Indoctrination

Monday, August 31, AD 2015

 

I have always been pretty conservative.  Well, at least since the age of seven when I backed Barry Goldwater in 1964.  In college I often clashed with liberal professors.  I recall one education professor who went off on a leftist rant in class.  I stood it as long as I could and then yelled out, “That is garbage sir, pure garbage!”  The shocked look on my classmates was classic!  He graded my work in the course as an A anyway.  I have to hand it to all the liberal professors that I battled, that none of them downgraded me because of my stances.  Judging from the following at Instapundit, times have changed for the worse:

 

THEY OUGHT TO BE FIRED: It’s back to school time, and progressive professors at Washington State University are gearing up to suppress speech they personally find “offensive,” such as saying “illegal alien,” using the terms “male” or “female,” or failing to “defer” to the “experiences of people of color”:

In his “Introduction to Multicultural Literature,” for example, professor John Streamas informs students in his syllabus that he expects white students who want “to do well in this class” to “reflect” their “grasp of history and social relations” by “deferring to the experiences of people of color.”

The taxpayer-funded critical studies professor also writes in his syllabus that Glenn Beck is a member of a group of “insensitive whites.”

Streamas, who obtained his Ph.D. at Bowling Green State University, is most notable because he told a student who supports limits on illegal immigration: “You are just a white shitbag.” . . .

A second Washington State faculty member, Selena Lester Breikss, warns students in her “Women & Popular Culture” course this semester that they risk “failure for the semester” if they use the terms “male” or “female.” . . .

“Students will come to recognize how white privilege functions in everyday social structures and institutions,” Breikss adds.

Finally, not to be outdone, Washington State American studies professor Rebecca Fowler similarly warns students that she will lower their grades if they utter the phrase “illegal alien” at any time in her “Introduction to Comparative Ethnic Studies” course.

The taxpayer-funded Fowler proclaims that she bans students from using the phrase “illegal alien” because the Associated Press stylebook “no longer sanctions the term.”

The Associated Press stylebook is purely an advisory publication for professional journalists. It has no force of law whatsoever. . . . Public university students who dare to use the phrase “illegal alien” “will suffer a deduction of one point per incident,” Fowler warns.

Apparently these sensitive little snowflake professors cannot tolerate any disagreement. For their failure to tolerate a diversity of views and engage in actual teaching (rather than proselytizing), they should be terminated for “cause.” Parents and students should avoid this university at all costs, unless/until the University’s administration takes appropriate disciplinary action to ensure that all viewpoints are welcomed, even those that are “offensive.” It’s called “free speech,” and yes, it protects offensive speech, too.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Indoctrination

  • This why Trump’s numbers are so large. He’s too rich to care about anyone’s opinion….and its refreshing. He’s the opposite of political correctness though as months go on he might offend so many groups ( short people e.g. via his Rand Paul quip..” I’ve had it up to here ( hand at mid chest ) with you”)….that they’ll be no group left he hasn’t insulted. Or people will just vote for him anyway as a four year vacation from under-disclosing pols.

  • Free speech for the professors but not for the students, I assume? Is free speech a goal, or a means to an end in academia? Whatever happened to the lifelong search for truth?
    Once that was the purpose of education and now truth has been relegated to being a flexible substance like clay, to be molded or kept locked up in a tin, never to be touched by any except the anointed.

  • Bill Clinton legalized a million illegal aliens making citizens of them one Saturday afternoon. Even though, the now legal aliens could not read English or the Constitution, they were instructed in how to vote for Bill Clinton, their benefactor, with our tax dollars. The illegal aliens are how Bill Clinton got a second term. and it is possible that Obama is more ruthless than Clinton, either one, Bill or Hillary. If Obama wants to be emperor, who is to stop him? or change the Constitution, who is to stop him? Illegal aliens cannot even read our road signs. So, the tax payers better not complain. Illegal alien has become a dirty word, and taxpayer has become an endangered species.

  • in 1974 I started college as a 26 year old Freshman on the GI bill. Our freshman chemistry class for science majors had maybe 150 students in it. The grand professor lectured 3 days a week and the TAs taught the other two days and ran the labs. On our first hourly, being nervous as I was new to college, as a jocular tension breaker I wrote JMJ on top of my paper. The TAs graded the papers and I got a good grade but my TA Herb(Jewish so he did not know) said the prof wanted to know what the JMJ was. I told him. Herb never graded any more of my papers, the mighty prof did and he marked the hell out of them. I could tell by Herb’s face that he was ashamed of the prof. I had to work like hell to salvage a B out of the course after a high A on the first hourly. So savagery against Christians by egotistical and atheistic professors is not a new thing for students but perhaps it is now more honestly dishonest. My class was at the University of Maryland.

  • College? I put up with this excrement in seventh grade…in a matter of speaking. In the last class of the day, the chapter in the textbook we were reading was covering the Olduvai Gorge in Africa, where some of the most ancient pre-human fossils have been found.

    The climate there is very hot and very dry – almost completely unhospitable to human life today. Being a smartass seventh grader, i said I wouldn’t want to live there. The teacher, a Mrs. Dawalt (she was called Daywart because of the massive mole on the side of her chin) asked me what I said and I repeated myself. She gave me a C grade the rest of the year even though I got As and Bs on all my tests, quizzes and homework. You see, I was a racist – according to her.

    Kent State University is a rat’s nest of leftists, with the possible exception of the business school, but that exception was during the Reagan Administration. Now, who knows? I hope my sons grow up to be hockey players or electricians or restore classic cars. Higher education is a multi-billion dollar ripoff.

  • I was too Catholic in a catholic university. Still got good grades and ultimately it gave me a better education for having to dig deeper to argue my points.

  • Trump reminds me of Nimrod.

  • Trump favorite book is the bible.
    If this was the gong show he’d be gone.
    I am not impressed either by politically correct speech nor impolitic speech..
    It’s truth we are after
    .
    Trump = liar
    Hillary = liar

  • Trump makes me laugh. I wander what type of President he would be if elected into office. I only know him from The Apprentice- a permanent scowl and horrible hair. You can’t get worse than your current…can you?

  • What to do about those fascists?
    .

    Someday the worm will turn.
    .
    Seven out of ten believe America is headed the wrong way. The rulers do not care about the majority.
    .
    The middle class and its economic power are in sharp decline (burgeoning Obamcare taxes, skyrocketing energy (global warming, war on coal) costs, regulations Dodd-Frank, CFPB, etc.) killing agriculture, banking, commerce, etc.). And, those fascist, philosopher kings want it like that because craven dependents and serfs are easier to control. .
    .
    What are you prepared to do?

  • Our youngest son has gone back to school in liberal Northern VA to prep for transfer into petroleum engineering. This semester he signed up for Sociology 101as an elective. Since he’s very logical and conservative, my parental advice on taking a “soft science” like soc was ” just regurgitate what your prof tells you or your grade will suffer”. Our older son signed up for a first year English lit course at a CA college. Turned out It was not as advertised as it was all about Black Power. The syllabus came out after the drop date (a sneaky trick which more and more profs are pulling). He told the administration that he felt his personal safety was threatened in that class as a Caucasian minority; he’s a tough kid so it must have been bad. Luckily he was able to drop w/o any financial or academic penalties. He transferred to another state university as a hard science major where he didn’t have to listen to any nutty BS.
    On the other hand my husband on his grad school application to an liberal Ivy League university, stated that he was conservative politically and they should admit him for diversity. He was admitted. We think it was the DOD funded scholarship that they couldn’t resist.

Bear Growls: Egg Gate

Monday, August 31, AD 2015

 

images8YOXXYIF

 

Our bruin friend at Saint Corbinian’s Bear analyzes the context of the Pope’s seeming endorsement of gay themed kid books:

More on Egg-Gate: The Gay Storybook and the Pope

 
In the interests of good journalism, the Bear wouldn’t write anything at all. But we’re way beyond that by now, woodland creatures. So here is a consolidation of information scattered through the Bear’s previous story and comments on the apparent endorsement by Pope Francis of a children’s book promoting homosexuality.

It all started in June, when the new mayor of Venice, Luigi Brugnaro, banned 49 books from the city’s preschool libraries. After a major controversy erupted, he rescinded the ban on all but two books, one of which was Piccolo Uovo.

Gay Penguins, Lesbian Rabbits, and a Rainbow

Piccolo Uovo, or “Little Egg,” is a children’s book written by Francesca Pardi. Among the fans of the book is gay pop icon Elton John, who, along with his male partner, have obtained two little boys, four-year-old Zachary and two-year-old Elijah. The book-banning became an international incident when Sir Elton blasted Brugnaro in the press. He described Piccolo Uovo this way:

Here is one of the Furnish-John family’s favourite storybooks. It champions an all-inclusive world where families come in all shape, sizes and colours. And most importantly, that families are about love. Our boys adore it.

Piccolo Uovo also champions families headed by gay penguins and lesbian rabbits.

It is important to note that this whole situation unfolded against the backdrop of a high-profile controversy. There is every reason to believe the Vatican was aware of this controversy. As we shall see, the Vatican had in its possession pro-homosexual books by the author sent by the author herself. The point to remember is that the response by the Vatican was done with eyes wide open.

At some point, the author of the book, Francesca Pardi, sent an unknown number of copies of her books to Pope Francis. They included seven or eight books expressly dealing with homosexual issues. Accompanying them was a plaintive letter that Pardi showed to a reporter from The Guardian. According to that newspaper, her letter included the following plea:

Many parishes across the country are in this period sullying our name and telling falsehoods about our work which deeply offends us,” she wrote. “We have respect for Catholics … A lot of Catholics give back the same respect, why can’t we have the whole hierarchy of the church behind us?

Pardi was surprised to hear back from the Vatican.  In a letter dated July 9, Msgr. Peter B. Wells, a senior official in the Vatican secretariat, wrote back on behalf of the Pope. It said:

His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values.

Msgr. Wells, an American, was appointed to his position by Pope Benedict. According to Vatican-watcher John Allen, Wells is far more than an ordinary functionary. He is a bellwether of Vatican opinion and a man of significant influence. In 2013, Allen wrote this in the National Catholic Reporter of Wells.

Cables revealed as part of the Wikileaks scandal show how much diplomats rely on Wells for readings of the Vatican’s take on sensitive issues, such as the church’s sexual abuse scandals. Other players know the score, too. In 2010, when parishioners in Boston wanted to appeal the closing of nine local parishes, they consulted a couple of canon lawyers about the best way to get the pope’s attention, and the reply was to address the petition to Wells.

Msgr. Wells seems like the last fellow to do something that did not reflect the Pope’s sentiments.

After the Guardian story broke on Friday, the Vatican Press Office issued issued a terse statement which placed responsibility for the letter squarely on Msgr. Wells. It did not mention homosexuality specifically, but explained the letter was not meant to endorse anything “not in line with the Gospel.” “In no way does the letter from the Secretariat of State mean to endorse behaviour and teachings not in line with the Gospel.”

The letter from Wells to Pardi on behalf of Pope Francis was also supposed to private.

The emerging narrative is that this was merely a polite, routine letter to an author of children’s books. The problem with this is that it completely ignores the context, which in this case, is everything.

Analysis

So what happened?

First of all, note that Pardi’s letter discusses the controversy and expressly asks for support of “the whole hierarchy of the Church.” In other words, she is asking the Pope — to whom she sent the letter and the books — to take her side in the controversy. And that’s exactly what she got, albeit in very careful language.

Second, the letter on behalf of the Pope speaks for itself. How the Vatican Press Office imagines one can praise an author for children’s books that favor homosexuality and yet not endorse “behavior and teachings not in line with Gospel,” is quite the mystery. Clearly, this is damage control to shift the blame to Wells and backtrack when the Guardian made the papal endorsement public. lt seems to have worked. The accepted narrative is that this was just a routine, polite letter to an author of children’s books, and the Pope had nothing to do with it.

Yet Wells obviously felt he had the authority to speak on behalf of Pope Francis on a well-known controversy involving a children’s book featuring gay penguins.  It would take a real Vaticanista to know if Wells would do that without the Pope’s knowledge, but it seems unlikely to the Bear. If this had been some under-the-radar thing, the Vatican might plead ignorance. This was a matter of controversy, however, as shown by the public record, Pardi’s letter and the books she sent.

It is interesting to consider once again John Allen’s assessment of Wells. “[D]iplomats rely on Wells for readings of the Vatican’s take on sensitive issues.” This is a man acutely sensitive to his boss’s positions. How likely is it that Wells misread Pope Francis on the controversial book?

Well’s letter is admittedly pretty generic. (Query: does praise for spreading “genuine human and Christian values” seem odd coming from the Vatican?) Even so, it is blandly encouraging to an author who writes storybooks on lesbian rabbits for children. This is really the bottom line.

As the Bear asked in the previous story, what would it take to get Msgr. Wells, on behalf of the Pope, to encourage the aggressively orthodox Catholicism contained in this blog? The sun standing still comes to mind, but probably not even that. And yet Francesca Pardi gets an attagirl from Pope Francis for writing Elton John’s and David Furnish’s favorite gay storybook.

This might be dismissed as an aberration were it not for Pope Francis’ — and indeed most of the hierarchy’s — famous tolerance for sexual deviance. This is the “Who am I to Judge” papacy, the “Bravo!” Church. Pope Francis’ priorities do not include teaching on the evils of abortion, homosexuality and contraception. He is a “son of the Church,” but finds “it is not necessary to talk of these issues all the time.” Or, as it turns out, any of the time.

This is not gratuitous criticism of the Pope. It recalls the context which makes it seem plausible that Pope Francis told Wells to “send a nice letter to the lady who writes about love and acceptance for children with gay parents.” So whatever the details of this scandal, in a real sense, Pope Francis owns it.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Bear Growls: Egg Gate

  • I wonder if even Wells knew much about the granular content of this regardless of what most Italians knew and I give Pope Francis a pass as being not involved at all. And that said…chaotic Pope Francis is not what we need. We need a boring to the world…administrative person who does not want to write or talk or impress the Noble prize jury or get canonized. We need someone who works the phone all day removing married gay heads of Fordham theology departments and raising billions from one billion Catholics from the bully pulpit to relocate persecuted by Islam Catholics to South America….we do not need someone who works the creative keyboard and hates administrative work.
    Enough with the Church as library. We need Pope Julius II action orientation….without his two daughters though.

  • For those inclined to give Pope Francis is a pass, the Bear humbly begs the indulgence of Dr. McClarey to respectfully invite your attention to a thought experiment called “Birds of a Feather” at the top of Bear’s blog. The Bear believes if this scandal were over something people really cared about, the Vatican’s actions and reaction would be considered completely unacceptable.

  • There was a Rowan Atkinson routine wherein he pretends to ask members of Parliament to translate phrases and answer questions. The punchlines consisted of film clips of MPs drawn from television news shows. Asked to translate, “the minister thanks you for your kind inquiry”, the translation ‘provided’ by the MP was ‘get lost’.

    At the time one of David Kertzer’s volumes came out, it a review by Russell Hittinger in which Dr. Hittinger noted with some surprise that Kertzer gave great weight to ‘form letters from papal secretaries’. Same deal here, I think. No, I do not think the Pope or anyone of consequence gives more than a cursory look at c**p over the transom.

  • I hope you are right Art, and with any other Pope I would say that you were. With the bunch currently at the Vatican I am not sure. These type of “missteps” always seem to run in one direction.

  • In other news, the Trojans apologized to the Greeks and thanked them for finding their mission AWOL soldiers who were hiding inside that fake Horse.

    Further evidence has been discovered that the 30 pieces of silver held by Judas was merely a generous donation by various Pharisees and scribes friendly to the new Church.

    I’m with Donald–simple mathematics doesn’t allow for all the many errors and embarrassing comments and misstatement to accidentally all flow in the same bad direction.

  • This appears to be an operation of more gradualism, to add to ‘doctrine development’ for pastoral activity on the ground in the peripheries, with, once more, no clear information (Gospel) for inquiring minds. At least the blind Jack Russell terrier had a guide and was, also, able to be adopted. There is a mass who still don’t understand the wedding garment parable, among others, and who would rather be adopted by Pope Francis than Who created them.

  • Whose eggs and whose children are being scrutinized and indoctrinated? Elton John’s children are not his sperm and his wife’s eggs. If they, in fact, are, the children were placed at unnecessary risk of damage and bodily harm during IVF . Inflicting body risk and harm is inhuman. Of course aborting the disabled and damaged human beings is eugenics on a small scale but if it is only one person’s soul who is being put at risk all heaven resists.
    Again: James 1: 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
    “to keep oneself unstained from the world” This is the crux of the environmental issues and the save the whales agenda. The only saving of creation that counts in the eyes of God are the orphans and widows. Sitting at Mass Sunday was St. James addressing Pope Francis’ visit to America, admonishing us all “to keep oneself unstained from the world” Relinquish Gaia, the whales, the fracking, the redistribution of wealth already addressed as that issue of religion and our relationship with God: “to visit the orphans and widows in their affliction.”
    “to keep oneself unstained from the world”. is true love for God and real religion in an intimate relationship with one’s Creator , in thought, word and deed, protected and proscribed by our constitutional First Amendment. The Universal Declaration on Human
    Rights of the United Nations never explains from WHOM (the Prime Mover) the community gets it sovereignty to endow the person, or human soul, the human soul who is denied. Atheism imposed , unconstitutional: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof”

  • I wish I could say that Francis was not involved, but if one looks at other comments…! There is website I found recently that shows together what he has said, and compares it with other Popes… its called denzingerbergoglio-en.com. Very good. This article, Donald, was very enlightening. I hope you can post more things showing how things are done without being said…

  • These type of “missteps” always seem to run in one direction.

    True, but the chatterati and leftoid operatives with bylines likely take no interest when they run in the other direction, so if the Pope actually does say something bog standard, no megaphone. I agree with you that Francis and his camarilla seem just the sort to trade in the kultursmog.

  • “And that said…chaotic Pope Francis is not what we need. We need a boring to the world…administrative person who does not want to write or talk or impress the Noble prize jury”
    .
    Bill Bannon kudos

  • To quote Ronald Reagan, “personnel is policy.” Or, to quote another era, “Houston, we have a problem.”

  • Gay Penguins! That concept requires a demented mind. Skipper from The Penguins of Madagascar would slap Pardi and Wells upside the head. For those of you who don’t have little ones at home, Skipper is a fearless right wing hard a** who never backs down from a challenge. I’ll post a YouTube link later.

  • bill bannon: I would not accept the Nobel Peace Prize if they gave it to me after Obama got it. I would not accept a Medal of Freedom, something I have wanted since I was very young, since they gave it to Clinton, that thief and liar.

PopeWatch: Questions

Monday, August 31, AD 2015

PopeWatch2-199x300

 

The Pope will be visiting this country later this month.  If PopeWatch were able to, he would ask the Pope these three questions:

 

  1. You have confirmed the existence of a gay lobby in the Vatican.  What steps have you taken to eliminate its influence?
  2.  You have written about people who have a naïve faith in the workings of the market place.  Do you have a naïve faith in the state regulating the economy?
  3.  Do you have any opinion as to why the economy of Venezuela is in melt down?  Does it surprise you that the daughter of Hugo Chavez is reputed to be a billionaire?

Continue reading...

17 Responses to PopeWatch: Questions

  • Fair enough.

    2nd Corinthians Chapter’s 4,5 and 6.
    Good reflections for all believers.
    For our Pope a must.

    Chpt. 6:14 – 18. The warnings against idolatry.

    I’m running late or I would list these verses for your review. Is the Pope embracing idolatry?
    Homosexuality. Greenthink. (?)

  • Have you been able to measure the Francis Effect?

  • Question number 4.
    Do you really believe that the debatable science of global warming and its obvious political quagmire is more pressing an issue to expend your papal capital on, than say, the fallen state of your Church and the urgent danger to the salvation of souls?

  • You have confirmed the existence of a gay lobby in the Vatican. Numbers of earnest young men seeking
    God in His Church have been seriously wounded by these predators. Those wounded men, perverted from Gods loving plan are living out the pain, hurt and hurting others. Instead of a sheltering school and path to the Lord, the Church has become a palace of infamy and treachery, in need of repentance and confession. How do you plan to address those who responded to the call to vocation and have been mutilated by the RPGs of your so benignly and blithely excused Lavender men?
    god

  • Question number 5.

    Do you really believe that Caesar (nations) redistributing other’s wealth will bring more souls to Christ in lieu of the reality that in America there is a direct correlation between the masses acquiring wealth and the emptying of churches and the spread of public immorality?

  • Why don’t you get back on that airplane and go home?

  • Question 7

    Was it within the natural law for David to spoon with Abishag for body heat in I Kings 1 or was the whole passage about rationalizations?

    1 Now king David was old and stricken in years; and they covered him with clothes, but he gat no heat.

    2 Wherefore his servants said unto him, Let there be sought for my lord the king a young virgin: and let her stand before the king, and let her cherish him, and let her lie in thy bosom, that my lord the king may get heat.

    3 So they sought for a fair damsel throughout all the coasts of Israel, and found Abishag a Shunammite, and brought her to the king.

    4 And the damsel was very fair, and cherished the king, and ministered to him: but the king knew her not.

  • Question number___?
    You are on record as saying “Inequality” is evil (as did Obama)
    So, one must then ask why, when formulating your encyclical on “climate change” you failed or rejected to get equal input from those scientists who dispute the entire concept?

    Also, since you insist that all of this climate change phenomenon is primarily a moral issue.(stewardship) why did you allow a professed atheist major input into its construction?

  • James 1: 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
    “to keep oneself unstained from the world” This is the crux of the environmental issues and the save the whales agenda. The only saving of creation that counts in the eyes of God are the orphans and widows. Sitting at Mass Sunday was St. James addressing Pope Francis’ visit to America, admonishing us all “to keep oneself unstained from the world” Relinquish Gaia, the whales, the fracking, the redistribution of wealth already addressed as that issue of religion and our relationship with God: “to visit the orphans and widows in their affliction.”

  • 2 Corinthians 6:14-16
    “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers, for what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Bilial, or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?

    Mary De Voe.
    I enjoyed your contribution.
    Thanks.

  • Philip. My prayers for you and the American Catholic are in the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

  • Are you encouraged or discouraged that, by the vague and uncorrected misconceptions in your command ‘vaya lio’, you are creating a straw man of defenders of the Faith?
    Will you aid the FFI and men (who are not homosexual) in ‘building the Church’?
    Will you teach the meaning of Adultery and Killing as related to blatant, deadly transgressions of this society or not?

  • I would think that he knows very well what he was doing. They would probably not let anyone get close to asking those questions to him, and if they did, it would most likely not get published…!

  • I got no questions for Pope Francis. I simply want him out of office and I pray his replacement is no worse than he.

  • What will you have to say about our recent Supreme Court decision to legalize same sex marriage?
    What will you have to say to a country that LEGALLY murders 4 million + babies each day and profits from selling their body parts?

  • Is the Pope Catholic?

  • I have a question for His Holiness. your Holiness, you have criticized the Allies for not bombing Aucshwitz during WWII although evidence suggests that such an operation would have been not just ineffective but counterproductive. But yet you have been silent on your home country of Argentina’s alignment with the Axis during WWII and the Argentine government under Peron harboring Nazi war criminals afterward. What do you have to say about that?

Myths of MacArthur: Dugout Doug

Monday, August 31, AD 2015

Dugout Doug MacArthur lies ashaking on the Rock

Safe from all the bombers and from any sudden shock

Dugout Doug is eating of the best food on Bataan

And his troops go starving on.

Dugout Doug’s not timid, he’s just cautious, not afraid

He’s protecting carefully the stars that Franklin made

Four-star generals are rare as good food on Bataan

And his troops go starving on.

Dugout Doug is ready in his Kris Craft for the flee

Over bounding billows and the wildly raging sea

For the Japs are pounding on the gates of Old Bataan

And his troops go starving on…

Anonymous, 1942

Over the next few years we will be taking a look at General Douglas MacArthur, concentrating on his rule of Japan and his role in the Korean War.  A larger than life figure even while he lived, MacArthur has always sparked strong hate and love.  A number of myths have cropped up about Macarthur, and several posts will deal with dispelling these myths, so that we can look at him in the cold light of historical fact.  The first myth up is that of Dugout Doug.

The myth of Dugout Doug contends that MacArthur was a coward, who refused to share the dangers of his troops on Bataan, and fled from them, leaving them to endure defeat and brutal captivity, often ending in their deaths.

It is probably accurate to say that MacArthur was not a brave man.  In order to be brave, in a physical sense, one must know a fear of physical pain or death.  Some men simply have no such fear.  George Washington did not.  Throughout the French and Indian War and the American Revolution he constantly exposed himself to enemy fire while he led from the front, to the terror of his aides, who were brave men.  They marveled that Washington showed no sign of fear, and his only reaction to being fired upon was a look of minor annoyance.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Myths of MacArthur: Dugout Doug

  • Two questions I hope will be answered in the coming articles; (I am of two minds on the man)

    Why did he not take out the Japanese planes stuck on Formosa (after he knew of Pearl Harbor the day before) instead of waiting until they crushed Clark Field and the B-17 fleet?

    Why did he reject Operation Rainbow and think he could protect all of Luzon’s many miles of shoreline with his tiny army of poorly armed scouts (mules and WWI rifles etc) against the Japanese modern war machine?

    I eagerly await your well-researched info on the man–including the Truman/Manchuria brouhaha.

  • MacArthur deserves a fair amount of blame for his planes being caught on the ground at Clarke, although the air commander Brereton was not blameless. I think a strike on Formosa with the B-17s would have accomplished little other than getting most of the B-17s shot down. The air odds were simply too great.

    In regard to the Japanese invasion, I think MacArthur was initially uncertain how many Japanese troops were being used, especially considering their offensives in southeast Asia. As it happened, the Japanese did invade with around 43,000 men in their main effort on December 22. MacArthur ordered the fall back to Bataan on December 24, which was executed brilliantly, although supplies were brought in only for 43,000 men instead of the 80,000 American and Filipino troops that ultimately garrisoned Bataan. There is much to criticize in MacArthur’s generalship overall in this campaign, although it must also be kept in mind that he was operating in a hopeless military situation once Washington made the decision not to try a risky reinforcement of the Philippines.

  • Thanks Donald. That is pretty much what I garnered from research, though many of the problems on Bataan were the unexpected masses of civilians joining the troops in the retreat. Many of the invaluable supplies were left behind, spread over those many rapidly deserted beachfronts.
    It appears that MacArthur (like his father) was loved by the Philippine peoples (and Scouts) but not so much by his American troops, who (IMO) failed to comprehend the more important need for his command to retreat to safety in order to prosecute the larger war. Wainwright did a heroic job in his place.

  • I will be interested in reading your opinion of his conduct of the Korean War,Did he want us to fight the Chinese or did he blunder into the fight?

  • Mac thought the Chinese were bluffing. He was not alone in that estimate. He also underestimated the military capabilities of the Communist Chinese, judging them by the woeful standards of the Nationalists during World War II. He should have been more careful, since, as usual in his career, he was at the very end of a long logistical chain, and Truman was trying to fight the War with the absolute minimum of US troops.

  • trying to fight the War with the absolute minimum of US troops.

    That’s become a rather bad habit, hasn’t it?

  • I should probably expound on that. I’m referring in general to what seems to have become since the end of WWII our habit of trying to win wars with the minimum of effort instead of the maximum. I think maybe Dennis Miller once made a joke along the same lines. The punchline was something about a conflict not being worth our full attention if it wasn’t worth nuking somebody over.

5 Responses to Blind Jack Russell Terrier Open Thread

  • What a dag – (kiwi lingo for humorous irony) 🙂 (if you dare, look up the real meaning of “dag” )

    This portrays the reality of our Pommie (USA speak Limey) brothers and sisters who nowadays, need a reliable guide dog to re-teach them morality and proper Religion. 🙂

  • wonderful human parent these two could be . such love and selflessness. to brighten some little boy or girls’ life……. or both.

    dogs, even blind ones, are “easier” ?.

  • In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
    .

    “I see.” said the blind man as he picked up his tools and walked away.
    .

    Jesus speaks, in the Gospels, about where there is no light there is the blindness and the blind leading the blind to horrid effect. Today, the light is being shoved under a million bushel baskets. The Vatican and hierarchy are complicit.
    .
    Woe unto those who call evil good and good evil.

  • The Constitution is predicated on the individual sovereign person who constitutes government and for whom our founding principles were laid.
    Sovereign personhood is endowed and infused at procreation by “their Creator”, the Person of God, with free will, the image of God in the person, freedom, intellect, reason, conscience, talent, intuition and immortality, the eternal life with God for obedience, in the hereafter, forever. These are some of the intangibles, the transcendent qualities of the human being destined to exist in eternity forever. The color of skin, hair, height, weight, race and relations are tangibles. These may be documented by the state as vital statistics. The state tries to measure the intangibles, but cannot get past immortality.
    Unfortunately, since atheism is being imposed by the government through the Courts, the intangibles that point to an infinite, all loving God are being redefined and relegated into nothingness.
    The Constitution is predicated on the sovereign person, who constitutes the government. The individual citizen’s sovereign personhood is created, infused and established by “their Creator”, God. Therefore, our Constitution is predicated on the will of “their Creator”, God, infinite goodness.
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations says that man’s human rights, his sovereign personhood, his veritable human soul is infused by his community at his birth. So, the vital statistics administered by the state, his citizenship, his race and color of skin are begotten of the community. From WHOM has the community gotten its sovereignty and personhood to endow another person? The question is answered by a half truth. The community gets its sovereignty from the sovereign person and the sovereign person gets his sovereign personhood from the community. The dizzying heights and circular reasoning still does not supply the truth about WHO creates the rational, intellectual and immortal human soul and his destiny in eternity. WHO is the PRIME MOVER, the person WHO begat the first sovereign person?
    “We, the people respect our ancestors and hope in our constitutional posterity, and pray that our posterity achieve an higher civilization in their pursuit of Happiness. However, the constitution must be taken in its entirety. One Amendment cannot repudiate or eradicate another Amendment. The constitution cannot contradict itself. For the Fourteenth Amendment to be realized, the First Amendment must be acknowledged and fulfilled.
    It is called an indult: Suffering sodomy instead of homicide, tolerating sodomy rather than mass murder. A living sodomite has an opportunity to relinquish his addiction to lust and turn himself into a free human being, created in original innocence and virginity and called to remain in original innocence and virginity.
    In every event, atheism is unconstitutional. Atheism may not be imposed on a people, a constitutional republic. God is a sovereign Person and cannot be exiled or driven from the public square, which all citizens own in joint and common tenancy, without three quarters of the states ratifying any change in our constitution and due process for the person of God. What crime has God committed that is the reason the God is exiled from our nation? That an individual atheist was “offended” is an opinion. Every person has an opinion. This is the reason why three quarters of the states must ratify any change in the constitutional structure of our First Amendment and the principle of separation of church and state.
    The principle of separation of church and state forbids any entity or person from objecting to another person’s objection to sodomy or any other evil. The principle of self-preservation and self defense against an insidious evil invading the private, intimate relationship a person has with his “Creator” proscribed and protected in the First Amendment “or prohibit the free exercise thereof,” cannot be abrogated. “their Creator” is perfect love and perfect Justice and therefore any relationship with God can only bring Divine Providence and prosperity, “the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) posterity.” The Preamble
    The state cannot own the person or the person’s immortal rational human soul or the person’s destiny and/or his pursuit of Happiness. It is most degrading to be forced to support sodomites in their descent into hell or cannibals or atheists in their rejection of the only joy and Beauty in creation.
    James 1: 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
    Sodomites, cannibals and atheists are not “unstained from the world.”

  • Since Alaska became a state, Mt. McKinley ought to bear the name of a real human being as opposed to some Eskimo or Hindu or pagan god. A person is always better than the personification of The High One.
    Denali in Hindu is an elephant headed god. Read that Oklahoma is planning a statue of a monkey god. . G. K. Chesterton was correct when he said that when man rejects God, he will believe in everything… not with my tax dollars.

Cardinal Kasper Debates John the Baptist

Saturday, August 29, AD 2015

 

John the Baptist:  For Herod himself had sent and apprehended John, and bound him in prison for the sake of Herodias the wife of Philip his brother, because he had married her.

Cardinal Kasper:  Often pastors want to control human life. It’s clericalism.  They don’t trust people and therefore don’t respect the conscience of people.

John the Baptist:  For John said to Herod: It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’ s wife.

Cardinal Kasper:  Of course, we have to give guidelines from the Gospel and remind people of the commandments of the Lord, but then we should trust that the Holy Spirit is working in the hearts and in the conscience of our people.

 John the Baptist:  But Herod the tetrarch, when he was reproved by him for Herodias, his brother’s wife, and for all the evils which Herod had done;  he added this also above all, and shut up John in prison.

Cardinal Kasper:  Therefore divorced and remarried people should find a good priest confessor who accompanies them for some time and if this second, civil marriage, is solid then the path of new orientation can end with a confession and absolution.  Absolution means admission to Holy Communion.  

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Cardinal Kasper Debates John the Baptist

  • There ain’t a dance out there by any girl that would make me promise half of anything let alone a kingdom.
    Herod must have been stoned and the Bible leaves us to discern it after many years. He was on his fifth goblet of Jack Daniels.
    On a more serious note, the Old Testament repeatedly promise long years of life for righteousness to old testament man as in:

    ” My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments: For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.” Proverbs 3:1-2

    They were also promised no miscarriages in the Sinai Covenant. We are not so promised but are promised a cross. John the Baptist and others under the old law were exceptions and forerunners of the new promise…the cross in matters physical. Moses had full strength of body til he was 120 years old. I doubt any Christian ever had that.

  • ps
    Great contrapunctal contrast. John the Baptist was so non dialogic….so 29 AD….so locust and wild honey.

  • Brilliant. Thanks be to God.

  • I wonder if John the Baptist was being judgmental, the anathema of today’s culture?
    .
    What will Cardinal Kasper say when he finds himself standing beside King Herod in the next life?

  • +Kasper is clearly after money. I think everyone is aware of how the Church is funded in Germany and how big the Church bureaucracy is in Germany and how Germans are rapidly deserting the Church.

    +Marx and +Kasper’s scheme is to take Martin Luther’s approach. Hey, Lutherans and Catholics signed the Joint Declaration, and Lutherans remarry after divorce (this permitted by an ecclesiastical community founded by someone who invented Sola Scriptura and then ignored it when it came to divorce), so why not Catholics? +Kasper and +Marx likely remind the Vatican of how much of their funds come from Germany. So, the FFI gets slapped around, the likes of +Cupich get named to archdioceses and the Roman Pontiff badmouths free market economies – the same economies that enable Catholics of those countries to fund the Vatican (while downplaying the violence committed against Catholics by Muslims).

    Is it any wonder people leave the Church for evangelical pep rallies or for sleeping in on Sundays?

  • I told my 18 yrs of 9th grade CCD students, “you will never be able to say that no one ever taught the truths of the faith.” 1, 2, 5,6,7,8,9 commandments taught in depth, with a fun but serious view of the why’s. Which picked up the other 3 quite well. As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.

  • “Penguins Fan … Kasper is clearly after money…”

    Yep, 30 pieces of silver to be exact.

  • “bill bannon ….There ain’t a dance out there by any girl that would make me promise half of anything let alone a kingdom.”

    But, you ain’t never seen my grandma do the minuet?

  • Pingback: The Amazon Smear of Pro-Marriage Advocates - Big Pulpit
  • Is Kasper’s end-game merely divorce? I don’t think so.

    It strikes me that, if he can get the Church to declare Christ’s own words subject to interpretation, how much more so Paul’s?

    I suggest to you that the real target isn’t any particular rule but the concept of interpretation of scripture itself. He wants to say “ALL of scripture is subject to the evolution of social norms and must be interpreted in light of Man’s collective wisdom.” How else can one set aside the specific prohibitions against homosexual conduct that have been with the Church since her founding?

    No, I don’t think this is about divorce, it is about something far more important.

  • If Herod was indeed a king, he would have the sovereignty and knowledge of himself to rule instead of cowtowing to political correctness. And as far as his wife of sorts, Herod would have saved St. John for the sake of his sovereign personhood, and not have the man murdered because Herodious did not agree with John’s opinion. Neither one of them, herod and herodius, had any sense of Justice or Sovereignty. Some king, I might add, rotted to death in his tent.

  • Again:James 1: 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.
    “to keep oneself unstained from the world” This is the crux of the environmental issues and the save the whales agenda. The only saving of creation that counts in the eyes of God are the orphans and widows. Sitting at Mass Sunday was St. James addressing Pope Francis’ visit to America, admonishing us all “to keep oneself unstained from the world” Relinquish Gaia, the whales, the fracking, the redistribution of wealth already addressed as that issue of religion and our relationship with God: “to visit the orphans and widows in their affliction.”

  • An oath to commit evil is not a valid oath. Oaths are promises to God.

  • David Spaulding,
    .
    Precisely. Kasper wants to destroy the Faith, and he’s been pushing this stuff since the 60s, long before the Kirchensteuer was an issue. It’s comforting for many Catholics to think that this is merely about money for the German bishops, but that doesn’t explain why so many of Kasper’s allies come from countries where they have no such monetary incentives. The true explanation is more frightening: like many heretics in history, these men loath the Church and wish to see her destroyed.

Line of Grace

Saturday, August 29, AD 2015

6 Responses to Line of Grace

  • Just one thing- Baron references comedians for publicity. With Hollywood part of his diocese, If he wanted the publicity it would have been better for Baron to have written to Colbert and reprimanded him for his views on abortion. Particular since Colbert uses his public profile to spout his Catholic upbringing and Faith. That’s the game Baron should be playing, so to speak.

  • St. Colbert… the patron saint for those struggling with conscience formation.

    Lol on the line of Grace. Artwork is priceless.

  • Thanks to God .. Again and always! Absolutely great communique of truth. Hope Colbert and Fr. Barron read this.
    And Fr Jim and folks at “America” Jesuit magazine too.

  • Fr. Barron wants to reference Colbert, Well, for Fr. Barron, I want to reference the late Soupy Sales, for Barron deserves a pie in the face for his foolishness!

  • I wish the fingers on the icon were rearranged: as depicted they signify the Trinity and the Incarnation. Let’s not give Colbert any ideas.

PopeWatch: In the Round

Saturday, August 29, AD 2015

PopeWatch2-199x300

 

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

 

Members of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops announced that they have approved an initiative to “round out” all remaining traditionally built churches by the end of next year, USCCB secretary to the president bishop Jonathon Garner announced early this morning.

“This is a long time coming,” an ecstatic Garner told EOTT. “We’re excited to finally give all parishioners the opportunity to finally get more involved in the Mass.”

Garner also said that during the renovation, parishioners would be invited to “come together as one family by sitting around the altar,” which, he emphasized, was one of the most essential aspects of Mass participation.

“Christ did not ask the disciples to sit behind him or even in front of him during the Last Supper,”  Garner said. “No, he asked them to gather around the table, as we can clearly see in Leonardo di Vinci’s painting of the Last Supper. And by having them gather together, he was able to remind them of what clearly is most important part of the Mass: awkwardly staring at the person across the other end of the church for a full hour. I’m sorry, what did I just say? I meant ‘gathering together.’ Yeah, that’s it…gathering and stuff.”

The initiative also applies to Tridentine parishes where the priest is expected to say the Mass with his back facing the congregation. When asked how the “restructuring” could be done while still preserving the integrity of the Latin Mass, Garner suggested that the women simply turn their mantillas around until they completely covered their faces.

“That way, they can simply imagine the priest’s back is facing them, I don’t know…who cares? Bunch of freaks anyway. I’m sorry what did I just say? I meant ‘we’ll look into it.’”

Continue reading...

3 Responses to PopeWatch: In the Round

  • My sources in the Vatican tell me Pope Francis has already approved the recessional hymn:

  • “stating at the person across the other end of the church..” LOL – the homilies better be short and succint. There is a huge round church in Va that from the exterior reminds me of the old B&O round house at the Baltimore train museum. At least the music is beautiful and traditional. How about an papal edict of no more God boxes?

  • Garner also said that during the renovation, parishioners would be invited to “come together as one family by sitting around the altar”

    OMG, how exclusive! I can’t do the lotus position anymore!

The Strife is O’er

Saturday, August 29, AD 2015

 

Something for the weekend. THE STRIFE IS O’ER, THE BATTLE DONE.  The words were written by that most prolific of authors, anonymous, in the 12th century.  The music is from Palestrina’s Magnificat Tertii Toni.  This was all brought together by William Henry Monk in 1861 to produce this glorious hymn that celebrates that for faithful Christians death has no ultimate victory.

  1. The strife is o’er, the battle done;
    The victory of life is won;
    The song of triumph has begun:
    Alleluia!
  2. The pow’rs of death have done their worst;
    But Christ their legions has dispersed;
    Let shouts of holy joy outburst:
    Alleluia!
  3. The three sad days are quickly sped;
    He rises glorious from the dead;
    All glory to our risen Head:
    Alleluia!
  4. He closed the yawning gates of hell;
    The bars from heav’n’s high portals fell;
    Let hymns of praise His triumphs tell:
    Alleluia!
  5. Lord, by the stripes which wounded You,
    In us You’ve won the vict’ry too,
    That we may live, and sing to You:
    Alleluia!
Continue reading...

4 Responses to The Strife is O’er

  • Surely one of our greatest hymns, and a personal favorite. I read in a bio that General George Patton made sure it would be sung at his funeral.

  • Thank you – I do have remind myself that the victory is won.

  • ” The strife is o’er, the battle done; THE VICTORY OF LIFE IS WON; the song of TRIUMPH has begun: ALLELUIA !!

    INDEED, the battle is won.

    Thanks Jesus!

  • The Strife is O’er – I selected this as the last hymn at my mother’s and father’s funerals. Joy at the end of a Requiem Mass. The 4th anniversary of my mother’s death or rebirth was the 28th. For me a timely posting. Thank you.

Bear Growls: Crazy Time

Saturday, August 29, AD 2015

 

Do you ever get the feeling that you are living in a pontificate scripted like an old Monty Python skit?  I certainly do, and I think our bruin friend at Saint Corbinian’s Bear agrees with me:

The Holy Father has sent a letter praising Francesca Pardi for a children’s book in which an egg encounters all sorts of different families, including those headed by gay penguins and lesbian rabbits. The controversial book, which was banned in Venice, touched hearts at the Vatican. According to an article in The Guardian, the letter said:

“His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values,” wrote Peter B Wells, a senior official at the Vatican secretariat of state.

This is what John Allen wrote in the National Catholic Reporter of the appointee of Pope Benedict:

Cables revealed as part of the Wikileaks scandal show how much diplomats rely on Wells for readings of the Vatican’s take on sensitive issues, such as the church’s sexual abuse scandals. Other players know the score, too. In 2010, when parishioners in Boston wanted to appeal the closing of nine local parishes, they consulted a couple of canon lawyers about the best way to get the pope’s attention, and the reply was to address the petition to Wells.

 

Msgr. Wells

Wells, an American, is known as the guy whose ear you want when you want the Pope’s ear. He is not some low-level functionary.

The Bear will say this, after taking a deep breath. In all charity, obviously, this was not the doings of Pope Francis. The Vatican Secretariat of State may have its own agenda. People are always taking advantage of poor Holy Father, by shoving anti-fracking T-shirts or commiefixes into his hands, or misquoting him, or making up stories about phone calls they supposedly received from him.

This is a boilerplate letter, and the Pope probably never even saw the book. (The author apparently submitted her entire oeuvre, including seven or eight dealing with homosexual issues, along with a plaintive letter.)

How does the Bear know Pope Francis is innocent?

Because not even Pope Francis would approve of a book for young, impressionable children promoting homosexuality. Only a flat-out homosexual activist would abuse his position for such a purpose. This would constitute material assistance — through his endorsement — for a book even secular authorities found repulsive, a book that promotes homosexuality and same-sex unions to young children. “Woe to those who do; woe, woe to those who approve.”

Also, if he had, Michael Voris would have done a Vortex about it. Because if there’s one thing Michael Voris hates, it’s bishops who approve of homosexuality.

The Bear predicts that within 48 hours, we will see a retraction from the Vatican. And thus shall we know that the problem we have at Santa Marta is not a horror beyond all imagining.

UPDATE: Friday, the Vatican Press Office said: “In no way does the letter from the Secretariat of State mean to endorse behaviour and teachings not in line with the Gospel.” Oh, and it was supposed to be private. (The Bear isn’t some big shot diplomat, but if you decide to weigh in on a controversy Elton John has thrown a hissy fit about, chances are the aggrieved author is not going to keep a papal endorsement letter private. Just a hint for future reference, gentlemen.)

Well, there you go! This:

His holiness is grateful for the thoughtful gesture and for the feelings which it evoked, hoping for an always more fruitful activity in the service of young generations and the spread of genuine human and Christian values,”

in reference to books promoting homosexuality to children is clearly not “endorsing” their content! What do you think the Bear’s chances are of getting Msgr. Wells to issue a similar statement on behalf of the Pope regarding this blog?

“Bear, His holiness is grateful for your tireless ursine activity in the service of the Church, and the spread of genuine Bearish and Christian values.”

Nah. If the Bear were aiming at first-graders to teach them what a great thing it was for homosexuals to co-habitate and obtain children was, he might have a chance.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Bear Growls: Crazy Time

  • We do have to get our moral priorities in order.
    Do we have any idea how much Kids’ books (promoting homosexuality) cause the cutting and killing of CO2 absorbing trees for the paper they consume?
    How evil is that?
    On that basis, I await a retraction from the Vatican.

  • Gay penguins and lesbian rabbits went in search of a church they could call their own.
    A church where all were welcomed.
    The Gay penguins and lesbian rabbits decided that their beliefs and practices far outweighed the importance of the principals contained within this church. The church must change, the Gay penguins and lesbian rabbits thought to themselves! They found help. An egg.

    The story continues….

  • Comment of the week Philip! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • The clip was amusing, Norwich council… “I’ve already have one of those!”

    Thanks for the laugh in a surreal time.

  • Who writes a book about homosexual penguins and rabbits?
    And just how does such a book end up in the Vatican?

    Msgr. Wells is a symptom of the cause of so many Catholics leaving the Church.

  • When are they going to send out the guys with the butterfly nets to round up these crazies?!

  • One hundred or so years ago, a man who wrote a chidren’s book portraying sodomite and lesbian relationships as normal would have been ostracized as a sexual pervert and his book banned by both Church and State, and any cleric who might have lent such book credibility would have been defrocked. The times today are insane.

  • Paul W P said; “The times are insane.”

    A reasonable statement.

    At times I feel as though the nation is the HMS Titanic. “God himself cannot sink this ship.,” and yet it wasn’t God, but the poor design of men with super inflated ego’s and pride equal to or greater than that of the Pharaoh’s.

    Our ship is floundering. The water has breached the forward compartment’s. The life boats, the Eucharist and Confession, are never going to be overfilled. However it’s not because of the mismanagement of the crew, rather it’s the pride and prejudice of the passengers. They don’t want help.

    These times are insane!
    Damn right they are.
    Stay close to the lifeboats.

  • It is all part of the End-Time prophesy. This Sodomy thing is the 666 in Revelation 13 v 14-18. Folks wake up and read the signs of the time.

  • Wait a minute this is s joke right?

  • No unfortunately, although it most definitely should be. In this pontificate humorists are outdone by the fools and worse who currently control Mother Church.

  • Pope Francis is an old wicked fool who’s destroying the Church.

  • Pope Francis has become a kind of Nero figure, corrupt, autocratic, mad, setting fire to the Church of Rome.

  • Penguins Fan….hummmmm. Moniker change coming up? 🙂

    Children’s books that speak the truth relating to this era of “tolerance” should be endorsed from Rome. The book’s could easily explain the reasoning behind our intolerance to propagate sin, and forgiveness with true love from a caring Church, the body of Christ.

    New moniker idea! Straight Penguins Fan….
    No. Too long. El Penguins Fan? Have a blessed day.

  • I don’t believe the Pope gave a letter of endorsement for this book. I don’t. Something seems strange here…

  • Wow, and I thought the “Pope bans Harry Potter” thing was a lame example of misrepresented manners….

    I’m not sure if they need to recruit more grandmas– you know, the ones that can make “that’s nice” cut like a knife?– or if people would miss something like that, too.

    How long do you think it’ll take them to figure out that being super-extra nice and polite to folks doing wrong isn’t going to work to get them to fix themselves? They don’t see anything wrong with what they’re doing– and in trying not to drive anyone off, they encourage them to keep on the wrong path. 🙁

Requiescat in Pace: Chris Bissey

Friday, August 28, AD 2015

Chris and Family

“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:”

John 11:25

My secretary and office manager Chris Bissey passed away in the early hours of this morning, age 51, ending her over two years fight against cancer.  I have seen many a valiant fight against cancer in my life, including that of my mother who died at 48 on Easter Sunday 1984, but never a braver one than that fought by Chris.  Throughout her ordeal her spirit was ever unbroken, she usually cheering up those around her.  She was bright and optimistic, just as she had been throughout her life.  She worked up until Wednesday of this week, telling the Grim Reaper that she had tasks to attend to and he could just wait until she was ready.

She worked for me for thirty years.  I called her my secret weapon.  If I needed a hearing scheduled and she was told that it was impossible, she would get it scheduled anyway.  Astonished Judges often asked me how I managed to get a hearing set before them on a date when they said no more settings.  I replied that it was by black magic, black magic that went by the name of Chris Bissey.  She routinely did the impossible for me, imposing order on hundreds of open files, typing up my endless documents at lightning speed, making friends among courthouse staffs and charming all who came into my office and called on the phone.  It was a rare week when I did not receive at least one compliment in regard to Chris.

She was much more to me however than a secretary.  She was also a good friend.  Over the years we looked out for each other and helped each other through our triumphs and our tragedies.  Outside of my immediate family, no person was closer to me than Chris.

Continue reading...

35 Responses to Requiescat in Pace: Chris Bissey

PopeWatch: Audiences

Friday, August 28, AD 2015

PopeWatch2-199x300

 

Father Z brings us this interesting factoid:

Shortly after the election of Pope Francis, the Wednesday General Audience and the Sunday Angelus made the area around San Pietro a complete madhouse.  I would usually be at the Augustinianum at those times for study or for lunch with a friend and I experienced it myself.

Then, over the next couple years, I noticed that it was easier and easier to get around near San Pietro at those times.  Fewer people were coming.

For the 100th general audience of Pope Francis’ pontificate, the Prefecture of the Papal Household released the average attendance of audiences from 51,6K in 2013 to 14,8K in 2015.  HERE

 

From Sandro Magister:

In occasione della centesima udienza generale [On the occasion of the 100th general audience] del pontificato di papa Francesco, mercoledì 26 agosto, la prefettura della casa pontificia ha comunicato che a questi cento appuntamenti hanno preso parte in totale 3.147.600 persone, così distribuite anno dopo anno:

– 1.548.500 i presenti alle 30 udienze del 2013,
– 1.199.000 i presenti alle 43 udienze del 2014,
– 400.100 i presenti alle 27 udienze del 2015.

Questo significa che anno dopo anno la media dei presenti a ciascuna udienza è stata la seguente: [the average at each audience]

– 51.617 persone nel 2013,
– 27.883 persone nel 2014,
– 14.818 persone nel 2015.

Quindi ogni nuovo anno con la metà di presenze dell’anno precedente. [Each year, half the number of the year before.]

Nè le vacche magre sembrano scongiurate, visto che alla centesima udienza di mercoledì scorso è stato comunicato che sono accorsi solo “in più di diecimila”.  [at the 100th there were “more than 10K”]

La foto sopra è stata scattata durante l’udienza generale di mercoledì 11 febbraio 2015, che era anche la festa della Madonna di Lourdes e la giornata del malato, con l’afflusso di delegazioni dell’Unitalsi.  [Photo at the audience of 11 Feb 2015, Day of the Sick.]

 

Benedict’s audiences exceeded those of John Paul II at times.

The square is emptier and emptier.

And it’s not because of the general secularization.

Romans aren’t going either, so it isn’t the economic slump.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Audiences

  • The sign of diminishing crowds? Then what is one to make of it? One must recall the paltry few under the foot of the cross, but then again, we will all stand alone before God on Judgment day.

    Popularity and its cause ( a new message?) ought to bring the conversion of many–and the ever more empty square (like our ever-more–empty pews and churches) cannot be discounted.

  • “Is it possible that he is largely popular among people, both Catholic and non-Catholic, least likely to observe any Catholic devotions, including going out to participate in a general audience and receive a papal blessing?”

    Sounds like an answer. Plus, why go to Rome when you can turn on the TV and listen to a liberal secularist?
    .
    I think needed: increased Papal emphasis on the salvation of souls.

  • A acquaintance of our family, a man who has hinted that he is a liberal democrat–most likely pro-choice and the entire nine yards (we do not talk politics much at all, so it is difficult to know for certain) said he quite liked Pope Francis and considered joining the Church because of it. But I think it is highly unlikely he ever will join the Church or any other Christian denomination. Ironically, his minor was in “Christian studies” from a college that is one of those US News and World Report Best Colleges in the US. Hmm. Maybe because he minored in Christian studies he is immunized against the practice of “organized religion”?
    .
    Why waste a perfectly good Sunday morning sleep in by attending a female dominated parish when one’s entire work site is female dominated? And of course, it is so unnecessary to obey all those “small minded rules” like Church attendance when mercy abounds?
    .

  • I won’t cross Pennsylvania to see the Roman Pontiff. I won’t cross the street to see him. I have stated many times why.

    Given the dwindling attendance at the general audiences, I am not alone.

    The previous points are excellent. I can hear leftist claptrap about the enviornment anywhere. I have worked in female-dominated offices – why put up with it on Sunday mornings?

    I can hear a better homily from my parish priest on Sunday mornings than I can ever hope to hear from the Roman Pontiff..

  • Maybe it is because he has alienated people, even though the media makes it look that he is greatly popular, they can only go so far. People kind of sense that it is false.

Without God, Everything is Permissible

Friday, August 28, AD 2015

 

 

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

  Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov

 

A civilization where belief in God is on the wane, is a civilization where people are merely objects and will be treated as such.  The greatest thinkers of the human race have understood this.  Benjamin Franklin, who was far from being an orthodox Christian, saw what the world would be like without religion in a letter dated December 13, 1757:

Dear Sir,

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For, without the belief of a Providence that takes cognisance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that, though your reasons are subtle, and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind spits in his own face.

But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantage of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person, whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a great deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Without God, Everything is Permissible

  • To whom did Franklin address his letter?

  • A person who sent him a manuscript of a book promoting the author’s religious ideas. The identity of Franklin’s correspondent is disputed.

    http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-07-02-0130

  • I recall reading somewhere that while in London, Franklin attended meetings of ‘The Hellfire Club.’ Do you know anything about this club, whether it was just skeptical, anti-religious, or whatever? Name could have been a joke.

  • I had to read and write a research paper on The Brothers Karamazov in my college freshman year. Back in 1983 there were no word processors or $190 laptops or $50 laser printers. It took me three hours to typewrite seven pages. This was, again, 1983, and I was not interested in reading about 19th century Russia, the brutal empire that partitioned my ancestors’ Polish homeland and repressed the Polish people and the Catholic Church.

    Getting over that, the point was made that with no God, there is no right or wrong, and anything goes. Nikolai claimed to be an atheist, rejecting the idea of the existence of God, but he never completely bought into the idea.

    Modern atheists rail about organized religion (usually Christianity) blaming religion for all of the wars that have ever taken place. Religion is blamed for the tortures of the Inquisition (overblown in any case and the excesses of Queen Bess are ignored), the repression of science (Galileo!) and general stupidity.

    Atheists are the stupidest. They embrace science, except for when science goes against their political beliefs (when human life begins and the lie of global warming, to name two). Atheists murdered over 100 million people in less than 100 years.

    Atheism – the absolute stupidest idea ever thought up by man.

  • “I recall reading somewhere that while in London, Franklin attended meetings of ‘The Hellfire Club.’ Do you know anything about this club, whether it was just skeptical, anti-religious, or whatever? Name could have been a joke.”

    There were several “gentlemen” clubs in London that claimed the name of Hellfire. Franklin attended several meetings of one of the milder variants in the early 1770s. He may have gone there to spy on several British aristocrats. He was in England as unofficial agent for the colonies and was the public face of America in England. His diplomatic entanglements got quite convoluted and he established an American spy ring in England. I would hate to have played whist or chess against the cunning Dr. Franklin.

  • In our age, maybe in all ages, God and the government have been in competition for the hearts and minds of the people. When religion gets in bed with the government, as has been happening since Vatican II with the Catholic Church , the general moral level will tend to be what the government dictates.

  • “In our age, maybe in all ages, God and the government have been in competition for the hearts and minds of the people. When religion gets in bed with the government, as has been happening since Vatican II with the Catholic Church , the general moral level will tend to be what the government dictates.”

    Exactly. Why the church thinks it can control govt bureaucrats-when no one has ever been able to control govt bureaucrats–I simply do not understand.

    http://www.newsbalance.com/governments-attempts-at-morality/

  • Pingback: Pastoral Sharings: "Twenty-third Sunday in Ordinary Time" | St. John

15 Responses to It’s The People Not the Guns

  • The homicide rate in non-metropolitan counties in New York was (last I checked) 1.14 per 100,000. Hunting is a major past-time in those counties. The thing is, though, the sort of people who hunt and shoot sporting clays and get a pistol license because their work requires schlepping through underground parking garages are not Democratic Party clients. Actually undertaking effective measures to improve public order is despised by this crew. The whole point is to manufacture diversions and transfer attention and blame on subcultures you cannot suborn and who do not respond to your cultural signals.

    The father of one of the murdered reporters is already offering his services to the gun control cause, so we’re all compelled to ask a grieving man what he has in mind as Vester Flanagan had no history which would have precluded him from owning a pistol and the pistol itself was unremarkable. In Franklin County, Va., the frequency of homicide is about 20% below national means (and almost certainly is predominantly a phenomenon in domestic disputes), the frequency of forcible rape about 55% below national means, and the frequency of robbery is 95% below national means. Not exactly Dodge City.

  • SWHC…Smith and Wesson stock has a two day bull run of over 11% perhaps and will do good for awhile due to big earnings beat and forecast combined.. Does the Vatican hold it…:)
    what with Pope Francis’ weapons merchants remarks a month or so ago. I don’t know…his hotel has air conditioning while his encyclical denounced pressure marketing of same. They, SWHC, have a weighted barrel .357 revolver
    that’s always calling to me like a siren but …for my neighbor’s sake, a 20 gauge shotgun with low velocity self defense shells is worse on the criminal and safer on the neighbors as to wall penetration of several houses in a miss. There’s also a neighbor safe .223 that fragments. Has the Pope ever had a man come through his front window? I have. Fortunately I thrive in that situation….doing five straight minutes of fast boxing combinations non stop to Santana daily.
    It’s like jogging with the top half of your body and few thugs can do five straight minutes of non stop punching. But a 20 gauge is better if he enters with his own Smith and Wesson.

  • Wouldn’t it be great if someone picked up a Democrat and used her to bash someone’s brains in? and then we would ban Democrats and have “Democrat free” zones? never mind that the basher was a registered Democrat on mind-altering drugs. And no more knee jerk Democrats on full auto.Guy Mcclung, San Antonio

  • Bill–I’ve got the expensive “home defense” rounds for my CC revolver, too. Well, the first load– if I have to hunker down and reload, not so much, but if that happens I’m unlikely to be firing in a way that it can pass through walls!

    ****

    I’m still in a bit of whiplash– somehow this one didn’t hit as much of what media I do watch, so last I heard the murderer was supposed to be an angry redneck, with the implication that he was angry at the reporter because she was pretty.
    Find out yesterday that he’s a homosexual and black, with the motive being that he was a “grievance collector” — held grudges about EVERYTHING, even if it wasn’t actually a slight.

  • Foxfier,
    I envy all concealed carry. New Jersey is the worst and no one except criminals and detectives have concealed carry. I understand that it’s the most densely populated state but they should permit tactical knives by license since no innocent bystander gets hit by a knife. There’s almost no knife you can carry in N.J. The key in the cities is to avoid certain neighborhoods as you would avoid a ricin shower and after dark…why go out …since 80% of the violence happens then. Our fire chief’s ( black) son ( Jersey City) was murdered by blacks at night in a robbery and in same month, a black man was murdered after a fender bender in front of his family…both unsolved….both moron actors probably on the welfare dole living with mom.

  • My husband turned down a job he would’ve loved– with good pay– because it would require us to live there; at the same time, he’s applied for jobs on the Mexican border in areas known for Mexican gang activity.
    He knows more about gun laws and the gang risks– especially international ones– than I do, so I figure that’s all I’ve got to know about New Jersey’s laws.

  • . He was correct. If you get a flat tire at night in the wrong neighborhood in JC even if you live in an affluent area, your goose is cooked sauteed and roasted….because you have no right to carry in N.J. Only the thugs do. Funny story….I told one of the rappers from Mobb Deep in our NY affluent area that we were moving down to J.C. He squinted and mumbled…” watch out down there brother…be careful”. And their music is strictly for the thugs he was warning about. But I grew up here and my parents’ vibe is here while they are in Heaven I believe…and I like that vibe. One day I hope we live on a sailboat and follow the temperature along the Atlantic.

  • A good Communist never lets an opportunity go by to advance the Communist agenda of gun confiscation.

  • We left NJ fifty years ago. Their gun laws make no sense. It’s a case of ideology over logic. I think it was Cicero who said, “Fury will find its weapon”.

  • http://articles.latimes.com/1993-01-26/news/mn-1795_1_handgun-control

    http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=40502426

    Nelson Shields IV was killed perfectly at random due to his white skin. His father’s reaction to that was to give up his work at duPont and spend the rest of his life agitating against pistols. At least Sarah Brady’s agitation was induced by guns in the hands of a man who belonged in an asylum. Shields’ work has the hallmarks of a man substituting a socially acceptable object for an unacceptable one.

  • I think gun-control has become an idée fixe among the people of the Left. No correct statistical or logical argument seems to penetrate their argle-bargle on the subject. The only efficacious strategy is to keep their hands away from the levers of political power.

  • I think gun-control has become an idée fixe among the people of the Left.

    Again, it shifts the blame away from an unacceptable target (slum hoodlums) to an acceptable set (manufacturers and ordinary people, especially non metropolitan populations). It shifts the means from the unacceptable (police officers surveying and detaining slum hoodlums, courts and prisons punishing them) to acceptable means (civil servants refusing permits). For a bourgeois like Obama, a certain sort of self-aggrandizement is ever at work. In this case, it is professional people like himself acting to lower the status of one set of cultural competitors in order to avoid lowering the status of their slum clientele (whose ‘plight’ provides employment and status for those in their social circle).

    Look at the dismay among academics (Bernard Harcourt), politicians (Bilge de Blasio), and judges (Shira Sheindlin) over the success the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations had in New York City (an 87% reduction in homicide rates). The point is never to accomplish anything real and broadly recognized as good. The point is to aggrandize your sense of self. North of 97% of the homicides which take place in this country could be accomplished with a double-barreled shot-gun. The prevalence of pistols contributes to homicide rates, but we have a pretty good idea that its an unimportant vector.

  • In NY, only the criminals and police are armed. After Sandy Hook, Capo Cuomo shoved through a law banning high magazine (sic) capacities and certain “assault weapons.” CT did a similar boondoggle. Guess how many CT and NY citizens now are criminals. It comes to a couple of million.
    .
    The disconnected, execrable liars aren’t against guns. It’s people control they want. They want Americans disarmed to make safe the state’s final assault on liberty and property. The police will need all the guns they can carry when they come to disarm us.
    .
    Go figure. They say that Trump cannot deport 11,000,000 criminals, invaders and looters. But the so-called progressives plan to forcibly disarm 83,000,0000 law-abiding Americans.
    .
    Any idiot could be a liberal. All one need do is memorize inane one-liners on equality (translated quotas/preferences, gay privileges, welfare) women’s health care (translated contraception and abortion), fundamental transformation (translated irreparable damage), global warming (translated crony socialism), guns, racism (translated gimme everything), war on women, etc.
    .
    Fun fact. When Algore was born there were 7,000 polar bears. Today, there are 26,000.

  • There are any number of ways of killing people, other than shooting.

    Of the 61 cases of homicide recorded in Scotland for 2013-2014,
    23 were by sharp instrument, mainly knives,
    10 by hitting or kicking,
    7 by strangulation/asphyxiation,
    5 by blunt instrument
    2 by fire-raising.
    2 by shooting.
    1 poisoning.
    11 other and unknown.

    In 43 of the 61 cases (70%), victim and accused were known to each other as friends, acquaintances, partners or ex-partners.
    There were some 88 accused; 37 were under the influence of alcohol, 2 under the influence of drugs and 7 were both.

  • Pretend for a moment that you don’t believe in God. People are just animals, albeit highly evolved apes. Pretend that your are among an elite of the most intelligent of these by nature naked but smart apes. You are the natural leader of the species. What to do? Dare you let them run free? No. They are animals. Bring forth the muzzle and chains. It explains a great deal.

Bishop Elect Barron, Stephen Colbert and Abortion

Thursday, August 27, AD 2015

 

Bishop Elect Barron has a post at Catholic News Report that rubs me the wrong way.  Here is the beginning:

 

Just last week, Stephen Colbert gave an interview in which the depth of his Catholic faith was on pretty clear display. Discussing the trauma that he experienced as a young man-the deaths of his father and two of his brothers in a plane crash – he told the interviewer how, through the ministrations of his mother, he had learned not only to accept what had happened but actually to rejoice in it: “Boy, did I have a bomb when I was ten; that was quite an explosion…It’s that I love the thing that I wish most had not happened.”

Flummoxed, his interlocutor asked him to elaborate on the paradox. Without missing a beat, Colbert cited J.R.R. Tolkien: “What punishments of God are not gifts?” What a wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering! And it was delivered, not by a priest or bishop or evangelist, but by a comedian about to take over one of the most popular television programs on late night.

Go here to read the rest.  The problem that I have with this is that the Bishop-Elect fails to note that on a crucial issue, abortion, Colbert is in opposition to the Faith.  Go here to see a video in which Colbert ridicules the efforts in 2011 to defund Planned Parenthood Worse Than Murder, Inc. on the grounds that abortions make up only three percent of the business of Worse Than Murder, Inc.  There are two problems with this line of argument.  First, because it is morally obtuse:  “Look at all the good things that Hitler did!  Murdering millions of people in death camps was only a very small percentage of what the Third Reich accomplished!”  The fact that Planned Parenthood is engaged in killing innocent children in utero should be repugnant to any “good Catholic”, or, indeed, any man or woman of conscience.  Second, because it is a lie.  Colbert got the three percent figure from Planned Parenthood talking points.  The figure is ludicrous.  Planned Parenthood performs thirty percent of all abortions in this country.  Abortions are a major revenue generator for them.  Even the pro-abort Washington Post a few weeks ago, admitted that the three percent figure is deceitful:

The 3 percent figure that Planned Parenthood uses is misleading, comparing abortion services to every other service that it provides. The organization treats each service — pregnancy test, STD test, abortion, birth control — equally. Yet there are obvious difference between a surgical (or even medical) abortion, and offering a urine (or even blood) pregnancy test. These services are not all comparable in how much they cost or how extensive the service or procedure is.

The Church has been against abortion since the time of Christ.  Stephen Colbert defends the organization that promotes the ongoing murder of the most innocent among us.  Go here to watch a video of his drinking game, with a drink being taken whenever Rick Santorum mentioned partial birth abortion.

Continue reading...

117 Responses to Bishop Elect Barron, Stephen Colbert and Abortion

  • Another good article with astute observations.

    “Look at all the good things that Hitler did!”

    I occasionally remind my loving friends and relatives, who no longer bother with church(those with perfect lives, jobs, children, and homes) that the Nazi’s children were perfectly disciplined too.
    They don’t admit their misdirection–needless to say–I become the problem.

  • . Great piece, Don. I rarely was up that late but on a rare night I surfed to it and Jane Fonda was coming on to him
    and then sitting on his lap and getting closer. First she was on a Vietcong tank….then Colbert years later. I can only hope Whitey Bulger doesn’t get a public Mass with high clergy when he dies with subtle hints that he’s glory bound because he was good in prison. A Mass yes…but he should have been renditioned to Saudi Arabia.

  • I agree with Bill Bannon.

  • It’s way past time for us to just admit to ourselves that the leaders of our Church don’t ACTUALLY believe about abortion what they claim to believe.

  • Exceptional piece of the puzzle.
    Combine this missed opportunity with a Papal indifference to abortions then you have exactly what we experienced in the last two presidential elections… Catholics voting in pro-aborts without a care in their hearts.

    This article should be brought up next Sunday from the ambo, given by each priest as his homily.

  • Paraphrasing Twain, “Suppose you were a liberal. And, suppose you were an imbecile. But, I repeat myself.”
    .

    That the interviewer did not call-out Colbert on that moral nonsense tells us more about the interviewer than about Colbert.
    .

    “. . . .abortions make up only three percent of the business of Worse Than Murder, Inc.” is equivalent to telling a Holocaust survivor’s grandchildren that the Holocaust was less than 1% of Nazi Germany’s GDP in the 1940’s.
    .

    The other “moral obtuseness”, and contradiction of Catholic Teachings, is that of the sinfulness of WTM Inc.’s activities with regard to propagating artificial contraception, which, as with abortion, your (not mine) so-called hierarchy demonstrably denies.

  • I don’t typically comment but on this I feel compelled. Sometimes it’s ok to not rejoice in the sin of another and to simply celebrate the Good Work God is doing in them. My hope is that like in the gospel, those of you that would throw the first stones at your fellow humans who struggle with following the teachings of the church would be completely without sin.
    Jesus didn’t ask us, nor does the church, to lambaste our fellow Catholics in the hopes of making our positions stronger. Jesus AND the church asks us to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully.
    We are to be in the world but not of it. Sometimes the world simply does what we know to be incorrect and yet it is our job to speak in LOVE to them, and allow them to turn from the sin themselves, not to force them to do it. Planned Parenthood, while actively going against church teaching, is NOT a function of the church, nor of her people. If you force them to shut down, you will literally just cause a scattering where they reopen and resolve to fight. If you love them to the understanding of the church, not only will they voluntarily close, but you will also have evangelized and brought others to Christ.
    My question for everyone is simple, Do you love Jesus enough to allow God to work in the lives of those people that are repugnant to you? Do you love Jesus enough to show up and LOVE sinners? Do you even know Jesus?

  • “If you force them to shut down, you will literally just cause a scattering where they reopen and resolve to fight. If you love them to the understanding of the church, not only will they voluntarily close, but you will also have evangelized and brought others to Christ.”

    Why not do both? Seek to evangelize them and also seek to extend legal protection to the unborn. What a Catholic must not do is precisely what Stephen Colbert has done: defend Planned Parenthood and attack those who are attempting to end its part in the abortion holocaust.

  • Fr. Barron, a flaky Catholic celebrity praising another flaky Catholic celebrity. Par for the course!

  • I don’t understand the Bishop elect talking about a television celebrity as the topic for his Catholhc article, when there are more pressing and interesting topics to refer to?

    What is the obsession with looking to celebrities for some trace of fidelity to God? You won’t find any. And for an educated elect Bishop to do so, brings down his credibility a notch.

    It’s all mind-numbing. And because it’s mind numbing, it’s boring and frustrating. Especially when the world is so thirsty for the Word of God. Whether they realise it or not!

  • My hope is that like in the gospel, those of you that would throw the first stones at your fellow humans who struggle with following the teachings of the church would be completely without sin.

    False equivalency. It is one thing to sin and fall short in one’s behavior, and quite another to obstinately oppose a principal tenet of the faith. Colbert is not “struggling” with following the teachings of the Church; he is manifestly contradicting them.

    Jesus didn’t ask us, nor does the church, to lambaste our fellow Catholics in the hopes of making our positions stronger. Jesus AND the church asks us to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully.

    This is a strawman argument. First of all, fraternal correction is always appropriate, and does not require lambasting the other person. Second, even if one does not choose to dwell on another’s sinful or heretical behavior, it does not follow that it is then appropriate to publicly applaud a person’s faith when that person is publicly causing scandal by his opposition to Church teaching.

    Do you love Jesus enough to allow God to work in the lives of those people that are repugnant to you? Do you love Jesus enough to show up and LOVE sinners? Do you even know Jesus?>

    Perhaps you did not intend this, but your tone comes off as rather self-righteous, and frankly contradicts what you’ve just written. I always find it rather amusing that the people who complain the most bitterly about harsh judgment immediately turn around and implicitly question the interior disposition of the people they are addressing.

  • but your tone comes off as rather self-righteous,

    Or cloying.

  • ‘ fellow humans who struggle with following the teachings of the church ‘
    ‘ to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully ‘
    .
    The ‘Together’ part should be part of the struggle, or it becomes a cafeteria serving satisfaction for varying appetites. It is essential for the wholesomeness of the children allowed to live and the standards by which they proceed to maintain integrity and sanity..

  • Kat,
    Do you even know Scripture all of which is inspired by Jesus? Here’s Titus 3:10 ” After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, 11 realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned.”
    That is Jesus saying that through the epistle author. The real Jesus left His hometown because His love did zilch there….Matthew 13:53-58….58 “And he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith”.
    Where’s the heresy? Abortion is not simply universal ordinary magisterium anymore in the Church…an area somewhat iffy varying with the topic and Pope…e.g. death penalty of Romans 13:4. In Evangelium Vitae section 62 it …abortion as evil was made crystal clear in the extraordinary magisterium in words resembling the wording used in the Assumption and Immaculate Conception encyclicals. Pope St. JPII polled all Bishops on abortion and was therefore able to make its condemnation totally clear and infallible which is rare outside the problematic unversal ordinary magisterium.
    Therefore unlike most moral issues….abortion being clearly infallibly condemned along with euthanasia and killing the innocent….can theoretically lead to excommunication in a Church court. Which makes Titus 3:10 very applicable…Jesus telling you yourself to shun a fellow Catholic holding abortion as moral sometimes.
    Throwing stones by me at both Colbert and Whitey Bulger is metaphoric and quite inaccurate because I prayed for both men ….Whitey last night after hearing him call himself an Irish Catholic on an FBI tape. He strangled a young girl in front of her boyfriend because she simply knew of his being an FBI informant….and he killed many others. God reminded me recently in a street fight with a criminal that I’m frightfully near murder even now….while that was perfectly obvious when I was young. Without Him, I’m the vigilante killer…still earns eternal damnation though I do think governments should have extrajudicial killing teams with multiple layers of approval. Bulger killed for thirty years with corrupted contacts in local, state and Federal levels. There should be an epikeia team within government that would have protected that girl he strangled by killing him. I would have been sorely tempted to kill Bulger if he threatened my young daughter as he did to Rakes….a liquor store owner he was extorting in South Boston. But if you see me throwing stones verbally, you can be sure I’m praying for those people because I pray for the worst of the world almost nightly for many years because without God…I’m not that far from them. Every line of the epistles is from Christ…Vatican II Dei Verbum….” both testaments in all their parts have God as their author”. Christ even in His literal words on earth talked of shunning in this Mt.18:15-17 passage…” if your brother sin against you, show him in private. If he does not listen,…take one or two more with you…if he refuses to listen to them, take him to the church…if he refuses to listen to the church, let him be to you as the gentile and the tax collector”.
    So the real actual Jesus does not sound like the one you are asking us about. The real Jesus had limits not on love but on friendliness. Love can be done through prayer after friendliness ends…after contact ends. Two of the functions Christ has right now in Heaven are…intercession ( Hebrews 7:25) and waiting while His enemies are made into His footstool ( psalm 110:1, Acts 2:35, …and I Cor. 15:25…”For He must reign until He puts all His enemies under His feet.”
    Love and justice….not just the former.

  • “Jesus didn’t ask us, nor does the church, to lambaste our fellow Catholics in the hopes of making our positions stronger. Jesus AND the church asks us to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully.”

    This is a strawman argument. First of all, fraternal correction is always appropriate, and does not require lambasting the other person.

    Indeed, PZ. In fact, admonishing the sinner is one of the seven spiritual works of mercy.

  • Of all and any people, Catholics, because of Mary saying : “I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION” must know that the human being comes into existence at procreation. At procreation, God creates and infuses an immortal, rational, human soul into the newly begotten human being endowed with free will and sovereign personhood. “Before you were in your mother’s womb, I knew you..Isaiah. Unbelief in the immortal, human soul is atheism and the subjugation of the sovereign person to the animal kingdom, to subhumanism. It is called secularism today, but it is subhumanism.
    The other thing that violated my sense of truth is that the man celebrated his parents’ demise, instead of seriously praying for them. The victims of death are the ones who may celebrate, not their left behind loved ones.
    Somebody once told me that I ought to be glad, for abortion sends many innocent souls to heaven. This is the lie given over to our supposedly spiritual directors. The rest is atheism. The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse: Unbridled Ignorance. Refusal to cogitate and use our rational soul. Thinking without our soul is is what??? Sins against the Holy Spirit.

  • “Jesus didn’t ask us, nor does the church, to lambaste our fellow Catholics in the hopes of making our positions stronger. Jesus AND the church asks us to reconcile with each other, to discern together the way of the cross and to faithfully follow Jesus joyfully.”
    We are not “fellow Catholics”. Stop ex-appropriating my support for an unholy alliance. It is the principle of injustice that must be addressed, not the fool embracing such an evil. Who will exorcise the devil if the devil is allowed to hide in the human form of a human being? Are there enough swine to hold the legion? At least the Chosen People did not allow human sacrifice to Molech. the Chosen People were instructed to drive those nations out of the Holy Land. People who have eyes but cannot see, have ears but cannot hear…a free will choice.

  • “If you love them to the understanding of the church, not only will they voluntarily close, but you will also have evangelized and brought others to Christ.”. -Kay

    So we have a clear understanding of this loving them to the understanding of the church? Please do tell!
    The sidewalk prayers and counseling that have been active since the beginning, 1973, are understandable. They have saved babies.
    They have born fruit, ie Rachel’s vineyard, Silent No More, Our Lady of Good Council Homes just to name a few. To me this is clear understanding of the church’s love in the middle of this rotten mess…tax funded abortions on demand.

    The results of a sit back and love without opposition to the rotten mess is not working well Kay. Do you think we have less abortions because we have been visible and outspoken in this war? I believe it is so. Should we unite as a undivided Church in proclaiming abortion to be the scourge of our times, and to not perpetuate the war by making accountable the representative’s that want our vote? Yes!

    To be divided as a body of Christ in this issue of Life for all, born and unborn, is prolonging the deaths of the Innocent’s.
    60 million today. 100 million tomorrow?
    Choose unity. Choose life.

  • “If you love them to the understanding of the church, not only will they voluntarily close, but you will also have evangelized and brought others to Christ.”

    I wish this was true Kat, but the devil does not back down so easily. Especially not with love.

    It is right to judge these people and their actions, because their intentions are evil, knowingly and deliberately. By choice. We must oppose. We must condemn deliberate evil actions. But also pray for God to intervene.

    It is not right, however, to judge those, whose intention is misguided, confused- most probably unknowing. I guess you could apply your philosophy to these folk.

    Celebrities, are a mixed bag of the two- it’s difficult to discern who is what.

  • I don’t agree. And that’s because this wasn’t a Salute to Stephen Colbert, Comedian, Catholic; rather it was a meditation on the Graces that come from deep suffering, in which Stephen Colbert, Comedian, Catholic was but one of three exemplars, the others being J.R.R. Tolkien, Author, Catholic, and John Henry Cardinal Newman, Convert, Catholic.

  • This is a salute:

    “Just last week, Stephen Colbert gave an interview in which the depth of his Catholic faith was on pretty clear display. Discussing the trauma that he experienced as a young man-the deaths of his father and two of his brothers in a plane crash – he told the interviewer how, through the ministrations of his mother, he had learned not only to accept what had happened but actually to rejoice in it: “Boy, did I have a bomb when I was ten; that was quite an explosion…It’s that I love the thing that I wish most had not happened.”

    Flummoxed, his interlocutor asked him to elaborate on the paradox. Without missing a beat, Colbert cited J.R.R. Tolkien: “What punishments of God are not gifts?” What a wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering! And it was delivered, not by a priest or bishop or evangelist, but by a comedian about to take over one of the most popular television programs on late night.”

  • The thing that links Colbert, with Tolkein and Cardinal Newman isn’t his Catholocism or his celebrity, it’s his experience of the mystery and wonder of God’s providence –to paraphrase Bishop Elect Barron.
    .
    In case that wasn’t clear.

  • I thought it was an introduction.

  • I don’t read it that way. But all I knew about Colbert before this article was that he had a show I’ve never seen on a cable channel I don’t have and that he’s replacing a late night talking head I never liked on a show I rarely watched. Oh, and he voiced the President in fairly good Dreamworks Animation pic. I take it that he made a career for himself lampooning the emminently lampoonable Bill O’Reilly.
    .
    Since today is the first time I’ve learned that he’s a pro-choice Catholic, When I read the BIshop-Elect’s piece last night, I didn’t read it as a commentary on the totality or authenticiy of Colbert’s Catholic witness, just on his witness to the experience of Grace in suffering. So to my mind, the point is irrelevant to Barron’s essay.

  • “So to my mind, the point is irrelevant to Barron’s essay.”

    Whenever anyone is pointed to in the way in which Barron pointed to Colbert, noting the depth of that person’s faith, how the individual lives his Catholicism is relevant, especially in regard to someone like Colbert who has dissented from Church teaching publicly, stridently and unapologetically. This is akin to a priest noting that a Mafia killer never missed Mass on Sunday.

  • What I now wish I had said:

    I’m sorry it rubs you the wrong way, because I think it might be keeping you from seeing the point, which is “God’s providence is a mysterious and wonderful thing[,]” and “our lives are not about us[;] . . . they are, in fact, ingredient in God’s providential purposes, part of a story that stretches infinitely beyond what we can immediately grasp.” And even a celebrity pro-Abort shallow cafateria catholic (assuming that is in fact what Colbert is) can sometimes offer witness to the Truth.

  • Gee, I wonder if Barron would have praised the faith of Colbert if he had been say, stridently anti-abortion but pro-death penalty. I have a sleeking suspicion he would deliver a homily laced with F-Bombs and other expletives before he would do that.

  • The interviewer in the video above posted on his Facebook page about all the hate coming from Catholics after the June 26 decision about gay “marriage”. He celebrates it.
    All three of these characters – Colbert, Barron, and Martin make the devil gleeful- quite good catches for the dark side- but we are praying for our Church and must defend truth – I don’t want to pray for these three because I am angry and hurt by the deception. I don’t do a good job but I know I should.

  • About fr Martin – father Z has written about him a few times . Also there is this
    http://www.davidlgray.info/blog/2015/07/fr-james-martin/

  • “And even a celebrity pro-Abort shallow cafateria catholic (assuming that is in fact what Colbert is) can sometimes offer witness to the Truth.”

    Indeed, as can the Devil.

  • “Colbert, Barron, and Martin make the devil gleeful”

    To be fair to Father Barron, he has normally been orthodox. He recently released a brilliant video on the Planned Parenthood videos that I will feature in a post tomorrow. I wrote this post because I expect better from Barron. With many other clerics, I wouldn’t have wasted my time.

  • Give Barron the benefit of the doubt that:

    A) he doesn’t know of Colberts stance on abortion

    Or

    B) he knows his stance on abortion and is shining light on Colbert’s good understanding of suffering, to slowly turn him around to see his flawed view. If Baron is Bishop of Los Angeles/Hollywood- then he would have a vested interest in having dialogue with “Catholic” celebrities (which is beyond me- they’re all about attention).

    If B) is true, it will only be evident over time.

    Btw, Colbert mocking Santorum over partial birth abortion is beyond appalling. And low.

    Someone should send him a picture of a murdered baby and see if he laughs.

  • We can thank God for any Grace that we have, but we cannot argue about the degree of our faith – it is like discussing the extent of how much you Love. The Love of God is limitless and the extent of our Love for God may only be measured by God. God does not and could not accept abortions – the degree of our Love for God should understand that and thus – that is our relationship with God.
    But we are all sinners and God is all merciful, so he can and must be the Judge.

  • “And even a celebrity pro-Abort shallow cafateria catholic (assuming that is in fact what Colbert is) can sometimes offer witness to the Truth.”
    Indeed, as can the Devil.

    Okay Mark.

  • I wanted to expect better from Fr Barron too.

  • “Okay Mark.”

    Actually James, James 2:19 to be precise:

    “Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.”

  • Once again, thank you Donald. It is perfectly clear for all to see that the majority of the hierarchy of the Catholic church is not pro-life. These bishops do not believe abortion is murder, a holocaust in all but name. Your proof is irrefutable. “Lets try a thought experiment.” Indeed. Substitute slavery for the unborn and there is not one single prelate who would act the way ours do. The Father Barrons of the world would not be celebrating the “deep Catholic faith” of any such persons.

  • I have to say that being disappointed is an understatement for me. After the CMP videos started coming out, I’ve been waiting to hear a statement from Archbishop Lori. He hasn’t said anything. Not one word. I’m extremely disappointed. I feel like a complete wretch giving money every month to the 5 year Capital Campaign that we pledged to. Part of the money comes back to the parish, but our parish priest had made it abundantly clear to not give the money directly to the parish. I tend to agree that it’s becoming more apparent that the higher ups in the Church aren’t as opposed to abortion as they say they are.

  • Fr. Barron went wobbly when he found out they wanted to make him a bishop. I called a posting of his cowardly. The liberal archbishop of Chicago got him promoted out of his hair. Another critic of Barron noted that he thinks hardly anyone will end up in hell. Christ seemed a little clear about those who do not know Him. Do our catholic clerics really believe anything? Can we tell Cardinal George is dead?

  • Pretty shallow criticism to an article.

  • The approach Pope Francis uses is very similar to what Christ did. You and I can never read what is on someone’s heart. Christ called Peter who openly admitted, Lord I am a sinful man. Yet Christ called him anyway despite this. Christ openly and publicly invited sinners, the outcasts to dine with Him. Why? Because meeting people where they are at in their faith journey is how you win someone over. You don’t win someone over by publically shaming them or calling them out on something they may be struggling with or don’t fully understand. If Stephen Colbert comes to better understand the issue of abortion years from now, what will you say then? Again, you don’t know the private converations these men have. You can only assume. Being polarizing will actually have the opposite effect; it will turn someone away from the truth.

  • “Pretty shallow criticism to an article.”

    Not as shallow as your substanceless comment D, especially considering the number of comments and the hits that the post has received.

  • “If Stephen Colbert comes to better understand the issue of abortion years from now, what will you say then?”

    About time. Let us be clear what we are talking about here: Colbert is a defender of the slaying of children in the womb. In more morally sane times he would be regarded as a monster.

  • Colbert not only believes in murdering unborn children he’s a great promoter of homosexual “marriage”. I feel like throwing up anytime someone brings up Colbert’s “devout” Catholic faith. He”s just one more of the legion of cafeteria Catholics that give the faith a bad name. Father “We all go to heaven” Barron loves him because Father Barron is one of the biggest cheerleaders for the Church of Nice.

  • Am I missing something here? We’re gonna lambast Colbert’s character for a 2011 video and get pissed off at Bishop Elect Barron for not asking Colbert about his abortion position. Yet THIS video was posted March 2nd, 2015 and if I’m not mistaken the Planned Parenthood video’s of 2015 came out in late June.

    Colbert is no saint but he’s done WAY more good for the Church than any other celebrity.

  • , By “shallow” I am referring to the near constant attempt to throw wayward darts towards church leaders who don’t discuss points as you wish. Seems your comments from the article by B. Barron are off base. Yes, it is tragic that Colbert shows the world two faces … a good catholic side and the ignorant PP side. Barron’s piece was not intended to be about Corbert nor all his positions. Clearly you know that, yet for the sake of a blog post choose to ignore it. My reading leaves me dissappointed in Colbert, not Barron.

  • “Colbert is no saint but he’s done WAY more good for the Church than any other celebrity.”

    What a truly ludicrous statement.

  • It is ludicrous to use a pro-infanticide, pro-sodomy secular comedian of questionable talent as a example of fidelity to the Catholic Faith. If St Paul were on Earth today, then he would tell the Church to hand Colbert over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh that his soul might be saved on the last day.
    .
    It is one thing to be a private person and have a moral failing, but you try to pick yourself up and do right. It is another to be a nationally reknown person professing values in public that are anathema to 2000 years of Church tradition. I do not care how much Colbert says he suffered with the death of whoever in his family. He supports the murder and vivisection of the unborn, and the filth of sterile sexual perversion that is destroying our society. That being the case, he has no clue of what real suffering is. Liberal. Progressive. Democrat. That is what he is.

  • How insightful Don – if only you would address the first point I made or perhaps enlighten us with whom you think is the best Catholic celebrity (distraction). Perhaps you prefer Mel Gibson – he’s never done ANYTHING embarrassing especially when we talk about Jews. Jim Carry? Ask him about vaccines! Many whom I’ve read about aren’t nearly as dedicated as Colbert whom has taught Sunday School and been far more public about his faith then others. Perhaps I’m biased from watching too many of his shows…BUT please do tell me how to judge people on content from 4 years ago. I’d love to hear how you answer relevant questions to future controversies/allegations/scandals. Or avoid empirical evidence that makes this article mute.

  • Yes Paul – clearly Colbert should be put in the deepest fires of hell for his positions on abortion, same sex marriage, and being a ‘Liberal. Progressive. Democrat.’ He has soooo much influence on US government unlike Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi. How dare Colbert have a public life and any opinion outside of the Church. If only we could be as faithful to the faith as convert Conservative, Traditional, Republican, the mighty Newt Gingrich.

  • Steve0 is an excellent example of our dilemma in the Catholic Church. The words of St. Pope JPII and abortion being an intrinsic evil that can not be tolerated, fall on deaf ears unfortunately. Sodomite supporters and pro-aborts are Catholic are right.

    Thank you Steve zero.

  • Wow Philip thanks – I’m glad you were able to infer my position on abortion as if I explicitly stated it here like I was at an inquisition! BEHOLD zero tolerance and understanding – it’s as if the last THREE PEOPLE have yet to address the DATES of the VIDEO! See my first post please and respond to it – coy accusations and attacking my character doesn’t get you points in heaven.
    Colbert said Matthew 5 (beatitudes) was his favorite bible passage but he quoted from Matthew 6. Perhaps this room would do well to read the beginning of Matthew 7. I don’t presume to know the mind of God much less the minds of others.
    For the record I’m pro life both before and after birth.

  • Pingback: Defund Planned Parenthood
  • “aren’t nearly as dedicated as Colbert whom has taught Sunday School and been far more public about his faith then others.”

    And he is in favor of baby killing Steve. In regard to the Faith, he is an example, an example of the type of Catholic not to be.

  • “Colbert said Matthew 5 (beatitudes) was his favorite bible passage”

    Judging from his embrace of abortion I assumed it would have been a truncated version of Matthew 19:14 which stops at “Suffer the little children”.

  • Here we go again.
    .
    Steve0,
    .
    I do NOT advocate Colbert be sent to the deepest fires of hell. Rather, I stated that St Paul would advocate that the Church should hand him over to Satan for the destruction of his flesh in order that his soul might be saved on the last day. That would result in his NOT going to hell. But what has Bishop-elect Barron done? He has elevated Colbert’s Catholicism to national prominence instead of condemning what St Paul Paul would clearly have condemned, and by so doing he has greased the skids to hell not only for Colbert but for many others.
    .
    As for fallible Catholic Republicans like Newt Gingrich, there is a world of difference between such people and liberal progressive Democrats who insist that infanticide is repoductive rights and sodomy is marriage. One may be a Republican and a Christian. One cannot be a member of the Party of death and sexual perversion, and be a Christian. Yes, Republicans are often wrong, but generally they are not evil. Democrats however are evil and therein lies the difference.
    .
    One last thing – any one of us (myself most of all) who does not repent goes to hell. That said, (I repeat myself) there is a world of difference between being a private person and having a failing, and being a publc personality who maintains positions contrary to basic human morality. So while Colbert does not have the influence that Pelosi or Biden may have, people in the public by virtue of his televised presence do look up to him and as such he does have an influence. Any private opinion held publicly thus becomes cause for scandal, and that is what both Bishop Elect Barron and Steve Colbert have done.

  • I would think that Colbert’s advocacy for the baby killers at PP is a dealbreaker for his Catholic witness. It is certainly impossible to imagine apologetics on behalf of a prominent Catholic fronting for Maggie Sanger back when she was a going concern. The bishops and laity would have rounded as one on such a person–and rightly so.

    But now, hey–it’s a balancing test or something.

    In any event, SteveO, you are cordially invited to my house for dinner. I put a pinch of cyanide into the entree. You shouldn’t have a problem with that–taking the good with the bad, and all that.

  • Now Boethius was undoubtedly a Christian and even a theologian; his other works bear titles like De Trinitate and De Fide Catholica. But the ‘philosophy’ to which he turned for ‘consolation’ in the face of death contains few explicity Christian elements and even its compatibility with Christian doctrine might be questioned.

    Such a paradox has provoked many hypotheses. As:
    (1) That his Christianity was superficial and failed him when brought to the test, so that he had to fall back on what neo-Platonism could do for him.
    (2) The his Christianity was solid as a rock and his neo-Platonism a mere game with which he distracted himself in his dungeon[.]
    (3) That the theological essays were not really written by the same man.

    None of these theories seems to me necessary.

    Though the De Consolatione was certainly written after his fall, in exile and perhaps under arrest, I do not think it was written in a dungeon nor in daily expectation of the executioner. [ . . . . ] [T]he general tone of the book . . . is not that of a prisoner awaiting death but that of a noble and statesman lamenting his fall[.] [ . . . . ] The Consolation Boethius seeks is not for death but for ruin. When he wrote the book he may have known that his life was in some danger. I do not think he despaired of it. [ . . . .]

    If we had asked Boethius why his book contained philosophical rather than religious consolations, I do not doubt that he would have answered, “But did you not read my title? I wrote philosophically, not religiously, because I had chosen the consolations of philosophy, not those of religion, as my subject. You might as well ask why a book on arithmetic does not use geometrical methods.” Aristotle had impressed on all who followed him the distinction between disciplines and the propriety of following in each its appropriate method.

    C. S, Lewis, The Discarded Image

  • It is ludicrous to use a pro-infanticide, pro-sodomy secular comedian of questionable talent as a example of fidelity to the Catholic Faith.

    Then it’s a good thing Barron didn’t do that.

  • Mel Gibson?

    His contribution to Catholism will out live and out last any so-called contribution to Catholism that a popular Mr. Colbert will ever have. Mel used Venerable Catherine Emmerich as one of his sources for the moments of Christ’s passion. His, Mel’s retelling of the greatest sacrifice ever made, or ever will be made, is monumental. Mr. Steven Colbert can poke fun and parade as a theologian in disguise for the (Catholics) that don’t invest in the 1993 CCC.

    Even with Mel’s faux-pas, He’s healthier than Mr. Colbert. Much healthier in spirit, mind and soul.

  • “Without missing a beat, Colbert cited J.R.R. Tolkien: ‘What punishments of God are not gifts?’”

    Who is God “punishing?” Does Colbert think God was punishing him, that’s why his father and 2 brothers were killed? If so, his comment previously seems a bit insulting and ridiculing of the Catholic faith, from which he learned to “rejoice” in their deaths.

  • Father Barron’s evangelical approach seeks out the good wherever it is, and whoever speaks it, whether they’re a heretical Catholic like Colbert, or a Protestant, or even an atheist. He is certainly aware of Colbert’s support for abortion, but just because someone isn’t in a state of grace doesn’t mean they haven’t said something true–in this case, Colbert has said something deeply true, summing up the essence of the Cross. Barron must have judge it a distraction to chastise Colbert in this particular instance, but that isn’t the same as letting him off the hook.

    Abortion, in our culture, is simply not regarded as the obscenity thoroughgoing Catholics know it is. Barron knows the public is sick of what they perceive as a constant harping on abortion by the leaders of the Church. His approach is to try to emphasize the teachings of the Church on the meaning and dignity of human life, for which people are deeply hungry. Barron has often spoken of how Dorothy Day’s commitment to social justice was intimately linked to her devotion to the Blessed Sacrament. That is to say, faith comes first; morals follow. Our Lord himself affirmed this when he said all of the Law is simply commentary on the commandment to love God fully, and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. Colbert’s statement shows that his faith is right; it’s his morals that go astray. Barron chose simply to comment on the former. His silence on the latter was an act of diplomacy, not negligence. If we’re always scolding, we’re not going to attract anyone to the faith. Barron does not hesitate to scold on many occasions, but his greater concern, as he puts it, is to balance the “Yes” of Catholicism with the “No”.

  • Don – again you continue to ignore the fact that the video posted above was published in March and the latest PP videos are from June/July. Has Colbert posted his feelings about the latest PP videos? Am I missing something here or are we crucifying the man based off his position from 4 years ago?
    Paul – your patience is appreciated. It must feel amazing to have such a direct connection with God and all his saints to advocate St. Paul’s judgment. It would be truly merciful for Colbert to get this Purgatory you describe. I’m reminded of the story when Jesus was the first to stone the adulteress for her sins, but he didn’t – Jesus told her to ‘go and sin no more.’ It’s almost as if Colbert repented it wouldn’t be good enough for God because he’s a public figure and has lead so many others astray.
    Dale – thank you for the dinner invitation please forgive me if I don’t eat anything as my tolerance for cyanide is rather low. God didn’t seem to have a problem taking Saul as his leader even after he killed many Christians. Did I miss the commandment that abortion and sodomy was more egregious to God then murder? See God is able to take the flawed man and remove the bad to leave his perfect goodness.
    Philip – dating a woman half your age is ‘healthy’ – I’m sure the Passion will make up for all future sins too right? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3211713/Mel-Gibson-s-girlfriend-Rosalind-Ross-declines-speak-police-actor-s-alleged-attack-Australian-photographer.html

  • Who is God “punishing?”

    Were you to read the rest of the paragraph, and all of the paragaph following, the answer presents itself.

  • “Don – again you continue to ignore the fact that the video posted above was published in March and the latest PP videos are from June/July. Has Colbert posted his feelings about the latest PP videos? Am I missing something here or are we crucifying the man based off his position from 4 years ago?”

    What did he fail to comprehend about PP when he defended it? Has he lived his life under a rock? His drinking game about partial birth abortion was in 2012. Think about that for a moment. Mocking a politician, Rick Santorum, for opposing what pro-abort Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan referred to as barely disguised infanticide.

  • A breath of fresh air response from a stale thread.

  • “Philip – dating a woman half your age is ‘healthy’ – I’m sure the Passion will make up for all future sins too right?”

    No, it will not:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04/12/crazy-mel/

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2014/03/13/hollywood-should-continue-to-blacklist-mel-gibson/

    I will say one thing for Crazy Mel however. At his worst he has never defended the baby murderers of Planned Parenthood, Steve, and all your bloviating will not alter that fact in regard to Colbert.

  • So, we should not praise the piety and learning of Bossuet, because he defended the Four Gallican Articles, or Blaise Pascal’s, because he believed in the Limited Atonement?

  • ‘video of his drinking game, with a drink being taken whenever Rick Santorum mentioned partial birth abortion’

    A caveat from those with Holy Orders, in their appeal to the culture by using celebrity examples as Catholic, would promote wise teaching, higher learning and examples of Saints aside.

  • “To be fair to Father Barron, he has normally been orthodox. He recently released a brilliant video on the Planned Parenthood videos that I will feature in a post tomorrow. I wrote this post because I expect better from Barron. With many other clerics, I wouldn’t have wasted my time.”

    Yes, Barron has normally stayed within the technical bounds of orthodoxy, but he has shown, as I pointed out in the “Father Barron and the Bomb” piece, that he is not above using below the belt smear tactics against historical figures or giving glowing reviews to books that do so.

    Fr. Barron also does not have to worry anyone getting access to him that can level substantive criticism of what he says. This is especially true now that he will soon join the ranks of the episcopacy.

    I would also say that Catholic World Report shares equal blame here for allowing that piece to be run in their publication. They have also ran some of Mark Shea’s ridiculous “anti-consequentialist” screeds.

  • I cannot abide “Catholics” who defend the murder of babies in the womb. If any person, religious or not, believe that we as humans are invested with a metaphysical essence called ‘spirit’ then the killing of babies can not be rationalized. Even a materialist Darwinist recognizes that the zygote is a unique, living, creature with DNA rendering it a life form that can never be replicated. By what right do baby killers execute these life forms? These are people who wouldn’t kill a rabbit. Like Bork said, he supported abortion UNTIL HE THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

  • “. . . the trauma that he experienced as a young man-the deaths of his father and two of his brothers in a plane crash – he told the interviewer how, through the ministrations of his mother, he had learned not only to accept what had happened but actually to rejoice in it: “Boy, did I have a bomb when I was ten; that was quite an explosion…It’s that I love the thing that I wish most had not happened.”

    “Flummoxed, his interlocutor asked him to elaborate on the paradox. Without missing a beat, Colbert cited J.R.R. Tolkien: “What punishments of God are not gifts?” What a wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering! And it was delivered, not by a priest or bishop or evangelist, but by a comedian about to take over one of the most popular television programs on late night.”

    Argue as you may, gentlemen, the hope and trust in God’s providence expressed in the passage above is what I am taking away from this website today.

  • Don – Thank you for addressing my first point about the video’s…this format of sharing can be difficult and frustrating especially on such a hot topic as abortion. Regarding Colbert’s television character from the Colbert Report Colbert plays a fictional newscaster to entertain. Was Colbert’s drinking game in good taste – NO but it does not define him forever. Please remember in 2012 Mr. Santorum was the butt of many jokes for his stance on many political issues. Remember when he told a lady to reduce her cell phone/cable bill to pay for her prescriptions? How about his support for ‘big insurance’ and their ability to discriminate against per-existing medical conditions. Perhaps we should label him a heretic for recently disagreeing PUBLICLY with the Pope on Climate Change?
    Don – your right about Mel he will not support PP! Let us continue to pray that he can pull himself together and not have another drunken incident. Much like we should pray for Colbert – that he might see the error in his ways and repent.
    I’ve rewatched the ‘Defense of Planned Parenthood’ video. What did he say in the video that was factually wrong? I found it hilarious because he pulled clips of newscasters and politicians saying idiotic things. In fact I’d say he didn’t show support PP but rather attacked the people that factually are incorrect. PP doesn’t do 90% abortions and no Fox&Friends – you can’t get the described medical procedures at Walgreen’s.
    Lastly Don – thanks for the new vocab word. It’s rather difficult to be laconic when addressing multiple commentators.

  • Daily body counts!

    Chet Huntley and David Brinkley would report the news. Remember? No not fashion or celebrity gossip crap, but news that impact the very core of our lives, like the daily body counts from Vietnam. I remember them.
    We prayed for their families and the deceased at the commercial breaks. We prayed for and end to that War.

    Until we get the nightly death count from each state where PP slaughter’s the Innocent’s, until then this debate is a drinking game to some, and the deterioration of the nation to others.
    Until we get those death tallies each night it’s not going to mean anything. We need a nightly reminder!

    Then the abortion rates will drop.
    Then providers will cease to have taxpayer dollars.
    Then the debate will cease.
    The War will end.
    Life will be respected once again.

  • Eventually it comes to the point where I refuse to engage people like Steven0. They are wrong. They will not be comvinced. They are not worth debating. I am 58 years old. I work in nuclear energy. I got more important things to do. Suffice it to say Colbert is a supporter of baby murdering and sodomy. He supports evil. He will answer for that. Barron ingratiating himself with liberals is disgusting. I got no time for anything further. God save America.

  • “So, we should not praise the piety and learning of Bossuet, because he defended the Four Gallican Articles, or Blaise Pascal’s, because he believed in the Limited Atonement?”

    Apples and rock salt MPS. When did either of them defend abortion?

  • “Argue as you may, gentlemen, the hope and trust in God’s providence expressed in the passage above is what I am taking away from this website today.”

    A pity that he does not apply that hope and trust in regard to the babies who come unwanted into this world and then are slaughtered by the contract killers of Planned Parenthood, the organization he defends.

  • Fr. Barron also missed an opportunity to point out how ironic it is that a pro-abort cradle Catholic cites his Catholic faith as something that helped get through the suffering of such a tragic loss, which is actually very life affirming.

    One of the most astounding truths of the reality of evil is how self-refuting it really is.

  • Ernst – if your referring to the link, I read the first link and still get the impression that the message is when bad things happens that is God’s punishment for something. What am I missing?

  • I participate with utmost care, like a not so strong swimmer in a stormy sea. Is not most sin a manifestation of spiritual ignorance? Christ from the Cross says, “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”. So I avoid to judge the state of another’s soul but out of love correct his error. In this case, the greater love is for the millions who are murdered before they defend themselves. I’d say more but at seventy-five I have a lot yet to learn. Then I think of good old Peter who with faith walked on the water……… a little.

  • “His contribution to Catholism will out live and out last any so-called contribution to Catholism that a popular Mr. Colbert will ever have. ”

    Well said Phillip.

    I don’t know much about Colbert, but he comes across as a sheep in wolf clothing.

    Mel Gibson with all his sins (and we ALL have them) struggles with alcoholism. And I would t be surprised if he struggles with mental illness too.

    But he does not defend his sins nor makes excuses, nor advocates for anything contrary to church teaching.

    Advocating for the killing of the unborn, laughing at it, laughing at those that defend the unborn is disgusting!

    You cannot CANNOT be Catholic and defend abortion. Period. Teach Sunday school, be a Eucharistic minister or find the cure for cancer- you are NOT a Catholic if you defend the killing if the innocent and defenceless unborn.

    Mel Gibson, is more if a Catholic in my eyes.

  • Of course, the lying liberal sacs of feces will employ whatever infallible (assuming it’s not the Truth) Colbert says as if it were ex cathedra Church Teaching. And, the lowing hordes of misinformed, single-digit IQ dem voters will be thusly enlightened.

  • I read the first link and still get the impression that the message is when bad things happens that is God’s punishment for something. What am I missing?

    .
    Not when bad things per se happen; when death happens. “[W]hat particularly intrigued me,” wrote Barron, “was the reference to Tolkien, which was culled, not from The Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit, but from a letter that the great man wrote to an inquirer, who had wondered whether Tolkien took death with sufficient spiritual seriousness in his literary work.”
    .
    Reread Genesis 3 in the light of Romans 5:12-21, and 6:15-23 (or maybe all of chapters 5 & 6).
    .

    O happy fault, O necessary sin of Adam,
    which gained for us so great a Redeemer!

    .
    Planned Parenthood, arbortion, contraception, and Colbert’s manifest failures to uphold publicly the Church’s teachings on them, don’t enter into the Bishop-Elect’s essay because that’s not what he chose to write about, much as Donald might wish it were otherwise.
    .
    So in this very narrow instance, D Will made a valid point.

    Finally, by way of anticipatory prebuttal, Barron closed with:

    One of the most potent insights of the spiritual masters is that our lives are not about us, that they are, in fact, ingredient in God’s providential purposes, part of a story that stretches infinitely beyond what we can immediately grasp. Why are we suffering now? Well, it might be so that, in St. Paul’s language, we might comfort someone else with the same consolation we have received in our suffering. And that someone might be a person who has not even been born.

    St. John Paul II commented that, for people of faith, there are no coincidences, only aspects of God’s providence that we have not yet fully understood. The line that runs from Newman to Murphy to Tolkien to Colbert was not dumb chance, a mere coincidence; rather, it was an instance of the slow but sure unfolding of the divine plan.

    .
    The blood of the innocent crying out to Heaven won’t be ignored. Nor will their suffering go to waste.

  • “The blood of the innocent crying out to Heaven won’t be ignored. Nor will their suffering go to waste.”

    Nobody has a right to ignore the blood of the innocent crying in this life. It defies God. This is the real test.

    And nobody has the right to defend any TV clown that thinks it is ok to do so.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Apples and rock salt MPS. When did either of them defend abortion?”

    My point is that both departed from the fulness of the Faith on particular points.

    Even that great champion of orthodoxy, St Atahansius wrote of Arian baptisms, “”Is not the rite administered by the Arians, altogether empty and unprofitable? He that is sprinkled by them is rather polluted than redeemed,” a doctrinecondemned by Pope St Stephen some 50 years earlier. St Ambrose, one of the four great doctorsof the Latin Church, fell into the same error: “”The baptism of traitors does not heal, does not cleanse, but defiles.” Should we include a caveat, when we praise their writings?

  • “My point is that both departed from the fulness of the Faith on particular points”

    My point MPS is that your attempted analogy is nonsense.

    http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Faulty-Analogy.html

  • William P Walsh wrote, “Then I think of good old Peter who with faith walked on the water……… a little.”
    Concerning St Peter’s denial of Christ, St Augustine teaches, “”that God, in order to show us that without grace we can do nothing, left St. Peter without grace.” St John Crysostom also, “that the fall of St. Peter happened, not through any coldness towards Jesus Christ, but because grace failed him; and that he fell, not so much through his own negligence as through the withdrawal of God, as a lesson to the whole Church, that without God we can do nothing.”
    Very salutary this, in an age when the Church is so infected with Pelagianism.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “My point MPS is that your attempted analogy is nonsense.”

    It is not, strictly speaking an analogy at all, but univocal examples of departures from Catholic teaching.

    One could argue that some errors are more pernicious than others, but, by that standard, errors about the Atonement go to the heart of the Gospel and errors about the Primacy to the Church’s unity. Any error on a moral question, whilst deplorable, comes a long way down that list

  • “It is not, strictly speaking an analogy”

    Yes it is between Colbert and the examples you cited. And if you think that defending baby murdering is not more important than the doctrinal disputes you raised in the eyes of God, I respectfully suggest that you take a very long look in your mirror.

  • Defend/accuse Colbert or Fr. Barron ( or Fr. Martin) – ? We can all see the sin here, quite public because of the position these three have put themselves in as leaders, teachers, shapers of the culture
    What is important to me is that people, young and old, need to be warned about the messages coming from these three.
    In many ways TAC can act as a watchman on the wall.
    .
    All of the points made here in this discussion are thoughtful. Perhaps Fr Barron and Fr Martin are at risk for their actions because of their ordination and position as teachers of the Faith (James 3) They have maxed their response to the call to evangelize by taking their effort to highest levels of communication today in DVD’s, print, internet and personal appearances…but the content of what they are preaching should be checked. There is danger to their own souls for they are leading lesser minds astray from Truth.
    .
    also James say in 2:1-4 that favoritism toward one who is rich and influential can be dangerous. (if we give acceptance to one who is rich and famous Because he is rich and attractive) doesn’t help us and doesn’t help him. If we show such partiality and do not call these men out, despite their positional identity, we do not love them.
    Colbert seems to me to be confused and searching although very gifted and glib. He has knowledge but not faith I guess.
    Liberty comes with acceptance of God’s authority…”law” of faith or “obedience” of faith
    Love and responsibility – that is what we are called to as Catholics

  • Nobody has a right to ignore the blood of the innocent crying in this life. It defies God. This is the real test.
    And nobody has the right to defend any TV clown that thinks it is ok to do so.

    Then it’s a good thing that nobody is.

  • “Then it’s a good thing nobody is”

    Stephen Colbert is.

  • I had assumed you were talking about the commenters here.

  • Defending a TV clown, that is.

  • Well I am.

    Some comments come across as forgiving of this mans pro-abortion stance because he teaches Sunday school- ie. defending a TV clowns good qualities- and ending with the consolation that the blood of the innocent will not be forgotten. It can’t be both ways. If we don’t want to forget the blood of the innocent, then don’t defend those that do so arrogantly- like Stephen Colbert, because he calls himself “Catholic”.

  • And some comments come across like some commenter hasn’t bothered to read the original essay because some commenter is too busy condemning either Worse than Murder Inc. or Stephen Colbert, or both, and can’t be bothered to take the time to actually read and try to understand what Bishop-Elect Barron wrote about.
    .
    But that’s the problem with Some commenter. And you’ll have to take it up with him.
    .
    Or maybe I’ve just misunderstood what Some commenter was trying to say.

  • “Or maybe I’ve just misunderstood what Some commenter was trying to say.”

    I don’t know if you have. But Donald is completely right about criticising a Bishop of the Church using a catholic celebrity who supports the killing of the innocent, as an example for good Christian thinking- because Colbert knows what it’s like to suffer.

  • Donald is wrong because Barron’s essay isn’t about Colbert’s thinking, good, Christian, or otherwise. If it’s about anybody’s, it’s Tolkien’s thinking that it would be about. And really, what it’s about is “the salvific quality of suffering” in which one can discover that “that God’s providence is a mysterious and wonderful thing.”
    .
    But we’re all too busy to notice that, playing, as we are, the role of Pharisees tut-tutting that rabbi from Nazareth who consorts with women, gentiles, tax collectors and other assorted sinners.

  • “Donald is wrong because Barron’s essay isn’t about Colbert’s thinking, good, Christian, or otherwise.”

    Donald is right because the Bishop-Elect saluted the faith of a man who defends the contract killers of Planned Parenthood. If Barron did not know about Colbert, he is sloppy and ignorant, used in a literal sense, in choosing him as an example. If he did know and did not care, that is simply appalling.

  • “But we’re all too busy to notice that, playing, as we are, the role of Pharisees tut-tutting that rabbi from Nazareth who consorts with women, gentiles, tax collectors and other assorted sinners.”

    Christ told the sinners to go and sin no more. I can imagine the words that Christ would have for the defenders of child murderers.

  • Ernst.

    Kind Sir. I’ve read your posts from previous threads, and I sincerely mean this, your a good man.

    I disagree with your final assertion.

    What many of us are, is not Pharisees, but follows of Christ tired of others that claim the same, yet help to perpetuate the ongoing killing of innocent children. When one of “our fellow brothers” has a high profile position in and out of the church, we feel saddened that the innocent will suffer.

    Mr. McCleary will speak for himself, however my take on your words is one of misunderstanding. Please save the Pharisees description for those that deserve it.
    Try the Vatican first.

  • Baron wrote:
    “What a wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering! And it was delivered, not by a priest or bishop or evangelist, but by a comedian about to take over one of the most popular television programs on late night”

    Ernst wrote:
    “Donald is wrong because Barron’s essay isn’t about Colbert’s thinking, good, Christian, or otherwise.”

    If Colbert supported Paedophilia and Baron praised his “wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering” would your response be the same?

    Enough already Ernst.

    Donald is presently mourning the passing of his good friend Chris, who by the way was a Methodist- who lived a life better than most Catholics- myself included (read his tribute post), not busy tut-tutting at other “catholic” clowns, like a Pharisee.

  • Donald is right because the Bishop-Elect saluted the faith of a man who defends the contract killers of Planned Parenthood. If Barron did not know about Colbert, he is sloppy and ignorant, used in a literal sense, in choosing him as an example. If he did know and did not care, that is simply appalling.

    I don’t read Barron as saluting Colbert’s faith. I read him as saying Colbert’s faith in God’s providence is deep and Catholic because it recognizes the paradox of salvation in suffering. Catholics have thought and continue to think about these things. I come from an evangelical background. They don’t really do suffering. And all the emoting doesn’t really leave time for thinking. I do concede that Colbert seems to have “a faith without works” problem, making him a deep hole of narrow circumference. Finally, without Colbert quoting Tolkien in GQ, my guess is that Barron would have chosen a differnt topic for his essay.

    If Colbert supported Paedophilia and Baron praised his “wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering” would your response be the same?

    Given that I read the Bishop-Elect’s essay before Donald put up this post, that, as I’ve already indicated, I don’t know Colbert from Carell, and that even a stopped clock encounters the truth twice a day, probably yes, it would be.
    .
    And it’s not Colbert’s sermon, it’s Tolkien’s. Colbert merely repeated it to a flummoxed reporter.

    Phillip,

    Thank you for your kind words. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said. Barron’s essay and Colbert’s witness, such as it is (and nowhere have I disagreed with anybody’s criticism of Colbert) are two seperate things, and focusing on the latter is to miss the point of the former.

  • I’ll revise my Pharisee remark to this extent:

    I think it’s pharasaical to criticize Bishop-Elect Barron’s essay on providential suffering by dwelling on Stephen Colbert’s shortcomings when Colbert is not the subject of the essay, but merely serves as the introductory hook and first of three exemplars of that suffering. That’s what I mean by missing the point. It’s like faulting Boethius for not writing about the consolations of theology.
    .
    Maybe I should have said that I think there’s a mote/beam problem going on here. But I expect that wouldn’t have gone over any better. In any event, I said it, so I’ll own it.
    .
    By the way, I did think of a way that one could use Barron’s essay, Colbert’s reference to the Tolkien quote, and a Barak Obama quotation to make a point about Worse than Murder Inc. and abortion. But since my entire stance is premised on the idea that it’s poor form to criticize an author either for what he didn’t write or for what he should have written integrity demands I keep it to myself.
    .
    Fortunately, it isn’t hard to figure out.

  • “And it’s not Colbert’s sermon, it’s Tolkien’s. Colbert merely repeated it to a flummoxed reporter.”

    Baron repeating Colbert who repeated Tolkien.

    No wander our religion is weaker than p&$@. It’s all those mental gymnastics we do.

  • Ezabelle wrote, “If Colbert supported Paedophilia and Baron praised his “wonderful sermon on the salvific quality of suffering” would your response be the same?”
    Well, who would deny that Eric Gill’s Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral are an example of high Catholic art, the fact that he was a pædophile in his private life notwithstanding? To argue otherwise would be Philistinism of no common order.

  • Still haven’t taken that long, hard look in the mirror MPS?

    “1 AT that hour the disciples came to Jesus, saying: Who thinkest thou is the greater in the kingdom of heaven? 2 And Jesus calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them, 3 And said: Amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. 5 And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. 6 But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

    Mathew 18: 1-6

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote, “I do concede that Colbert seems to have “a faith without works” problem.”
    But the Apostle says, “But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly [ἀσεβῆ, literally “lacking reverence,” impious] his faith is credited as righteousness” (Rom 4:5)

  • “18 But someone will say, “You have faith, and I have works.” Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble! 20 But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar? 22 Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” And he was called the friend of God. 24 You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.”

    James 2: 18-24

  • Wow, lots here to evaluate–so I won’t. I’ll merely give my opinion that this appears to be an issue of some good and some bad–real bad.
    My analogy: could we call a man faithful husband is he worked hard, loved the kids and wife, provided a nice home, went to Mass and holy days, was a Knight of Columbus in good standing in that community and only cheated with his mistress on Tuesdays?

  • Don L- good point- that husband/father is living a lie. The good works he appears to present to his family, do not forgive him his lying and cheating. We are only as good, in Gods eyes, as our most horrible sinful thoughts and deeds.

    We can fool each other, but God reads our hearts.

    But we’re not talking about mans personal sins. We all have sins and vices. What comes into question here, is when one publicly advocates for something contrary to God, calls it a good, and defies God publicly and deliberately. Like Colbert has. Colbert teaches Sunday school- big wool! We are only as good as his most horrible sins.

  • Lots of people “scan” their news. They look at pictures that accompany the story and read the first few lines. CWR put a picture at top that put S. Colbert right up there in an attractive banner with Tolkien and Newman. The first sentence said, “Just last week, Stephen Colbert gave an interview in which the depth of his Catholic faith was on pretty clear display”
    The end of the article put Colbert in line with those two great Catholics as part of God’s Divine Plan.
    .
    The tax collectors and the woman caught in adultery were told the truth, admonished. They were not lionized. Jesus is the point of their stories.
    .
    we can be delighted about the Good effect of the works of Tokein and Newman. Jesus is the point of their stories too. the words of these great men have positively affected many a troubled soul, .
    Colbert misses the point of the stories…he hears the words with interest but doesn’t internalize and integrate them into his life. He is like us all, A work in progress gifted and loved by God. But in his position of influence, the results of his confusion can be disastrous for many seekers.
    and I think Fr Barron though not missing the point entirely, confuses the issue. It is delightful to find someone famous in the media who can so charmingly spout the words … But the incongruity of his life mashes the message. He is more a symbol of the confusion of the age – rather than showing “the depth of his Catholic faith was on pretty clear display”.

  • “Well, who would deny that Eric Gill’s Stations of the Cross in Westminster Cathedral are an example of high Catholic art, the fact that he was a pædophile in his private life notwithstanding? To argue otherwise would be Philistinism of no common order.”

    Again, it’s not about the persons private life. Leonardo da Vinci, allegedly, had homosexual affairs. Yet his Last Supper endures.

    Did Eric Gill promote and advocate for Paedophilia?

    If Gill did, then his Stations of the Cross should be removed- absolutely.

    Colbert promotes and advocates, even mocks the issue of abortion. Who cares what he does in his private life- that’s between him and God. He is using his popularity to support the killing of the unborn

  • Anzlyne; ” He is more a symbol of the confusion of the age-..”. Exactly!
    This confusion is running rampant due to the piss poor, walking the fence, don’t judge others leadership at the majority of the Bishops hands.

    Guess what?

    Expect more confusion until the likes of Cardinal Burke make their way into this culture.

  • St James says, “21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?”
    Contrast “What does Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Rom4:3)
    Here St Paul quotes Gen 15:6 T his is part of the story of the Covenant of the Pieces, before Isaacs’s birth.
    St James says, “SHOW me your faith &c”
    St Paul is speaking of the faith that justifies before God, “for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart” (1 Sam 16:7); St James of the outward evidence of that faith.
    Faith alone justifies, but he faith that justifies is never alone.

  • The thing is that Cafeteria Catholics don’t change society for the better. The only way for abortion to be halted is for Catholics to really live their faith, and that unfortunately hasn’t been encouraged by many high up…

PopeWatch: Peronism

Thursday, August 27, AD 2015

PopeWatch2-199x300

 

Sandro Magister at his blog Chiesa brings us more about the controversies of whether Pope Francis is a Peronist and just what being a Peronist means:

 

There has been a great deal of discussion over the idea of a “populist” and “Peronist” Jorge Mario Bergoglio, addressed in the two most recent articles from www.chiesa:

> Political Ecumenism. With the Technocrats and Anti-globalists (21.8.2015)
> From Perón to Bergoglio. With the People, Against Globalization (12.8.2015)

In particular the discussion has been over the description of Peronism and its multiform expressions presented by Professor Marco Olivetti in an article published in “Avvenire” on the eve of the presidential primaries in Argentina last August 8, won with a wide margin by Daniel Scioli, the candidate of current president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner:

“Kirchnerism is the latest reincarnation of Peronism: after the original, vaguely fascistic form of Juan Domingo Perón and Evita; the free-market conservative form of the dying Perón and his third wife, Isabelita, during the 1970’s; and the neoliberal form of Carlos Menem during the 1990’s.

“It constitutes the socialistic variation, in continuity with the para-revolutionary groups that infested Argentina in the early 1970’s, and is upheld by traditional Peronist trade unionism. Its support is particularly high among persons with low incomes and little education.

“Its distinguishing mark is populism, identification with a good ‘people,’ now inflected according to the political terrain prevalent in much of Latin America, from the Venezuela of Chávez and his heirs to the Bolivia of Morales, from the Brazil of Lula and Dilma to the Ecuador of Correa, albeit with all the differences of the various cases.”

Olivetti is an expert on constitutions and political systems, and made no reference, in the article cited, to the political vision of Pope Francis.

But the most noted Italian expert on Latin America, Professor Loris Zanatta of the university of Bologna, has explicitly upheld a connection between Bergoglio and Peronist populism both in his latest book, “The Catholic nation. Church and dictatorship in the Argentina of Bergoglio” – published in Italy by Laterza and in Argentina by Editorial Sudamericana – and in this article published in the Argentine newspaper “La Nación” after the pope’s journey to Ecuador, Bolivia, and Paraguay:

> Un papa propenso a abrazar las raíces del populismo latinoamericano

Professor Olivetti has received a contentious reply from Buenos Aires, from a man with a deep understanding and appreciation of Peronsim, José Arturo Quarracino, in the message published in its entirety further below.

In addition to being a nephew and sharing the last name of the cardinal who as archbishop of Buenos Aires wanted Bergoglio as his auxiliary and snatched him out of “exile” in Córdoba, Quarracino has taught the history and evolution of political ideas at the faculty of economic sciences of the Universidad Nacional de Lomas de Zamora, and is an excellent translator of great authors like Romano Guardini, Gilbert Chesterton, Joseph Ratzinger, as well as of various articles from www.chiesa, including this one.

In replying to Olivetti he too makes no explicit reference to Bergoglio. And yet he gives a definition of Peronism that is perfectly in line with what Pope Francis has recently said in this regard.

This is what Quarracino writes:

“Peronism has always defined itself as a humanist and Christian movement, as a third philosophical and political movement next to free-market capitalism and Marxist totalitarianism. On the social, economic, and cultural level, many of its doctrinal postulates were explicitly founded on the principles of the social doctrine of the Church.”

While these are the pope’s words to Javier Cámara and Sebastián Pfaffen, authors of the book “Aquel Francisco” published last autumn in Córdoba, with regard to his interest in politics:

“In the formulation of Peronist doctrine there is a connection with the social doctrine of the Church. It must not be forgotten that Perón showed his speeches to Bishop Nicolás de Carlo of Resistencia in Chaco, so that he could look at them and tell him if they were in accord with the social doctrine of the Church.”

And again:

“Bishop de Carlo was a Peronist sympathizer, but also an excellent pastor. The one thing had nothing to do with the other. In April of 1948 Perón, from the balcony of the seminary in the central square of Resistencia, said at the end of his speech that he wanted to make one thing clear. He mentioned that they were accusing Bishop de Carlo of being a Peronist and said: ‘It is a great lie. It is Perón who is decarlista.’ De Carlo was the one who helped Perón with the social doctrine of the Church.”

Pope Bergoglio also said to the authors of “Aquel Francisco”:

“I have always been a political butterfly, always.”

And he explained:

“I come from a radical family, my uncle was a ‘radical of ’90’ [editor’s note: the party born from the revolutionary movement that overturned the ruling regime in 1890]. Then, as an adolescent, I also got a crush on the ‘zurdaje’ [editor’s note: Argentine term that indicates the left], reading books from the Communist Party that were given to me by my teacher Esther Ballestrino de Careaga, a great woman who had been secretary of the Partido revolucionario febrerista paraguayo.

“In those years the political culture was very lively. I liked to get in on everything. Between 1951 and 1952 I would wait anxiously for the arrival, three times a week, of the socialist militants who sold ‘La Vanguardia.’ And naturally I also frequented social justice groups. But I never signed up for any party.”

The “social justice groups” that Pope Francis said he frequented were precisely those of the followers of Perón, who called his own ideology “justicialista” – a blending of “justice” and “socialism” – and gave his party the name of “Partido justicialista”.

In the five pages of reminiscences that Pope Francis dedicates to politics in the book cited, there is not even one word that sounds the least bit critical of Perón, in spite of the anti-Catholic character of the end of his first presidency and the excommunication issued against him by Pius XII in 1955.

But here is Quarracino’s commentary on “true” Peronism, so similar to the political vision of Pope Francis.

______________

A POPULAR MOVEMENT, BUT NOT POPULIST

by José Arturo Quarracino

I.

Kirchnerism is not “the latest reincarnation of Peronism” – as Professor Marco Olivetti calls it – because it is by its nature a “subtle form of anti-Peronism,” or the “anti-Peronization of Peronism”: in fact, the content of its policies is completely opposed both to the policies historically implemented by Peronism and to its theoretical positions.

In general terms, Kirchnerism has kept alive until today the founding laws of the civic-military transformation of 1976 that turned Argentina into a neocolonial appendix of international financial power, as well as the concentration and outward projection of its economy and the role of single main export (soy) country.

For its part, historically speaking, Peronism opposed this predatory financial power, while Kirchnerism instead docilely submitted to this power and repaid with interest the plundering perpetrated from 1976 onward: more than two hundred billion dollars, with the paradox that today Argentina has a debt much higher than what it had at the beginning of Kirchnerist rule.

The ability of Kirchnerism consisted in putting into action a profoundly anti-Peronist and pro-colonialist politics, but under the disguise of Peronism. That is, in the name of Peronism it advanced a politics completely opposed to the theoretical postulates of Peronism.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Peronism

  • The optimist within me hope’s that somehow a miraculous catch of souls will take place for God sake, and will be the bright spot in this otherwise cloudy pontificate. I miss the last two Pope’s. The loss of faithful due to this pontificate is a reality as well.

    So, again, I will continue to pray for him.
    The office and the man.

  • One might perceive that the “social doctrine” of the Church, Trumps (no pun intended) that of the spiritual doctrine and mission of the Church.
    The issue I see, is that our shepherds have reversed the proper order and view the Social doctrine as their prime role and salvation of souls as merely incidental to Social machinations by various Caesars.

  • One recalls the advice given by Talleyrand to Emmanuel Crétet, one of the commissioners charged withnegotiating the Concordat of 1801. Speaking of Pius VII, Talleyrand suggested, “Watch the juggler’s eyes, not his hands.”
    Crétet, a financiaer and first governor of the Banque de France often recalled it as one of the best pieces of advice he had ever received.

  • Peronism incorporates class-based mobilizations and clientelistic politics relying on allocation by state agencies and labor bosses. It’s stylistically distinct from the Democratic Party and perhaps less under the thumb of certain professional guilds like lawyers and the media, but otherwise familiar. The abusive behavior of the legal profession as manifested in Eric Holder is erasing the distinction between American political practice and latter-day Peronist political practice (the Peronists being more domesticated now than they were in 1950). Obamaism is Peronism decorated with the tastes and prejudices of unreflective big-city bourgeois. Call it NPR Peronism.

  • Peronism also had a colouring of corporatism, along Italian Fascist and Spanish Flangist lines, rather like the mediaeval guilds, with occupation-based constituencies, although it was never really implemented.

    It was an idea that many Catholics in the inter-war years found rather congenial and Pius XI was not averse to it.

    In England, it had been promoted by Belloc, Chesterton and Fr Vincent McNab OP, where it was also influenced by the guild socialism of William Morris and the arts and Crafts movement – All very idealistic to anyone familiar with the way the Livery Companies in London or the Incorporations of the Scottish Burghs actually worked in practice.

  • It was an idea that many Catholics in the inter-war years found rather congenial and Pius XI was not averse to it.

    Different manifestations of that sort of thing were everywhere ca. 1933, and not really local to any sort of cultural heritage. See the National Industrial Recovery Act here. The survival of such practices in Spain goes a long way toward accounting for the horrid condition of the Spanish labor market.

  • Yes I think I discussing what Peronism is is wrongheaded too. When we talk bout “isms” we are talking about something that no longer”is”, but talking about a conflation of many opinions and applications of that something. . Peron is not the same as Peronism. As a suffix “ism” changes the meaning of the word from defining an original or ” proto ” type to something that is like the original. And what does it matter? Jesus has said that He is the Truth. Not a truism .. Not a socially accepted personal understanding of Truth.
    Our pope’s protestantism and peronism are his own amalgamation. He gets to live out the Consequence of the Protesant revolt against the papacy and be his own pope, answerable not to Revelation nor Tradition, but to his own judgment and proclivity.

PopeWatch: Bergoglio Party

Wednesday, August 26, AD 2015

PopeWatch2-199x300

 

Once you have made the World an end, and faith a means, you have almost won your man, and it makes very little difference what kind of worldly end he is pursuing. Provided that meetings, pamphlets, policies, movements, causes, and crusades, matter more to him than prayers and sacraments and charity, he is ours – and the more “religious” (on those terms) the more securely ours. I could show you a pretty cageful down here.

CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters

 

 

Rorate Caeli brings us the musings of Antonio Socci, one of the keener observers of the Church in Italy on what he refers to as the Bergoglio Party:

 

To the courageous headline in yesterday’s “Libero” (“The Pope’s Party. The Vatican’s Political Shift”) only one idea should be added: the Bergoglio Party is one thing (which is doing harm, but will fade with him), the Catholic Church is another. The other day Matteo Salvini* rightly noted this in the polemics he had with Monsignor Galantino. Plus, the very caustic interview with Giovanni Sartori – the king of political analysts – helped clarify it all:

“To me, this Vatican that utters such nonsense is a disaster. They aren’t interested at all in the real facts and focus on very petty things”. [Note: Sartori also declared, “Galantino? To me, he seems… demented.”]

Sartori has always torn Italian politics to shreds, but to the Bergoglio Party he says: “Let me do the work of the political analyst – you attend to the things priests attend to”.
What would those “real facts” be that the priests should be attending to? Sartori is merciless:

“for two years” – he says – those in Bergoglio’s Church haven’t said a word about the extermination of Christians, the slaughter of Catholics in Africa and the rest of the world, along with the continuous persecution of the Kurds. They should focus on these issues and leave alone the things that are not of their competence”.

It’s true that there are some shocking cases of Christians condemned to death for the faith – like Asia Bibi or Meriem – whom Bergoglio has always refused to mention.

But on the overall issue of the slaughter of Christians he has spoken several times. Yet, he has always done so, very late, in a generic way, without naming the causes or condemning the torturers and even – which is worse – delegitimizing the possibility of interventions by “international police” to protect the populations threatened by massacres (interventions that were desperately asked for by the bishops of those places).
When Bergoglio really cares about something he speaks of it in an earnest, vigorous way, continuously – even harshly. For example, on immigration [he says] that we – in his view – ought to welcome everyone en bloc, without saying a word – paying the costs of it.
Nothing of this sort has been seen in defense of the massacred Christians. For that matter, he has never skimped on words of esteem for the Islamic world, even going as far as pronouncing ecumenical concepts of dubious orthodoxy.
The tardy and generic words spent on the persecuted Christian communities are not in the least comparable to the care he has lavished – for example – on ecology. He wrote an encyclical to defend the survival of “algae, worms, small insects and reptiles” but for the persecuted Christians – nothing. He declared the 1st of September a world-day of prayer for the ecosystem, but for the massacred Christians – nothing (and they are the most persecuted human-group on the planet).
Obviously the ecological encyclical wasn’t only about worms and reptiles, but also thundered against the use of plastic cups and air-conditioners (which, however, is used in Santa Marta). By contrast, he has never hurled any thunder and bolts of lightning at the butchers of Christians.
Why does Bergoglio’s Party intervene in a hard-hitting way against Italian politicians, but not against the Islamic or Communist regimes where Christians are on the cross?
“The truth is that’s it’s easier (more comfortable) to shoot at politicians than defend Christians”, thunders Sartori who says of Bergoglio that “he is a cunning Argentinean and should have other immense questions on which to concentrate”.
Indeed, Sartori poses dramatic questions to the Vatican: “Is it more important to speak about the harem of parties, of the government and Parliament or of the religious wars spreading like wildfire all over planet Earth?”
For the Catholic Church it is more important to attend to Her persecuted [children]. Yet for the Bergoglio Party this seems not to be the case. And this – the political analyst continues – exposes “the Church, which is being made to look bad”.
The Bergoglio Party (which doesn’t care for faith and doctrine) is concentrated on politics – but not only Italian politics. They want to build for Bergoglio a sort of world political leadership of the leftist no-global ecologist type, as the survivors of the Italian Left keep saying (most of all, Bertinotti**, a fan of Bergoglio).
This is the reason for the rehabilitation and glorification in Rome of the old, disastrous Liberation Theology which John Paul II and Benedict XVI had rightly condemned.
However, the event that clarified this project the most – anticipated in 2014 by the meeting in the Vatican with the no-global movements (even the Leoncavallo Social Center ***was present) – was Bergoglio’s recent trip to Ecuador, Bolivia and Paraguay.
Sandro Magister noted that on this trip “Francis didn’t hide his sympathy for the populist presidents of the first two countries, whereas with the third, he showed coldness, by even rebuking him publically for a crime that he had never committed, resoundingly misinterpreted by the Pope”.
For that matter, the emblematic image of that trip was the “Hammer and Sickle” (with a crucifix attached to it) which Bergoglio not only accepted as a gift from Morales (bringing it back to the Vatican with him), but – in its reproduction on the medallion – he even kept it around his neck to be seen by the world-wide media. Further, also round his neck – he kept the traditional Bolivian container for coca-leaves – another gift from Morales. Things never seen before.

Continue reading...

11 Responses to PopeWatch: Bergoglio Party

  • Saying to self; respect the office, respect the office, respect the office…..

    Seriously, does left-wing politics, economics, junk science, with a spiritual word or two attached to it, become faith and morals?

  • Thanks Don for bringing this insightful and truthful article to our attention. Antonio Socci certainly put his finger on who Pope Francis really is: a left wing politician. He uses his office as a platform to promote his populist political concerns which are mainly solutions to non-existent problems or false solutions to existent ones. But if that weren’t enough he has forsaken his spiritual duties as Pope of the Catholic Church when these duties are needed more than ever. In fact, he goes even further by making fun of those Catholics who take their faith seriously. Pope Francis’ shameful behavior is a disgrace to his office. May God have mercy on his soul.

  • I can tell you what Francis is not. He is not a father. He completely misses the fatherhood of God. He would rather be the cool uncle or family friend. He’s even failing at that. He actually told muslim immigrants to look to their own “faith traditions” when they arrived in Italy. Did he mean rum, sodomy and the lash, or just the latter two? When the Yazidi people were stranded on a mountain top and there was a call for the West/America to do something, he famously said that violence never conquers violence. He said this, of course, behind thick Vatican walls and protected by armed Swiss guards. I could go on. He is a disaster. I will continue to pray for him.

  • Father of seven: “He is a disaster”…
    As much as a disaster that he appears to be, I am more concerned by the members of the College of Cardinals who chose him. It can only get worse with his appointments…..

  • There is “violence”, the breaking of law and order, and there is “armed force” to protect and defend. That Francis cannot see a difference is debilitating. Peace at any price …

  • Unfortunately, idiotically delving into matters outside their competence has long been a staple of the Church hierarchy including the Holy See. The only difference it seems is the growing silence on matters that actually do fall into their competence.

  • I just heard one of the college of cardinals speak – he mentioned being new to the college at the time of the conclave, not having had any previous knowledge of the man, but the name “Bergoglio rising like a mist over the sea” in the morning. Seemed to this Cardinal almost like an imperative from the spirit of God. Although by the cardinals facial expression as he spoke, he is obviously baffled.
    This was said in a fe short words just before the Cardinal’s homily at the closing mass of the Courage gathering in Chicago this summer.

  • http://news.yahoo.com/historic-visit-obama-seek-common-cause-pope-161444918–politics.html
    .
    This utter silence on recent revelations about the marketing of PP, and the lack of teaching morality to so many waiting with baited breath for word on right and wrong, gives CS Lewis ‘cageful’ enhancement. Fear this visit will not help people grow in understanding the Word of God.

  • As St. Thomas Aquinas says (Summa Theologica – 2nd part of 2nd part – question 33 – article 4),
    “If the faith is in imminent peril, prelates ought to be accused by their subjects, even in public.”
    .
    http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm#article1
    .
    But with respect of course

  • I feel sorry for Pope Francis

  • “As much as a disaster that he appears to be, I am more concerned by the members of the College of Cardinals who chose him. It can only get worse with his appointments”.

    Look for heretic Blase Cupich, Francis’ favorite American bishop, to be front and center at the Synod of the Family in September and look for him to be pushed hard as the first American pope in history. THEN, we will all see a pope 100 times worse than the disaster who currently occupies the Seat of Peter.