of the origin, sex, family situation, physical appearance or patronymic, state of health, handicap, genetic characteristics, sexual morals or orientation, age, political opinions, union activities, membership or non-membership, true or supposed, of a given ethnic group, nation, race or religion of one or more members of these legal persons.”

    Wide as this is, it would not appear to include membership of a hunt (“the unspeakable in full pursuit of the uneatable” as Oscar Wilde called them, which, even as a joint MFH myself, I confess to finding amusing) I suppose it could be argued that someone who rides to hounds in camouflage (!) is suffering from a mental handicap and so protected, but that seems pretty thin.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour. This issue is confused by conflating persons and their vices. If the baker was told, and she knew, that her cake was to be used to support and encourage so-called gay-marriage, she is free to refuse, as if she was told her cake or work is going to be used to poison others. Discriminating against and prosecuting vice and crime is the duty of the state. As a citizen, all persons are called to protect our future generations, our constitutional posterity, and “to secure the Blessing of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional ) posterity”…from The Preamble
    Which reminds me…in Peter Pan, Captain Hook bakes a poison “green” cake to poison Wendy….no, not Wendy Davis… Wendy Darling.

  • Anzlyne: “Forgiving is a benefit to the forgiver.” Jesus took the whole benefit.

Catholic and Jesuit identity: The stormy petrils lose this round at Santa Clara University…

Wednesday, February 26, AD 2014


Despite the Siren song of the stormy petrils, a Bay Area News Group article reports that the Board of Trustees of Santa Clara University (SCU)—a Jesuit university—has upheld its decision last year to terminate elective abortion healthcare coverage for employees beginning January 1, 2015.

In a statement issued February 14, Board Chairman Robert Finocchio wrote:

In making the decision, the President carried out this duty. The decision was not a decision of condemnation or of exclusion, but rather one that flows from the University’s identity and mission as a Jesuit, Catholic university.

In his statement, Finocchio merely reiterated what the Board had  stated previously when Fr. Engh announced the Board’s decision last fall.

As was entirely predictable, Fr. Engh’s announcement didn’t set well with SCU’s Faculty Senate, which objected strenuously. Members claimed that the Board’s new policy sent several messages: the Board doesn’t value diversity (not all employees support Church teaching), the Board doesn’t value inclusivity (having excluded faculty leaders from the process), and the Board was imposing Catholic doctrine on employees (many are not Catholic).

Addressing the protests, Fr. Engh announced a delay in the benefits change until January 2015. The extra year, he said, would allow the Faculty Senate to review the new policy and study options beyond SCU’s healthcare plan.

That said, in this round, the decision has been made. The Board didn’t reverse it, despite the Siren song of the stormy petrils.

Isn’t it refreshing to read that members of the Board of Trustees of a Catholic university are upholding their sacred trust? Would that members of the boards of every institution of U.S. Catholic higher education had as much spine!

Come to think of it: Why do so many of Board members live in mortal fear of and cower before the stormy petrils who charge them with not being diverse and inclusive as well as with imposing Church doctrine on employees? Or, is the real truth that many Board members actually side with the stormy petrils?



To read the Bay Area News Group article, click on the following link:

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

Continue reading...

20 Responses to Catholic and Jesuit identity: The stormy petrils lose this round at Santa Clara University…

  • This is not about contraceptives. This is about normalizing fornication. This is an assault and offense against God, in the same way that gay-rights and/or so called unnatural marriage is about normalizing sodomy.
    Persons who do not use contraception or practice sodomy are being dragged into the mele without their informed consent and/or knowledge and are being abused to make a case for the legal imposition of vice.
    The innocent opposition is being scraped from the womb. Justice is being twarted and the wrath of God is being scorned.

  • It is a Catholic University. By what logic did they expect it to be Catholic and something totally opposed to being Catholic at the same time. I worry about the quality of the intellects represented on the Faculty senate.

  • “By what logic did they expect it to be Catholic and something totally opposed to being Catholic at the same time.”

    Because they think Catholic means something different than you and I do. Dealing with the same thing now in a Catholic hospital in which I work. Had to push and cajole to get some Catholic teaching into a course on bioethics. The book they use teaches abortion as a licit approach to prenatal problems, etc. etc.

  • Philip,

    You should bring this to the bishop

  • In due course. At this point, given the bishop, I am not sure that he would intervene. As it stands now, I’ve already caused some consternation with my stands so far. So will take it step by step.

  • Pingback: Welcome to the Dark Age of Designer Babies -
  • We must ask how did the Board of Trustees of Santa Clara University (SCU)—a Jesuit university—ever come to offer elective abortion healthcare coverage for employees in the first place.

    And we must be pleased as angels in Heaven that the current Board has repented, then chose to go and sin no more (at least after 2015).

  • Exactly Micha – why dd they ever have such coverage in the first place? I suppose better late than never on getting rid of it.

  • Objective Truth/Church Teachings vs. Liberal ideology

    Faith and the power of prayer

  • “Objective Truth/Church Teachings vs. Liberal ideology Faith and the power of prayer ” and someone standing up and speaking the truth, so often obliterated, and speaking the truth and speaking the truth.

  • “Board doesn’t value diversity (not all employees support Church teaching)”

    But of course every one supports diversity over Church teaching! This reminded me of the cartoon of Moses, who, having received the 10 Commandments, is shown with his face lifted to heavens saying: “so I guess diversity is not a priority ?”

  • Philip, You get a decade today!

  • Kevin: “Philip, You get a decade today!” Read: “Phillip” TAC has Philip and Phillip. Both are wonderful. Say a decade for each as I will.

  • Kevin, Mary

    Yes I have two l’s in my name as oppose to Philip who has only one. I do appreciate the decade (especially as I will be on retreat this weekend in part to discern further what to do) and I suspect Philip also will.

    Thanks for your comments.

  • I’m very proud of my alma mater. Santa Clara has shown leadership to all Catholic colleges and universities.

  • When my brother attended medical school at a well known Catholic university in the mid-1970s, he was dismayed to find that medical ethics was offered as an elective and not as a required course. What was sown in the 60s and 70s at so-called “Catholic” colleges and universities has now come to fruition. Santa Clara’s example, I hope, will be emulated by other Catholic institutions.

  • L – That’s the one I owe you Phillip. Yesterday I was very busy and it was my promise to offer up a decade that brought me to the rosary. So your prayer became my blessing. Funny how those things work out.

  • The decision should take effect immediately. Let them have Obamacare.

  • I bet those same employees did not object to the lack of diversity within the Obamacare mandate.

  • Tell me please if I am missing something here! I have in front of me the January 16 issue of the National Catholic Register in which there is an article re: SCU/Fr. Engh “taking a stand.” Under the paragraph, “Reason for Change” it states: The SCU president explained that the university’s health-care representatives and insurance informed his administration that they are not required by California’s Dept. of Managed Care and Insurance to provide “elective abortion.” However, he noted, the university will ‘continue to cover therapeutic abortions, contraception and other forms of reproductive health care …”. Is there more than one SCU or Fr. Engh?! Help me understand why you are all celebrating their catholic identity?

PopeWatch: Mammon

Wednesday, February 26, AD 2014


Ah, the Church and money.  That has been a problem area since Judas was treasurer and helped himself to the contents of the purse.  Most popes, all of them over the past two centuries, have announced initiatives to reform this vexing area.  Pope Francis has his go at it:


In the most concrete sign to date of his intention to reform the Vatican, Pope Francis announced the creation Monday of a single authority to handle all business, administrative and personnel management at the Holy See, a response to the rash of financial scandals that have tarnished the Roman Catholic Church’s reputation among believers and nonbelievers.
The new Secretariat for the Economy will draw up the Vatican’s annual budget, call on lay experts for advice and launch surprise internal audits. The body will help ensure “a more formal commitment to adopting accounting standards and generally accepted financial management and reporting practices, as well as enhanced internal controls, transparency and governance,” the Vatican said in a statement.
Heading the secretariat is Australian Cardinal George Pell, the archbishop of Sydney, who has been a critic of the Vatican’s lack of accounting transparency. Pell is a member of a group of eight handpicked cardinals whom Francis has tasked with advising him on how to reform the Holy See.
“If we make better use of the resources entrusted to us, we can improve our capacity to support the good works of the church, particularly our works for the poor and disadvantaged,” Pell, 72, said in a statement.

In a papal document known as a motu proprio, Francis decreed that Pell would work with a 15-member council made up of eight senior prelates from different parts of the world, as well as seven lay experts “of various nationalities, with financial skills and acknowledged professional status.” The pope has already hired independent firms such as Ernst & Young and KPMG to help shake up the Vatican’s complicated and murky bureaucracy.
Centralizing many financial powers under the new secretariat represents the biggest change to the Curia, the Vatican administration, since John Paul II overhauled operations in 1988.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to PopeWatch: Mammon

  • Some children learn the decimal system through the counting of money. It seems that some in the Vatican have not yet accomplished that or are they being purposely obtuse to hide mischief?
    George Cardinal Pell is a good man.

  • The race is on to see which will first be able to produce an audited record of accounts, the Holy See or the US Federal Government.

  • Someone needs to make a joke about how this should be the Inquisition’s job…. (I would, but I can’t remember what they’re called now!)

  • George Cdl. Pell is a very good man. He is a dinkum straight shooting Aussie, and has been a huge inspiration to many of the faithful here down under.
    He doesn’t take any crap – if anyone can sort out the bullshit from the chewed dates, he can.

  • Oops.
    My previous comment is a bit on the coarse side.
    Ah well…………you can take the man out of the building site, but you can’t take the building site out of the man.

  • Ernst & Young! This company is very pro-abortion, and funds many organizations that are pro=abortion and supporters of Planned Parenthood. How discouraging to those of us working so hard to get PP DE-funded!

  • Mary and Don. Yes Cardinal Pell is a very good man!

    The nations Catholic watched in glee when he debated Richard Dawkins on television a few years ago. Although, Dawkins can only blame himself for his non-sensical, uncommitted babble. Pell was brilliant in his arguments.

    I’m sad, though, that this new appointment will mean Cardinal Pell will leave his current post here in Australia. I’m praying God will give us an equally honest, forthright and deeply spiritual leader.

  • Pingback: Pope Francis the Evangelical Catholic -

How Will They Manage Without Their Cheap Serfs?

Wednesday, February 26, AD 2014

8 Responses to How Will They Manage Without Their Cheap Serfs?

  • Social Justice!

    The bosses running the dem party want sure votes and cheap labor because its easier to control dependents (illegals take jobs from other poor people of color . . .).

    The bosses running the rump gop (and the WSJ) want cheap labor and don’t give a tinker’s dam about anybody/anything else.

    Kiss goodbye the middle class.

    Social Justice!

  • Cheap labor is nothing compared to slave labor. Many illegal immigrants are cheated of their pay for their labor and have no recourse without revealing themselves. A citizen may apply to the Division of Labor on the state level. An illegal cannot. Justice would require that all persons coming into the U. S. be registered and receive the same treatment as citizens receive. This would curtail criminal behavior among employers.

  • As Victor Davis Hanson puts it,
    Does the liberal congressman or the Washington public advocate mow his own lawn, clean his toilet, or help feed his 90-year-old mother? At what cost would he cease to pay others to do these things — $20, $25 an hour? And whom would he hire if there were no illegal immigrants? The unemployed African-American teenager in D.C.? The unemployed Appalachian in nearby West Virginia? I think not.
    As a general organizing principle, “mow your own damn yard, clean your own damn toilets, watch your own damn kids” works pretty well for families, and whole neighborhoods… The time and effort keeps you grounded and aware, although I do understand some families at some times will need to hire out help.

  • “Cheap” was redundant. By definition all serfs are cheap. 🙂

  • I recall a story told by Harry Truman. Truman had mowed his own lawn as a Senator from Missouri until he entered the White House. After retirement Bess Truman wanted him to go back to mowing. Harry told her he was too old, but she insisted. So he got up on Sunday morning and began to mow the lawn while his neighbors walked past on the way to church. “Harry, aren’t you going to church?” each asked, to which he replied “No, the Boss wants the lawn mowed.”

    Harry got his hired lawn mower after that.

  • If it was one of the old push non-powered lawn mowers that I first cut my teeth on, I don’t blame Truman for wanting to pay someone else to mow his lawn. Those gave me a rugged workout in my teens!

  • Mexico sends most illegal immigrants. Mexico booming and most Mexicans have home to go back to. We need to put legal residents to work.

    These people promoting retention are destroying the countries involved, America and Mexico especially. Vote them out.

  • Get those 30-year-old “children” off their parents’ couch and insurance and into the hotels and lawns to do some honest work. Their college degrees might enable them to push harder and clean faster.

Pat Archbold’s Controversial Call for Unity

Tuesday, February 25, AD 2014

Pat Archbold has written an intriguing post arguing that the Pontificate of Pope Francis is the best opportunity to bring the SSPX back into the fold.

I have great concern that without the all the generosity that faith allows by the leaders of the Church, that this separation, this wound on the Church, will become permanent. In fact, without such generosity, I fully expect it. Such permanent separation and feeling of marginalization will likely separate more souls than just those currently associated with the SSPX.

I have also come to believe that Pope Francis’ is exactly the right Pope to do it. In his address to the evangelicals, he makes clear his real concern for unity.

So here is what I am asking. I ask the Pope to apply that wide generosity to the SSPX and to normalize relations and their standing within the Church. I am asking the Pope to do this even without the total agreement on the Second Vatican Council. Whatever their disagreements, surely this can be worked out over time with the SSPX firmly implanted in the Church. I think that the Church needs to be more generous toward unity than to insist upon dogmatic adherence to the interpretation of a non-dogmatic council. The issues are real, but they must be worked out with our brothers at home and not with a locked door.

Further, Pope Francis’ commitment to the aims of the Second Vatican Council is unquestioned. Were he to be generous in such a way, nobody would ever interpret it to be a rejection of the Council. How could it be? This perception may not have been the case in the last pontificate. Pope Francis is uniquely suited to this magnanimous moment.

You can go here to read the rest.

Now the link goes to Pat’s own blog and not the National Catholic Register, where Pat originally published this piece. And that is why I have called this post controversial, because for reasons that remain unfathomable, NCR has deemed fit to remove this post. Frankly I see nothing remotely objectionable with anything that he has written. Even if one disagrees with the upshot of it, why did NCR feel the need take this post down? It’s a bizarre decision, and frankly it leaves me gravely concerned about where we’re heading in the Catholic blogosphere and what is deemed as “acceptable” opinion.

Continue reading...

78 Responses to Pat Archbold’s Controversial Call for Unity

  • I just don’t see full unity with the SSPX happening, not and finding a “pastoral solution” to the divorce issue. The evangelicals allow divorce and contraception and what not. The SSPX categorically condemn it. Heck, they are not even thrilled with NFP.

  • I don’t know why it was taken down but will avoid the temptation to hyperventilate about it.

    The article is less controversial than somewhat confused though, as far as I know the option to normalize themselves is still open to the SSPX, they simply have to choose it. What would be quite explosive would be for Francis to work with Tony Palmer and his community to explicity lay out terms for their reunification. THAT would be something. Pride goeth before a fall, in both cases.

    Most of the analogous bromides about common beliefs and vocations with the SSPX went said during the previous pontificate, though mostly not in the public view, unlike with Palmer.

  • It seems to me that there is a danger of falling into tautology here: “The true church is that which teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.”

    Now, there is only one possible test that avoids the question-begging assumption of defining Catholics by examining their tenets, or the Church by its teaching. As Mgr Ronald Knox put it, “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome. No doubt, in the long run this means the people who are so orthodox that Rome has seen no reason to excommunicate them, so that unity and orthodoxy still react upon one another…. And, in fact, there can be little doubt that, in the West, our labelling of this party as orthodox and that as heterodox in early Church history comes down to us from authors who were applying this test of orthodoxy and no other.”

    It is a test remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

    If the SSPX can jettison VII, by what criterion do they criticize the Armenians and the Copts who reject Chalcedon, or the Assyrians who reject Ephesus? For us, the answer is simple: we have Pope Francis in our party and the Armenians, the Copts and the Assyrians do not. No other answer is necessary or, indeed, possible.

  • “why did NCR feel the need take this post down?”

    Fear. In the current pontificate tolerance is apparently a one way street, or so must be the perception at National Catholic Register.

  • It would demonstrate pastoral sensitivity for Pope Francis to readmit SSPX to full communion with Rome….are such considerations which are purportedly the very essence of Vatican II reserved only for returning Protestants?

  • Slainte,

    Let me first say that I fervently desire the full reconciliation of SSPX with the Catholic Church, however, what you suggest: readmit SSPX to full communion with Rome was all but completely done during the Pontificate of Pope Benedict. Rome basically begged them to come back home. There was wavering for a time and it seemed it was going to happen. However, a faction led by Bishop Williamson pushed against it and it did not happen.

    I hope and pray that reconciliation and full communion does take place soon. I see nothing but fragmentation ahead for SSPX without communion. I have been stunned at some of the stuff coming from the Sedesvacantists toward th SSPX-I see SSPPX’s future with Rome as odd as that might sound, and not in this no-man’s land between Rome and the Sedevacantists they have staked out.

  • I share Paul’s concern. I thought Pat’s piece was an excellent “only Nixon can go to China” rumination.

    Seemingly, it was taken as a slap at the Pope instead. The removal says more about the gatekeepers of Catholic media than it does about Pat’s post. And it says it unmistakably.

    In short, if you like the MSM’s narrative-driven filtering process, you’ll love its Catholic imitator.

    If you don’t, well…why so querulous?

  • There will be no unity within the Catholic Church itself until Bishops actively promote the reading of the Bible and the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, revised in accordance with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II”.
    There is so much heresy, schism, general apostacy, and/or relativism within the Church – that this what should be the top priority. – Unity within our own Church.

  • slainte: “It would demonstrate pastoral sensitivity for Pope Francis to readmit SSPX to full communion with Rome….are such considerations which are purportedly the very essence of Vatican II reserved only for returning Protestants?”
    “If the SSPX can jettison VII” Is it really Vatican II that the SSPX has jettisoned or is it the fabrication of Kung and Rahner?
    Especially since Pope Benedict XVI said that Vatican II did not ban the Latin Mass.
    If Patrick Archbold’s post calls for an examination of Vatican II and what has been foisted on the priesthood of the laity by some at Vatican II, perhaps the NCR will explain their removal of Patrick Archbold’s post.

  • With one strike….

    “Fear. In the current pontificate tolerance is apparently a one way street, or so must be the perception at National Catholic Register.”

    ….he drives the whole nail deeply into the dense oak!

  • Mary De Voe,

    You wrote, “is it really Vatican II that the SSPX has jettisoned or is it the fabrication of Kung and Rahner?”

    You are so close to hitting the nail on the head. In various readings I have seen from SSPX it seems that they are indeed rejecting what is commonly called “the spirit of Vatican II”, the Council according to the likes of Kung especially. There is a hermeneutic by which we read Vatican II and ‘the spirit of VII” is not it. It is the six points established in the Extraordinary Synod of 1985 and reiterated by Pope Benedict in 2005:the hermeneutic of reform in continuity with the Tradition. If SSPX could see their way clear to agree with this then they would have a similar established structure within the Church to the “Anglican Ordinariate”

  • Donald, as usual, you are correct, though again I really question what is objectionable even in light of the rampant soft ultramontanism that is gripping a good chunk of the Catholic blogosphere. The worst that can be claimed about the piece is that Pat may have been taking a passive aggressive swipe at the Pope (that is not my interpretation), but even then, so what? Are we not free even to make subtle criticisms of the Pontiff? As I’ve said elsewhere, if that is the case, then we would only be confirming the most fevered anti-Catholic polemics of Protestants.

  • Perhaps, the NCR is anxious not to be tarred with the Crypto-Lefebvrian brush.

    Whilst I can understand the members of the SSPX’s nostalgia for the EF, I find their nostalgia for the politics of Vichy rather disconcerting. For the ones I have met, the Republic is « la gueuse » and Philippe Pétain is always « le Maréchal » with an annual pilgrimage to his tomb. After all, during the 1987 pilgrimage, Lefebvre spoke of him as having “restored [France] spiritually and morally.”

    One senses that a good number of them would like to go back a good deal earlier that Vatican II, to a time in the ’30s, when the good Catholic youth of the Camelots du Roi were beating up Jews in the streets. That War Criminal Paul Touvier found refuge in one of the Society’s priories in Nice is not reassuring.

    I can imagine the SSPX finding fertile mission territory in a “liberated” West Ukraine.

  • Michael Paterson-Seyour,

    I usually chime in with you as you know, but perhaps your own experience in France has prevented you from realizing that the SSPX is not just ‘the good old days of France’. That , would be the last thingon the mind of American SSPXers I would presume. Thus it was the American segment of the SSPX that was most open to reconciliation with Rome.

    At this point in time I believe the phrase describing Christ’s own ministry in Matthew’s Gospel is apropros: “A bruised reed He will not break, a smouldering wick He will not quench, until He brings justice to victory” [Matthew 12.20 quoting Isaiah 42.1-4]

  • I hope the Register editors explain their decision, but until they do so, hypothesizing accurately about their motives seem difficult, given the absence of any similar actions taken on their part (in fact, they’ve published other posts which are mildly critical of Pope Francis).

  • There is a major airport outside of Rome. From there, you can catch a train into the city, and from there, crawl on your hands and knees to St. Peter’s. (You should probably call ahead for an appointment if you want to meet the pope.) If SSPX wants to be reconciled, they can be reconciled.

  • The Catholic Church allows priests who will not say the mass in Latin to stay in communion with the Catholic Church. Even though they exclusively say it in english they aren’t excommunicated. Therefore, it’s a double standard to not to allow priests who want to use the other language choice (Latin) exclusively since exclusively using english is allowed.

  • Whilst I can understand the members of the SSPX’s nostalgia for the EF, I find their nostalgia for the politics of Vichy rather disconcerting. For the ones I have met, the Republic is « la gueuse » and Philippe Pétain is always « le Maréchal » with an annual pilgrimage to his tomb.

    Really? Petain married quite late in life and was supposedly something of a Roue. Pierre Laval, who was the prime minister longer than anyone else in that musical chairs regime, was drawn from the nexus formed by the Radical Party and the masonic lodges and provincial political grandees. Pierre Pucheu had no religious affiliation. He was the staff director of the steel cartel (and admirer of Hitler, supposedly). Joseph Barthelemy was a serious Catholic, but I think that was atypical in the regimes many ministries.

    Charles de Gaulle, of course, was a serious Catholic. I think the Croix de Feu were the earliest to take up arms against the Petain regime.

  • Mary De Voe, You are right on point. Very few people can affirmatively identify what constitutes the legitimate teachings of Vatican II and what constitutes the distortions of the Spirit of Vatican II crowd. I believe much of what SSPX opposes is the latter…Pope Francis would demonstrate profound wisdom if he would meet with the SSPX and address their specific concerns. It would take a great deal of humility on both sides of the divide to do this.
    Botolph, The SSPX would bring a huge gift to Rome if reconciliation were possible…
    “….After the ordinations in the seminaries of the Northern Hemisphere, the Society of St. Pius X has 569 priests. 18 new priests were ordained in the United States, Switzerland and Germany…” Monday, July 23, 2012, “Number of SSPX Priests at all Time High”
    Fortunately Bishop Williamson has been separated from the SSPX as his views were excessive and uncivil. I don’t think that he is representative of this group which was among the first to identify, raise the alarm, and resist the Spirit of Vatican II crowd. Although I am not part of SSPX, I respect their desire to protect the traditions of the faith and live …lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
    MPS, you are mistaken if you believe that the desire for the traditional latin mass is merely “nostalgic”. My church is full for the EF latin mass on Sundays and many who are in attendance are young adults and families. Last Sunday, there were twelve altar boys ranging in age from approximately 6 years to about 15 years old serving the EF mass. In addition, there were four priests which made an impressive 16 boys/men at or surrounding the altar. This is the norm at my RC Church…and it is not SSPX.
    I find it disturbing that traditional Catholics are likened to bashers of Jewish people. This is not the case among many traditional Catholics of my acquaintance who fully apprehend that Jesus Christ was a Jew who gave His life so that many (including gentiles) may be saved. One cannot be truly Catholic and embrace anti-semitism. To love Christ is to imitate Him and to love the Jewish people while rejecting all forms of bigotry in their regard.

  • I cant help but notice the continued effort to link or actively smear the SSPX with being anti-Semitic or Nazi sympathizers (ex. citing the Paul Touvier case, or the Bp. Richard Williamson situation), yet failing to notice the contrary evidence to the matters (Archbp Lefebvre’s father died as a result of incarceration in a Nazi concentration camp, a well-concealed fact; Bp. Richard Williamson, showing the SSPX have the same episcopal-selection disasters as does the greater Catholic Church, was finally dismissed in Oct. 2012, better late than never). Touvier was a clever con man and fooled many trusting priests in Lyons, Chambery, Montpellier and everywhere; Bp Richard Williamson—what a disaster, enough said. But the convenient readiness of attacking anyone as anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi is a classic ploy of the secular as well as faux-Catholic left. George Soros worked for the Nazis until “defecting” at the end of WW2—and he has done quite well with accessing the world power elite. It all seems that you need to be on the “right side of history” again as the secular left likes to say.

  • Pinky writes, “….There is a major airport outside of Rome. From there, you can catch a train into the city, and from there, crawl on your hands and knees to St. Peter’s…
    I don’t think that your description fits the manner in which the Anglican Ordinariate found its way home to Rome…nor should it be how the SSPX is welcomed home. Give each man his due.

  • Botolph & Slainté

    It is fanciful to suggest that it is only in France that SSPXers support Neo-Fascist and Anti-Semitic policies.

    On 12 December 2012, Fellay hosted a conference in Canada – “The head of the traditionalist Society of St Pius X has called Jewish people “enemies of the Church”, saying Jewish leaders’ support of the Second Vatican Council “shows that Vatican II is their thing, not the Church’s.” Bishop Bernard Fellay, the society’s superior general, said those most opposed to Rome granting canonical recognition to the SSPX have been “the enemies of the Church: the Jews, the Masons, the modernists.” He said these people, “who are outside of the Church, who over centuries have been enemies of the Church”, urged the Vatican to compel the SSPX to accept Vatican II”

    Always and everywhere the SSPX speaks of the Jews as the l agents of the destruction of the Christian political and social order and the source of modernism of the Church. Fellay did this publicly during his talk in Canada. Members deny that this blaming of the Jews is anti-semitism. They call it “the Counter-Revolution” or an aspect of “the Social Reign of Christ.”

    In the US, the Anti-Defamation League has branded the SSPX an anti-semitic organisation. This does not surprise me; those members I have encountered readily accept the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as genuine and regard the Blood Libel as entirely plausible. No wonder they harbour Holocaust deniers – they probably think it too good to be true

  • Slainte – I was being snarky, of course. I have an even snarkier reply, which is that yes, the Holy See should use the same approach it did with the Anglicans: (1) petition, (2) pray, (3) condemn errors, (4) attempt reconciliation, and (5) try back every 500 years. I think that’s a funny line. Do I mean it, though? I’d love to see the SSPX return to the fold, but I honestly don’t see it happening as an organization. Individuals will come back, and should always be welcomed. Maybe in God’s mercy whole groups will come back. But there’s always going to be some split-off group of the split-off. I mean, the Franciscans couldn’t stay orthodox and unified after Francis’s passing, and barely could before. We can and must pray for the movement and its members, but I have very low expectations.

  • Again, it is noted: the desire of some to smear a whole group, esp. a Trad Catholic group and all their members, as anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi, a ploy which advantageously serves perhaps a bitterly hostility to the Church prior to Vatican 2 anyway.

    It is just the same convenient readiness to damn all opponents as anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi, a method of the secular as well as faux-Catholic left and as old as the Dreyfus case.

    Yet again I note George Soros worked for the Nazis until “defecting” at the end of WW2, and is now one of the closest elite to the current president. The current president has close ties to actively anti-Semitic groups, including the Muslim Brotherhood: but the Anti-Defamation League has never uttered a murmur of protest about any of those connections.

    So, one way to seal the deal to expel the SSPX forever is to paint them this way. And while we are at it, we didnt even mention the Erich Priebke case—yet!

  • Pingback: Could Pope Francis be the one to reconcile the SSPX? | Fr. Z's Blog
  • In the near future a schism in the Church that will be so huge it will make the present concern with the SSPX irrelevant. Pope Pius X had a mystical dream or vision in which he saw a successor of his fleeing Rome in disguise as Rome is invaded. Other prophecies confirm this: the Pope will be driven out and hunted down. The Shepherd will be struck and the flock dispersed and an uncanonical “pope” will take over and go the way of the world. Persecution will follow, remote signs of this are already popping up here and there. In fact the 3rd Secret that was revealed in 2000 shows this very thing with the pope and companions being gunned down by invading troops. It is obvious that this is coming because the only public institutional hindrance to the spread of many evils of our time is the Papacy and the UN committee’s grilling of the Vatican delegation for eight hours recently manifests this intention to remove the “obstacle”.

  • The Register has been censoring the truth for several years.

  • There was a time (until very recently, actually) that I thought it would be a great blessing to the Church were the SSPX to reunite fully with her. But from what I’m reading and hearing from friends with ties to the SSPX, the society is undergoing some tumult as those more in line with Bishop Williamson (of Holocaust denial infamy) battle those more in line with Bishop Fellay. It might be prudent to allow that to shake out – for the sake of the SSPX and the Church at large.

    Also, it’s not exactly helpful when the head of the SSPX publicly and formally thanks God Almighty that they were “preserved” from the “misfortune” of reconciliation with the Holy See, publicly states that the ordinary form of the Mass is “evil”, publicly accuses the pope of being a heretic (calling him a “genuine modernist”), and also states that Second Vatican Council represents an outright rupture with Tradition. That doesn’t strike me as a group that is quite ready for (or even particularly interested in) full communion.

    You can read AB Fellay’s comments here at Rorate Caeli:

    Of course, it also doesn’t help when the SSPX goes out of its way to take care of a Nazi war criminal who never apologized or disavowed Nazi ideology. Nor does it help when the SSPX disrupts an interfaith service in memory of Kristallnacht only to have the head of the SSPX in South America defend the behavior.

    These things only reinforce the perception that the SSPX is not ready. I hope and pray that changes.

  • On the weekend of Oct. 11-13 2013, SSPX Superior General, Bishop Fellay, said the following with respect to the failed negotiations with the Vatican:

    “… They want us to recognize not only that the (new) Mass is valid provided that it is celebrated correctly, etc., but that it is licit. I told them we do not use that word. It’s a bit messy, our faithful have enough (confusion) regarding the validity, so we tell them, ‘The New Mass is bad, it is evil’ and they understand that. Period.” – (Rorate Caeli)

    Do all of the priests and followers of SSPX subscribe to this condemnation of the Novus Ordo as “evil” as they are taught by their Superior? In it’s most common understanding, “evil” is equated with “satanic”. The Novus Ordo constitutes a valid confection of the Eucharist and is celebrated by probably 90+ percent of priests in ‘Persona Christe’ in the Roman rite throughout the world – including the Pope – hundreds of thousands of times a day. Are they all instead Satan’s ministers? This vile and outrageous SSPX position of contempt against the Holy Sacrament by it’s superior is beyond heretical. Do we really think it acceptable to welcome into full communion such a group without their renunciation of such a belief?

  • Pinky,
    If the gate-keeper standing between SSPX and Pope Francis also happens to be a propopent of Liberation Theology and views his friend and co-author Gustavo Gutierrez as an orthodox Catholic because of his shared belief in liberation theology, does a traditional group like SSPX even stand a chance for reconciliation with the Church?
    Consider the following:
    “…Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Müller, soon to be a cardinal of the Catholic Church and Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, announced on 22 December 2013 during an interview with the Italian daily Corriere della Sera, in which he claimed that it would a “sacramental de facto excommunication” continues for the SSPX “due to their schism”….”
    Meanwhile …..
    “…..It is all the more surprising that in the recent response of Abp. Müller to the Corriere della Sera, he says immediately afterward, with regard to the liberation theologian Gustavo Gutiérrez: “Gutiérrez has always been orthodox.” In fact, Abp. Müller co-wrote a book with him, On the Side of the Poor: Theology of Liberation, which was published in both Spanish and German. As the English journalist William Oddie reported in The Catholic Herald on July 6, 2012, citing the American Vatican-watcher John Allen, “Every year since 1998, Archbishop Müller has travelled to Peru to take a course under Gutiérrez…. In 2008 he accepted an honorary doctorate from the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru, which is widely seen as a bastion of the progressive wing of the Peruvian Church. On that occasion, he praised Gutiérrez and defended his theology. ‘The theology of Gustavo Gutiérrez, independently of how you look at it, is orthodox because it is orthopractic,’ he said publicly. ‘It teaches us the correct way of acting in a Christian fashion since it comes from the true faith.’”
    “Now we understand: if Gutiérrez is orthodox—and even “orthopractic”—in Archbishop Müller’s view, the Society of St Pius X can only be “schismatic.” That is the whole difference between liberation theology and traditional theology. But in this context, it is necessary to recognize that the use of the word “schism” is the result of an entirely arbitrary decision.”
    “One might therefore readily conclude that the recent statement by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes any “reconciliation” impossible. But then how are we to understand this apparently contradictory statement: “We are not closing the door and never will”? ….”

  • Steve Phoenix wrote, “It is just the same convenient readiness to damn all opponents as anti-Semitic or pro-Nazi, a method of the secular as well as faux-Catholic left and as old as the Dreyfus case.”

    No one I suppose would call Charles Peguy a faux-Catholic. He, you will recall, declared that « Notre dreyfusisme était une religion […] d’essence chrétienne… C’est que nous ne nous placions pas moins qu’au point de vue du salut éternel de la France. » – Our support of Dreyfus was a religion, Christian in its essence We saw it from no other point of view than that of the eternal salvation of France.

    « Tout au fond nous étions les hommes du salut éternel et nos adversaires étaient les hommes du salut temporel. Voilà la vraie, la réelle division de l’affaire Dreyfus. Tout au fond nous ne voulions pas que la France fût constituée en état de péché mortel. » – Above all, we were the men of eternal salvation and our opponents were the men of temporal salvation. There is the real, the true division in the Dreyfus affair. Above all, we did not want France established in a state of mortal sin.

    Catholics like Peguy and Claudel did not have to wait for the Second Vatican Council to tell them that anti-semitism is “a gangrenous spot that corrupts the entire body.”

    That is why, at the time of the SSPX occupation of Saint-Nicholas-du-Chardonnet in 1977, Jean-Marie Lustiger, then vicar of Sainte-Jeanne-de-Chantal, declared, “Their Catholicism is not my Catholicism; their beliefs are not my beliefs; most fundamentally, I suspect that the object of their worship is not the God who revealed Himself at Sinai.”

  • Pingback: Francis: Generous Only With The Wrong Crowd | Mundabor's Blog
  • If the Holy Father can call a heretic Pentecostal friend of his “brother bishop,” then surely he can extend the same ecumenism to the SSPX, who have true Bishops. It’s comical, really. Ecumenism toward everything and everyone except traditional Catholicism.

  • Slainte – Anyone can reconcile with the Church. As Michael notes, the first natural step toward reconciliation is to consider the Church worthy of reconciliation (to? with? what an ugly sentence).

  • MPS,
    Are the roots of anti-semitism present in the pre-Vatican II RC Church?
    If so, please amplify and also address how Vatican II treated these issues.

  • Pingback: Pat Archbold calls for Francis to embrace SSPX despite VII disagreements. National Catholic Register removes article. | Catholic4Life
  • Under the ancient rules of outlawry . . . “putting a person beyond the protection of the law for his refusal to become amenable to the court having legal jurisdiction. In the past, this deprivation of legal benefits was invoked when a defendant or other person was in civil or criminal contempt of court; and, in cases of alleged treason or the commission of a felony (referred to as major outlawry), it amounted to a conviction as well as an extinction of civil rights.”

    Seems Francis I isn’t so “modern”, or he’s being selective.

    MPS can direct anti-semite/Holocaust/nazi commentary at the French. It calls to mind two cases.

    One, the execrable Andrew Sullivan’s explanation for John Paul II’s principled opposition to the 2003 Iraq invasion/war hysteria. Sullivan called it, “. . . traditional Catholic anti-semitism.”

    Two, in the late 1940’s a NYC bank teller was being bullied by a woman with a thick accent. The man couldn’t (bank rules and regulations) help her. She became more upset and displayed to him her nazi concentration camp number tattoo. Being a WWII ETO combat veteran, he told her, “Look lady, if it wasn’t for men like me you’d be a lamp shade.” True story.

    Now, aside from the superficial I am unfamiliar with SSPX reasons for breaking with the new-fangled church, but I know it was not a disagreement over Jews.

    Apparently, being outlawed/declared heretical SSPX merits ad hominems and detractions.

  • T. Shaw’s comments noted and to which I add:

    Please note the following

    —Pius XII – accused of being allegedly pro-Nazi (papal nuncio 1st to Bavaria, then Germany, 1917-1929), and accused of being an anti-Semite—notwithstanding his many public speeches openly denouncing Nazism, or in one letter calling Hitler “an agent of Lucifer.” QED, pro Nazi, anti-Semite.

    John Paul II – accused of being a “silent Nazi”, by “acquiescing” to the Holocaust (1999 PBS documentary in which an “expert” alleged that he “did not defy the Nazi’s” and that he “entered the priesthood to escape” the ongoing conflict.) JP2 was called “a child of Polish Anti-Semitism.” All this even tho he was secretly a member of the same Polish resistance group that provided exit documentation to at least 50,000 Jews. QED, pro-Nazi, Anti-Semite.

    Benedict XVI – accused of being an actual Nazi, smeared as “Der Panzer-Kardinal” ,
    Fr Thomas Reese SJ in a PBS radio interview on the eve of the 2005 papal conclave trying to infer that Ratzinger’s membership in the Hitler Youth (he was forced to serve as a 15-year-old in an air-defense battery) made him unelectable as pope.
    QED. Ibid.

    Now, some would say: no pattern here, nothing to see, move along, children.

    Let us just contrast that with the silent treatment accorded the following:

    — Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the “spiritual father” of the current president, who has called the state of Israel “genocidal”, “illegal” (June 2011 address), and who regular has blamed “the Jews” (his words) for problems in black America.

    —“Catholic” Fr. Michael Pfleger, admired by Mr Obama for “his work”, who revealed his close relationship with Louis Farrakhan. Pfleger defended the Nation of Islam in a Chicago city row in 2006 over a hate-crimes commission (how would anyone know hate in Chicago: it’s like the humidity, always up) when several Jewish members resigned over attendance by N of I members, Pfleger replying literally “Good riddance”, explicitly or implicitly because the 3 who resigned were Jewish members.

    —Or, Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan’s statements at this time (2006): “These false Jews promote the filth of Hollywood. It’s the wicked Jews, the false Jews that are promoting lesbianism, homosexuality,” and “Zionists have manipulated Bush and the American government” over the war in Iraq. (These were the actual comments Pfleger defended.)

    —But my favorite nominee, Yassir Arafat, co-winner of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize, life-long terrorist and killer of Jewish people. But we shouldnt recall that, after all (It could have been the almost entirely fictitious erzatz leftist of the 2003 prize, Rigoberto Menshevik, er. Menchu: But the Nobel people like the symbolism, not the substance, of course.)

    I have already mentioned a certain actual ex-Nazi collaborator and convicted international currency trader (2005, France) as well as a certain president with many connections to anti-Semitic organizations: All this treated with silence by the media.

    It is the Dreyfus strategy employed again, as so excellently documented in above posts, but only used to its full effect against traditional Catholics, to damn all with the same brush.

  • In response to the SSPX Jewish commentary:
    First, the problem is over Judaism, not the ethnicity. Second, the deniers of Christ and representatives of the anti-Christ religion of Judaism have absolutely no place in a Catholic church.
    It had nothing to do with the persons being Jewish, but prostituting the Church out to welcome, celebrate, and commemorate events, whatever they may be, along side false religions. That’s the issue here.
    Don’t make it an anti-Semite issue like the Southern Poverty Law Center does.

  • Don’t forget that NCR is EWTN and that traditional catholic ship sailed a long time ago

  • A more practical way to reconcile SSPX members with Mother Church is for more Summorum Pontificate EF Masses celebrated. SSPX members are known to come to diocesan Masses if they are more conveniently situated in their localities – person by person, family by family.
    We used to distribute copies of Universae Ecclesiae at our EF Mass, pointing out the conditions for SP – that people should not criticize the Novus Ordo or question the validity of its sacraments. But we’ve stopped distributing those and just leave it up to people to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Now we’re having more and more SSPX and sedevacantists showing up at our EF Mass.
    Reconciliation through Pope Francis papacy looks like a long shot for now – not with him embracing protestants, atheists, Jews, gays, etc., but continuing to be hostile to traditionalists.
    My two centavos.

  • When I ‘penned’ that i hope and prayed for the reconciliation of SSPX with the Catholic Church I had no idea what a firestorm would erupt ,nor was I aware of some of the more recent statements of Bishop Fellay concerning Jews, the Ordinary Form of the Mass as ‘evil’, or even his statement that Pope Francis is a modernist [which he is not]. My only hesitation is whether these are accurate statements or not [I am hoping against hope that they are not, however the sources seem solid] I don’t usually say this, but, I am at a loss for words here and will end my post, with these words. I am very very sad.

  • How is it possible to ‘recongise’ the schismatic sspx to the Church when they do NOT accept a substantial part of the Magisterium of the Church. Recently Cardinal Muller declared that they are excommunicated for formal schism. See: They also cast doubt on the forthcoming canonizations of Blessed Pope John Paul II and say : “The only way out is to draw the double conclusion that follows: Karol Wojtyla cannot be canonized and the act that would proclaim his sanctity in front of the Church could only be a false canonization.” See: The schism sspx are absurd for the act of Canonisation is an Infallible act of the Extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. The exercise of infallibility comes only when the pope himself proclaims a person a saint. The proclamation is made in a Latin formula of which we offer an approximate translation:

    “In honor of the Holy Trinity, for the exaltation of the Catholic faith and the increase of the Christian life, with the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul and of Our Own, after long reflection, having invoked divine assistance many times and listened to the opinion of many of our Brothers in the Episcopate, We declare and define as Saint Blessed N. and inscribe his/her name in the list of the saints and establish that throughout the Church they be devoutly honored among the saints.” Which in April of this year Pope Francis will declared both Blessed Pope John XXIII and Blessed Pope John Paul II as Saints of the Universal Church. The sspx have distanced themselves not only from the Church but from reality as well. They are self centred and are afraid of loosing their ‘power’! Their concept of catholicism has stopped at the Medieval ages and has become a cystalisation of such.

  • Botolph, it correct in his comments. Fellay (the so called moderate!!!!!LOL’s) did not only call the Rite of Holy Mass which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, (soon to be canonised) NOT only as ‘evil’ but also as ‘illicit’ and illegitmate as well as comparing it to a ‘black mass’! How absurd they are (the sspx) ! Not only that, they also do not accept as valid the new sacramental rites espcially that of ordination as promulgated by Pope Paul VI, for they refused the ‘help’ of an elderly retired, now died, RC Bishop because he was ordained with the New Rite.

  • Botolph, is correct in his comments. Fellay (the so called moderate!!!!!LOL’s) did not only call the Rite of Holy Mass which was promulgated by Pope Paul VI, (soon to be canonised) NOT only as ‘evil’ but also as ‘illicit’ and illegitmate as well as comparing it to a ‘black mass’! How absurd they are (the sspx) ! Not only that, they also do not accept as valid the new sacramental rites especially that of ordination as lawfully promulgated by Pope Paul VI, for they refused the ‘help’ of an elderly retired, now died, RC Bishop because he was ordained with the New Rite. – See more at:

  • Dom Harold,

    I for one have certainly argued these points over time in other posts on this site. My fundamental point is that we as Catholics long for reconciliation and full communion of the SSPX. My last post simply was a comment on my sadness at the more recent statements of Bishop Fellay on various subjects obviously putting greater distance between the Catholic Church and the SSPX.

    The “Kairos” [graced time of opportunity] of the door of ecumenism [of which dialogue with SSPX is one (very important) aspect] is rapidly closing. The 1 billion Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church (of over 1 billion) have had this ‘moment’ since the 60’s. Yet the forces of ‘the world’ are rising against all of us-and we remain divided. Even more tragic we have such phenomenon as

    1) the Russian Orthodox Church questioning ‘primacy’ as constitutive of the Church alongside synodality. Its primary aim is to whittle down the role of the “Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople” in relation to the rest of Orthodoxy, however it obviously attacks the Bishop of Rome in the process. This move of the Russian Patriarchy undermines not simply Orthodox Catholic theological dialogue but actually Orthodox unity as well. This coupled with the growing new nationalism of the Russian Church in relation with President Putin is spilling over into the ecclesiastical life as well as political life of the neighbors of Russia. For example, there are three distinct Orthodox Patriarchs of the Ukraine (one under Moscow, the other in opposition to Moscow). The largest Eastern Catholic Church is the Greek Catholic Ukrainian Church found mostly in the western part of the Ukraine-see what I mean about the ecumenical kairos closing?

    2) While ‘the Church of England’ is (for the present) holding the line on the Apostolic Tradition on marriage between man and woman, they are rapidly moving toward the ordination of women bishops. The issues of Anglican orders was considered to be ‘problematic’ under Pope Leo XIII who considered them to be non-existent. Other ecclesial communities within the Anglican Communion have already gone this route ordaining woman priests and bishops [i..e. American Episcopal Church]. But when the Church of England ordains its first woman bishop, it will set a greater division than we already have-the greatest distance we have had in ‘500’ years.

    3) While the Anglican Ordinariate, especially in USA, is doing well, many Anglo-Catholics remain within the Church of England and are doing all sorts of maneuvers etc to remain Anglican while opposing many positions of the Anglican Communion and Church of England.
    The love their Anglo-Catholic identity but have what I would call an allergic reaction to “Rome”

    It is in this light that I mourn the seeming growing distance between the Church and SSPX. I see how voracious and yes even vicious the attacks from Sedevacantists are on the SSPX and wonder how long the SSPX can even survive as it is and in the ‘theological space’ it has attempted to carve out for itself. I see nothing but fragmentation ahead.

    But I mourn over the divisions that have developed over two thousand years of Church history. We once were all one: with Peter and the apostles, and now half are no longer in full communion and the propensity for division and disunity seems to be only growing I do not believe that this is of the Lord Who prayed: Ut unum sint

  • Oh, my, Dom Harold: So you want to take Card. Mueller’s statements as dogmatically infallible? You may want to ask him the following questions.
    First, ask him what his position is now on the matter of the perpetual virginity of the BVM.

    In his 2003 book “Catholic Dogmatic”(pub. in German), Mueller stated a directly heretical belief that the virginity of the BVM was not an actual physical fact but merely a symbolic concept (“[The virgin birth is] not so much concerned with specific physiological proprieties in the natural process of birth (such as the birth canal not having been opened, the hymen not being broken, or the absence of birth pangs), but with the healing and saving influence of grace of the Savior on human nature.”] This goes directly against what the Lateran Council of 649 declared stating such a position as anathematic. (Lateran Council/649: “If anyone does not properly and truly confess in accord with the holy Fathers, that the Holy Mother of God and ever Virgin and Immaculate Mary in the earliest of the ages conceived of the Holy Spirit without seed, namely, God the Word Himself specifically and truly, who was born of God the Father before all ages, and that she incorruptibly bore [Him], her virginity remaining indestructible even after His birth, let him be condemned.” )

    Ask the dear Kardinal about his position on the Eucharist: in his 2002 book (in German, my translation): “The Mass: Sources of Christian Living”, he absolutely stated that we should avoid using the term “body and blood” in reference to the Eucharist. It seems the dear Kardinal is offended that this might refer to the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ (he says it: you read it for yourself). The dear Kardinal wants only a symbolic memorial.

    Ask the Kardinal his definition of the Catholic Church: he includes other Christian Churches (he specifically cites the “Evangelical Churches”) as full members (2011 Address, Katholische Akademie in Bayern): “Thus, we as Catholic and Evangelical Christians are already united even in what we call the visible Church. Strictly speaking, there are not several Churches one beside the other — these are rather divisions and separations within the one people and house of God.” He went on to say that the other Christian churches who have denied a “valid episcopacy” are not denied full Catholic status (it is tortuous near-Ratzingerian speech, but that is where he was going on this matter), no doubt about it.

    This last position is of the utmost hypocrisy and contradiction in his personal opinon stating the condemnation of the SSPX as “schismatic”. This is not a “Katcholische Kardinal”, and I am only scratching the surface of this formally heretical teacher. So buy in on his positions, but as for me, if he quacks like a duck…he is a quack!

  • Firstly, Botolph, I do NOT believe for one second that the majority of Catholics wish for the ” reconciliation and full communion of the SSPX”. They have distanced themselves from the Church and from Reality. How could they reasonably be ‘recognised’ when they reject a substantial part of the Magisterium of the Church as expressed by the Second Vatican Council. Many of their priests have turned ‘sede vacantist’ and I could name at least 20, and not all french ones too, who are still with that society, incidently with no legal foundation in Canon Law at all. Although Pope Emeritus Benedict removed the excommunication because they were knowingly ordained bishops without an Apostolic Mandate from the Pope. In fact, Lefebvre submitted several names of candidates that he had in mind to be ordained bishops to Blessed Pope John Paul II and He expressly rejected each and every one of them ! So rather than being ordained bishops without an Apostolic Mandate, they were ordained contrary to one and to the Holy Father’s express wishes ! However, Cardinal Muller recently declared (in the reference that I have already given, Steve, that the sspx bishops are still excommunicated de facto, for formal schism. I am sure that before Cardinal Muller issued that Declaration, Pope Francis was duely informed of the fact. Remember that Cardinal Muller is Prefect of the CDF. Even when the original excommunication of them was dispensed with by Pope Emeritus Benedict, He specially said that the sspx bishops still lacked ‘a canonical mission in the Church’ ( See: ) and all of their priests are suspensed ‘a divinis’ if not also subject of excommunication, de facto, for formal schism, as well. See:
    This thread is about the schismatic sspx and to attempt to bring in other factors like Cardinal Muller’s theological positions, which incidently, I believe are misunderstood and misrepresented, are in fact ‘red herrings’ and have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread. The point of fact is that they (the sspx) were deemed schismatic and de facto, excommunicated and have no canonical authority or mission in the Church whatsoever. The thread is not about what Cardinal Muller believes, at all but about his official statement as Prefect of the CDF. Think about it, calling the Holy Mass ‘evil’, ‘illicit’ and illegitimate’ as ‘moderate’ Fellay has already done publicly, giving great scandal. Not including calling into doubt the forthcoming Canonisations of Blessed Pope John XXIII and Blessed John Paul II as ‘not valid’ and attempting to ‘repeat’ ordinations of priests ordained validity in the New Rite ! Clearly, both a sacrilegious and heretical act ! 3 into 2 does not go and that is what they are like, they just couldn’t be allowed to be ‘let loose’ on the catholic faithful, formenting heresy and schism. Now we have many other societies within the Church such as the Society of St Peter and many more that legitimately celebrate the extraordinary form.

  • The schismatic sspx attempt to use the ‘extraordinary form’ as a type of ‘hidden agenda’ or not so ‘hidden’ for everyone knows that their first year seminary students at Ecône and elsewhere study the spurious ‘Protocolos of the Elder’s of Zion,’ as one of their primary texts and this as everyone knows is highly, to say the least anti-Semitic. Their real agenda is a rejection of a substantial part of the Magisterium of the Church as expressed by the Second Vatican Council and all subsequent Reforms, each and every one ! So don’t fall for their strategy !!!!!

  • Dom Harold,

    You might have been reading this blog for some time but at least to me, you are a new poster here. I participate in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and am solidly in the Church following Vatican II. My point is that any and every Catholic should be desiring the return of the SSPX to full reconciliation and communion with the Church, just as we desire full communion to be restored with the Orthodox the Oriental Orthodox churches, and the ecclesial communities of the Reformation. That is what Christ prayed for at the Last Supper and has certainly been the mandate given the Church since Vatican II.

    I am saddened by what I see is the wider divide and greater obstacles that are developing (and of which I was somewhat unaware-my fault!). For example in anti-semitic statements I thought they all centered around the ‘renegade’ bishop Williamson and those following him. I still wonder if most SSPXers from America follow any anti-semitism [I see a distinction between American SSPX and the larger body]. Perhaps I am “too ecumenical” (sic) lol

    I still however mourn these divisions of Christ’s Church and pray for their healing. In the words of one man not considered to be all that ecumenical (lol) “Here I stand, I can do nothing else!

  • Botolph, Yes, I am new to this blog. And than goodness it doesn’t exercise cenorship even unknow like in North Korea like other ‘catholic blogs’ ! And I bet you know the ‘blogs’ I mean were people don’t have the courage of their convictions and use penn names ! Seeking full communion with the Orthodox churches etc is very diferente from seeking full commion with the sspx ! the later, the sspx is schismatic and schismatic of their own making for they seperated from the Church themselves while the Orthodox Churches ‘schism’ is almost a Thousand years old – and the Orthodox faithful cannot be held at fault for this of something happening all those years ago but the schism of the sspx is recent and of their own making, called formal or pernicious schism and maybe heresy too ! But the ‘Orthodox’ are not formal heretics or schismatics in the same sense as the sspx are. The ‘Orthodox’ although they may be technicial ‘schismatics’ are only ‘materially so’ (and cannot be held responsible for the schism hundreds of years ago) and not formal ones, through no fault of their own, quite unlike the sspx !

  • Williamson is not the only ‘renegade’ bishop within the sspx. But what about the Ecône 8 ! and Bishop Dolan and Sanborn and Kelly and many, many others. See:
    All were born from the schismatic sspx and Lefebvre is their father no matter what may be said ! LOL’s Williamson is still technicially within the sspx because that body has no authority whatsoever based on Canon Law. These are just a few examples of what is ‘breed’ from within the sspx !

  • Dom Harold,

    When a separation (leading toward?) a divorce is taking place, emotions run very high for those separating, as for the’children’ involved and forced to take sides. Some if not much of what you are stating comes from the present separating that is taking place. I sense you know Church history and know that back when the Eastern and Western Church were splitting the emotions ran very high over such important issues as whether priests wore beards, the bread used for the Eucharist had yeast in it or not, as well as whether Mass was celebrated in Latin or Greek. When I first began reading the history of the Anglican Reformation (which happened simultaneously with Henry’s break with Rome but are not the same thing), I was amazed at how many “Catholic Bishops” had no problem signing the declaration that Henry was indeed supreme head of the Church of England. I was also stunned at the vehemence of Latimer, Ridley and Cranmer were against the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Things are always heated and messy when the divorce is happening.

    In the case of the SSPX I was hoping that the estrangement might end before full divorce settles in for members and children

  • Botolph, “In the case of the SSPX I was hoping that the estrangement might end before full divorce settles in for members and children,” Well, the ‘estrangement’ is of their own making and I believe its ‘members’ are those that the Church could maybe well do without – Ideologising the extraordinary form (someone which Pope Francis has spoken so strongly against, I believe) and counting their rosaries during Mass and such the like. But the ‘problems’ run much deeper than their ‘nostalgic’ desire for the ‘vetus ordo’ but at the roots is a rejection of the Reforms of the Second Vatican Council, a substantial part of the Magisterium of the Church. Perhaps they, (the sspx and their followers) will be the ‘old catholics’ of today and certainly of ‘tomorrow’. But as I understand it and read what Williamson had to say, many of their followers (the sspx) are leaving them in droves, many of which are going to were they can get the ‘extraordinary form’ and are not interested at all in (the sspx) struggles for ‘power’ and for the ‘hearts and minds of ‘their’ people ! That explains why Fellay and Company are now adopting a ‘hard line’ approach in an attempt to dissuade those presently leaving in droves ! After all they need money for their ‘missions’! ‘Moderate’ Fellay calling the ‘New Mass’ as ‘evil’, ‘illicit’ and ‘illegitimate.’

  • Dom Harold,

    You have a certain ‘animus’ towards the SSPX, that I cannot quite put my finger on, but it is there. I do not share that ‘animus’ but I do share your consternation concerning the positions etc of the SSPX which seem to be becoming more complex and dare I say ‘panicky’?

    I do believe that Pope Benedict’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificem was not only only a great act of pastoral charity but brilliant on several levels. No longer can it be claimed that those loving the Tridentine Mass could not find their home in the Catholic Church. In two distinct pastoral moves Benedict broadened the understanding of the Latin Rite to include both forms (Ordinary and Extraordinary) of the Roman Rite but also the Anglican Usage (Rite?) as well as the Ambrosian Rite which calls for a deeper appreciation of the Latin Rite and relativizing the tiring arguments about the correct form of the Latin Rite (often confused soley with the Roman Rite) with the Roman Rite

    May those loving the Tridentine form of the Roman Rite, the Extraordinary Form increase and prosper, with the caveat that we who participate in the Ordinary Form are quite content in the Ordinary Form etc. Arguments over the two forms of the Rite are as productive and needless as people arguing over whether the Roman Rite was better than the Melkite-Byzantine Rite etc. Basta! (Enough! in Italian)

  • Botolph,
    The motu próprio, Summorum Pontificum of Pope Emeritus Benedict. Well that is another matter. But once thought to be ‘universal right’ is no longer so ! As I sure you are well aware of the Franciscans of the Immaculate, largely being ‘prohibited’ from celebrating the ‘vetus ordo’ because of their ‘cypto-Lefebvrian’ ‘backward’ views unless they have special permission from Fr. Volpi who was appointed by Pope Francis to oversee and put that Order back onto the ‘right track’. A motu próprio it is and so can be changed, or even abrogated completely. I have no doubt for one minute that at any time the ‘extraordinary form’ is used in any kind of ‘derisive’ manner to cast doubt or as a ‘flag ship’ against the continuing reforms of the Second Vatican Council the motu próprio may indeed be further restricted. The point of fact is that the celebration of the ‘vetus ordo’ is no longer ‘a right’ (as is shown in the Order of FMI) but rather is a ‘concession’, which is granted for those who cannot easily adopt, through their age, for example, to the Ordinary of the Mass, which is that of Pope Paul VI. A concession given can also be withdrawn ! I find it difficult, like the Holy Father, to undersatnd how one who is a child of Vatican II could adopt to the ‘extraordinary form’ !

  • but rather is a ‘concession’, which is granted for those who cannot easily adopt, through their age, for example, to the Ordinary of the Mass
    This is absurd. The majority of people that I see at a typical EF Mass, including myself, weren’t even born at the time of the Second Vatican Council.

  • Dom:

    I’m no SSPX-er.

    I mistakenly thought the Latin Mass to be ‘universal right’ even included in VII.

    I remember the Latin Mass. If you didn’t “know” the Latin you followed it all word-by-word in a prayer book. My understanding is that the English Mass translation (Kumbaya!) was the only one that was untrue. That’s why Pope B recently had it corrected.

    Earlier this afternoon, I closed my office door and quietly sat “counting” my Rosaries.

    Have you got a problem with that? Can you recite the Apostle’s Creed or the Hail Holy Queen, or the prayers before and after? Can you name or explain the Mysteries of the Holy Rosary that we meditate obn as we “count”?

    Regarding the outlawry of the SSPX and the Latin Mass. I think it reflects deficiencies of charity and mercy. Or, is it evidence of human nature? They naturally fear and loathe those whom they have injured.

    But, “Who am I to judge?”

  • Dom Harold,

    While I agree a Motu Proprio can be changed or even abrogated, a rubricon of sorts has been crossed by Rome. While the fundamental desire is for the two forms to inform each other-(which will take time: generations etc I believe) I believe what we are witnessing is a widening of self understanding within the Latin Rite. We always have had at least two different forms of the Latin Rite (Roman and Ambrosian) and before Trent a wide variety of forms of the Latin Rite (almost all tracing their origins from the Roman Rite [for example even the Tridentine Mass is not the original form of the Roman Rite; it is a synthesis of the Gallican and Roman Rite]- now we are returning to a certain plurality within the Latin Rite. Plurality does not mean (and does not have to mean) division

    If some who participate in the Extraordinary Form begin militating against-for the sake of argument-‘ecumenism’, it will be the ideology that will be ‘expunged’ and not the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. Now it might take some time for those coming to the Extraordinary Form to become fully onboard with the Church on some issues such as ecumenism, I do not see them given ‘orthodoxy tests’ as they dip their fingers into the holy water. We do not do that in the Ordinary Form, do we? God only knows how many would pass muster! Might be different issues-for example not holding to Humanae Vitae or militating for women’s orders or gay marriage. See what is extremely important here is to differentiate faith from ideology (not only for the more traditional but for the mainline and liberal aspects of the Church) Faith is not ideology and cannot be reduced to ‘easy formulas’. Even the doctrines and dogmas which are in formulaic form cannot be reduced to ‘easy formulas’

    Dom, I am 63. I served the Tridentine Mass and participate in the Ordinary Form. I am not sure how old you are. But I do not think love for the Extraordinary Form can be relegated to the old or nostalgic (any more than we who participate in the Ordinary Form all want guitar Masses singing cum bye ya-I won’t even touch the sacriligious ‘clown Masses’ etc) These are caricatures. As Paul Zummo mentions. many young people find a home in the Extraordinary Form. If it is not for an ideological reason (i.e. over against Rome etc) then may they increase. Over time, I believe there will be more cross-pollinating of the two forms but for now they need to be allowed to breathe and live-without fear or ‘threat’.

    This is what it really means to be Catholic

  • Well, Mr Shaw, there we are. Most people I know ‘attend’ a celebration or two out of sheer curiosity and that’s about it. The ICEL translation ‘problem’ did not effect the Mass in the slightest. Many priests I know still use the english missal prior to the minor corrections that were made and prefer it too ! This is not of consequence.
    The problem with the ‘vetus ordo’ and obviously it is not your case, is that it is used by many who also reject the Conciliar Reforms and this is the real danger that lurks. Those ‘from within’ rejecting the Conciliar Reforms’ ! And by the way I know latin quite well and the ‘vetus ordo’ like the back of my hand, without a bi-lingual missal either but since I am around 12 years younger than you, I truely am a (young) ‘child’ of Vatican II and for the life of me cannot understand someone of my age, (‘I’m getting old’) and those much younger adopting to the extraordinary form. And that’s it !

  • Sorry Mr Shaw I confused you with Botolph as regarding my age !

  • These are ‘the children of Vatican II’ and their physical age doesn’t matter, preparing for Our Holy Father’s visit: (Watch it) It was fantastic !

  • T Shaw

    Next time you ‘count your rosaries’ pray a decade for me, please. Divisions within the Church are fundamentally the failure of charity and then and only then an ideological proposition that is confused with Faith.

    I am going to shock some reading this perhaps but I need to say it. Every day I read what is going on in the Middle East, I think of the first real split in the Church (Arianism was a real substantial heresy and cannot be seen as simply a split in the Church) which took place within twenty years of each other. The “Liberals” broke with the Council of Ephesus on the One Person, the Eternal Son in the flesh, basically too proud to reintegrate their position [emphasizing the distinction even separation of the divine and human in Christ] on the Incarnation within the authoritative teaching of the Church-we now call them Nestorians [Assyrians are their present day name]. Twenty years later however, the conservative faction broke with the Church at Chalcedon. They thought they had won at Ephesus (when it was the Church and truth that had won) but now thought the Church under Pope Leo was moving toward the liberals (Nestorians) in its teaching on the two natures of Christ. They became known as the Monophysites (Miaphysites), the Coptic and Armenian Orthodox are the present day descendants of the ‘conservatives’

    My point is both emphasized the truth found in the two Councils of the Church. Both were too proud to be reintegrated into the Catholic Church because they wanted to stick with their ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ points. The ‘liberals’ moved on into Iraq, Iran, along the Silk Road all the way to western China. The ‘conservatives’ set up rival hierarchies in the countries of the near Middle East. The division was tragic.

    When Islamicist Arabs bent on conquest by the sword swept out of Arabia, divided Christianity in the Middle East lay before them. It took no time for them to eradicate Christianity in Iran and along the countries like Kazakstan etc along the Silk Road. In the meantime the ‘conservatives’ saw the Arabs as ‘liberators’ against the ‘bad’ Byzantine Empire. The Christians of Alexandria [Egypt] opened the gates for the Arab forces It took longer for them to pummel the ‘conservatives’ into submission [dhimmitude] but the Islamic Arabs succeeded. These ‘conservatives’ ended up in the Armenian holocaust by the Islamic Turks at the beginning of the 20th century and we are hearing about ‘the Coptic Christians’ (Egyptians) today in the news.

    Can we ever learn from history as well as Tradition? Schism is always a failure to love just as heresy is a failure to believe.

  • Botolph,

    You are very perceptive and have put everything in a ‘nut shell’ about the schismatic sspx: “Schism is always a failure to love just as heresy is a failure to believe.” Unfortunately, the sspx suffer from both !

  • Botolph writes, “…I am saddened by what I see is the wider divide and greater obstacles that are developing (and of which I was somewhat unaware-my fault!). For example in anti-semitic statements I thought they all centered around the ‘renegade’ bishop Williamson and those following him….”
    I was not aware of the October 13th Canadian conference either and still am not clear what Bishop Fellay said. If he did attack and condemn the Jewish people and/if he referred to the Novus Ordo Mass as evil and the pope as a modernist, he was very wrong to do so.
    There are 569 priests among the SSPX who acknowledge Francis as Pope; they and the SSPX laity should be reconciled with Roman Catholic Church and should not be prejudiced by improvident statements attributed to their bishop. I believe Our Lord Jesus Christ wants his children united.
    Botolph, your imput has been very charitable, just and evenhanded; your refusal to condemn is admirable and very Catholic. Thank you.

  • Slainte,

    You are very welcome. The Lord has placed a burning passion within me for full communion, peace and charity in and of the Church. Every time I think of the 1 billion Christians, brothers and sisters in the Lord not in full communion with us and not able to participate in the same Sacrament of Unity and Charity-it literally tears me apart. I feel like Jeremiah in a sense. Not that the Church will crumble, etc but Christians do not realize the hour we live in. There is an inexorable force moving toward us and the divisions will not help but only harm us. The Church founded by Christ on Peter and the Apostles now pope and bishops in union with him will survive, I have no doubt of that-but oh we are not reading the signs of the times, and the failure of Christian charity and so many going off in so many directions ‘believing this or that’ (like Jerusalem’s many idols—idols:: ideologies)-it tears me apart. And the coldness of so many in the Church (whatever rite they participate in) is shocking. I probably should stop, but you can see it really sears the soul

  • Botolph, what is moving toward us is the spirit of division whose head, God tells us, will be crushed by the woman…Our Blessed Mother.
    I will pray the Rosary tonight and will offer prayers for you; your task is not an easy one.
    I hope God knows you by your pseudonym. : )

  • Slainte, You must be from Ireland like me !!!
    You shouldn’t expect any consistency at all in the schismatic sspx, they are all running around chasing their own tails. Schismatics and heretics are never consistent and the same holds so for them. Most were ‘trained’ at Ecône by self educated ‘professors’ hardly with an academic degree, even a primary one ! They attack one another as Williamson attacks Fellay and as both Fellay and Williamson and the others attack Our Holy Father ! They confuse the simple people who only really wish to attend sometimes the ‘vetus ordo’ and I doubt if most of their ‘faithful’ really know their (the sspx) absurd anti-catholic theological positions. Even some people writing in this blog aren’t so sure what they (the sspx) really teach- formentors of heresy and schism, and that’s all !

  • Slainte

    Very perceptive! The ‘inexorable force’ is indeed the Ancient Serpent [see Revelations 12] her cannot touch ‘the Woman’ [Mary/Church as a whole] but seeks out and persecutes her children. It will be in a particular ‘incarnation’ as it always has been, but we are in for another full blown frontal confrontation with this ‘force’. Division just like sin is “Devil’s Food”. Now you can see where this is going.

    Thank you for the prayers. I truly appreciate them.

  • Dom Harold: “To attempt to bring in other factors like Cardinal Gerhard Muller’s theological positions, which incidently, I believe are misunderstood and misrepresented, are in fact ‘red herrings’ and have nothing whatsoever to do with this thread.”

    My, this is a convenient avoidance of fact, the “poor misunderstood” Kardinal—Dom Harold hasnt read him, I fear—because if Dom Harold faced the facts he would be forced to admit that the dear Kardinal has spoken heretically and repeatedly so, and is not one to be able to adequately define the Cathoic Faith. How can he therefore define schism (by the way, in contradiction to what Card. Dario Castrillon Hoyos’ years of research on the matter concluded with regard to the SSPX)?

    Dom Harold especially avoids the fact that Muller recognizes other Christian churches as Catholic and “in union” (Muller specifically spoke of the “evangelical churches”) , even those who deny a valid episcopacy, then by what principle of reason or logic or law or quackery does Muller declare the SSPX “schismatic”? This isnt relevant? How convenient.

    Don’t worry, Dom Harold: I wont bother you any further with facts that one prefers to deny. The best response is to laugh. And laugh and laugh and laugh. What tomfoolery.

  • Dom Harald…
    I am Irish American and spend a fair amount of time in the West of Eire.
    I think your animus against the SSPX is misplaced. While its leadership does appear to have become seriously skewed in its wrongheaded conclusions, there are many SSPX priests and lay people who honor and preserve in continuity the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.
    Interestingly, one of SSPX Ecône’s (Switzerland) seminarians Archbishop Georg Ganswein serves both Pope Francis and Emeritus Pope Benedict XVI as a trusted personal assistant. see, (quite a nice website btw : )
    Perhaps through Absp Ganswein’s diplomacy an amicable resolution can be reached for SSPX and the Church.
    Slán agat

  • It’s an unofficial website and he was never ever been at Ecône at all. All the priests of the sspx that I know told me the story is just not true. Anyone can put up a website. And this one is not his. It’s bogus !

    More heresy I received notices about only now from the schismatic sspx. Canonisation is na Infallible act of the Extraordinary Magisterium and they (the sspx) say that the forthvoming canonisation of Blessed Pope John Paul II will not be valid. How absurd they are.

    I presume you are from Galway, so beautful !

  • slainte,

    1’m sorry but this is not what Cardinal Muller, the Prefect of the CDF has declared. He declares them officially in schism and excommunicated too !- O U T S I D E T H E
    C H U R C H.- Couldn’t be much clearer than that ! Extra Ecclesiam !

  • Dom Harold…
    My family is not from Contae na Gaillimhe although it is indeed beautiful…in particular Connemara and Dun Aengus on Inishmore (Aran Islands)…
    Back on point: If not Econe, which seminary did Absp Gänswein attend?
    Some additional background information:
    “…Gänswein was born in Riedern am Wald, Waldshut, Baden-Württemberg, a village in the Black Forest and part of Ühlingen-Birkendorf municipality in Germany, as the eldest son of Albert Gänswein, a blacksmith and his wife Gertrud. He has two brothers and two sisters.[3]
    Gänswein initially began his seminary training at the International Seminary of Saint Pius X in Switzerland.[4] He has said in interviews that he decided to become a priest in 1974 when he was 18. But it was not until two years later, at the age of 20, that he began his seminary training for the Archdiocese of Freiburg, the local church for which he was ordained on 31 May 1984 at 28.[5]

    Upon his ordination, Gänswein dedicated himself to rigorous academic activities. He received his J.C.D. degree from Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich in 1993. In an interview, Gänswein describes the two years he spent in the Black Forest as a curate (assistant pastor) after his ordination to the priesthood. In 1993, he wrote his dissertation in Munich about Ecclesiology according to the Second Vatican Council…..”

    Source 1:
    Source 2:

  • Dom Harold wrote, “….1′m sorry but this is not what Cardinal Muller, the Prefect of the CDF has declared. He declares them officially in schism and excommunicated too..”
    On what provision of Canon Law or other Authority did Archbishop Muller rely upon when he declared SSPX schismatic in December 2013?

  • Dom Harold writes, “…he was never ever been at Ecône at all. All the priests of the sspx that I know told me the story is just not true…”
    This source suggests otherwise:
    “…Gänswein was born in Riedern am Wald, Waldshut, Baden-Württemberg, a village in the Black Forest and part of Ühlingen-Birkendorf municipality in Germany, as the eldest son of Albert Gänswein, a blacksmith and his wife Gertrud. He has two brothers and two sisters.[3]
    Gänswein initially began his seminary training at the International Seminary of Saint Pius X in Switzerland.[4] He has said in interviews that he decided to become a priest in 1974 when he was 18. But it was not until two years later, at the age of 20, that he began his seminary training for the Archdiocese of Freiburg, the local church for which he was ordained on 31 May 1984 at 28.[5]
    Upon his ordination, Gänswein dedicated himself to rigorous academic activities. He received his J.C.D. degree from Ludwig Maximilians University of Munich in 1993. In an interview, Gänswein describes the two years he spent in the Black Forest as a curate (assistant pastor) after his ordination to the priesthood. In 1993, he wrote his dissertation in Munich about Ecclesiology according to the Second Vatican Council….”

  • Now it’s Cardinal Muller (he was created a cardinal a week ago). His authority comes directly from Pope Francis as he (Cardinal Muller) is Prefect of the Congregation of Faith and Doctrine. Pope Francis is the Supreme Authority of the Church even though the sspx would like to be in his place ! And that’s it, all in a ‘nut shell.’

  • Methinks Dom’s understanding of Papar and Episcopate authority is, erm, a bit lacking.

    That said, this discussion has now moved beyond the point of usefulness.

Rubio on Harkin, Cuba and Venezuela

Tuesday, February 25, AD 2014

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  Marco Rubio (R.Fla.) had been listening to Tom Harkin (D.Ia.), pro-abort “Catholic”, give a speech about his trip to Cuba in which he managed to completely ignore Communist oppression, and Rubio decided to reply.  It is a keeper.  Here is the text of the speech:

A few moments ago, the body was treated to a report from the senator from Iowa about his recent trip to Cuba. Sounded like he had a wonderful trip visiting, what he described as, a real paradise. He bragged about a number of things that he learned on his trip to Cuba that I’d like to address briefly. He bragged about their health care system, medical school is free, doctors are free, clinics are free, their infant mortality rate may be even lower than ours. I wonder if the senator, however, was informed, number one, that the infant mortality rate of Cuba is completely calculated on figures provided by the Cuban government. And, by the way, totalitarian communist regimes don’t have the best history of accurately reporting things. I wonder if he was informed that before Castro, Cuba, by the way, was 13th in the whole world in infant mortality. I wonder if the government officials who hosted him, informed him that in Cuba there are instances reported, including by defectors, that if a child only lives a few hours after birth, they’re not counted as a person who ever lived and therefore don’t count against the mortality rate.

I wonder if our visitors to Cuba were informed that in Cuba, any time there is any sort of problem with the child in utero they are strongly encouraged to undergo abortions, and that’s why they have an abortion rate that skyrockets, and some say, is perhaps the highest the world. I heard him also talk about these great doctors that they have in Cuba. I have no doubt they’re very talented. I’ve met a bunch of them. You know where I met them? In the United States because they defected. Because in Cuba, doctors would rather drive a taxi cab or work in a hotel than be a doctor. I wonder if they spoke to him about the outbreak of cholera that they’ve been unable to control, or about the three-tiered system of health care that exists where foreigners and government officials get health care much better than that that’s available to the general population.

I also heard him speak about baseball and I know that Cubans love baseball, since my parents were from there and I grew up in a community surrounded by it. He talked about these great baseball players that are coming from Cuba — and they are. But I wonder if they informed him — in fact, I bet you they didn’t talk about those players to him because every single one of those guys playing in the Major Leagues defected. They left Cuba to play here.

He also talked about how people would come up to him in the streets and not a single person said anything negative about America. Nobody came up to him wagging their fingers saying, ‘You Americans and your embargo is hurting us.’ I’m glad to hear that. Because everyone who wants to lift the embargo is constantly telling us that the Castros use that to turn the people against us. So obviously, that’s not true. So I’m glad to hear confirmation of what I already knew to be true. I heard about their wonderful literacy rate, how everyone in Cuba knows how to read. That’s fantastic. Here’s the problem: they can only read censored stuff. They’re not allowed access to the Internet. The only newspapers they’re allowed to read are Granma or the ones produced by the government.

I wish that someone on that trip would have asked the average Cuban, ‘With your wonderful literacy skills, are you allowed to read The New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or any blog, for that matter?’ Because the answer’s, ‘No.’ So it’s great to have literacy, but if you don’t have access to the information, what’s the point of it? So I wish somebody would have asked about that on that trip. We heard about Mr. Gross, who is not in jail. He’s not a prisoner. He is a hostage. He is a hostage. And in the speech I heard a moment ago, I heard allusions to the idea that maybe we should — he didn’t say it, but I know the language, I know the code in this — that maybe there should be a spy swap. Here’s the problem: Mr. Gross was not a spy. You know what his crime was, if that’s what you can call it? He went to Cuba to hand out satellite radios to the Jewish community. But, we’re glad to hear that the Cubans are so nice to him that they let him walk 10,000 steps a day and do pull-ups and they let him build a necklace out of bottle cap tops. Very nice of them to allow him to do those things. How generous.

I wonder if anybody asked about terrorism, because Cuba is a state sponsor of terrorism. I wonder if anybody asked about the fact that, just a few months ago, a North Korean ship going from Cuba to North Korea was stopped in the Panama Canal and it contained items in violation of international sanctions against a government in North Korea that, a report just came out confirming what we already knew, has death camps and prison camps. And the Cubans are allowing them to evade these sanctions. Did that come up in any of the wonderful conversations in this socialist paradise in the Caribbean? I bet you it didn’t.

Let me tell you what the Cubans are really good at, because they don’t know how to run their economy, they don’t know how to build, they don’t know how to govern a people. What they are really good at is repression. What they are really good at is shutting off information to the Internet and to radio and television and social media. That’s what they’re really good at. And they’re not just good at it domestically, they’re good exporters of these things. And you want to see exhibit A, B, C and D? I’m going to show them to you right now. They have exported repression in real-time, in our hemisphere, right now.

Let me show you the first slide here. This gentleman here is the former mayor of a municipality in Caracas. His name is Leopoldo Lopez. And this is the National Guard of Venezuela pulling him into an armored truck last week. You know why? Because he’s protesting against the government. He’s protesting against the government of Venezuela, which are puppets of Havana, completely infiltrated by Cubans and agents from Havana. Not agents, openly, foreign military affairs officials involved in Venezuela. You know why? Because the Venezuela government is giving them cheap oil and free oil, in exchange for help during these sorts of repressions. So here he is, he’s sitting in jail right now because he’s protesting against the government. He’s sitting in jail right now.

So here’s the next slide. This is Genesis Carmona. She’s a beauty queen and a student in a city called Valencia. She’s on that motorcycle because the government in Venezuela and the thug, these so-called civilian groups that they’ve armed — another export from Cuba, a model the Cubans follow — they shot her in the head. She died last week. This is the government that the Cubans support. Not just verbally, not just emotionally, but with training and tactics. This is who they export — this is what they do. And she’s dead. And this is her being taken on a motorcycle to the hospital where they were unable to save her life because she was shot in the head by Venezuelan security forces.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Rubio on Harkin, Cuba and Venezuela

  • God bless M. Rubio. Thanks for posting this.

  • Yesterday, Instapundit quoted Michael Totten on Cuba: “It’s no mystery why so many want out. Cuba’s human rights record is by far the most dismal in the Western Hemisphere, and as a predictable consequence has triggered one of the largest refugee crises in the hemisphere. I can think of nothing positive to say about Fulgencio Batista, the tyrant who preceded Castro, but at least he didn’t drive people en masse into the sea. Faint praise, to be sure, but I can’t say even that much about Castro’s.” Actually, “he wasn’t Castro,” is pretty high comparative praise.

  • Hugo Chavez was a bootlicker to Castro. For what it’s worth, almost every Latin American leftist, from each and every Latin American country, is a bootlicker of Castro. Politicians, lawyers, university professors, “executive directors” of organizations with fancy names, media types, authors….and not a few Catholic priests…have idolized the Communist in Havana. Castro has his fans here, too. Always has. Hollywood actors, the modern Democrat Party, Mikey Moore, PBS, university professors, Herbert Mathews of the New York Slimes – Hell’s Bible, as it is so appropriately put by the brilliant Father Zuhlsdorf.

    Let’s thank our neighbors to the north, Canada, for their FULL diplomatic relations and free travel for Canadians to and from Cuba. The Cuban tourism ministry buys advertising in Canada. I saw it on a big billboard in downtown Toronto in 2007 and along the dasher boards a while ago at the Bell Centre in Montreal.

    I pointed this out before – the outstanding book, “Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot”, written by Mario Vargas Llosa, is a must read. I have read that book and the outstanding book Epic of Latin America, written by USC professor John David Crow.

    Every “revolutionary movement” in Latin America since the 1960s has Castro’s fingerprints all over it. The Sendero Luminoso, the FARC, whom our present Secretary of State and Democrat Party jagoff John FARC Kerry apologized for, the Sandinistas, Chavez’ Bolivarian Circles, Evo Morales in Bolivia….you name it. Castro is somehow, in some way, supporting it….and the US government, who sends or sent troops to fight in Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc….lets Castro stay in power.

    Castro is providing sanctuary to a convicted New Jersey cop killer, Joanne Chismard, and Robert Vesco, another fugitive.

    I wish Reagan or Bush or Dubya would have blockaded Cuba from the sea and from the air. They could have crushed Castro in a week.

    I traveled to Miami the day Elian Gonzalez was seized from his uncle. The Cuban community was quiet – they did most of their ranting on local radio talk shows. Yet, the national media made it look like the Cuban exile community were a bunch of nuts ready to riot. Wasn’t true – I was there. PBS did a hit piece on the Cuban exiles in 2000. Some Miami Anglo-Saxon locals were interviewed and complained about “losing” their city. A minister of a black church said that they (the Cuban exiles) should just go back to Cuba. You see, the Cubans, they ain’t liked by the favored groups (examples are begrudged blacks, homosexuals, Muslims and other Latin American immigrants).

    I sympathize with the Cubans. Their homeland is ruled by a tyrant and generally aren’t liked so much in the USA. I remember the Polock jokes that Archie Bunker rattled off during the early and mid 1970s on All In The Family. Norman Lear, pansy ass leftist that he is, made Polock jokes cool and I put up with it as a kid at school for years. Poland, too, was ruled by tyrants and before John Paul II, Polish = stupid for a lot of Americans.

    The biological solution will soon complete its work on the Castro brothers – not for a while yet, as their old man lived to be almost 90 – but it will happen. I hope that there are people in the Cuban government who see the error of their ways and will change things when they are gone, because nothing will change for as long as they live. Once the fear is gone, and when the Castro boys have assumed “cuarto” temperature it will be gone, the Cuban people will be harder to suppress.

  • Pingback: Ukrainian Archbishop: Civil War Danger Not Passed - God & Caesar

PopeWatch: Burke on the Francis Effect

Tuesday, February 25, AD 2014





This is interesting.  Raymond Cardinal Burke has an article in  L’Osservatore Romano on The Francis Effect.  Father Z provides the commentary:

During a recent visit to the United States, I was repeatedly impressed by how deeply Pope Francis has penetrated the national conversation on a whole range of issues. His special gift of expressing direct care for each and all has resonated strongly with many in my homeland.

At the same time, I noted a certain questioning about whether Pope Francis has altered or is about to alter the Church’s teaching on a number of the critical moral issues of our time, [I get a lot of this. A stewardess on a flight the other day gave me that song and dance.] for example, the teaching on the inviolable dignity of innocent human life, and the integrity of marriage and the family. Those who questioned me in the matter were surprised to learn that the Holy Father has in fact affirmed the unchanging and unchangeable truths of the Church’s teaching on these very questions. They had developed a quite different impression as a result of the popular presentation [read: mainstream media] of Pope Francis and his views.

Clearly, the words and actions of the Holy Father require, on our part, a fitting tool of interpretation, [read: hermeneutic] if we are to understand correctly what he intends to teach. My friend and colleague at the Dignitatis Humanae Institute, Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, put it this way in a recent article in this newspaper: “The Holy Father instructs with his words, but effectively teaches through his actions. This is his uniqueness and his magnetism” (L’Osservatore Romano, English edition, [ore] 13 December 2013, p. 7). In other words, Pope Francis is exercising strongly his gift for drawing near to all people of good will. It is said that when he manifests his care for a single person, as he does so generously whenever the occasion presents itself, all understand that he has the same care for each of them.

With regard to his manner of addressing the critical issues, the Holy Father himself has described his approach, when he stated: “We cannot insist only [get that?] on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods…. I have not spoken much about these things, and I was reprimanded for that. But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the Church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the Church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time” (“The Pope’s Interview”, [TBI™] ore, 25 September 2013, p. 14). In other words, the Holy Father wants, first, to convey his love of all people so that his teaching on the critical moral questions may be received in that context. [When Francis uttered the infamous “Who am I to judge?”, it was in a context.  HERE] But his approach cannot change the duty of the Church and her shepherds to teach clearly and insistently about the most fundamental moral questions of our time. I think, for instance, of the Holy Father’s words to the participants in the second annual March for Life in Rome on 12 May of last year, or of his Twitter message to the participants in the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C., on 22 January.


In a similar way, Pope Francis has reaffirmed the Church’s perennial teaching on the indissolubility of marriage, [get that?] as well as the practical importance of the Church’s canonical discipline in seeking the truth regarding the claim of the nullity of a marriage. I think in particular of his words to the Plenary Assembly of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura: “It is always necessary to keep in mind the effective connection between the action of the Church which evangelizes and the action of the Church which administers justice. The service of justice is an undertaking of the apostolic life…. I encourage all of you to persevere in the pursuit of a clear and upright exercise of justice in the Church, in response to the legitimate desires that the faithful address to their Pastors, especially when they trustingly request that their own status be authoritatively clarified” (ore, 15 November 2013, p. 8).

[So, Your Eminence, what is Francis doing?] Pope Francis has clearly reaffirmed the Church’s moral teaching, in accord with her unbroken tradition. What, then, does he want us to understand about his pastoral approach in general? It seems to me that he first wishes to have people set aside every obstacle which they imagine to prevent them from responding with faith. He wants, above all, that they see Christ and receive His personal invitation to be one with Him in the Church.

The Holy Father, it seems to me, wishes to pare back every conceivable obstacle people may have invented to prevent themselves from responding to Jesus Christ’s universal call to holiness. We all know individuals who say things like: “Oh, I stopped going to Church because of the Church’s teaching on divorce”, or “I could never be Catholic because of the Church’s teaching on abortion or on homosexuality”. The Holy Father is asking them to put aside these obstacles and to welcome Christ, without any excuse, into their lives. Once they come to understand the immeasurable love of Christ, alive for us in the Church, they will be able to resolve whatever has been troubling them about the Church, His Mystical Body, and her teaching.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to PopeWatch: Burke on the Francis Effect

  • I sense that the Holy Father is a man of great personal holiness and generally wants to reach people who feel that they are marginalized and let them know that God loves them and that Jesus Christ’s teachings are for everyone.

    The Holy Father’s apparent disdain for Traditional Catholicism turns off many who would be his biggest supporters. I know Richard + Williamson was in his archdiocese and + Williamson is hard to take for most Catholics, but we all aren’t + Williamson.

  • Pingback: PopeWatch and Pope Francis -