Trump’s Letter to Pro-Lifers: My Personal Rubicon

Friday, September 30, AD 2016

725 Fifth Avenue · New York · New York · 10022 ·
September 2016
Dear Pro-Life Leader:
I am writing to invite you to join my campaign’s Pro-Life Coalition, which is being spearheaded by longtime leader Marjorie Dannenfelser.
As we head into the final stretch of the campaign, the help of leaders like you is essential to ensure that pro-life voters know where I stand, and also know where my opponent, Hillary Clinton, stands.
Hillary Clinton not only supports abortion on-demand for any reason, but she’d take it a step further:  she wants to force the taxpayers to pay for abortions by repealing the bi-partisan Hyde Amendment.  Hillary Clinton also supports abortion until an hour before birth. And she will only appoint Supreme Court justices who share this view.
She doesn’t even try to hide her extremism. When asked on Meet the Press when unborn children have constitutional rights, Clinton bluntly responded, “The unborn person doesn’t have constitutional rights.” She is so committed to this view that she proclaimed in a speech that “religious beliefs…have to be changed” in order to advance her abortion agenda.
Hillary Clinton’s unwavering commitment to advancing taxpayer-funded abortion on-demand stands in stark contrast to the commitments I’ve made to advance the rights of unborn children and their mothers when elected president. I am committed to:
Nominating pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide.
Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health care
for women.
Making the Hyde Amendment permanent law to protect taxpayers from having to pay for abortions.
Your help is crucial to make this contrast clear in the minds of pro-life voters, especially those in battleground states. Together we can form this vital coalition so that Mike Pence and I can be
advocates for the unborn and their mothers every day we are in the White House.
Donald J. Trump

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Trump’s Letter to Pro-Lifers: My Personal Rubicon

  • Could someone please inform our spineless and morally confused bishops?

  • Well said. The “orthodox Catholic” Bishop Chaput wrote there was no difference between the two candidates. This is the same man who invited lots of pro-abortion political leaders to participate in the World Meeting of Families. “Spineless” is being kind. I truly believe most Bishops are not pro-life.

  • Bing News had a blurb yesterday quoting the USCCB as saying that Amoris Latetia (sic, I am not looking up the spelling) is a great gift to American Catholics.
    What crap.
    The USCCB is to be ignored. It is nothing but an I formal gathering of American bishops who have no authority to govern anything as a body.

  • Make Donald Trump sign a pre-nuptial agreement that is a pre -constituent agreement that if he, the Donald Trump dumps Marjorie Dannenfelser, he will recuse himself from the office of president and free the citizens from the constituency to a fraud, a liar and a perjurer, one who takes an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the people only to deny our Founding Principles and disavow our Constitutional Posterity.

  • Penquins Fan: The Pope is infallible only when he, the Pope, speaks and teaches ex-cathedra” in union with all the bishops of the Catholic Church (except those who self- excommunicate themselves by heresy). Some bishops try to make the Pope look good but only exacerbate the heresy. Why don’t our bishops realize this truth? They have all been seminary educated. Now, must we return to ignorance?

  • Trump needs to overturn Roe. v. Wade as the greatest miscarriage of Justice since human sacrifice. One does not kill another human being to serve God nor man. Roe never met the burden of proof that the newly begotten had no human, rational soul and was not a sovereign person, a legally and morally sovereign person whose innocence is the standard of Justice for our nation and who institutes the state by his very existence. Meet the burden of proof or change the denial of our Constitutional Posterity and the violation of our Founding Principles.

  • Individuals, such as Hillary and the head of PP disenfranchise themselves of citizenship when they disenfranchise the unborn sovereign person. The Golden Rule: do unto other as you would be done unto. Time to abort Hillary from the presidency and time to abort PP.

  • Trump, God help us, is the better choice.

    That, my friend, sums it up completely.

  • Basically there are three issues where Trump’s professed positions tilt the scale in his favor for me:

    1. Abortion – still a significant chance he is playing us, but Hildebeast is certain disaster;
    2. Immigration – again, could be played or little he could actually accomplish even if sincere vs. Hildebeast certain disaster
    3. Russia – he, at least, does not seem to be going out of his way to poke the Russian Bear v. Hildebeast certain disaster.
    Did I mention Hildebeast = certain disaster?

  • Father of Seven wrote, “Bishop Chaput wrote there was no difference between the two candidates.”
    Perhaps, like Talleyrand (once Bishop of Autun) he believes that “Governing has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang you from the lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the people”

  • I have come to the same conclusion. I have no illusions. I doubt he will change the fun dental problems we have with government. He is likely to be quite comfortable throwing away our liberties.

    But she is an unadulterated monster, in league with evil.

    I pray every day for her defeat and the conversion of Donald J. Trump.

    I can’t bring myself to let go of our country and give up. My kids are still so young..I worry about them.

    And I appreciate you admitting this change. You live in a state where it won’t matter. But your bully pulpit does. Thank you.

  • All this talk about why voting for Trump because of the slim-to-none chance he might actually mean what he says is preferable to the no chance whatsoever that comes with voting for Clinton has me wondering whether or not what’s really needed at this time is a decidely and explicitly Christian political party.

  • I am completely opposed to mixing religion and politics. Such mixtures tend to be bad for both.

  • I would prefer a populace well informed on (and formed in) Christian principles. The rest would take care of itself. Seek ye first, etc.

  • Mr.McClarey, I am in complete agreement with you about mixing religion and politics. The radtrads who seek restorations of Catholic monarchs never fail to amaze me.

    Religion is guaranteed a voice in the public forum in this nation. Having that voice does not mean that religion runs government

  • Assuming, as Orwell wrote, that politics are “essentially coercion and deceit,” Hillary and her mafia (I insult the mafia) are consummate politicians. Ergo, politics and religion cannot mix. Politicians, and heterodox/heretical bishops subvert religion for nefarious political ends.
    We know that Hillary’s religion is power (and the tens of millions of dollars she has taken therefrom) and progressivism is the path to money and power.
    Anyone who believes that Madame Secretary is competent, honest, or sane (not a sociopath) is delusional. The unnecessary Hells she will create, or expand, will make Obama and Carter by comparison seem competent.
    Trump is a goof-ball and he is the only hope for the survival of our way of life.

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote:
    “…has me wondering whether or not what’s really needed at this time is a decidedly and explicitly Christian political party.”
    It’s called the Constitution Party. Here are its platform and resolutions:
    There is not a chance that there is any hope of its candidate Darrell Castle winning the Presidency. The choice is therefore clear:
    A murderous pathological liar
    An unprincipled, thrice married, foul-mouthed gambler.
    I am NOT voting for the murderous pathological liar.
    Trump to victory! Let’s hear the godlessly wicked liberal progressive Demon-craps howl and weep and wail and gnash their teeth in utter defeat!

  • T. Shaw wrote:
    “Trump is a goof-ball and he is the only hope for the survival of our way of life.”
    Perhaps in permitting this situation, God has a sense of humor – a goof-ball being our only hope. That would be so fitting for this reality TV, Facebook meme generation.

  • If I lived in a battleground state, I would snap a pair of vice grips on my nose and darken the circle next to Trump’s name. But I live in CA, a state Hillary will carry by a wide margin, just like Illinois. So, I might as well vote for Joe Syphllis as a write-in. It won’t make a dime’s worth a difference. Another concern I have has to do with the rather cozy relationship Trump enjoyed with the Clintons in the not so distant past. A relationship that could very well make its presence felt in a Trump Administration. In war, getting betrayed by your own generals is worse than being defeated by a true enemy. And that, boys and girls, is a very real possibility with a Trump presidency.

  • Perhaps, like Talleyrand (once Bishop of Autun) he believes that “Governing has never been anything other than postponing by a thousand subterfuges the moment when the mob will hang you from the lamp-post, and every act of government is nothing but a way of not losing control of the people”

    Isn’t that an elegant remark? Michael, did it occur to you that that statement is nonsensical as a description of the daily life of the Mayor of Kalamazoo or of the Premier of Nova Scotia? It’s nonsensical even given the mulligans you’d extend for illustrative hyperbole. Talleyrand was a repellant operator in a decadent system and then in a chaotic one. If he was in danger from the mob, it was because he had earned it. He has nothing to teach anyone.

  • Greg, I live in NY, so I’m in the same situation. I’ll vote Trump and see what happens.
    LDQ: Your comment reminds me of Thomas Meagher’s (Irish patriot, later a B/G commanding the Irish Brigade during the American Civil War) statement on his sentencing to be hanged, drawn and quartered, “I shall go, I think, with a light heart before a higher tribunal – a tribunal where a Judge of infinite goodness, as well as infinite justice, will preside, and where many of the judgments of this world will be reversed.” And, earlier “My lord, this is our first offense, but not our last. If you will be easy with us this once, we promise, on our word as gentlemen, to try to do better next time. And next time —sure we won’t be fools to get caught.” Note that Meagher didn’t say “infinite mercy.”

  • Donald!! I am so proud of you. Your reasoning on this issue is perfect.

  • “Religion is guaranteed a voice in the public forum in this nation. Having that voice does not mean that religion runs government.”

    Religion must inform government. Otherwise government can be only evil. There is no such thing as a law that is not pushing one’s values/moral beliefs/religious values on others.

  • “I am completely opposed to mixing religion and politics. Such mixtures tend to be bad for both.”

    I am ever amazed anew by my Protestant friends & family who tell me that being Catholic means that I believe the pope should be the head of all works governments. HUH?!?

  • Greg, and that is why we all must continue to pray for our flawed candidate. Also pray that he continues to choose conservative, pro-life, savvy, decent advisers.

    The letter printed above is a big surprise, a welcome surprise. Maybe it was prayer; maybe a calculated political move; maybe the recent birth of his 8th grandchild; or who knows, but Trump has committed himself to paper.

  • God chose Cyrus, the pagan King of Persia to defeat the Babylonians and so release the children of Israel.
    He also chose Senacharib to sort out the Northern kingdom of Israel and Samaria for its idolatry and take them off to exile as punishment.
    But when Senacharib claimed that it was all his own doing, and out of pride and avarice attempted the same against the kingdom of Judah and Jerusalem, God smote him and condemned him.
    And so it will happen to all those who, though unbelieving, whom God uses as His instruments, they too will be dealt with with Divine retribution.

  • Thanks Donald. Good move. I agree on your entire position including your evaluation of Trump.

    Religion and politics are mixed whether we like it or not. Let us be sure our religion transcends our politics which doesn’t seem to be the case with our Bishops where politics transcends religion.

  • What is at stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States. It is pretty clear that if Hillary is elected she will load the court with more people who don’t believe in our Constitution. There are 4 on it already. That being the case, that is the end of America as it was formed. That also means the Court will dictate to religion what it must believe and teach, and Congress won’t be needed anymore.

    Google Fr. Michael Orsi Call to Action, on YouTube. That 9 minute talk earlier this September to a small pro-life meeting makes it pretty clear what will happen to the Church if the right person isn’t elected this November. That talk should be broadcast far and wide so that Catholics, particularly, know and understand the risk of continuing to vote the wrong way.

    Except for God and His Church, nothing is more sacred than our U.S. Constitution. This election is not political, it’s spiritual, and in that case can be talked about and discussed in every church, at any time, without fear of the state.

    Any candidate who supports our Constitution as it is written should direct the voters to that talk if he or she wants to guarantee their election – and its FREE!

  • Re: stillbelieve

    “What is at stake in this election is the Constitution of the United States. It is pretty clear that if Hillary is elected she will load the court with more people who don’t believe in our Constitution. ”

    Brilliantly stated ‘stillbelieve’. This is THE secular transcending issue and religious one, too.

  • “Religion and politics are mixed whether we like it or not.”

    Religion gives us general principles that of course guide us, or should guide us. However, the application of those principles is often tricky and that is where mixing religion and politics produces bad religion and bad politics. I would argue that much of contemporary leftism is a substitute religion that is attempting to be imposed upon the country. Thus we have such manifest absurdities as men seeking to use female toilets and being treated as females. Such a departure from physical reality is nothing more or less than a religious belief in a threadbare secular garb.


    Twitter and a twit at 3am makes it difficult on the so-called supporters.

    I too, hope for the Donald to squash the pantsuit pariah. Hillary Clinton is evil.

  • Here’s more good stuff on this subject courtesy of William Briggs blog:

  • Voting angst. Lol. My sentiments exactly.

  • you pretty much have clarified for me my position. I just have not yet reached your conclusion on whether or not I should pull a lever.

  • Donald. Welcome aboard!

    Healthy skepticism is ok, but don’t pronounce this a bad Presidency “before the fact”. None of us know that Donald Trump will be either a good President, or a bad President, yet. We should be hopeful that he is a good one.

    Like you, I cannot abide abortion. Neither can I abide the corruption of the Clintons. The decision is easy, and so we should be hopeful… Trust, but verify…eh?

    One of the things that makes me hopeful is the absolute desperation of both parties, the liberal news media, and the bureaucrats to deep six him. This is an indicater that this man is needed, and that there is great fear amoung the establishment that he will expose what has been going on.

    To correct course will require the support of the American people. We, the people, need to have a firm and steadfast resolution.

    I expect the assassination of his character to be extreme, and daily dosed out. I am hopeful that he, and we, can stand up to it, and do what is right. I hope you are ready for that. I know that I am.

    Best regards

    John Robison
    Oklahoma City

  • “I am completely opposed to mixing religion and politics. Such mixtures tend to be bad for both.”
    The sovereign person acknowledges God in his relationship with “their Creator”. The sovereign person who is a citizen institutes the state with his sovereign personhood endowed by “their Creator Separation of church and state. To remove the acknowledgement of God , “their Creator” removes the acknowledgement of the human person into a beast of burden to the state. All men ,created equal, will have passed into might makes right and hillary is the most powerful beast on earth. The state does not tell an individual citizen who institutes the state how to have a relationship with his Creator. The religious person tells the state how to relate the First Amendment to our Law of the Land.To deny the soul of the sovereign person, the citize,n is to impose atheism on our First Amendment. With Atheism running our nation no individual has any unalienable human rights endowed by God, no innate human rights and no civil rights. “The rights the state gives, the state can take away”: Thomas Jefferson. The UN and International law says that the state grants human rights…yeah

  • Healthy skepticism is ok, but don’t pronounce this a bad Presidency “before the fact”.
    One can make a confident, informed opinion based on his history. I have a skepticism Trump will do anything to advance the pro-life agenda.
    Nominating pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    I find it appealing for a candidate using Supreme Court nominations like a gun to my head. “Vote for me or the court gets it!” Trump is not about convincing he’s the right man to nominate justices. He’s just saying what he believes will close the deal.
    Signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which would end painful late-term abortions nationwide
    Even if Trump signed this, courts will probably strike it down. Even if they didn’t, the exceptions are broad enough anyone wanting to get an abortion could get by it.
    Defunding Planned Parenthood…
    Republican presidents far more conservative than Trump did not get this done. We just had a GOP congress provide full funding for PP again, and that’s after the investigation exposed their body parts trade! Do we really believe Trump will do something different?
    Making the Hyde Amendment …
    Liberals find a way around it or ignore it. Funds are fungible. I wish the GOP could perform a national fundamental transformation on the issue abortion like liberals did with nationalized healthcare insurance and homosexuality. They know how to play the long game. Find the battle even if you lose. Your cause has entered the conversation and minds of the people and lives to fight another day. Be the persistent widow (Lk 18:1-8).

  • Using the wisdom and logic of Nancy Pelosi, we have to elect him to see what’s in him.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “”I am completely opposed to mixing religion and politics. Such mixtures tend to be bad for both.”
    That is true and it is usually religion that comes off worse.
    “Governments” wrote Lord Acton “restrict the liberty of the favoured Church, by way of remunerating themselves for their service in preserving her unity. The most violent and prolonged conflicts for religious freedom occurred in the Middle Ages between a Church which was not threatened by rivals and States which were most attentive to preserve her exclusive predominance.”

  • On the matter of keeping religion out of politics. This is impossible when political issues impinge on our religious beliefs and politicians use these issues to solicit votes.
    I agree with Fr. Michael Orsi that the Catholic Church should involve itself, particularly now when our Constitutional protections of Religious Freedom and Free Speech are at steak. Note this great video and please pass around.

  • “This is impossible when political issues impinge on our religious beliefs and politicians use these issues to solicit votes.”

    Wrong. The Church always pays a price for political involvement and it usually involves the Church kissing up to the powers that be. The Catholic Church in this country has long been in bed with the Democrat Party. That is why almost all Democrat Catholic members of Congress are pro-aborts without boo from the hierarchy in this country. Those seeking to enlist the Church in political battles do the Church no favor, nor does it do a favor to those fighting to keep the mits of government off the Church.

  • Thanks Michael.

    “The Church’s must speak out FEARLESSLY.”


  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Those seeking to enlist the Church in political battles do the Church no favour”
    One recalls the sort of “political Catholicism,” like that that bedevilled France from1870 to 1959 and that reached its zenith in l’action française and the Catholic atheism of Charles Maurras; this was “civic religion” with a vengeance.

    Nor is the danger only on the Right; Le Sillon’s attempt to align Catholic Action with the labour movement was equally dangerous and was also roundly condemned by the Holy See in Notre Charge Apostolique.
    The danger arises whenever loyalty to a political movement is seen as, not merely compatible with, but demanded, by the Faith itself. It also manifests itself in a denial of the legitimacy of any political authority that refuses to accede to its demands.

    The spiritual mission of the Church was gravely hampered, during that period, by the open hostility of most Catholics to the Republic, which neatly matched the anti-clericalism of the bouffeurs de curé.

  • Michael D, – thank you for posting the YouTube of the Fr Orsi talk. Every Catholic should watch and hear his blunt and accurate analysis of the dangerous situation the Church is facing because of Christians voting “the wrong way.” That is particularly true with Catholics. Not all Catholics, just that large number who endorse with their names and actions the only organization attacking God’s two greatest gifts – Life; and the Sanctity of Marriage. Oh, they really don’t support that, they say. But what difference does that make if they still vote for the party, that not only supports that, but is the main source and force behind attacking God’s “will on earth?”

    Catholics are the largest single group in the D party, giving it the electoral power to continue the partys’s attack against God’s laws. I’ll be posting another comment dealing with the history of pro-life as I experienced first hand starting out as a Democrat Catholic born and raised in south Chicago my single digit years, and in Joliet, Ill, next door to Chicago’s Cook County, my double digit (propaganda) years, and then after moving to CA becoming active in the pro-life movement mid ’70s (because I had a year of embryology including lab work in college; I knew when life began, I experimented with it using chick embryos.)

    My experience and study leads me to believe the U.S. Catholic Church’s adoptions of Cardinal Bernardin’s new meaning of “pro-life” is responsible for enabling Catholics to remain in the Democratic Party and holding a morally superior attitude. That is the reason we don’t have a RTL constitutional amendment some 31 years after Bernardin’s new “pro-life” was adopted by the U.S. bishops.

    I also believe much of the screaming and crying of those told to stand on the left side of Jesus, when He returns, will be coming from those Catholics including the clergy at all levels. That is half of the reason I want all Catholics to see this video. The other half is to save the Constitution and country as it was founded. because the Democrats only need one more appointment to the Supreme Court. If they win they will fill Scalia’s seat, and the court will then dictate whatever the Democrats want, and certainly, silencing people like Fr. Orsi and the Church in general on women’s ‘reproductive rights” is at the top of their list.

    “Pro-Life” was a term created to counter the pro-aborts calling themselves “pro-choice.” “Pro-life” meant “opposed to abortion AND support for a Constitutional Right-to-Life Amendment.” That meaning lasted up to 1985 and was gradually producing more and more pro-life candidates getting elected to Congress and state legislatures, defeating incumbent pro-aborts. I was South-Chicago born into a Catholic Democrat family, middle child of 5, with high-level connections to Notre Dame. I became a pro-life activist in ’74 and was instrumental in helping Republican Dan Lungren of Long Beach CA defeat 2-term incumbent Democrat on his second attempt in a Democrat majority district. All pro-life candidates I was helping as a Democrat were Republicans. While I learned first hand Republicans were nothing like I was told growing up, when I registered out of the pro-abortion party, I couldn’t register as a Republican because of the negative propaganda residual I was l still contaminated with – I registered Independent. When the Republican Party adopted a RTL Constitutional Amendment plank to their platform a year or so later, I registered Republican in support of their principles – going against the tide because pro-choice was the popular thing to be.

    Ronald Reagan defeated Carter for presidency, handily, because of what were called “Reagan Democrats.” Reagan trounced Humphrey to be re-elect 4 yeas later winning 49 out of 50 states. Republicans also won the House of Representatives, I believe, for the first time in decades. All of that caused considerable irritation within the party, behind the scenes, towards the Church because of its support and promotion for pro-life and a RTL amendment. Ultimate things happened within the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, important leaders died suddenly, while the hierarchy were preparing to launch a new program, causing the President of the NCCB to quickly appoint a new leader. That is the situation that resulted in the Cardinal of Chicago (Chicago, a city run by a Mayor and 50 City Councilmen called Aldermen – The Mayor and all 50 Aldermen were Democrats) accepting the appointment but only after the President agreed with the changes Bernardin wanted to make in the “Pro-Life” movement. That is how the “Seamless Garment,” aka the “Consistent Ethic of Life” came into being.

    Was that a spiritual development within the Church in the U.S. or a political one? You decide. Here is what his biographer, a 30+ year good friend of his, wrote about why Bernardin wanted to change the meaning of pro-life 12 years into the movement . He wrote about first on pg 228, “Bernardine was convinced that, if the pro-life agenda was to move forward successfully, the other threats to the supreme value of life had to be linked in solid and informed fashion to the central task of opposing abortion. A believing Catholic, in Bernardin’s judgment, must promote life organically, preserving and enhancing its profound significance positively, and defending it against all negative threats to its sacred character. Otherwise, the pro-life movement MIGHT seem distorted and could come under the control of the EXTREME RIGHT WING OF ANTI-ABORTIONIST ACTIVIST.” (my emphasis) “That would cripple its political appeal in the struggle for a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade. In addition, the task of raising the consciousness of the country about the values of life depended on an intelligent broadening and deepening of the basic philosophical and theological foundations of the pro-life position.”

    The reason for Bernardin wanting to change the meaning of “pro-life” was expanded upon on pages 243, 244. ” In addition, the pro-life activities of the bishops would founder if they could not be made more appealing to the vast array of priests and others who served in the front ranks of pastoral work. A more cohesive and consistent position that recognized a spectrum of pro-life issues, ranging from peace through capital punishment, would energize the priests, clergy, and laypeople in direct contact with the Catholic population in a positive way. Not only would this move gain greater support from Catholics and others but it would KEEP THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT FROM FALLING COMPLETELY UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE RIGHT WING CONSERVATIVES WHO WERE BECOMING ITS DOMINANT SPONSORS.” (my emphasis) The later, in the judgment of many, maintained a narrow focus that excluded linkage with any other issues, thus alienating large numbers of people who, although pro-life in their convictions, were convinced that the problem had to be placed in a richer context of moral concerns. Such people felt, for example, that you could not be against abortion without being against activities, some of them government sponsored, that endangered innocent civilians in he cause of destabilizing central American governments.”


  • stillbelieve–

    Wow, you have had quite a challenging road of faith to follow. On Bernardin, I think the seamless garment was cooked up as a rationale to keep Catholics voting Democrat. It was a move inspired by the devil. Barnardin was one of the bad guys in the Catholic Church along with his infamous sponsor John Cardinal Dearden of Detroit where I am from. Trying to raise our 11 kids Catholic under him as a nightmare.

Awful Foreshadowing

Friday, September 30, AD 2016


Events in history sometimes seem as if they were written by a novelist, or should I say Novelist.  Such was the sad case of Philip Hamilton.  Eldest son of Alexander Hamilton and Elizabeth Hamilton, Hamilton graduated at the age of 19 from Columbia, a brilliant student like his father.  It was at a Fourth of July celebration at Columbia that he heard George I. Eacker, a 27 year old lawyer and a political supporter of Aaron Burr, give a speech attacking his father.  Hamilton and his friend Richard Price called Eacker out in a Manhattan theater on November 21, 1801.  Eacker called them damned rascals and they responded by challenging Eacker to duels.  Eacker fought a duel the next day with Richard Price in which neither of the participants was injured, although shots were exchanged.

On November 22, 1801 in Weehawken, New Jersey, the same place where his father would receive his fatal wound from Aaron Burr, Hamilton and Eacker faced each other.  Apparently they faced each other about a minute without raising their pistols, and one wishes that reason had prevailed.  Eacker finally fired, hitting Hamilton in his right hip and left arm.  Hamilton also fired, but this may have been merely an involuntary reaction to the force of the shot that hit him.  Some sources say that Alexander Hamilton had counseled his son to fire in the air before his opponent fired, so that the matter could be settled honorably without blood shed.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Awful Foreshadowing

PopeWatch: What Beautiful Clothes the Emperor is Wearing!

Friday, September 30, AD 2016





Tom Hoopes over at National Catholic Register demonstrates why so much of what passes for Catholic journalism in this papacy is worse than useless:

I’ll go further: My vocation, in fact, calls me to defend the Holy Father wherever and however I can.

I freely admit that this is not always easy. I spent a year working on What Pope Francis Really Said, and what a year it was. It was the year of Laudato Si and the synod on the family. I was writing about papal remarks on everything from “Who am I to judge?” and “rabbits” to Zika and Amoris Laetitia.

At first, I hated it. I hated slogging through the Pope’s words at exactly the moment great doubt was being cast on him.

But now, I am so grateful that I did it. I can hardly contain my joy. I discovered a secret I desperately want to share: Far from tearing the Church apart with oafish ambiguity, Pope Francis is building it up with strategic intelligence.

It would take a book to explain what I mean. But suffice it to say that we needn’t either strike down our own shepherd on the one hand or cover up his embarrassment on the other.

What we should do, in fact, is unite around “the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful,” which, Catechism 882 tells us, is “the Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor.”

Continue reading...

16 Responses to PopeWatch: What Beautiful Clothes the Emperor is Wearing!

  • From what planet does this guy come?
    “Far from tearing the Church apart with oafish ambiguity, Pope Francis is building it up with strategic intelligence.”

  • A Quisling is as a Quisling does.

  • Why limit your criticism to Catholic journo-lism?

  • What a waste of time most Catholic journalism is.

  • Hoopes failed to add that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth. Jesus Christ is TRUTH and the head of the Catholic Church in heaven, on earth and under the earth, the suffering souls in purgatory who wish they had obeyed God more.

  • Mainstream Catholic media has wholly discredited itself during this papacy. In the years following my conversion in 2008, I used to rely on outlets like Catholic Answers and EWTN. Now, with a few notable exceptions, I can barely stand to read or listen to any of them.
    But it matters less and less anyway. For the first three years of Francis, up to the promulgation of Amoris Laetitia, I devoted great mental and spiritual effort to trying to understand him and figure out his intentions for the Church. I was pretty certain they were nothing good but still, I’d try to decode his elliptical utterances and weird theology. This caused me a fair amount of stress and anxiety.
    But now that he’s made himself perfectly clear for all who have ears to hear, I no longer feel the need to pay much attention to him or worry about his next wrecking ball of an innovation. We know it won’t be good, whatever it is, and we know he loathes the Church and seeks to reconstruct her in the image of a South American Jesuit-Caudillo, but that knowledge paradoxically brings about a certain amount of peace. The enemy is in plain sight, speaking openly about his intentions, and there’s no longer any reason to pay heed to his yapping quisling defenders in the “conservative” Catholic media.

  • Don, Hoopes’s article says the following:

    “Many Catholics instinctively dislike the Pope’s style of casual ambiguity. Those who felt awed and grateful watching Pope John Paul II or reading Pope Benedict XVI often feel a little deflated watching Pope Francis. Feeling underwhelmed by the Pope is understandable.”

    If you’d highlighted that, he wouldn’t have come off like a quisling. As for me, I believe Hoopes. If you read an article about what Pope Francis said or wrote, you’ll be disappointed. If you look into it a little, and read the actual words he said, you’ll still be disappointed, but less so. If you dig into it as a full-time researcher, you’ll come away with a different and better opinion.

    Ideally, we’d have a pope who could build up the Church without looking like he’s making oafish pronouncements.

  • “If you’d highlighted that, he wouldn’t have come off like a quisling.”

    True Pinky but I thought the heart of his point was at the end and that is what I quoted. I do not consider Hoopes a quisling, but merely a Catholic whose understanding of the Church begins and ends with the Pope. That has never been the teaching of Catholicism, but it is a fairly common misunderstanding both within and without the Church.

  • I don’t know if he thinks that way or not. I don’t recognize the name, and I’m not sure if I’ve read anything else from him. He strikes me as someone whose thinking has been influenced by his research, and not in a positive way. You’re a historian, so you know the type. They delve into a problem so deeply that they lose sight of the big picture. If you write a book about what an ambiguous speaker really said, and do sufficient research to try to pin down every statement, you’re not going to come out of it thinking clearly. I’d have to see a lot more of his stuff to tell if your assessment is fair. I’m not even sure that the term “mainstream Catholic press” has meaning.

  • “It would take a book to explain what I mean.” Translation: “I’m even more clueless now than when I started.”

  • If Hoopes’ book is a stroll down the company way, this is a full out parade!

  • Better translation: pre-order my forthcoming book.

  • Ernst:

    My translation saved everybody the trouble of having to do just that.

  • ” If you read an article about what Pope Francis said or wrote, you’ll be disappointed. If you look into it a little, and read the actual words he said, you’ll still be disappointed, but less so. If you dig into it as a full-time researcher, you’ll come away with a different and better opinion.
    Ideally, we’d have a pope who could build up the Church without looking like he’s making oafish pronouncements.”

    Though per the link, it seems that these individuals have “researched” fully and have the opinion that his work is poor:

  • Thanks Donald for providing additional reason not to read the Register as it only befuddles by trying to straddle the truth of historic Catholic doctrine with the ambiguity of Vatican II interpretations and most recently with the near heresy of Pope Francis. The Church in trying to accommodate to the modern world is rendering itself irrelevant to the teaching of Jesus Christ.

  • Revelation 22:10-15 Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

    10 And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near. 11 Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy.”

    12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

    14 Blessed are those who wash their robes,[a] that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood.


    a. Revelation 22:14 Other ancient authorities read do his commandments

3 Responses to Short For Gabriel

Pope Leo and Saint Michael the Archangel

Thursday, September 29, AD 2016



(I originally posted this in 2010.  I think I will begin posting it on each September 29, the feast of the Archangels.)

In 1947 Father Domenico Pechenino related what he had witnessed over six decades before.

“I do not remember the exact year. One morning the great Pope Leo XIII had celebrated a Mass and, as usual, was attending a Mass of thanksgiving. Suddenly, we saw him raise his head and stare at something above the celebrant’s head. He was staring motionlessly, without batting an eye. His expression was one of horror and awe; the colour and look on his face changing rapidly. Something unusual and grave was happening in him.

“Finally, as though coming to his senses, he lightly but firmly tapped his hand and rose to his feet. He headed for his private office. His retinue followed anxiously and solicitously, whispering: ‘Holy Father, are you not feeling well? Do you need anything?’ He answered: ‘Nothing, nothing.’ About half an hour later, he called for the Secretary of the Congregation of Rites and, handing him a sheet of paper, requested that it be printed and sent to all the ordinaries around the world. What was that paper? It was the prayer that we recite with the people at the end of every Mass. It is the plea to Mary and the passionate request to the Prince of the heavenly host, (St. Michael: Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle) beseeching God to send Satan back to hell.”

Cardinal Giovanni Batista Nassalli Rocca di Corneiliano wrote in his Pastoral Letters on Lent“the sentence ‘The evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls’ has a historical explanation that was many times repeated by his private secretary, Monsignor Rinaldo Angeli. Leo XIII truly saw, in a vision, demonic spirits who were congregating on the Eternal City (Rome). The prayer that he asked all the Church to recite was the fruit of that experience. He would recite that prayer with strong, powerful voice: we heard it many a time in the Vatican Basilica. Leo XIII also personally wrote an exorcism that is included in the Roman Ritual. He recommended that bishops and priests read these exorcisms often in their dioceses and parishes. He himself would recite them often throughout the day.”

The Prayer written by the Pope is of course the famous prayer to Saint Michael:

Sancte Michael Archangele,
defende nos in proelio;
contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur:
tuque, Princeps militiae Caelestis,
satanam aliosque spiritus malignos,
qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo,
divina virtute in infernum detrude.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Pope Leo and Saint Michael the Archangel

  • Has the suppression of this prayer led to an increase in the predations of Satan? – I certainly think so. I say the prayer daily and after each rosary. This prayer should be re-introduced after every Mass, as it was recited when I was a youth, up till the time I was 22 years old.

  • Yes, they should recite this. I think it would do much good. I was reading that St Raphael, though not as well known as St Micheal and St Gabriel, can be counted on to help marriages against Asmodias, so perhaps something could be, should be written for him. As St Gabriel is the one who supposedly spoke to Muhammad (but could not have), maybe we should invoke him against Islam and for the conversion of Muslims.

  • The prayer to St. Michael is prayed after every daily Mass and early Sunday Mass at our country mission. I have attended daily Masses at a Northern Virginian parish where the prayer is recited for religious freedom. I don’t know if this is throughout the Diocese of Arlington, VA. Today I attended a Latin Mass at another Mission. It’s scheduled only on Thursdays. The priest did not face the faithful. We did not answer the priest or recite any prayer aloud except for the Our Father. Communion was received on the tongue while kneeling. Afterwards the St. Michael prayer was recited and his chaplet.

  • We have two priests out of five in our parish who conclude their Masses with the Prayer of St Michael. This should be done at every Mass, everywhere, by every Priest. Pope Francis should command it.

  • CAM.

    The same goes for our parish.
    TLM and the Ordo., we finish all our Mass’s with St. Michael.

    @Don the Kiwi.
    I believe your right to assume so.
    I just read that the number of trained exorcists has quadrupled in the States, to a total of fifty.
    A good start in my opinion.

  • If we do not ask we might not get.

  • A powerful prayer…Saint Michael is the patron saint of law enforcement and I recite this prayer often as I go about my daily duties in policing

  • Thank you Don although I say the prayer to St Michael each day I never thought to say it after my Rosary. Good idea
    In my parish we say The Saint Michael prayer.

  • Mary De Voe, you are so right. About 14 years ago I organized an old fashioned ice cream social at the mission church on Sunday, the 29th to honor St. Michael. In preparation for it I asked the priest if we could recite the Prayer to St. Michael after Sunday Mass (we had only one Mass per week because we did not have a resident priest in those days.) He agreed. Now with an overworked resident priest at our mission there are four weekend Masses and four daily with three Holy Hours with rosary, and we pray the St. Michael Prayer after Masses unless there is a hymn. Indeed, It never hurts to ask.

  • Michael, It’s get more dangerous for our police every day. May St. Michael keep you safe.

  • Thank you for this, Mr. McClarey! It has ministered to me, & I have prayed this prayer this morning.

11 Responses to Pot Smoking Makes You Stupid Gary

  • It was pretty bad. But did you notice in the last seconds of the clip Bill Weld picking Angela Merkel as his favorite foreign leader? The ticket is a joke, for libertarians as much as anyone else.

  • Libertarianism in practice has become legalize pot, yay for abortion, bash those Christians, and let the rest of the world go to hell and allow whoever can reach us to come live in the US.

  • The libertarian subculture has always had its oddballs and cranks, but it’s had some serious critics of political economy as well: Friedrich v. Hayek, Milton Friedman, Gottfried DIetze, the younger Robert Bork, Thos Sowell, and Richard Epstein. You’ll notice the youngest person on that list was born in 1943.

    The Libertarian Party decided on a change of scene, so refrained from nominating one of their own hobbyists in favor of people who’ve actually run something. What they got for their trouble was a business Republican who plumbs the shallows of contentious issues appended to a highly intelligent careerist whose metier is looking down his Brahmin Ivy League nose at the Republican electorate with an explicitness one cannot imagine Mitt Romney or the Bush clan manifesting (if they shared his disdain at all). I’ve found the few Johnson partisans I’ve encountered to be deeply annoying, so if he embarrasses them I figure it’s good.

  • I’d have a hard time naming a favorite foreign leader myself. At least a living one.
    Does Nigel Farage count?

  • Good point. The question was inane, especially limiting it to current incumbents. Admiration of foreign politicians is strictly optional. Libertarians face an additional problem: an indifference to the common life and a self-aggrandizing habit of disdaining it. None of them really give a damn about fidelity in curating institutions or admire anyone but their wilfull selves (or peers outside of narrow professional subcultures). Johnson couldn’t offer the obvious answer (Benjamin Netanyahu) because Netanyahu manifests virtues that libertarians disdain (other than eccentric libertarians like Thos. Sowell). He could not mention anyone who actually builds a rapport with their public (e.g. Victor Orban) for much the same reason. He could not mention the man he most agrees with (Justin Trudeau), because Trudeau’s name’s a punchline.

  • What about Geert Wilders?

  • Libertarians face an additional problem: an indifference to the common life and a self-aggrandizing habit of disdaining it. None of them really give a damn about fidelity in curating institutions or admire anyone but their wilfull selves (or peers outside of narrow professional subcultures).

    If I remember right, sometime during Bush’s 2nd term John posited in National Review that the GOP was morphing into a more European like paternalistic “conservative” party like the Tories or the CDU. This was at the time that the liberal-tarian hype was at it’s hyperest. I dismissed it at the time. Now I’m wondering if it wasn’t prescient after all.
    Also, whether or not the GOP is the best vehicle for that kind of political party, if in fact that’s the kind of political party that’s needed right now.

    Netanyahu was the obvious answer and I missed it too.

  • John O’Sullivan that is.

  • I’d vote for Johnson over Hillary in a two-way race.
    I have relatives that hold to libertarian ideas. I go easy on them because they are family. I get the ideas. But, they can’t be squared with the real world. I mildly am nauseated by their conspiracy theories of why the Fed is evil. I agree the Fed stinks. But, their facts and history are different than reality.
    In the category of being basically wrong on every practical matter, libertarians are not nearly as far out as are liberals.
    I cannot vote for a dude with a crappy wig, or such a bad haircut, I can’t tell.
    In conclusion, libertarians I know and love are good people who lack formal education, background and context in the complexities of the world. They are good people. In contrast, liberals, e.g. Crooked Hillary and anybody that would consider voting for her, are subhuman scum.

  • Esterson’s Law, every political party has 2,000 kooks. The corollary is, in a political party as small as the Libertarian Party or the US Green Party everybody could be a kook. Esterson’s Law explains why getting a new political party off the ground is so difficult. A new party must quickly grow to get big enough so the normal people among its members are the norm, not the 2,000 kooks.

Clinton the Accessory

Thursday, September 29, AD 2016



I have called Hillary a transparent crook, and so she is, but we should always remember that she has done far more over her career than simply getting rich on graft and influence peddling.  She has also shielded her sexual predator husband and waged ceaseless campaigns of character assassination against his victims who have come forward:




After the first presidential debate Monday, Trump said he didn’t want to discuss the issue of Clinton’s sexual “transgressions” because the former first daughter was present at the event.

“I didn’t want to do it with Chelsea … I didn’t want to say what I was going to say with Chelsea in the room,” Trump told ABC News.

Chelsea responded to Trump’s statement during an interview with Cosmopolitan magazine:

“It’s a distraction from his inability to talk about what’s actually at stake in this election and to offer concrete, comprehensive proposals about the economy, or our public school system, or debt-free college, or keeping our country safe and Americans safe here at home and around the world. …

“And candidly, I don’t remember a time in my life when my parents and my family weren’t being attacked, and so it just sort of seems to be in that tradition, unfortunately. And what I find most troubling by far are Trump’s — and we talked about this when you interviewed me the night before the Iowa caucus — are Trump’s continued, relentless attacks on whole swaths of our country and even our global community: women, Muslims, Americans with disabilities, a Gold Star family. I mean, that, to me, is far more troubling than whatever his most recent screed against my mom or my family [is].”


That’s what prompted Broaddrick to send the following six tweets to Chelsea:

















Continue reading...

8 Responses to Clinton the Accessory

  • Alan Keyes said it best, at Renew America. The problem is a political system that gives us a “binary choice”. No matter which side you are on, if you do not vote for one of the two binary candidates you will be referred to as a traitor by your fellow travelers within the “binary system”.

    But this year, it is obvious to me, that both candidates are unfit for Office; unqualified on multiple levels. So, must we participate in the fraud for the sake of the “binary choice”?

    Neither has “earned my vote”. In the case of Trump and his supporters, he hasn’t even tried. He prefers intimidation to “close his deal”.

    I am fairly certain I will sit on the sidelines this one. I like Darrel Castle of the Constitution Party on policy, temperament, philosophy. And I REALLY like that he is not part of the “Binary System”.

    I hope our Party system changes in the aftermath of this debacle of an election. I hope we have renewed competition of ideas, so that voters are no more taken for granted and compelled to pull the D / R lever forever. I would love to vote for an actual person who convinced me he is qualified to lead; not just one of two Parties in perpetuity because I fear the “other side”.

  • Alan Keyes helped make Obama President. He was the Republican candidate for the Senate in Illinois in 2004 opposing Obama and I have never witnessed a more pathetic and inept campaign. I was one of the 27% of Illinois voters who voted for Keyes. I thought highly of him at the beginning of the campaign and by the end I concluded he was a complete loon and self-promoter. I would take any advice from Keyes re: politics with a mountain of salt.

  • I guess if you are a member of the political elite in this country all sins are forgiven, as long as the sins hurt only peasants like Broaddrick, and that might be the very best argument for voting for Trump.

    Academics, school administrators, judges and big city lawyers, mental health tradesmen are in the habit of viewing the people around them as servants or children, and not having any legitimate viewpoint or interests that their excellent selves need respect. I’m recalling the professor in my family who was just incensed that anyone would object (on grounds of the integrity of democratic deliberation) that the Virginia judiciary imposed homosexual pseudogamy on an unwilling public. Hilligula is no threat to these people, the legal profession in the last 60 years has generally left them alone or run interference for them, and the people currently shafted or subject to abuse are people they despise and do not care about.

  • Alan Keyes helped make Obama President.

    I’d love it if someone would identify the court employees responsible for turning confidential documents regarding the divorce proceedings of two of BO’s opponents over the newspapers. Be nice if Wikileaks could hack the email of those newspapers so we could see their intramural deliberations on this matter. Dr. Keyes was unprepared, and, like Paul Craig Roberts, does seem to get more peculiar every year. Still, getting an undistinguished state legislator into the U.S. Senate was the work of moles in the bureaucracy co-operating with newspaper editors who should have been honorable enough to have buried the story.

  • “Hilligula”

    Comment of the week Art! Take ‘er away Sam!

  • Obama likely would have lost the primary and his Democrat adversary might well have gone on to lose the general election against Ryan. Mighty shady tricks, even by Illinois political standards, were pulled to get Obama into the US Senate, and in position to run for President in 2008. The secret history behind all this, when it is eventually written, will prove interesting if not edifying.

  • Lyndon Johnson’s minions stole a primary election in Texas for him in 1948 (though it’s a passable wager the votes he stole were not the only votes stolen – and it was an exceedingly close election). It took about 30-odd years for the goods on this caper to be made public, along with photographs of good ‘ol boys with the very ballot box stuffed in Jim Wells County. Maybe if there’s a terrier in the history profession as monomaniacal as Robert Caro, we find out in 2035 (and I’m betting it reveals that some prominent Chicago media figure was a whore all along).

  • Double standard much?
    Betsy Newmark: “Well, alright then. Now we know. If you (Willie) raped a woman in the 1980s and then apologize, that’s okay. You were just being an alpha sort of guy. Right. I’m sure that is what any feminist would have believed about any man, Republican or Democrat. But if that’s true, why get so upset about the accusation that Clarence Thomas once made a joke in the 1980s about a public hair on his can of coke? That was regarded as a major transgression. Rape by Bill Clinton? Not so much.”
    Ergo, it’s not a village. It takes a sac of amoral, subhuman flotsam to vote for Hillary.

PopeWatch: Has Francis Failed?

Thursday, September 29, AD 2016


Matthew Schmitz, literary editor of First Things, has a post at the New York Times asking Has Francis Failed?:

When Pope Francis ascended to the chair of St. Peter in March 2013, the world looked on in wonder. Here at last was a pope in line with the times, a man who preferred spontaneous gestures to ritual forms. Francis paid his own hotel bill and eschewed the red shoes. Rather than move into the grand papal apartments, he settled in the cozy guesthouse for visitors to the Vatican. He also set a new nondogmatic tone with statements like “Who am I to judge?

Observers predicted that the new pope’s warmth, humility and charisma would prompt a “Francis effect” — bringing disaffected Catholics back to a church that would no longer seem so forbidding and cold. Three years into his papacy, the predictions continue. Last winter, Austen Ivereigh, the author of an excellent biography of Pope Francis, wrote that the pope’s softer stance on communion for the divorced and remarried “could trigger a return to parishes on a large scale.” In its early days, Francis’ Jesuit order labored to bring Protestants back into the fold of the church. Could Francis do the same for Catholics tired of headlines about child abuse and culture wars?

In a certain sense, things have changed. Perceptions of the papacy, or at least of the pope, have improved. Francis is far more popular than his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI. Sixty-three percent of American Catholics approve of him, while only 43 percent approved of Benedict at the height of his popularity, according to a 2015 New York Times and CBS News poll. Francis has also placed a great emphasis on reaching out to disaffected Catholics.

But are Catholics actually coming back? In the United States, at least, it hasn’t happened. New survey findings from Georgetown’s Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate suggest that there has been no Francis effect — at least, no positive one. In 2008, 23 percent of American Catholics attended Mass each week. Eight years later, weekly Mass attendance has held steady or marginally declined, at 22 percent.

Of course, the United States is only one part of a global church. But the researchers at Georgetown found that certain types of religious observance are weaker now among young Catholics than they were under Benedict. In 2008, 50 percent of millennials reported receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday, and 46 percent said they made some sacrifice beyond abstaining from meat on Fridays. This year, only 41 percent reported receiving ashes and only 36 percent said they made an extra sacrifice, according to CARA. In spite of Francis’ personal popularity, young people seem to be drifting away from the faith.

Why hasn’t the pope’s popularity reinvigorated the church? Perhaps it is too soon to judge. We probably won’t have a full measure of any Francis effect until the church is run by bishops appointed by Francis and priests who adopt his pastoral approach. This will take years or decades.

Yet something more fundamental may stand in the way of a Francis effect. Francis is a Jesuit, and like many members of Catholic religious orders, he tends to view the institutional church, with its parishes and dioceses and settled ways, as an obstacle to reform. He describes parish priests as “little monsters” who “throw stones” at poor sinners. He has given curial officials a diagnosis of “spiritual Alzheimer’s.” He scolds pro-life activists for their “obsession” with abortion. He has said that Catholics who place an emphasis on attending Mass, frequenting confession, and saying traditional prayers are “Pelagians” — people who believe, heretically, that they can be saved by their own works.

Such denunciations demoralize faithful Catholics without giving the disaffected any reason to return. Why join a church whose priests are little monsters and whose members like to throw stones? When the pope himself stresses internal spiritual states over ritual observance, there is little reason to line up for confession or wake up for Mass.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to PopeWatch: Has Francis Failed?

  • “Pope Francis is not the vanguard of a New Catholicism but one of the last wimpers of Liberal Catholicism as it departs to the catacombs of History.”

    I wouldn’t be so sure of this. Pope Francis is certainly not the vanguard of new wave of vibrant Catholicism. But leftism within the Church hierarchy is far from on its last legs. It has a far reaching effect on even orthodox bishops, priests, and laity. On issues where Catholic doctrine doesn’t forbid it, (e.g. capital punishment, immigration etc.), they are not only committed leftists, but hard leftists. For instance, you have Archbishop Gomez, in a recent video supporting a ballot measure ablolishing the death penalty says “the Church teaches the death penalty is no longer acceptable ” when he knows damned well that’s not true. Similarly, you have Archbishop Chaput, saying “Church teaching against the death penalty” to describe the hierarchy policy position. And Catholics who take the legitimately Catholic opposing view are being marginalized by these prelates. If the Catholic media had a fraction of the integrity the secular media is rightly taken to task for not having, these guys would be called out by name (not using the phrase “the bishops” as though they were a nameless, faceless corporate blob) every time they pull this crap.

  • This pontificate must be judged on the actions and intentions of the Pontiff and his supporters.
    He destroyed the FFI. He demoted Cardinal Burke. He has slapped the pro life people in the face. He gave Cardinals Kasper and Marx, a pair of de facto heretics, exactly what they wanted.
    The disgusting Cardinal Daneels was in his symposium of synchophants.

    What, then, are his goals and has he achieved them?
    He has succeed in making himself a despised heretic in certain circles.
    Rotate warned us what would happen with this Argentine Jesuit.

  • I am simply disgusted by Jorge Bergoglio.

  • By what reasonable metric could this pontificate be considered a success?
    Is the Church more unified? Are fallen-away Catholics returning to the
    Sacraments? Are non-Catholics converting to the Faith in greater numbers?
    Is Rome proclaiming the Gospel to the world with fearlessness and clarity?
    From where I’m standing, it looks to me that the only thing this pope seems to
    do well is court the fawning attentions of the secular press and build up a
    cult of personality. Unfortunately, that’s not what the Church needs from
    Francis. I can’t think of a way the Church’s lot has improved because of him.

  • He has said that Catholics who place an emphasis on attending Mass, frequenting confession, and saying traditional prayers are “Pelagians” — people who believe, heretically, that they can be saved by their own works.

    That’s a rather Protestantish, Sola Fide-ist take on “Promethean Neo-Pelagians” (whatever Francis meant) isn’t it?

  • Chesterton described orthodoxy as a romance – something that could only be attained by a perfect balance, a story whose ending could be wonderful or tragic. My main problem with Pope Francis is that he beats up on one side. We need an occasional slap, it’s true; but so does everyone. He hasn’t changed the Faith, but his methods risk its balance. Popes John Paul and Benedict didn’t mock the sheep in their fold who wandered toward the fringe. They didn’t spare their philosophical compatriots, either.

  • He’s actively weakened the Church, and the faith of many Christians is weakened by his poor witness. That’s no failure in Satan’s view. Hip, hip….never mind.

  • Ernst Schreiber wrote, “That’s a rather Protestantish, Sola Fide-ist take on “Promethean Neo-Pelagians” (whatever Francis meant) isn’t it?”
    I agree. The Pelagian heresy was not about faith and works, but about grace and free-will, as can be seen in the canons of the Council of Orange, thus
    “If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1) (Canon 3)
    “If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).” (Canon 4)
    “If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did not receive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I am what I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).” (Canon 6)

  • What is of major importance right now is what is going on in the seminaries. In those of the priestly societies where the “old” Mass ( or really, the Once and Future Mass) is strictly observed, they do not have sufficient space and are turning away qualified candidates. In diocesan seminaries (Madison WI, Lincoln NE, or Charlotte NC for example) where the old Mass is strongly encouraged numbers there are very encouraging and growing. In mainstream NO seminaries, they’re doing well if they can project keeping the lights on over the next few years. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but is there a single strictly NO seminary in the US that’s thriving, to the extent that the diocese its a part of will have ordinations that will keep up with retirements and deaths?

  • The behavior of Francis, of clergymen generally, of the judiciary and much of the bar, and of school administrators and the like leaves me with the definite impression that our bourgeois and our elites are shot through with people who would get great amusement out of taking a large rock and hurling it through a plate-glass window. We live in a culture in which the vanguard are … vandals.

  • Anyone who sets himself against God is destined to fail sooner or later.

  • but is there a single strictly NO seminary in the US that’s thriving, to the extent that the diocese its a part of will have ordinations that will keep up with retirements and deaths?

    I think Arlington was doing OK ca 1998. They had some scandals ca. 2003 but I think they’d recovered prior to Francis. Lincoln was at one time healthy, to the point where embittered liberal Catholics took to claiming (without evidence) that their seminarians were not derived from their constituency. Bp. Bruskewitz was certainly sympathetic to FSSP.

  • About plagiarism and protestantism and francis: the pope is one who has words mean what he means them to mean. He is more protestant than Catholic in my dictionary.
    Our good works are a grace acted upon, as is our obedience of faith, as is our worship according to rubric.

  • If you read the homily linked to by “Pelagians,” you’ll see that it’s your more or less standard there’s more to being a Christian than marching in front of planned parenthood/working the local soup-kitchen/advocating for the social justice cause du jour on the one hand or showing up at church on a regualar basis and saying your prayers by rote on the other hand boilerplate.
    My characterization, of course.

  • Also that it’s a Vatican press release describing the boilerplate rather than the boilerplate itself.

  • Hooray for the New York Times for publishing Matthew Schmitz post. Hopefully, it will give more credence to what Conservative Catholic bloggers have been saying for some time now about Pope Francis and the failed Vatican II revolution.

    Pope Francis is fulfilling a critical role of demonstrating the very worst aspects of Vatican II and Modernism. He is the very personification of everything that has gone wrong with the Church in the last 50 years. Let us thank the Lord that he has allowed such an obviously evil presence to emerge in our time to demonstrate the failure of the Man centered religion of Vatican II. Let us pray that more Catholic will reject everything pope Francis stands for demand a return to true Catholicism.

  • Anzlyne wrote, “Our good works are a grace acted upon, as is our obedience of faith, as is our worship according to rubric.”
    Indeed and that is why the Anti-Pelagian Council of Toucy, after quoting Psalm 134:6, “Whatsoever the Lord pleased He hath done, in heaven, in earth” adds “For nothing is done in heaven or on earth, except what God either graciously does Himself or permits to be done, in His justice.” That is to say, no good, here and now, in this man rather than in another, comes about unless God Himself graciously wills and accomplishes it, and no evil, here and now, in this man rather than another, comes about unless God Himself justly permits it to be done.

  • Thank you Michael P S
    I am going to save that quote!

  • Art Deco, What above you wrote plus, I think, it’s huge amounts of fear and loathing of the ruled by the rulers/elites (intellectuals, politicians, technocrats). I think that is largely the result of the monumental messes the elites have generated with their less-than-ingenious (understatement) central planning.
    Anyhow, keep on keeping on over at “Marginal Revolution.” Those guys, generally, are dumb.

Quotes Suitable For Framing: Edmund Burke

Wednesday, September 28, AD 2016



Your literary men, and your politicians, and so do the whole clan of the enlightened among us, essentially differ in these points. They have no respect for the wisdom of others; but they pay it off by a very full measure of confidence in their own. With them it is a sufficient motive to destroy an old scheme of things, because it is an old one. As to the new, they are in no sort of fear with regard to the duration of a building run up in haste; because duration is no object to those who think little or nothing has been done before their time, and who place all their hopes in discovery. They conceive, very systematically, that all things which give perpetuity are mischievous, and therefore they are at inexpiable war with all establishments. They think that government may vary like modes of dress, and with as little ill effect: that there needs no principle of attachment, except a sense of present conveniency, to any constitution of the state. They always speak as if they were of opinion that there is a singular species of compact between them and their magistrates, which binds the magistrate, but which has nothing reciprocal in it, but that the majesty of the people has a right to dissolve it without any reason, but its will. Their attachment to their country itself, is only so far as it agrees with some of their fleeting projects; it begins and ends with that scheme of polity which falls in with their momentary opinion.

Edmund Burke, From Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790)

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Quotes Suitable For Framing: Edmund Burke

  • Someone at work just sent me an article about how the US NRC isn’t sufficiently innovative with safety regulation. The article ignored the 50+ years of experience acquired in building nuclear regulation – accidents like Windscale, SL-1, Chalk River, TMI, Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the almost accident of the Davis Besse hole in the reactor vessel head. This quote from Edmund Burke was therefore most timely. Thank you.
    In the NRC’s own words:
    “…nor is the novel means for compliance a reason why the regulation would not apply.”
    Or as Edmund Burke wrote:
    “They have no respect for the wisdom of others; but they pay it off by a very full measure of confidence in their own.”

  • E. Burke did not use the word narcissism, as we do so often today, but as I read that quote I think of a pandemic of narcissism among the literary class, the politcal class and the enlightened- not just as individuals, but as a whole.

  • This recalls Jefferson’s letter to Madison, dated significantly 6 September 1789:-
    “[N]o society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation: they may manage it, then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters, too, of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors are extinguished then, in their natural course, with those whose will gave them being. This could preserve that being, till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of thirty-four years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right… This principle, that the earth belongs to the living and not to the dead, is of very extensive application and consequences in every country, and most especially in France. It enters into the resolution of the questions, whether the nation may change the descent of lands holden in tail; whether they may change the appropriation of lands given anciently to the church, to hospitals, colleges, orders of chivalry, and otherwise in perpetuity; whether they may abolish the charges and privileges attached on lands, including the whole catalogue, ecclesiastical and feudal; it goes to hereditary offices, authorities and jurisdictions, to hereditary orders, distinctions and appellations, to perpetual monopolies in commerce, the arts or sciences, with a long train of et ceteras; renders the question of reimbursement, a question of generosity and not of right.”
    He was, on recalls, an extravagant hater of tailzies and introduced a bill to abolish them in Virginia.

  • Sorry, I meant to write, “An extravagant hater of entails.”
    The Scottish term just slipped in.

  • Jefferson did say the most appalling rubbish at times, and this statement has always struck me as very near the top of the list. Jefferson died a near pauper of course, and his relatives had to sell his slaves, Jefferson not making any arrangements in his will to free his slaves as Washington did. It is unfortunate for the country that Jefferson did not die soon after penning the Declaration of Independence.

    “People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.”
    Edmund Burke

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour : The devil is always in the “entails”

  • “Michael Paterson-Seymour : The devil is always in the “entails””

    Ha! Mary, if I hadn’t already given comment of the week, that would have earned it.

Martyr Priests of Dachau

Wednesday, September 28, AD 2016


(I posted this last June.  It seemed appropriate to post it again today.)



A very brave man has died:

The last surviving Catholic priest imprisoned in the Dachau concentration camp has died at the age of 102, more than 70 years after surviving a Nazi death march.

 The Rev. Hermann Scheipers died on June 2 in Ochtrup, Germany, the Catholic website Aleteia said.

 He spent more than four years at Dachau after being arrested in 1940, reportedly for supporting Polish forced laborers. “Here, you are defenseless, without dignity or rights,” Scheipers recalled being told on arriving at the Nazi camp.

Go here to read the rest.

2,579 Catholic priests, seminarians and brothers were thrown by the Nazis during World War II into Dachau.  1,780 of these were from Poland.  Of these, some 868 priests perished, 300 in medical “experiments” or by torture in the showers of the camp.

The remaining priests, seminarians and brothers came from 38 nations.  Besides the Poles the largest groups were 447 German and Austrian priests, 156 French priests and 46 Belgian priests.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Martyr Priests of Dachau

  • This makes me wonder why God has stayed His hand with us, yet Sodom and Gomorrah were pulverized into ash. We had better be careful when we ask for God’s mercy because God just may decide to execute His mercy on us and it won’t be pretty.

  • I know this is not relevant to the post itself. I don’t know Bishop Carmody; I don’t know anything about Bishop Carmody; I have no reason to believe he is anything but a fine Bishop, a good priest, and a truly excellent man, and I absolutely have no wish to say anything bad about him or demean him…but , dang, that picture at the top of the post is the spitting image of Hannibal Lecter. He really needs to grow a beard.

  • I know Bishop Carmody. A very humble man, good priest,wonderful bishop,retired now here in Tyler Texas

  • Tyler? Perhaps I’ll get to meet him someday and tell him this story.

  • Like Jesus Christ, they died for us.

PopeWatch: Father Engelmar Unzeitig: Angel of Dachau

Wednesday, September 28, AD 2016




A martyr priest is recognized:


Fr. Engelmar Unzeitig, a young priest with Czech roots serving in Germany and Austria, was arrested by the Nazis on April 21, 1941.

His crime? Preaching against the Third Reich from his pulpit, particularly against their treatment of the Jewish people. He encouraged his congregation to be faithful to God and to resist the lies of the Nazi regime.

As punishment, Fr. Unzeitig was sent to what has been called the “largest monastery in the world”: Dachau concentration camp, which became renowned for the number of ministers and priests within its walls.



For several years, Fr. Unzeitig was able to remain in relatively stable health despite the poor treatment he received. However, when a wave of the often-fatal typhoid fever swept through the camp in 1945, he and 19 other priests volunteered to do what no one else wanted to – care for the sick and dying in the typhoid barracks, an almost-certain death sentence in and of itself. He and his companions spent their days bathing and caring for the sick, praying with them and offering last rites





Eventually, on March 2, 1945, Fr. Unzeitig succumbed to typhoid fever himself, along with all but two of the other priest volunteers. Dachau was liberated by American soldiers just a few weeks later, on April 29.

In recognition of his heroic virtue, Fr. Engelmar Unzeitig was declared venerable by Benedict XVI on July 3, 2009.

On January 21, Pope Francis officially acknowledged Fr. Unzeitig as a martyr, killed in hatred of the faith, which opens the path for his beatification, the next step in becoming a canonized saint.

was declared venerable by Benedict XVI on July 3, 2009.

On January 21, Pope Francis officially acknowledged Fr. Unzeitig as a martyr, killed in hatred of the faith, which opens the path for his beatification, the next step in becoming a canonized saint.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to PopeWatch: Father Engelmar Unzeitig: Angel of Dachau

  • At least the Nazis allowed the Last Rites to the dying in Dachau. Obama denied the Last Rites to men on military bases during the government shutdown. When will American people be liberated?

  • @Mary De Voe.
    Rhetorical question or not, the enslavement of Americans living under Liberalism and voting for tyrants like Obama is a punishment. A chastisement of sorts. The blind and deaf continue to support the demise of the innocent, hence the continuation of American enslavement. They hear, but can not understand…and they see, but can not perceive. This voting block of the demonic class is the serpentine wire which is twisted and bent. It ensnares and has razor sharp elements to discourage anyone from making efforts to escape.

    The liberation of this new death camp, Amerika?

    God only knows what it is going to take to bust down the walls of progressive liberalism.
    Prayers and the return to the Sacraments is a good start for those that have been asleep.
    I pray their numbers increase, the conversions, and do my best to exemplify the true meaning of Christian. By our love they will see and hear. By God’s grace they will turn.

  • Philip:
    True citizens tolerate this indignity as some people will become death bed converts. God alone knows the time and the hour.

Remote Control

Wednesday, September 28, AD 2016



From 1961, a commercial for the RCA “Wireless Wizard”.  Not the first wireless remote, that title goes to the Zenith Flash-matic in 1955.  Remote controls are an interesting example of fairly rapid transition of technology from experimental into mass production.  The above commercial seems rather over the top to modern sensibilities, but the development of a mass market for electronics gave a strong peace time impetus to technological development.  My father initially denounced remote controls as toys for lazy rich people.  When we got one after prices came down and the technology was perfected, it was practically impossible to pry it from his hands!  Various revolutions during my lifetime have seized public attention, but the continuous technological revolutions of the last six decades probably will prove the most long lasting.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Remote Control

52 Responses to PopeWatch: Open Thread


    If the unborn were classified as immigrants in search of a safe haven, then possibly Pope Francis could speak out against the oppressors that IS feminism.

    Please pray for Ireland. Our ancestors are counting on you.

    Sorry Don. Nothing amusing this morning from my armchair.

  • Holy Father, admit it all and do a Flip Wilson for us.

  • To disenfranchise the Blessed Virgin Mary of her membership in the human race is irreligion = atheism. The NEW Natural Law is slithering, insidious, calumnious, disingenuous and dis-value =evil atheism. The only benefit from dis-value=evil atheism is that there is none. Evil must be avoided at all costs. Dis-value denies the original innocence into which all men in the human race are created. The Virgin Mary willed to sublimate her whole being to the will of God from the very first moment of existence. Created in original innocence as were Adam and Eve, as are all human beings, Mary maintained her original innocence in humble acknowledgement of God, her Creator. All future generations, our constitutional Posterity, are created in original innocence and must be accorded the benefit of community to maintain their original innocence. The purpose of the state is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our (constitutional) Posterity.” The Preamble
    To disenfranchise the Son of God, Jesus Christ, the perfect human Person from gentile society is to bring forth brutes and bestial behavior. To disenfranchise God, “their Creator” from His Intellectual Property is the height of evil and is practiced by the devil.
    The devil is NOT an atheist. The devil uses atheism to seduce man into refusing to acknowledge God, “their Creator” and the perfect Virgin, Mary and the divine Son of God, Jesus Christ.
    With my apology to Professor Robert P. George whom I love and admire immensely. The New Natural Law theory brings to mind The Emperor’s New Clothes.
    Thank you, Donald McClarey for this opportunity to share my thoughts on the NEW Natural Law Theory. It is not amusing but it bears the TRUTH.

  • In case you’ve not seen this yet:

    I’ve signed it and tweeted it and it’s already gaining notice on Twitter amongst Catholics.

  • Frankly (rimshot!), my attitude towards the Pope is turning towards a shrugging indifference. It’s clear he’s a Martini-esque termite doing his level best to make sure the Church catches up with the times. And by that, I mean endorse the worst ideas of fifty years ago and chop the Magisterium to flinders so it can be reassembled to fit the New Paradigm.

    And since everyone seem content to let him do so with either ringing cheers or a “resistance” that is naught but open letters or behind-doors-kvetching, my attitude towards Catholicism is closely matching my growing indifference to Bergoglio.

  • Well, Dale, I am asking an earnest question: In addition to prayer and open letters, what can orthodox Catholics do to stop the continuing damage to our Faith? There’s always keeping our wallets and pocket books closed, but how far will that reach?

  • The Church has outlasted bad popes in the past Dale, and she will do so in regard to Pope Francis.

  • And since everyone seem content to let him do so with either ringing cheers or a “resistance” that is naught but open letters or behind-doors-kvetching, my attitude towards Catholicism is closely matching my growing indifference to Bergoglio.

    In the local novus ordo parish here, they’ve just stopped talking about anything Francis says. I’m not sure the better bishops and priests quite know how to proceed at this point. The problems they’re facing have not presented themselves since the late middle ages.

  • It used to be that most people didn’t even realize it when we had bad popes. I miss those days (not that I lived through them). I miss the days when the priests’ personalities were subordinate to the rituals of the Mass.

    I’d much rather see a pope move back toward being an administrator rather than a personality. Of course, the most important trait for a pope is sanctity. But the Church could really use a manager-type, both for the managerial benefit and to de-emphasize the celebrity role.

  • E.F.

    Thanks for the link.
    Cardinal Burke, ninth signature. 🙂

    @Mary De Voe.
    Beautiful description and explanation of Natural Law v New Natural Law, aka the emperor’s new clothes.
    They can fake it all they want…they will Never make it. Never.

  • “Well, Dale, I am asking an earnest question: In addition to prayer and open letters, what can orthodox Catholics do to stop the continuing damage to our Faith? There’s always keeping our wallets and pocket books closed, but how far will that reach?”

    I have no clue. And turning off the funding to a decent parish basically just hurts the parish, so I can’t recommend that.

    I imagine nothing will happen because nobody with a lick of actual authority will even admit there’s a problem. Normalcy bias reigns supreme even as the Jesuit Pope keeps planting explosives and remaking the episcopate in his image.

    Shrug. Naught for it.

  • Dale, I certainly sympathize with your view. If it weren’t for Catholicism, I would have left the Catholic Church years ago.

  • How about “THE GREAT VATICAN DEBATE” in a more traditional debate form ?
    The Proposition: “That the Church return to the Traditional Values, and deny Modernism.”

    The team for the Affirmative: Cdl.Raymond Bourke, Cdl. Sarah, ArchBp. Athanasius Schneider.
    The Team for the Negative: Pope Francis Bergoglio, Cdl. Walter Kaspar, Cdl Timothy Dolan.

    That would be a debate worth tuning in to !! 🙂

  • Don the Kiwi.

    Good choices.
    I’m all for it.

  • I’m not counseling anyone to depart. I’m just venting my personal tiredness with it all. In practice, Catholicism is nothing more than the canvas upon which the reigning pontiff can unleash his inner Pollock. If he’s in tune with Tradition, that’s good, and if he’s not, that’s nice, too. People cheer it either way and chaps with mitres trim accordingly. It’s business.

  • Jean Paul Sartre, the atheist existentialist, said of Jean Genet in ” Saint Genet..Martyr and Actor”….” this is the author we never wanted to hear from

  • similarly…this is the Pope we never wanted to hear from.

  • “People cheer it either way”

    Not all people. Pope Francis has been getting quite a bit of pushback from many people, including some Cardinals. The Tradition that guides the Church is greater than any Pope. The Church has not existed for 2000 years by accident, but by loyal Catholics gritting their teeth and fighting to preserve the Faith.

  • Bear also so sick of this Pope he can no longer even properly mock him. He watches the Pope Videos and his eyes glaze over. When the salmon literally jump into your mouth, it takes the fun out of it. He doesn’t bother with them anymore because they’re boring. They’re boring in the same way Francis is boring, liberals are boring, atheists are boring and fanatics are boring, He’s totally predictable and void of original though. The Bear respectfully suggests he’s doing more damage than the host of this ephemeris, Dr. McClarey thinks, however. The “we’ve had bad popes before” argument is invalid because it does not take into account the cultural contexts of “before” and “now.” A bad pope “now” is far worse than a bad pope “before” because “before” the Church was still sound in belief and practice. It was not infested with homosexuals (although there were some, of course). The culture of the West was still favorable to the idea of the Church, instead of implacably hostile to Christianity. The pope’s every random non-orthodox thought was not broadcast through the world instantly. Francis is doing tremendous damage. (Bear stipulates Church miraculously preserved).

  • There’s a difference between being excited about the Pope and being excited about the Church. We’re obligated on the latter (with a proper understanding of the word “Church”).

  • Pinky, one is not obliged to be “excited” about the Church. We are obliged to accept and adhere to her teaching. One doesn’t even have to like it or be excited about it.

  • As for this Pontificate, it, too will pass.
    Perseverance is a must.

    As I have pointed out ad infinitum, my ancestry is Polish. Poland has been attacked by the Mongol Horde, the Teutonic Knights, the Swedish Army (the Deluge), the Ottoman Empire, Prussia, Russia, Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union TWICE. Poland survived the Deluge, the Partition, the Holocaust and the Iron Curtain.
    Tell me what other nation could endure more and still exist.
    Poland exists today because of its Catholic faith and stubborn perseverance against all odds.
    This is an example for us all to follow. The current Pontiff is sneaky and nasty but is an intellectual lightweight. Ignore him and soldier on.

  • Per Breitbart, three Catholic priests were murdered in Mexico and their bodies were found this week.
    Kylie Eleison.

  • Ah my bruin friend you really need to read Peter Damian’s Book of Gomorrah written almost a thousand years ago. There is nothing new under the sun when it comes to sin, especially sin among the clergy. The culture of large swathes of the West has often been quite hostile to the Church for example during the Reformation, the French Revolution, and the various Communist regimes of the last century. God did not create the Church to have it tamely surrender to her adversaries today. All He even needs is enough Catholics to step forward and fight the good fight.

  • I understand all the old apologetic arguments, but…they’re all the old apologetic arguments.

    They work really nicely on paper, but this isn’t the horny bad pope or the greedy bad pope–this is the Suicide Bomber Pope. He’s deliberately assaulting the sacraments and settled moral teaching here. He might have canonized JPII, but he’s cynically undermining JPII’s reaffirmation of basic Catholic morality.

    And the response of his so-called brothers is to stand-by and watch him do it. Yes, they’ve said oblique Romanitas-flavored stuff about levels of teaching, etc. But like the French Generals in June 1940, they are fighting the last war–and they’re losing. He’s perfectly content to let them fume, so long as he has perfect freedom of action. And so he does. And so, marriage, penance and the Eucharist are being eaten away by the moths of Amoris Laetitia. Because pope. Suggesting that, in reality (and regardless of what catechisms and other supposed authorities say to the contrary) it is indeed the papal cult that the fulminating blowhard Luther said it was. The Words of Christ? Feh. We have an Argentine Jesuit’s authoritative correction of the Son of God now.

    I guess I’m just taking my cues from the so-called shepherds. When they start acting like it’s an emergency, then maybe I’ll care. So far, forget the snooze bar–the entire alarm clock has been unplugged. In the meantime, Catholicism is turning Episcopalian–only with worse music. Four years ago, that would have horrified me–not to mention have been laughable. But here we are–and I’ve just about lost the ability to care.

    Give it another couple of months, and I’ll be sure of it.

  • “I understand all the old apologetic arguments, but…they’re all the old apologetic arguments.”

    Perhaps they are old Dale because they are often true. Don’t bet against the Catholic Church is a pretty good maxim when one looks at the history of the Church over twenty centuries. Somehow I doubt if Christ was thinking, “Until the Argentinian Pope comes along”, when He told Peter that he was building His Church upon him. I am sorry for your despair and/or indifference. The Church has survived only because in each age faithful Catholics have arisen to take up the Cross to maintain the Church.

  • Pinky wrote, “I’d much rather see a pope move back toward being an administrator rather than a personality”
    We tried it for the best part of three hundred years.

    From Sixtus V, who died in 1590, to Leo XIII, who was elected in 1878, we had a virtually unbroken succession of popes, who had risen through the ranks of the Vatican bureaucracy and who were, by habit, taste and training, administrators. Even Benedict XIV, better remembered today as Prospero Lambertini, the great canon lawyer, fits this mould.

    It is not unfair to describe the result as one of assiduous mediocrity. Even in Catholic countries, they had the same impact and the same popular appeal, as the average Secretary-General of the United Nations or President of the World Bank

    Meanwhile, we had the Church riven by the Thirty Years War, the Quietist controversy, the Jansenist heresy, the Gallican controversy, Josephism, the suppression of the Jesuits, the French Revolution and its aftermath, and the Risorgimento, in none of which can the Holy See be said to have distinguished itself to the point that the 19th century popes were dependant on Austrian or French troops to maintain their rule over their sullen or mutinous subjects.

    Thirty popes and not a Leo or a Gregory, a Hildebrand or an Innocent III amongst them; the very suggestion seems absurd. Benedict XIV can fairly be ranked with Innocent IV as a canonist and with Leo X and Clement VII for his learning and he appears as a giant in that age of pygmies.
    Here is a simple test: was the period one of growth or decline in the authority of the Holy See and in the influence of the Church?

  • Maybe it’s despair, Don. Dunno. I have “enjoyed” that before, and it seems to be different now.

    The bottom line is that the Bergoglio Project is Catholic, or at least good enough for government work. In light of the top-to-bottom acquiescence of the Catholic episcopate, who am I to say otherwise?

  • “The world woke up and found itself Arian!”

    The history of the Church is replete Dale with the wrecks of the-latest-thing that snared overwhelming numbers of clerics, up to and including a few Popes. I take great solace in thinking of that history as I look at the current scene, that and this passage from A Man For All Seasons:

    More: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for friendship?
    Cranmer: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas?
    More: I don’t know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man’s conscience. I condemn no one.
    Cranmer: Then the matter is capable of question?
    More: Certainly.
    Cranmer: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty — and sign.
    More: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it? No, I will not sign.

  • Death fixes our relationship with God for eternity. Therefore, the saints in heaven do not change. The saints in heaven, the just on earth and the suffering in purgatory are the Catholic Church. At the Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles, Mary, Mother of the Church was present. Mary the Virgin Mother of God and our Mother does not vacillate from the TRUTH, Her Son, Jesus Christ before all ages.
    Pope Francis is not even a good administrator. Pope Francis denies the timelessness of TRUTH. Pope Francis is a deathbed convert.

  • “But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty — and sign.”
    When the king falls into error and sin, the king loses his sovereignty and his sovereign personhood before God and man. The king without sovereignty over himself falls beneath the animals as animals are innocent, that is, not capable of reason and evil. The sinner becomes a demon. Demons must be exorcised by the truth. All crimes are sins. The sinner must become a deathbed convert to recapture, to re-establish his sovereign personhood, the image of God in himself before he faces God or God cannot recognize the man.

  • I’m not seeing ‘top-to-bottom’ acquiescence. Francis was quite publicly peeved with the resistance he received at the synod. What I’d like to see and have not is episcopal critiques of Francis’ vandalism.

    Well, here’s one bishop. Rather he was a tad closer to home.

  • The flattery of Francis by Benedict is for me the more toxic phenomenon. One doesn’t expect much from Francis’ brain but one did expect Benedict to correct Francis or express opposite insights without mentioning Francis by name at a minimum. Nothing…..and I hope Benedict’s hidden motive is not fear of getting kicked out of the Vatican digs.

  • “I’m not seeing ‘top-to-bottom’ acquiescence. Francis was quite publicly peeved with the resistance he received at the synod. What I’d like to see and have not is episcopal critiques of Francis’ vandalism.”

    I see what you’re saying, and yes–Francis threw a tantrum in his closing speech. But since then, it’s been treated as a fait accompli. Rather like most American Catholic bishops’ response to Obergefell. And no response at all to Francis’s pulling the rug out from underneath them with the letter to his Argentine cronies.

    And, yes, there’s been the auxiliary bishop from Kazakhstan, and the three bishops in Lefebvre’s Society who have spoken out.

    Apart from that? Just attempts to say that Francis didn’t say what he clearly has said (on any number of issues) and trying to fit him into the orthodox mold of his predecessors. Which, at the end of the day, are gaslighting by any other name. Even if from the best of motives.

  • and I hope Benedict’s hidden motive is not fear of getting kicked out of the Vatican digs.

    I suspect Benedict’s more a prisoner than anything else. I’m not satisfied with his explanation of the sequence of events. Other than his (older) brother, Benedict’s only proximate relations live in Australia, and they’re rank-and-file people without any pull. I don’t think they can intercede for him at all.

  • It is not unfair to describe the result as one of assiduous mediocrity.

    Assiduous mediocrity is what we usually get from our diocesan bishops. After the last 3 years, assiduous mediocrity would be a tremendous improvement.

  • I don’t think it’s gaslighting to interpret official texts by the hermeneutic of continuity. I think it’s the only way to remain sanguine. The teaching authority of the airplane presser, person to person phone call, personal letter and informal on the record chat with a reporter who refuses to take notes has all the validity of the miracle of Our Lady of the Burnt Wholewheat Toast.

  • “I saw a great power rise up against the Church. It plundered, devastated, and threw into confusion and disorder the vine of the Lord, having it trampled underfoot by the people and holding it up to ridicule by all nations. Having vilified celibacy and oppressed the priesthood, it had the effrontery to confiscate the Church’s property and to arrogate to itself the powers of the Holy Father, whose person and whose laws it held in contempt. – Jeanne le Royer (Sister of the Nativity) | Catholic Prophecy, Yves DuPont

    (My emphasis)

  • Jeremiah 5:30-31
    An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: the prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule as the prophets direct; my people love to have it so,
    but what will you do when the end comes?

  • @.Anzlyne RE: Jeremiah, a prophet for our times.

  • Isaiah 50:8-9
    Our Fifth Amendment. Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, no trial in absentia. Our Constitutional Principles are found in the Bible. If the Bible and the freedom of religion is obliterated so is man’s sovereignty over himself and man’s power to institute the state with his sovereign personhood. This is the devil’s work, starting with man made laws that presuppose to be God’s laws.

  • for example:
    SOGI LAW Sexual orientation is a gift from God for all eternity. Gender identity is man‘s invention of a temporary nature. Why must any law bend to a finite and fallible, temporary invention of man’s as though gender identity is an eternal truth. It runs contrary to common sense and the common good. Laws must be based on truth, the whole truth and NOTHING but the truth, so help me God. The rest is imposition of atheism against the First Amendment and unconstitutional taxation without representation, denying the official representation of constituents as taxpayers, taxpayers who maintain all possession of their tax dollars even while their taxes are administered by the administration.
    Before atheism can be eradicated from our midst, sovereign persons must seize their freedom by all four corners and shake the atheism from our nations, our courts and our laws.

  • @ Mary De Voe.

    Your explanations are appreciated. I’m
    in complete agreement and I’m pondering on your conclusion.

    How do we collectively get from here to there?
    From a insidious wave of false mercy, back to the Truth that ushered in foundation principals that built the United States of America that was once honorable and morally worthy to lead.

    This task of returning to the values that made America shine brightly in the darkness seems enormous. The public opinion, saturated by biased media, has swelled in favor of disordered conduct as well as promotion of depravity to the point of Obama’s bathroom policy.

    We see the nude emperor….but so many people think his clothing is brilliant.
    Not his alone…but the clothing of a “inteligencia ala’ Liberalism.”

  • @Philip:
    Thank you for reading my comment. By impressing upon the political class our Founding Principles, that instituted our nation and that will keep our nation great. Like Holy Scripture, the truth is all there.
    Either our officials, only an office, maintain our Founding Principles or they disenfranchise themselves and lose their sovereign personhood and their citizenship by their own consent. By holding their feet to the fire, as well as we might, with God’s help. God loves His adopted children and those who still must be brought into existence as our constitutional Posterity. By forcing public servants to know our Founding Principles or forfeit their office, president, judge or tax collector.

    Elizabeth Fitzmaurice: The Declaration is true except for this, I could not post this comment on the website so here it is: God’s name is: “I AM WHO I AM”, The Supreme Sovereign Being, Being.
    The King James version of the Bible refers to God as a thing, a “that” and a “which” denying the WHONESS of God, denying the soul of Christ WHO is.
    This document denies the “whoness” of all human beings, referring to men as “that”, denying the souls of men.
    In principle the document is true. Denying the souls of men, the document fails.

  • @Mary De Voe.

    “By forcing public servants to know our Founding Principals or forfeit their office…”

    Excellent idea!

    Implementation can be done by service of law.(?). Write and enforce the law. Yes, No?

  • Philip: OCT 5 John 8: 13-19 A discussion on the testimony of Jesus to himself: “the One WHO sent me is with Me and in your Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is valid. I may be testifying on my own behalf, but my Father Who sent Me is my witness too.” The Jerusalem Bible
    Two witnesses establish a judicial fact in a Court of law even to this day. In THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE of THE UNITED STATES ratified by every state, the will of the people to be free “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them…”…the people give testimony to ourselves through the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God is our witness too. “And for the support of this DECLARATION with a firm reliance on the protection on divine Providence…” Again, we testify on our own behalf and the Holy Spirit, the third Person of God gives witness. Two witnesses establish a judicial fact, in time and in eternity.
    The First Amendment to our Constitution testifies on our behalf and “Nature’s God” gives witness to the peoples’ freedom in their exercise of their legal, civil rights to speak, write, and peaceably assemble for “their Creator”
    “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” testify and give witness to human rights, innate and inherent, in the sovereign person, body and soul. “the Laws of Nature” testify to the metaphysical, rational, human soul and the rational soul’s free will, intellect and conscience. “Nature’s God”, The Supreme Sovereign Being, “their Creator”, gives witness to free will, intellect and conscience of the sovereign person.
    The sovereign person becomes a citizen at birth. The sovereign person, newly begotten, institutes the state from the very first moment of existence through his perfect legal and moral innocence.
    Satan’s war on God now becomes Satan’s war against man.
    The New Natural Law Theory is the separation of “the Laws of Nature” from “Nature’s God.” Satanic atheism. “Do not even touch the apple…”
    Who we are is the image of God in original innocence, free will, intellect and conscience. What we do in accord with God or in disobedience to God is who we become. The soul is the form of the body and the body becomes whoever the soul is. Saints have the odor of sanctity. Murderers wear their victims on their face. See: Kermit Gosnell, in prison for killing innocent, born citizens of the state, God’s adopted children. In the olden days, before prisons, the murderer was forced to wear his victim’s corpse on his back until the rotting corpse killed him.
    Obergefell has human dignity. Obergefells’ sin, the addiction to sodomy, does not have human dignity. Good judgement.
    Thank you, Donald McClarey for open thread

  • Great lesson Mary.

    Wearing the corpses of the ones murdered.. incredible. What a deterrent! Might make a young woman or man think before encouraging abortions. Or having premarital sex.

    “The soul is the form of the body and the body becomes whatever the soul is.”
    Brilliant. Thanks Mary.

  • God love you Philip. Now I am going to take advantage of this blog. only because the New Natural Law Theory designates capital punishment as an intrinsic evil. in spite of man’s innate human right to self-preservation and man’s civil right to self -defense.
    Abu Mumia Jamal executed two Philadelphia police officers with a bullet to the back of their head as they lie on the street. Jamal claimed that he was a sovereign nation of one person and the police officers invaded his nation. Whereas, the sovereign nation of the police officers by a bullet to the back of their heads was not acknowledged. The police officers’ sovereignty as persons and as a nation of one person was violently, criminally and lethally invaded by Jamal. Diplomatic immunity was ignored by the bloodlust to commit murder. All men are created equal in equal Justice. Jamal sits in prison writing books about his sovereignty. Jamal’s sovereignty is annihilated and eradicated by his unlawful criminal murder of two men, without a trial, without our Fifth Amendment, the killing of two patriots at keeping the peace, officers of our sovereign nation, America.

    Grievously, women are wearing aborted baby parts in their cosmetics and shampoos and collagen implants, and have for many decades. READ THE LABEL.

  • God love you as well Mary De Voe.

    Jamel sovereign nation of one has invaded and infiltrated the United States. His act of war was declared upon the U.S.A. as he pulled the trigger.

    Why are we waisting money to house Jamel?
    Ship his ass out of here.
    Off this land!
    Or place him on death row.

    Police lives matter!

Debate Open Thread

Monday, September 26, AD 2016



Fifty-six years to the day from the first Presidential Debate:  Trump v. Nixon Clinton.  Put your thoughts on the debate in the comboxes.



I thought it was a wretched debate with neither Hillary nor Trump doing especially well, although I gave it to Clinton on points.  However, the online polls are showing a decisive Trump win.  That is probably bad news for Hillary as those often in the wake of a Presidential debate are a good sign of political strength as hard core partisans tend to see their candidate winning no matter what.  It looks like Trump did himself no harm tonight and Clinton did herself no good.  She needed to change the momentum of the race away from Trump, and this is an early sign that she has failed to accomplish that.


Continue reading...

29 Responses to Debate Open Thread

  • God help Trump.
    God defeat Hillary

  • Well, Trump couldn’t help himself. And Hillary has the best meds in the world.

    We’re doomed. I guess it’s City of God, the rerun. We had to have the US fall so we weren’t confused about what Christianity really asks of us.

  • Grief, that was a wretched debate. Hillary lied throughout and Trump blustered and babbled throughout. On points I would give it to Clinton, but this debate merely underlined what miserable choices the political system has thrown up this year.

  • Freak Show.

    Judgement day is upon us.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote: “On points I would give it to Clinton…”

    Aye.But points 5 & 6 on your Ross Douthat post still hold true Maister McC. Absent a health episode from Clinton, Trump was never going to best her in these debates. And absent a complete meltdown from Trump the debates are irrelevant this cycle…

  • You know, I never could watch a horror show.
    Sounds like I didn’t miss anything.

  • This is only the first debate. Not worried……yet. On style Hillary had it. A youthful, casual but controlled coiff with many hi-lights combined with luminous, plumped up make-up made her look years younger and almost pleasant. She was very rehearsed; probably rehearsed many times in front of a video cam. The red pants suit drew viewer eyes to her; nice trick. Trump looked pasty. The Il Duce chin thrust out and the down turned mouth made him look surly. What can I say about his hair? The bird’s nest on his forehead a major distraction and obscured his eyes. Hillary’s delivery of lies was good. Trump obviously was not prepared. He needed to continue with substantive bullets instead of long repetitive sentences which wasted precious minutes. Got tired of hearing about “I, I, I” and “very, very, very”. But he was restrained. As I said this was only the first debate. I expect Trump will do better.

  • I watched the debate on Fox. I really didn’t like the split screen. Maybe it was just Fox.
    The split screen distracts the viewer from the speaker and allows the non speaker to upstage the other with faces and hand gestures.

  • Clinton had more facts at her command, and was smoother. But she was really personal, which was a turn-off. She overdid the racism accusations, painting police with a broad brush, I thought. I can’t imagine any voter digging that except the BLM crowd. But while Trump smartly stayed tough but mostly gentlemanly, Clinton delivered low blow after low blow. Trump likes beauty pageants “and likes to hang around them for some reason.” Seriously? Well, the Bear has his own take at the usual place. As usual, this debate will not change any minds, but Trump exceeded the low expectations. Clinton was a nasty piece of work, though, and her big lines were mostly flops. “Trumped Up Trickle Down?” Ouch. “I prepared for this debate, and I’m prepared to be president?” LOL bad.

  • Uninspiring performance from both candidates – Trump cautious, but some of his old flaws appearing occasionally, Hillary stage managed and stiff, with a false smile.
    Difficult to say whether or not one or the other won. It was very much a draw with the rider that Hillary probably repeated her lines better – after all, she was reading her bullet points, and her artificial smile IMO detracted from her performance.
    Trump did some pretty hard hitting, but took it easy on her over the e-mails. He tended to be repetetive. He responded reasonably well to her accusations, but didn’t make enough of the ‘woman’ thing, when he employs many women in top jobs in his companies, and missed a lot of rebuttal opportunities.
    I think he will improve in the next debate, whereas Hillary IMO has nothing new to offer.

  • Donald is going to have to prepare for the next debate. He needs more specificity on answers and control over his emotional reactions. I thought Hillary won and will be surprised if she doesn’t increase in the polls.

  • It doesn’t matter who won the debate.

    The American people lost incrementally.

    Come November the American people will loose even more….. it’s just a question of how much.

  • Preparations are underway for America regardless of the next pick.

    Fifty is a good start.
    We will need many more.

  • I didn’t watch. The World Series of Poker and Yukon Men were on. Plus, I would have been arrested for shooting the TV.

  • I conclude that the only way Clinton could tee up on the questions like she did, and remain as confident as she did, is that she had the questions before the debate.

    Conspiracy? Well, when one has been proved a cheater in the Primaries, one has no just cause to complain about suspicion in the General.

  • David Spaulding.

    Great point.
    If anyone was to try to convince you that the MSM is fair and non-biased, well, you might want to monkey slap that person. How unfair the media has been in the past supports David’s assumption…at least in my opinion.
    Rigged? Very possible.

  • Maybe Trump should challenge her to a debate with Milo as the moderator.

  • Trump v. Nixon Clinton.

    The IRS commissioner in 1971 told the Nixon White House that there would be no audits of political enemies. Hmmm…

    Over a period of 20 years, did Richard Nixon get one dime in speaking fees? Did Richard Nixon ever engage in money laundering?

    Nixon (who had overdue legal bills) was taken to task for accepting $600,000 for 29 hours of unrehearsed interview with David Frost. He was also humiliated when his tax returns were made public and it was revealed he’d taken a deduction he did not merit by backdating some documents. People like James Fallows and Joe McGinnis and Garry Wills promoted the idea that Nixon personified the crass. Fallows and Wills are still knocking about. Not expecting any acidulous commentary from either on the grifters at the apex and center of the political class.

  • I saw a snippet at the beginning, wherein the question was something along the lines of ‘what are you going to do to create jobs’, a nonsensical question to ask someone running for public office. I tuned out after that.

  • All I know about the debate is what I’m reading on this thread. Like any right-thinking American male living in Atlanta, I watched Monday night football. I find depression incompatible with entertainment.

  • Clinton taunted Trump before the debate about wearing a power tie. Trump wore a blue tie. Clinton wore the power paint suit. A sign of who is in control?
    If you’re defending, you’re losing. Clinton kept Trump on his heels. Trump, with ego leading the way, took the bait and wouldn’t shut up. Kept defending himself. Completely forgot about the mountain of munitions he could use to keep Hillary defending herself for the entire debate. So much for the Trump supporters’ promise of Trump mopping the floor with Clinton.
    Trump had a few moments in the beginning. Clinton just had to remain steady and give pat answers to questions she doesn’t like (Not like the moderator or Trump will followup.) “I made a mistake. I regret it.” The end.
    Moderator was terrible. He obviously stacked the questions against Trump, especially mid-way and on. But it is not like Trump didn’t have opportunities to take Clinton to the mat.
    _However, the online polls are showing a decisive Trump win_
    Same ones that said Ron Paul won every debate?

  • “_However, the online polls are showing a decisive Trump win_
    Same ones that said Ron Paul won every debate?”

    The numbers are massive in comparison to the ones gamed by the Paulbots.

  • Let’s see. A count of Holt’s gotcha questions. He hit Trump with 15; Hillary got two. I didn’t watch. Did Holt ask President Trump when he stopped beating his wife?
    Next time, I hope he hits HRH Hillary with the truth (will cause a massive coughing conniption) on why her felonious failures were not “mistakes.”
    Reports are that an Iranian US asset was liquidated after he was outed in a Hillary email.
    It don’t mean nothing. Trump stinks too. Only, I’m all-in for him b/c for four years my liberal “friends” righteously will have their hair on fire.

  • Kyle, Trump did not let Clinton go on her comment re a private server, “I made a mistake. I regret it.” He emphatically told her it was not a mistake. “You did it on purpose.”

    I hope that there will be more time allotted to her emails in the 2nd or 3rd debates. Her treasonous actions are her Achilles heel.

  • Online polls are worthless.
    CAM, Problem is Trump took and spent more time defending himself rather than taking the battle to Hillary. A shot here or there was grossly insufficient, especially given the source material he has on Hillary to work with. Trump had tons of time to discuss emails. He took a pass. Not the horrid Lester’s fault.

  • “Online polls are worthless.”

    Not for gauging intensity of support. The idea that liberal groups were not also trying to game the online polls is charming in its innocence.

  • As I mentioned earlier, I watched football rather than the debate. That said, I have heard a broad consensus that Hillary bested Donald. I give that consensus little weight though. The folks that run in my circles (including the folks that participate on this blog) probably score debates rather traditionally — associating points with exercises in reason, logic and rhetorical execution. I’m not sure that much of the American public scores similarly. We’ll see.

  • Depressing! I watched but almost wish I did not. I believe I must vote for Trump for a plain and simple reason. To wit: More people will be harmed if Hillary gets elected than if Trump does. I have particularly in mind, the suffering victims of the militant Islamists and the millions of preborn persons who will be sacrificed on the altars of the modern manifestations of Moloch. The further loss of liberty and the ability to pursue happiness just rubs salt in the wounds.

PopeWatch: Just War?

Monday, September 26, AD 2016





In a statement sure to warm the cockles of the hearts of despots and would be despots everywhere, Peter Cardinal Turkson is signaling that Pope Francis may junk the concept of just war:

He said that while just war teachings were first developed to make wars difficult or impossible to justify, they are now used more as conditions that allow violence to be used.

“My understanding is that it was initially meant to make it difficult to wage war because you needed to justify it,” said the cardinal. “This now has been interpreted these days as a war is just when it is exercised in self-defense … or to put off an aggressor or to protect innocent people.”

Turkson continued: “In that case, Pope Francis would say: ‘You don’t stop an aggression by being an aggressor. You don’t stop a conflict by inciting another conflict. You don’t stop a war by starting another war.'”

“It doesn’t stop,” said the cardinal. “We’ve seen it all around us. Trying to stop the aggressor in Iraq has not stopped war. Trying to stop the aggressor in Libya has not stopped war. It’s not stopped the war in any place. We do not stop war by starting another war.”

Turkson said the participants at the conference promoted “another thinking:” Gospel nonviolence, or “nonviolence as Jesus was nonviolent.”

“People think that this is Utopian, but Jesus was that,” said the cardinal, calling Jesus’ instruction to his disciples to turn the other cheek if someone were to strike them as an example of “non-aggression” in response to violence.

Continue reading...

23 Responses to PopeWatch: Just War?

  • Send Bergoglio to ISIS as peace envoy. Leave him there.

  • The question to the Pope is: Is justice worth fighting for? And since there can be no mercy without justice not fighting for justice means there can be no mercy either. Again Pope Francis is incoherent.

  • There is one word for a father who protects himself, but leaves his children defenseless.

  • I will agree the US, in recent years, has gotten into conflicts/wars that were better handled, not through the sending of troops, but denying all foreign aid-military and humanitarian.
    I must say when the Vatican is bombed by the Muslims, I really have no desire to see my son’s go defend the bureaucrats–oops, my bad!– Princes who live there.

  • Tell it to the marines. Brevity is the soul of wit.
    “Trying to stop the aggressor in Iraq has not stopped war. Trying to stop the aggressor in Libya has not stopped war.”
    Uncharacteristically, that is almost reality. In fact, it’s an indictment of Obama’s and Hillary’s unnecessary and unconstitutional proxy wars in Libya and Syria (arming and funding ISIS, et al in the proxy civil war to overthrow the Assad regime). Conversely, if Obama/Hillary had not militarily evacuated Iraq, ISIS likely would not have profited from the Iraq power vacuum.
    Keep deplorable my friends.

  • Technically, we were the aggressors in Libya. I’ll allow that the situation in Iraq was murkier at the time with the WMD issue, but in hindsight it seems very difficult to defend Iraq II as a just war.
    Turkson: .“This now has been interpreted these days as a war is just when it is exercised in self-defense … or to put off an aggressor or to protect innocent people.”
    There’s no “now” about it: that’s the very definition of just war. They are precisely and intentionally “conditions that allow violence to be used”. Is Mark Shea now running a dicastery?
    “People think that this is Utopian, but Jesus was that,” said the cardinal, calling Jesus’ instruction to his disciples to turn the other cheek if someone were to strike them as an example of “non-aggression” in response to violence.
    This is morally vacuous. A man who turns his own cheek to an aggressor displays virtue; a man who turns his child’s cheek is a monster. This is reminiscent of Gandhi’s infamous letter to the Jews advising them to submit passively to Nazi depredations.

  • Bergoglio is what the Remnant accuses him of being (see more on One Peter Five)…in so many words, a heretic.

    Popes quoting or ignoring the Just War Theory will have no effect on current or future wars. War is an extension of politics. Man governs himself by politics and nothing except the Second Coming will change that.

  • Jesus’ turning of his cheek to injustice was not an act of submission; it was an act of defiance.

    John 15:13 wraps up our just war doctrine, perfectly.

  • What strikes me is his implication that moral reasoning is intended to bring about desirable social change rather than, you know, get at the truth of right and wrong.

  • To paraphrase GKC: Just War has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and not tried at all. The problem is not with the teaching, it is with the facility of which most governments find the criteria of JW to be satisfied in conflicts that don’t even come close to meeting the criteria.

  • The criteria are not a mathematical equation but rather fairly subjective in some of the elements. My favorite is that the war has a good chance of success, something largely unknowable at the beginning of most conflicts. If ecclesiastics wish to see fewer wars they might consider doing their own jobs better, and preaching the Gospel with better success. However, sticking to their own knitting seems to be something that contemporary ecclesiastics, of whatever denomination, aren’t very good at. Turkson and the Pope are prime examples of this phenomenon.

  • We seek to be gods today. We ban what God allows and allow what God bans.

    Such cannot end well.

  • While there certainly are many moral difficulties with jus in bello questions in modern (i.e., 19th century forward) warfare, it’s very hard to argue that most of the wars the US has engaged in did not have moral justification (jus ad bellum), with some arguable exceptions (US-Mexican War, War Between the States).

    But to suggest as a matter of principle that no conditions for a just war could exist is to embrace a pacifist ideology contrary to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, and condemned often when espoused by sects such as the Waldenses. That group, like our current clerical cartel, also rejected the death penalty on principle.

  • Note that I (most veterans) was against the 2003 Iraq War before I was for it.
    I remember in 2003 when St. Pope John Paul II opposed the invasion, that execrable sac of human flotsam Andrew Sullivan, ascribed said opposition to “traditional Catholic anti-Semitism.”
    Anyhow, the global terror war against us is a crappy war, but it’s the only one we have.
    Keep deplorable my friends.

  • I’m waiting for “himself” to draft a Papal document in which he can use a year later to reference, and then implement change to the current Just War position….if it’s not broken, break it and fix it in the capacity that suits your philosophy.

  • Violence and armed force is the difference between good and evil. The Pope needs to know this before he speaks…but the pope does not know it. Justice and Just war are predicated on intent.

  • Miss Anscombe was, I believe right, when she wrote,“We should note first that pacifism has as its background conscription and enforced military service for all men. Without conscription, pacifism is a private opinion that will keep those who hold it out of armies, which they are in any case not obliged to join. Now universal conscription, except for the most extraordinary reasons, i.e. as a regular habit among most nations, is such a horrid evil that the refusal of it automatically commands a certain amount of respect and sympathy.”

    As to its malign effects, she noted, “Now pacifism teaches people to make no distinction between the shedding of innocent blood and the shedding of any human blood. And in this way pacifism has corrupted enormous numbers of people who will not act according to its tenets. They become convinced that a number of things are wicked which are not; hence seeing no way of avoiding wickedness, they set no limits to it. How endlessly pacifists argue that all war must be a outrance! that those wage war must go as far as technological advance permits in the destruction of the enemy’s people.”

  • “We should note first that pacifism has as its background conscription and enforced military service for all men. Without conscription, pacifism is a private opinion that will keep those who hold it out of armies, which they are in any case not obliged to join. Now universal conscription, except for the most extraordinary reasons, i.e. as a regular habit among most nations, is such a horrid evil that the refusal of it automatically commands a certain amount of respect and sympathy.”
    Military conscription was a wartime phenomenon in the United States prior to 1947, and only enacted when the country was in a state of general mobilization. It was discontinued in this country in 1973 and no one under the age of 62 has ever been conscripted. It was not ‘universal’ in this country, either. During the last bout of conscription in this country, annual inductions were variable but clustered around 265,000. Cohorts of men of 20 were at that time typically about 1.9 million in number, so about 13% were being conscripted. (You did, of course, have a large mass who enlisted in lieu of waiting for conscription).

    Post-war conscription was discontinued in Britain in 1960. It was a continental phenomenon. Except for France, none of the continental countries had working militaries until the Afghanistan campaign.

  • “If ecclesiastics wish to see fewer wars they might consider doing their own jobs better, and preaching the Gospel with better success.”

    Or, at the very least, stop using the prestige of their good offices to advance ideas that make war necessary.

  • Pope Francis is a warm man to the sick and needy and a loquacious idiot in the intellectual realm. He’s like an oracle of off track gibberish. It is amazing to me….his idiocy. Who could have foreseen this theatre of the absurd.

    ” And all at once comes the howl of a far off hound….and all that I want to say, is said ….in that single sound.”

  • Turkson doesn’t keep up even with liberal Biblical scholarship. Fr. Raymond Brown relayed the general outlook on the ” turn the other cheek passage” as needing to observe that the gospel that specifies which cheek….says the right one. Brown continued that the opponent then used his weaker left hand and this was not real violence but a mideastern insult ritual.

  • “It was a continental phenomenon.”
    True. There, the principle that no one should be denied the right nor relieved of the responsibility of defending the nation under arms became deeply entrenched.
    Universal military service was seen as the counterpart of universal suffrage, in contrast to the Ancien Régime, where the defence of the nation had been seen as the duty of a privileged class and the sword was everywhere the badge of the gentleman; so much so that the Scottish Parliament of 1689, following the Glorious Revolution, ordered “that the papists be disarmed over all the kingdom by the ordinary magistrates and officers of the militia, excepting gentlemen wearing swords.” They were not prepared to reduce gentlemen of blood and breeding, even Papists, to the rank of “rude mechanicals.”

  • So, we, the people have the UN small arms treaty to disarm the people. The unarmed people will have to face an unjust war, sticks and stones against tanks and bombs. The human right to self-preservation is innate. That is, God endowed and unalienable. Hence, we have the Second Amendment. If Pope Francis eschews the just war, then, Pope Francis enables the unjust war.

J. Edgar Hoover in The FBI Story

Monday, September 26, AD 2016

The 1959 movie, The FBI Story, was a project near and dear to the heart of J. Edgar Hoover, founding director of the FBI, who ran it with an iron fist from 1935 until his death in 1972.  Based upon the best selling authorized history of the FBI, The FBI Story, Hoover wanted the FBI to be portrayed in heroic mode, with no controversial spots.  A squad of special agents supervised the film and everyone associated with the film, no matter how humble, had to be vetted by the FBI. 

Continue reading...

One Response to J. Edgar Hoover in The FBI Story

  • As a child I was taught to respect the FBI. I seemed to recall an Efrem Zimbalist series that dramatized FBI cases. My parents knew some agents. Now that the FBI seemingly has been politicized I wonder how the recruiting is going?

Ross Douthat on the Debates

Sunday, September 25, AD 2016


Ross Douthat, who has the unenviable task of scattering pearls of conservative wisdom before the New York Times readership, has this prediction on the debate:


A series of debates between a man proudly unprepared for the office of the presidency and a woman of Clinton’s knowledge and experience should produce a predictable outcome: She should win, and he should lose.

This is not a hot take. It is a cold take, a boring take, a take that assumes that the political world, even now, is still relatively rule-bound and predictable.

And if I’m wrong, if Hillary manages to throw the debates and the election to Donald Trump, it will be the last such take I offer for many years to come.

Go here to read the rest.  I will miss the predictions of Douthat over the next few years.  I think he is incorrect for the following reasons:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Ross Douthat on the Debates

  • Uh… is this post finished? It just seems to trail off and there’s no link to the original.

  • It was finished when I posted it this morning. Now it is missing about 4/5s of the post. I am busy at the law mines right now. I will either redo it later or simply take it down.

  • #5 and #7…yes …that does fit.
    #2…does that mean she’ll use the men’s room? I’m so confused as to the gender deal and bathrooms…oh…where is 1950?

  • Re #7 – Trump humorless? I have been cackling with glee for months at a self-appointed establishment class that can’t tell when it’s being trolled. The Donald might be a really good prez or a not-so-hot one, but in either case the next four years will be wildly entertaining.

  • Most people will stick with the candidate they already have chosen. The undecideds are totally unpredictable according to reason.
    I can understand people saying they don’t want to vote for either one, but how anyone could be undecided now is beyond me. The differences between the two candidates are very well known.

  • “And if I’m wrong, if Hillary manages to throw the debates and the election to Donald Trump, it will be the last such take I offer for many years to come.”
    I hope this does not come back to haunt Ross, but I think he is wrong also.
    Maybe he’s just trotting the NYT party line.
    Two very poor choices, but from an outsiders view, it has to be Trump – with Hillary bringing four more years of Obama, believe me – the outside- of- the- USA world really believes that the USA as we know it, will be destroyed.

  • Good thinking Donald. Trump is the one in control of the debate not the moderator and certainly not Hillary. Hillary will, like a good student, be ready to answer the teacher’s questions. Trump may just tell the teacher that he is asking the wrong question, answer the question or answer a different question. Trump be da’ man!

  • How long will it be before the feminists start complaining that Trump is picking on a girl?