Miami Marlins Manager Ozzie Guillen Loves Castro, Should Be Fired

Monday, April 9, AD 2012

In a Time magazine interview Ozzie Guillen, major league baseball manager of the Miami Marlins and home to the largest number of Cuban expatriates, said that “I love Fidel Castro–I respect Fidel Castro.”

Fidel Castro, along with Che Guevara, have committed countless murders of innocent civilians, incarcerated many more, and the rest exiled to America.  Needless to say Castro is a monster that will take his place on the ash heap of history quite soon.

He apologized but the damage is done.  He denounced Castro, but it’s almost meaningless.  Of course I take him in his sincerity and accept the apology, but that doesn’t mean you are allowed to escape punishment.

There are some pundits and reporters say that this is America and we do have a right of free speech, so the Miami Marlins shouldn’t fire Guillen.  That’s where these pundits and reporters get it wrong, yes, Guillen has a right to free speech, but so do the Miami Marlins have a right to fire him in expressing their free speech as well.

The concept of free speech is that the U.S. allows it and they shouldn’t be persecuted for it by the U.S. government, but a private enterprise can do what they want.

Fire the guy.  He’s known to be a loud mouth and he had time to articulate his thoughts in a sit-down interview with Time magazine.  Plus the fact that he is from Venezuela where Hugo Chavez rules with impunity and is the Fidel’s BFF.  So I can see where his “love” for Castro is emanating from.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Miami Marlins Manager Ozzie Guillen Loves Castro, Should Be Fired

  • Whoa there Tito! Don’t rush to judgment so quickly – I think we should just wait and see what Obama has to say on this before we come to any conclusion on whether or not Guillen should be fired.


  • I was thinking let’s not be like them raving liberals . . .

    Whether the team is winning . . .

    No, wait!

    How long would Guillen last if he said he loves and respects Adolf Hitler?

  • Fidel Castro is a hero of the American Left. About the only mainstream news media that says anything bad about him is the Miami Herald.

    Guillen is incomprehensibly stupid. South Florida has countless Latinos that fled Communist aggression – not just Cubans, but Nicaraguans who fled the Sandinistas, Venezuelans who despise Chavez, Colombians who fled the terror of the FARC and Peruvians who escaped the Sendero Luminoso.

    Guillen made no secret of his admiration for Chavez and his remarks about Castro will get him fired. You do not praise the Castros in Miami.

  • The remarks were inappropriate and the Castro regime is contemptible, but I think we need to stop insisting that everyone who says something stupid should lose his job. The author disliked Guillen(known to be a loudmouth) before the Castro remarks,so perhaps that is coloring his judgment a bit? Regardless, as he has apologized we should allow him an opportunity to redeem himself before demanding he step down. I am not a Guillen fan. But he should have a chance to experience the justified and understandable outrage of the community a bit, and then have a chance to make amends.

  • Chris C.,

    Nope, I’m not backing down.

    I’ve worked in management and have been blessed with great jobs working with some of the finest sports organizations in the country as well as working with some of the finest athletes anywhere.

    And when you have a $350million stadium opening up in Little Havana, you don’t want to start on the wrong foot by insulting your fan base on the most sensitive subject around.

    He should be gone. He won’t starve, he’s got millions in the bank and I’m sure there are other other major league teams that don’t have any standards that are willing to hire him.

  • Why is it that every time a public figure says something that is considered “unpopular” or “unacceptable” that he or she is forced to apologize or otherwise condemned to wear a scarlet letter for life and forever condemned to a lifetime of explaining or defending his or her views.

    Was not America built on dissent? Can we no longer express our genuine feelings without fear of public retribution and the scourge of mediaspeak and mediathink? America, once the guardian of the freedom of speech and protector of individual liberty, has devolved into a land of busybodies and snitches who like to point the finger of reproach and blame at anyone who would utter a minority opinion.

  • Joe,

    Like I said, Mr. Guillen can say anything he wants to say. He’s very well known for this and is a big boy.

    This is not a freedom of speech issue, but if you say so, the Miami Marlins also have the same right.

    This is a business issue.

    The Marlins baseball organization just got a new stadium built (estimates go as high as $600Million) with a new name trying to capture the Miami baseball market. Miami is home to the largest Cuban population in America.

    Logic dictates that you don’t insult your fan base in order to draw them to the ballpark. Especially if you have never before had a good attendance record, even after a World Series title.

    To have the face of the Miami Marlins, Jose Guillen, open his mouth and upset the fanbase that you are trying to woo is a poor business decision.

    Poor business decisions normally get you transferred, demoted, or fired.

    Considering that his area of expertise is managing and no other position is possible, the best business decision to make is to release him from all his duties.

    Case closed.

  • Tito,
    I don’t see where you have standing to close this case. Looking at this as a business issue as you do, I would think that task rests with the Marlins. It would not surprise me if they come to that conclusion, but nor would it shock me if they don’t. Guillen has a long history of saying things he later regrets. Most baseball fans don’t care all that much, especially if he apologizes appropriately. Perhaps Miami fans will be less forgiving, and understandably so, but I suspect the Marlins are in the best position to make that assessment.
    Sometimes it is appropriate to fire someone on grounds other than business. I don’t think that this offense rises to that standard.

  • Paul,


    It’s a poor business decision, but then again, hiring Guillen was a poor business decision to make in the first place, so they’re par for the course so to speak.


    We can agree to disagree.

    I could be wrong and the Marlins have blockbuster attendance, but I doubt that will happen (increased revenues), especially after the whole Castro-Fiasco.

  • The police speech are out in force as never before, hiding under the umbrellas of “political correctness” and “business decisions.” Yes, I am aware that freedom of speech has limitations and you don’t shout fire in a crowded theater. Of course, what everyone forgets is sometimes the theater is really on fire.

  • When last seen in public, Fidel Castro was seen warmly shaking hands with none other than the Pope. So here we have professing Catholics criticizing Guillen for “loving” Castro, as their spiritual leader no doubt does. But all “love” is not the same, is it? Oh, the irony!

  • Joe,

    First, the state of Florida is a “Right to Work” state.

    Second, Guillen can “love” the pope until the day he dies. He won’t be suffering from attacks on his life, nor hunger, nor poverty.

    You missed the entire point of the article.

  • Tito, I’m not sure where we disagree, unless you are saying that Ozzie’s statement was a firing offense regardless of business considerations. Or you think you are in a better position to assess the business aspects than the Marlins, which I don’t think you mean to suggest.

    If the Marlins have blockbuster attendance it would surely be huge news given recent history.

    Joe, you raise a fair point about the Pope, but I don’t see how this has anything to do with free speech, which is a right against government impairment not private action. The Marlins have their rights too, and that includes firing Ozzie if they think his statements were sufficiently offensive — even aside from business considerations.

  • Mike, I would be interested to see a clause in Guillen’s contract that specifically includes penalties for expressing his opinion about a foreign leader.

    Secondly, Castro dumped a lot of Cuban riffraff during the Mariel boatlift including hundreds of criminals. To assert that all Cubans who now live in Miami were politically persecuted or otherwise suffered under Castro’s regime is to ignore the tyranny of his brutal predecessor, Fulgencio Batista, who used his anti-Communist secret police and U.S.-supplied weaponry to carry out wide-scale violence, torture and public executions; ultimately killing as many as 20,000 Cubans. But at least he was our SOB, wasn’t he?

  • Joe,
    I have no brief for either Castro or Batista — they both brutally suppressed civil rights though at least Batista respected religious and property rights and had no interest in exporting his suppression. Basically, the distinction is the totalitarian (Castro) versus authoritarian (Batista) one identified by Jean Kirkpatick. Authoritarian regimes have little or no ideology — they are basically criminals who allow folks to do as they wish as long as it does not endanger their power. Totalitarian regimes are ideological and therefore seek to control the beliefs of their citizens. The distinction strikes me as a fair way to distinguish grades of evil, which is presumably why Batista was our SOB.

    I have no idea what Guillen’s contract says, but I would not assume it is dispositive in a particular way. I’m pretty sure that firing offenses are not listed with the kind of particularity you suggest though. We lawyers are not that stupid.

  • Mike, totalitarianism is authoritarianism taken to its extreme but is no less insidious in its results. To argue whether one is worse than another is much like debating which of two lethal poisons is deadlier. It doesn’t matter. They both kill in the end.

  • Not only should he be fired…he should be Castro-ated !

  • I disagree, Joe. The two differ not just by degree, but in kind. Any system that allows freedom to worship is better than one that does not. And authoritarian regimes tend to have more limited lifespans and are more likely to eventually democratize, precisely because they are rely on cult of personality to the exlusion of ideology. The fact that Batista was better than Castro is hardly a compliment to Batista, but nonetheless a fact that would have been foolish to ignore. Reagan was right to back authoritatian regimes when the alternative was worse.

  • Mike, kinda like backing Stalin over Hitler?

  • Not really, Joe. First, the regimes of both Hitler and Stalin were totalitarian, not authoritarian, and reasonable people can debate which regime was worse. Second, the USSR did not declare war on us; Germany did. Finally, Germany was simply the greater threat at the time. It was unsavory indeed to be Stalin’s ally, but it would have been far worse if Hitler had not chosen to make Stalin his enemy. That said, it is certainly embarrassing that neither FDR nor HST appreciated the depth of the USSR’s (and Stalin’s) evil till later than warranted.

  • The old “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” position. Still, Mike, you argue persuasively, like any good lawyer should. Kudos to Don, too, for his usually cogent analyses.

  • Thanks, Joe. Yes, sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my ally, even if not my friend. An alliance with a villain can be risky and problematic, but sometimes all options are risky and problematic in which case one must choose the least imperfect. In these cases it is important that (i) one not delude oneself as to the nature of his ally (something I think Roosevelt did, at least for too long) and (ii) others not jump to the conclusion that the alliance is predicated on any real affection for the ally.

  • He just had a press conference in which he apologized profusely. I believe a second chance is in order. Consider your forgiveness an act of love. (Note that I too escaped the same regime he did.)

Vote for the National Catholic Register (Now)!

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012

The National Catholic Register is tied with Our Sunday Visitor for the best Catholic Newspaper in Christendom! The voting ends tonight so vote and put the Reg over the top!

The National Catholic Register has been selected as a finalist in the 2012 Catholicism Readers’ Choice Awards in these categories: Best Catholic Newspaper, Best Catholic Website, Best Catholic Radio Show, Best Catholic Facebook Page, Best Catholic to Follow on Twitter. You can cast one vote, in all five categories, every day of the voting period. Voting runs until 11:59 P.M. EST on Wednesday, March 21, 2012.

Click here to vote.

Note: The above was freely edited from the mad journalistic skillz of Matt “Not Pat” Archbold.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Vote for the National Catholic Register (Now)!

What Happened

Tuesday, March 13, AD 2012

For about five hours this morning, The American Catholic, and Ignitum Today websites went down.  I want to make clear that we were not hacked, we did not get viruses planted, nothing of those natures.  What I can say is that precautions have been taken to prevent such an incident from occurring again.

I want to apologize to all our readers and visitors and affirm our dedication to providing you the content you all have expected from us on these websites.


Tito Edwards

Continue reading...

8 Responses to What Happened

Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

Friday, February 10, AD 2012

Update III:  The USCCB Pro-Life Director Richard Doerflinger and Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey agree with me that this “accommodation” or “compromise” is unacceptable.  Sadly Sr. Keehan of the the Catholic Health Associate found this “satisfactory”.  It looks like Obama will be happy that Sr. Keehan is on board.  Of course, Planned Parenthood and Sr. Keehan agree.

Update II:  Rumor confirmed.  Insurance, that Religious Institutions pay into, will provide contraception, ie, it is still a violation of the First Amendment.

Update I: Rumor is that “Hawaii” compromise will be offered, but the bishops have already rejected this.  So basically it’s a poor attempt at stalling and not really offering a solution.

The buzz this morning is that Obama is “caving in” to the pressure and will announce a “compromise” today at 12:15pm Eastern.

The news reports are saying that Religious Organizations won’t have to offer birth control, only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control.

Yeah, that’s the compromise.

If these reports are true, this is dead on arrival.  Changing the meaning of the words won’t do it.

Continue reading...

34 Responses to Obama’s Latest Fig Leaf is Not Acceptable

  • It’s George Orwell’s 1984, except the date should be 2012.

  • …only the insurance companies that these Religious Organizations provide will offer birth control…

    And who pays premiums into the insurance pool? The Religious Organizations and in most cases, their employees. This is no compromise; it’s word-smithing.

  • Exactly Big Tex.

    I wish I were more eloquent and prescient as you were, but I wanted to get this out and digested before Obama did another Pravda Announcement.

  • Next, he’ll offer 30 pieces of silver, the price of a man.

    I’m insulted.

    He must think we are as stupid as he.

  • Pingback: . . .Breaking: Obama Compromise is No Compromise. . . |
  • Politics at its worst. This administration is not caving in on anything. They are mandating and telling the insurance companies what product to sell and at what price to sell. Unconstitutional.

  • He’s on the run.

    Don’t accept the first.

    Counter with: “Resign tyrant.”

  • Let’s pretend that birth control is a health issue (hahahah, sorry — I’ll stop laughing now). Since when is the President qualified to ORDER medical treatments? Did he go to medical school or something?

  • Lord have mercy. Has Sr. Keehan have no shame? No conscience? Her bishop should have a friendly chat with her, remind her that part of the reason the Church and the entire country is in this mess is in part her doing, and then politely ask her to keep her mouth shut.

  • Unfortunately it may be that Sr. Keehan has no problem with contraception, sterilization etc.

  • She also has no problem in wearing anything but a habit.

  • HHS was The Institute of Medical Services idea. BO and KS said so.
    The change in payment was recommended by some Insurance Business Institute.
    One, quick little mention of ‘religious liberty’ being intact, so there you guys who are complaining so much.

    Contraception was the whole focus of what HHS means to USA, no mention of the laundry list of other ‘care’.

    Contraception is good for preventing women’s health problems. What about all the studies of causes for women’s cancer? Women, not girls, what happened to the 11 year olds that were going to be ‘cared’ for? Not PC for a noonday speech for Catholic listeners. Ugh. More questions than answers from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.

    Contraception is the lowest common denominator of appeal for those who would trash Church teaching before letting go of complacency.

    No apology for using the word Mandate in olden times like yesterday. Now, it’s all about being the bearer of ‘good’ compromise for all concerned, especially those who want contraception. Politics, pandering to voters, and shutting up the Church.

  • I think Sr. Keehan has no idea how insurance works.

  • from he who was paid by a Catholic org. to do work.
    He said so.

  • Too busy today to do anything right now except to note that this is no compromise and anyone who thinks it is is either a fool or a knave. Obama truly does have nothing but contempt for those outside of his ideological bubble.

  • Who is this Senior Keehan?

  • Obama went out of his way to say that he supports freedom of religion, pointing out that one of his stints as a community organizer in Chicago was funded by a Catholic group.

    Gag me with a spoon. I wonder which Catholic group funded his community organizing. I wonder further if those funds made their way through the CSA.

  • There can be no compromise with evil.

    I would hold out for his resignation. That’s me.

  • Another great takedown of this duplicitous “compromise” over at Vox Nova.

  • Haha Paul. I’ll comment on that later. I’ll let others read the takedown first.

  • “Sister” Keehan is a traitor. If she approves of this, then it is not to be trusted. The road of compromise is never ending! Don’t take it. Time for Catholics willing to suffer persecution to stand up and be counted. If Obama wins this, it’s all over for Faith and freedom. Wake up America!
    Immaculate Conception pray for us.

  • I’ll update my post with that link, Paul. Good catch.

  • If the bishops will not or cannot make (Sr.) Keehan behave then hopefully the vatican will discipline her and her order. She is a disgrace to American nuns who are pro-life. In effect, she is giving comfort to the enemy and she needs to be stopped!!!

  • I clicked on the link thinking someone at Vox Nova had actually written something critical of Pharaoh Obama’s “compromise.” It seems most there are content to retreat into philosophical condemnations of American Democracy and other acts of mental onanism.

    I suspect MM is waiting for the Dem talking points.

  • Phillip:

    Kudos. I am afflicted with violent nausea by ravings of lunatics that believe in a vast array of dumb and illogical rubbish.

    Apparently, that pack of catholic Commies (adherents of the gospel of Mao) believe the destruction of the evil, unjust private sector justifies both the damnation of souls and the denial of basic human rights, i.e., religious liberty.

    Seems, they have bought into the tyrant’s alibi: the “welfare of humanity justifies enslaving humanity.”

    You are too kind and genteel. I would have waxed sort of alliterative: “acts of mental masturbation.”

  • The vn are not compromising with evil. They are evil.

  • There aren’t enough exorcists — are there?

  • I was going to rebuke T Shaw for going a bit too far, but he’s really not far afield. To rationalize this decision in such a way is just astounding. There really is no road low enough for these folks at VN. That said, I have to agree with Tony on one thing.

    Think of Romney attacking Obama when he did the same thing in Massachusetts!

    Well, at least that one was non-demented sentence in the rant.

  • How did Sr. Keenan get quoted? I understood this article was about what Catholics thought?
    Dan Malone

  • May God Change Sr. Keehan’s heart. We all should pray she converts and repents. She is truly a lost soul directing others to HELL.

  • The Catholic Church will never obey this mandate, not if all the powers of Hell were to shove it down our throats. I know that moral doctrine may seem a strange and ancient thing to your administration Mr President, but understand that as Catholics, we are required to disobey unjust law. Commanded. It is our duty. Do you understand the gravity of the ultimatum you’ve made? You have placed the faithful Catholic in a position in which he must choose between obeying your mandate and obeying God. To comply with the HHS mandate will be considered a sin. Regardless of how you view your actions, do not so easily ignore how the Church views your actions — as attacking her flock. Force the mandate on faithful institutions, and faithful institutions will shut down their services. Force it on our hospitals, our universities, our schools, and our convents and we will bear the consequences of looking you, Sibelius and all the rest in the eyes and saying “No.” As it turns out, the Church doesn’t give a damn what you think — She never has cared for the powers of the world — and will resist you with all Her might. To be briefer still, and to say what those bound by politics cannot: Bring it.

  • Me and my wife have been trying to have a child for over a year and we are seeing a fertility doctor who is putting my wife on birth control for one month to regulate her cycle (i.e., as part of a plan aimed at treatments during the following month). I don’t think this is a sin and I don’t see any problem with the Catholic Church providing those contraceptives if I worked for them. I don’t see the catch-22 Nancy describes because it seems the sin only occurs when contraceptives are used to prevent a pregnancy. Although contraceptives can be used in a sinful way, so can other health-related drugs, medical devices, or equipment. The most obvious examples are the use of many prescription drugs to commit suicide or to be abused. In the case of these other drugs, the Church doesn’t eliminate the drugs from their health plan but instead provides them and expects Catholics to follow its teachings and not use the drugs in the commission of a sin. Why are contraceptives different? They have a number of non-sinful uses, including use by non-Catholic employees or to regulate menstruation (i.e., in someone who is not having sex). I don’t see why providing these drugs would be any more a sin than providing Oxycontin or morphine. Would it be a sin for the Church to provide baseball bats because they could be used to commit a murder?

45 Responses to The New Progressive Martyrdom

  • That is unfair.

    Catholics for Obama are not as evil as Judas.

    They are about 2% less vicious.

  • “They are about 2% less vicious.”

    And paid a whole lot more than 30 pieces of silver!

  • I got it the first time, but the second cartoon is great! Some “catholics” just don’t want to get it……all those babies gone from their chance at life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…..and the chance to have loving moms and dads and to learn about the future. The only thing that passes as hope is that the millions of babies not born are angels in heaven now.

  • St Augustine wrote in the City of God.

    “What is reprehensible is that, while leading good lives themselves and abhorring those of wicked men, some fearing to offend shut their eyes to evil deeds instead of condemning them and pointing out their malice. . . . still, there is more self-seeking here than becomes men who are mere sojourners in this world and who profess hope of a home in heaven.”

  • Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote. While I’m a majority of them were of the National Catholic Distorter (I mean Reporter) stripe, a significant degree of them were pro-life orthodox Catholics. Catholics like most people vote their perceived economic interests more than any other factor.

    In my mind, this is an indication of a woeful ignorance of the principle of subsidiarity, the bedrock principle of Catholic social teaching. Consequently, Catholics, by and large, have absolutely no clue as to how economic issues affect the culture and life issues and vicea versa. When was the last time anyone has ever heard the bishops even mention the principle of subsidiarity, much less give a coherent explanation of it in the context of our present circumstances? While Obamacare was being shoved down our throats, the only U.S. bishop, at least to my knowledge, that even raised the question about how a takeover of one sixth of our economy can be squared with the principle of subsidiarity was Bp. Lori of Bridgeport, CT. In fact, if it wasn’t for the abortion funding provision they would have been completely on board with Obamacare.

    No, our bishops are usually too busy taking sides on issues they have no business taking sides on like capital punishment, immigration (it was the same Abp. Dolan who praised Cdl Mahony’s equating AZ’s SB 1070 with Communist and Nazi tactics while issuing an irresponsible and I think calumnious attack of his own) etc.

    Until the bishops actually spending time teaching the faith as opposed to using their good offices pursuing their ideological agenda under thin guise of social justice, their pleas on stuff like this will lack the credibility it needs.

  • What Greg Mockeridge said…

    Also, what exactly did 0bama Catholics get for voting for him? In other words, what represents the 30 pieces of silver? I hope it was something more than a warm, fuzzy feeling.

  • I take great exception to these characterizations of Catholics who voted for Obama.

    I know many who did and, while I strongly disagree with their choice, these attacks are entirely unwarranted and unjust.

    Many believed that abortion was at a stalemate – they bought, hook, line, and sinker, the story spun by the Left that the Executive Branch was powerless to affect the abortion question. Foolish? More than a little. This is, though, the result of not teaching civics over the last fifty years – of failing to educate Americans as to how their government works.

    Lambs led to a slaughter – not partners in evil.

    There is no good and just cause to alienate our brothers and sisters with such talk and recrimination. Indeed, it isn’t even smart! Do you really want to drive them back into that fold just as they are waking up?

    Folks… Charity is called for, not meanness and a deadly dose of “told ya so.”

  • Lambs being led to slaughter…….sounds like the jews in nazi germany!!!!!! It is about time Catholics..American or Catholics from every country..wake up. We are only in this world for a short time…and will be in eternity forever…We can have a lot of fun while we are here….God has been good to us, but there are a few rules we have to follow. Those who think they can constantly turn against those rules will have to answer one day..I am not judging or condemning anyone. You cannot convince me that adult American Catholics do not know what abortion is…and the far reaching results for the economy and future of our country…not to mention what the results will be for us in the next world

  • “Wake up!” is an excellent message to send. The first cartoon captures my feelings well.

    “You are traitors and knowing conspirators with evil” is precisely the wrong message to send to our fellow Catholics; uncatechised men and women who grew up in a culture which treats religion as a window-dressing, people who want to be good and to do right but are confused by the myriad of demands and mixed messages.

    My grandfather used to say that it isn’t fair to judge men by what they do. Even our best plans fall far short of what we hoped for. By that measure, we are all utter failures. You can only judge by what a man meant to do: either good or evil.

  • “Lambs led to a slaughter – not partners in evil.” Thank you, G-Veg. My beloved American Catholics, stop tearing one another apart and rally around your Bishops. Even the “coward” Peter who denied Jesus three times, still rose to the occasion of the Mission his Master gave him of leading His Infant Church. We need to remember that this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is under the protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit. She is both Divine and Human. Divine because She is Holy, Human because Her Leaders are human – just as we all are, with all human frailties. Therefore, whenever She has been under persecution and emerged victorious, God’s Power was confirmed and Her Holiness re-affirmed.

  • Obama got 54% of the Catholic vote. While I’m a majority of them were of the National Catholic Distorter (I mean Reporter) stripe, a significant degree of them were pro-life orthodox Catholics.

    I will wager that about 70% of them were derived from the pool of Catholics of the modal type: those not at Mass. They would not know the National Catholic Reporter from the local pennysaver.

  • G-Veg & Mary@42,

    Your points are duly noted.

    For the time being the post will remain up.

  • Mr. Edwards,

    I am not asking that any posts or comments be removed.

    My taking exception reflects my views. I do not speak for any other and do not ask that anyone be silent on my account.

  • Sorry, but I don’t regret any of it. Because . . .

    It wasn’t abortion.

    It still is abortion;

    Plus contraception; gay privileges; divorce; universal promiscuity; public school destructions of children’s consciences while prohibiting parental intervention; etc.

    They are going to vote for that way again.

    Worst: They buy into the class envy, hope and change thing. The evil, unjust private sector is being destroyed. So, with what will the ominpotent, omniscient state replace it?

    Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods.

    Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself – even if he earned more than you.

  • I’m reminded of that scene in The Omen in which the girl leaps from the building happily shouting, “Damien, It’s all for you!”

  • Mr. Edwards, my plea was that we do not look back at the mistake the American Catholics made by voting for Obama. No one – then – knew exactly what his Agenda was. So all those who voted for him, did so in good faith. But now that he has shown his hand, we should all join together and fight the Evil. From my beloved Kenya, Obama’s father homeland, we are on our knees praying for your Country and our Holy Mother Church to win this War because God has been pushed too far. The Eucharistic Apostles of the Divine Mercy daily pray for your country at 3.00 O’clock – The Hour of Great Mercy. We are all in this War together.

  • Mary:

    Actually we did know much of what his agenda really was. There was much written about his past regarding his influences, what his beliefs were and who he associated with (e.g. Jeremiah Wright who had close ties with people like Louis Farrakan) domestic terrorist William Ayers, etc.

    This, among other things told he was someone no honest intelligence person had any business supporting him, much less a conscientious Catholic.

  • I meant to say “inteligent person”.

  • Greg, were you aware that he had disdain for Organized Religion? Because I want to believe that if the faithful American Catholics knew this – and the Catholic Church being “The Church”- they would probably have thought twice about voting for him. Unless The Faith in your beloved Country has ceased to be of any importance or influence in people’s lives. Which would be really sad.

  • People in this country have had it too good for too long and seem to support anyone they think will keep things static. They are so secularized that what is in it for them is more important than what is right. I keep hearing about how 85-98% of Catholic women use contraception….If that is so, does it negate the natural law?
    So, yes the Faith has ceased to be of importance in many people’s lives. It is hard to live in half million dollars houses and drive luxury cars if there is a chance of a new child arriving and putting a dent in the financial tone enjoyed by mom and dad and their one or two children! All the Catholic young people in the public schools rather than in parochial schools attests to this also. The tuition for parish schools cuts too deeply into parents’
    comfortable lifestyles. Imagine what another child would do !
    I am not judging anyone//but am pointing out how secular this country is…and how life after death is often put on the back burner while life here is filled with one’s own selfish desires.

  • Nope!

    In 2008 it was all Justice and peace!!!

    It was all human dignity, faux charity, “have-you-no-decency” wailing and gnashing of teeth, which was, of course, truly nothing but partisan bu!!$hit.

    And in 2012, a majority of the same moral vermin tacitly support drone assassinations and keeping the Gitmo tortuary operational.

    It’s peculiar, how just as in 2008, the death penalty, the evil tax cuts for the evil rich, and water boarding still trump abortion, contraception, gay privileges, the moral destruction of American youth, tyranny, etc.

  • G-Veg & Mary@42,

    Thanks for clarifying your points.

    You guys can call me “Tito” by the way. 🙂

    Maybe we need to distinguish between Catholics that supported Obama and now regret it and those that will still vote for Obama.

  • One should be skeptical of easy answers to complex questions. The American tapestry is woven with more types and colors of thread than we pretend.

    My view is that there are two major education defects that affect American Catholic decision-making: we are not catechized and we don’t know anything about civics.

    In Peter Berger’s “The Sacred Canopy,” he posits that Man needs the concept of “god” because it provides answers to those questions that plague the human mind. I think this is essentially correct. The catechism – any system of moral and religious teaching really – provides Man with answers, answers that we desperately need in order to remain sane.

    Catechism gives Catholics ready answers. Most Catholics who are catechized are willing to accept those ready answers without much question, primarily because they are too busy living to inquire all that much into the areas of human consciousness beyond their daily needs. Catholics without catechesis NEED answers and, so, search for plausibility. There being no definite truth in their minds, it is no wonder that they reject faith-based reasoning in favor of seemingly scientific answers through the popular culture.

    It is the backdrop of uncatechized Catholics against which the present drama is being played out. We may go to church and partake in the sacraments but the underlying philosophy and the richness of Catholic scholarship is lost to most of us. Without it, we seek to meld popular culture into the surface level Catholicism that is practiced by our Protestant brothers and sisters – a religion that is largely impotent in the public sphere and only relevant in its ability to organize our private lives.

    Statements like “I would never have an abortion but who am I to tell others what to do” reflect this reality.

    In a similar way, the lack of civics education in America forces Americans to judge policy by its effect on partisan interests rather than its fit in the broader framework of our political life. Not knowing what the Constitution says or the development of Western law and culture, we ask “does this fit my worldview.” What does not is bad and what does is good, without respect to whether the policy is lawful or even intelligible.

    Our willingness to accept omnibus bills that are admitted to have been unread before signed off on seems to demonstrate this truth.

    These observations represent, admittedly, just a small portion of the causes of our decline as a people and as a religious group within the larger culture. They have to be considered though when seeking to justly chastise and problem solve.

    Our fellow Catholics don’t have to be stupid, ignorant, evil, or hypocritical for the agenda we see to take root. They need only be wrong.

    Their culpability is limited to their knowledge – or so says Jesus for, “to he whom much is given, much is expected.” It will surely go worse for a certain law professor and ambassador than for the college kid, steeped in the Marxist and hedonistic culture of an American university.

    When we assume ill will in a Man’s choosing to sin or to support a political or social cause that is at odds with Church teaching, we do a great disservice to them and the Church. Our duty is to illuminate, not destroy the vestiges of faithful understanding that remain.

  • Mary:

    Like I said, when you consider his associations and the fact that he opposed the Child Born Alive Act and organized religion is the strongest advocate against abortion, this HHS mandate really isn’t a stretch. No decent person, much less a faithful Catholic had any business voting for him.

  • I would no more want to sit down and chat with one of Hitler’s henchmen than with a doctor that makes his living off of abortions. I would nor more support one of Hitler’s henchmen than support a supporter of partial birth abortion. This is evil plain and simple as I am sure Hitler and his henchmen had some good qualities about them yet the evil shadows that.

  • MissKitty,

    It is true that, at some point, the enormity of crimes makes plain the disorder of the soul.

    What is of issue though is not whether one should sit down with a mass murderer but a fellow Catholic… Confused but Catholic.

    Let us assume that every Catholic on this blog knows at least one practicing Catholic who is using artificial birth control. Beyond a doubt, the Church’s position on artificial birth control is well known. What, then, should be our response to such a one?

    It is a lot more complex an issue than your response betrays. Talking to Catholics who voted for Candidate Obama is not at all like sitting down with Josef Mengele.

  • As a Catholic I am both offended and embarrassed by these cartoons. This is not loving and it certainly doesn’t reflect anything our Lord would do. Christ himself taught the separation of Church and State. We don’t live in a Catholic country ruled by the Papacy. We live in a nation which guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

    I believe in life at conception. I tolerate choice in this country because it’s not my place to impose my beliefs on the atheist down the street. Share the good news and if someone doesn’t want to listen, turn around kick the dust off your sandals and walk away. Don’t any of you read scripture?

    It’s far more loving and productive to put our energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than spending millions of dollars over decades trying to force females to give birth to children they don’t want and would probably keep rather than place for adoption. A little education and support go a long way.

    Teaching abstinence is a joke. It doesn’t work, it only leads to teen pregnancy. If you love your children, teach your sons to respect women and to keep their pants zipped. Teach your daughters to respect themselves and to grow up knowing they don’t need a boyfriend in order to feel valuable as a young woman. And please, pull your heads out realize that your children are more than likely going to have sex before they get married, so teach them about birth control and disease prevention.

    Do you really believe that God would prefer more unwanted and poorly taken care of babies populating the planet?

  • Faithful,

    Your comment is pure rubbish.

    Once you dissent from the teachings of Jesus, your life becomes a lie.

  • Tito,

    Thank you for sharing your Christian love and wisdom. Please provide the verse or verses in which Christ taught that abortion is a worse sin than divorce, adultery, rape, war, destroying the earth, cheating, lying, and persecuting others.

  • How will abortion prevent divorce, adultery, rape, war, destroying the earth, cheating, lying, and persecuting others?

    Abortion is murder. As such it encourages all those other things. Indeed, a nation that murders its unborn automatically creates the environment for divorce (I don’t want your baby), adultery (a woman is just a sex object), rape (I don’t care about woman or babies), war (I will war against the unborn), destroying the earth (I will kill the unborn so that there are no stewards of God’s green earth), cheating (I don’t have to have a baby, so I can cheat on my wife whenever I please), lying (it’s just a blob of flesh and I am the god who controls its destiny) and persecuting others (let’s start with dismemberment of the unborn during abortion).

  • “Faithful’s” objections are very similar to what a neo-Nazi feminist group has been circulating on Facebook. They call themselves Strong and Intelligent Women Choosing Equality and Freedom Instead of Religion, and they have a placard question the pro-life movement’s stance on war, capital punishment, environmentalism, etc. I analyze and debunk their points here:

    Nope, I am not politically correct, so forewarned is forearmed.

  • Post Script – “Faithful”, I used plenty of Bible verses to backup the points in my essay, since that is a specific request of yours.

  • Faithful:

    Faithful to what? Molech.

    Major weakness of liberals: they are convinced everyone is stupid.

  • Faithful: old saying “If you’re in a hole, stop digging.”

    Cease and desist: You have provided ample evidence of your moral bankruptcy.

    PS: Caesar did not decree any of those sins to be licit; nor did he tax people to pay for the sins. In fact, he did not force the Judeans to worship idols or eat sacrificed meats as the Hellenists attempted.


  • Ergi, Obama is worse than Caligula.

  • Faithful:
    The main reference for you to start on is the Fifth Commandment of God.
    Thou shall not Kill.
    Why don’t you look through the Bible, which is God’s Word, for many warnings of woe to those who harm children, and also disregard the Sixth Commandment. The Gospels have specific teachings about results of keeping children from Jesus.

  • I am overwhelmed by your hatred. I have already stated that I am pro-life, ergo, I believe in life at conception, therefore I also believe that abortion is taking a life. I believe it’s a violation of my rights when my tax dollars fund abortion. I’m not embarrassed to share this with people. I’ve argued this with the most militant of feminists.

    As an American, I still believe that choice should remain legal and privately funded. There have always been, and will always be, people who practice unsafe sex outside of marriage. There will always be unwanted pregnancies. There will always be females seeking abortions whether I like it or not. I don’t think that any female should have to die because she made bad choices. It’s hideous that anyone ever find themselves in that position.

    I have read and studied the Bible plenty, regardless of what you choose to believe. I was taught by Jesuits. Paul, I didn’t ask how eliminating abortion could prevent other sins. I asked where Jesus ranked all of those sins. It’s those other sins, lust, envy and adultery that lead to abortion. The Church now tolerates divorce. Does that make the Church morally bankrupt?

    Thank you for confirming my decision to treat people with love and kindness rather than hatred and insult. I came to this site to learn. The only lesson I walk away with is how not to treat people with whom I disagree.

  • I was taught by Jesuits.

    That explains much.

  • “There will always be females seeking abortions whether I like it or not.”

    Just as there will always be murders whether you like it or not. That is not an argument for legalizing murder, just as the fact that there will always be abortions is no reason to legalize them.

    “The only lesson I walk away with is how not to treat people with whom I disagree.”

    Apparently your way is to go off in a huff when you run into people who disagree with you.

  • That was huffy to you? Goodness. I disagree with you on this particular subject. I’m guessing if I met any of you on the street we’d more than likely agree on quite a bit and have an enjoyable conversation, perhaps a lively debate. I’m not the one attacking and belittling others. I disagree with hateful attacks and arguments. I don’t think we progress when we satirize. I don’t see value in celebrating disrespect and I’m not a fan of sarcasm. I’m not clear how that makes me huffy.

    Donald, you make a valid point in countering my argument. There will always be murder and no, that’s no reason to legalize it. The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.

    I don’t expect you to agree with my position and welcome respectful disagreement. Once again, I don’t understand Christians battling with hate. It doesn’t make sense to me.

  • Faithful, please do not walk away. If you are a truly “Faithful Catholic”, we need to stick together and fight for God. As Donald points out, we cannot accept abortion because it will continue to happen anyway. Abortion is Murder Most Foul. Why? Because one kills an innocent defenceless human person is their first home, where they should be safest. It is Murder Most Foul because a mother – after gratifying herself – decides to murder the result of her irresponsibility.

    And Please, Faithful, the Catholic Church HAS NEVER ACCEPTED DIVORCE, NEVER. Just get yourself a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read for yourself. You say you have read the Holy Bible exhaustively. Well, the Catholic Church has two more Pillars upon which She stands. The Tradition and the Magisterium. Any Catholic who wants to be a true Catholic takes the trouble to be fully familiar with these two Pillars as well. A faithful Catholic knows we do not pick and chose what to believe and accept and what to brush away and ignore. You are either a Catholic or you are something else. “I believe in all the Truths which the Catholic Church teaches because You have revealed them, You Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, Amen”. Does that Prayer ring a bell in your mind, Faithful??? I hope so.

    Reading the responses from you all on this Website, I want to place my Faith on the fact that, since your Government has demonstrated its evil designs against the Catholic Church, the Holy Spirit will stir and invigorate your consciousness and you all rise up and defend Mother Church. You should all join with your Bishops, support them and fight for God Whom your Government is determined to chuck out of the window and install Satan on the Throne. You should not accept Laws which are contrary not only to Divine Law but also against the Natural Law. To you, Tito, thank you for getting my point. We are with you, American Catholics, in this War.

    Again to you, Faithful, this Statement is regrettable : “The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.” Any reasonable person KNOWS life BEGINS AT CONCEPTION. Whether majority of Americans believe otherwise, does not change the Truth. If someone wants to remain in error, even when the Truth is hitting them right between the eyes, that shall not affect the Truth. My prayer is that now that the Catholic Church is under the most vicious persecution in your country, all people of goodwill will rise up and protect the Anchor that holds your country – and indeed mankind – together as I am reading it is enshrined in your Constitution.

  • “The difference is that people can’t agree on when life begins. I believe life begins at conception. Plenty of other Americans do not. Our laws don’t help, either.”

    Laws almost always help the victims of gross injustice, and the grossest injustice being meted out in this country today is to the unborn who have no legal protection accorded to their right to life. As for people disagreeing about this you are of course correct, just as 150 years ago white Americans were fiercely divided about whether blacks should be free. Division of opinion is no reason not to remedy injustice and protect the victims of it.

  • The essence of the evil which is murder/abortion is that the murderer/abortionist usurps God’s Will in determining who dies and when.

Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part

Friday, February 3, AD 2012

The Susan G. Komen Foundation did not reverse course as many have thought, suggested, or commented all over the Interwebs today.

Even Austin Ruse President of C-FAM is not sure and has issued this press release:

Statement by Austin Ruse on the Susan G. Komen Foundation

“Today the Susan G. Komen Foundation made an announcement that appears that they have reversed themselves on funding of Planned Parenthood. While I do not believe they have reversed themselves, it may turn out to be the case. We do not know.

What happened this week was nothing short of a Mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood against the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Planned Parenthood told the Komen Foundation “either give us money or we will destroy you.” They were aided and abetted in this hostage taking by the mainstream media.

At this point, pro-lifers should cease their support of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. We should wait and see what happens. We know there are five more Komen grants to Planned Parenthood in the pipeline. If any more come up, we will know we have lost and Planned Parenthood has won.

I do not regret the work I did over the past days on this issue, neither should any pro-lifer. I only regret we could not have done more to make Komen strong and able to fight off the thuggish abortion giant, Planned Parenthood.

What the week has shown is that Planned Parenthood, an organization that is under criminal investigation all over this country, will stop at nothing to maintain their stranglehold on organizations like the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

We should continue to pray for Nancy Brinker and all of her colleagues at the Susan G. Komen Foundation.”

The American Papist and Steven D. Greydanus agree with me on this one.

Look at it from Komen’s perspective, they’re taking a public relations hit by the punks and thugs from Planned Parenthood and their allies.  It’s a war, a Culture War out there!

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Susan G. Komen Foundation Did Not Reverse Course, But It’s an Epic P.R. Disaster on Their Part

  • Pingback: Komen Foundation Reverses Course, Promises to Keep Funding Planned Parenthood [UPDATED AGAIN] | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: . . .SUSAN G. KOMEN REVERSES DECISION?. . . |
  • What no one’s picking up on is that Nancy Brinker isn’t just some ingenue who got taken advantage of by PP. Brinker has served on a Planned Parenthood board. She has accepted a personal award from PP. She has steered a fortune to PP, over many years. The woman is a savvy insider, not a well-meaning innocent who fell in with the wrong bunch. The Komen organization is fundamentally corrupt, infected with an anti-life ethos.

  • So, Lance Armstrong donates $100,000 to Planned Parenthood.

    On the exact same-day, the Obama Justice Dept., without explanation, drops its doping case against Lance Armstrong:

    Yeah, nothing fishy about that at all.

  • Re your postscript, hopefully NRTL is watching and adding to the boycott list.

  • Pingback: Komen knuckles under… | Catholic and Enjoying It!
  • Jay Anderson’s observation will sadly never find the light of day in main stream media.

  • Was’nt the woman herself, Susan G. Komen, Pro-Life? Susan G. Komen would have been ashamed to know that the foundation that bears her name is helping to support a business that provides abortions!

  • I guess the Susan G.Komen foundation found out what real political pressure is like.

  • Oh great. I once gave the LAF $100 out of my meager wallet. Cross him off the list too. What planet am I living on? Did the magnetic poles reverse and now we’re living in Bizarro World? All the donors are dogpiling on the one that doesn’t even DO mammograms!

  • A “mafia shakedown campaign by Planned Parenthood”? Really? We do ourselves no favors by finding hyperbole to delude ourselves. What it was a great wash of supporters from all over who reacted in knee-jerk opposition to what they saw as a hostile action.
    Planned Parenthood may act in some ways we strongly oppose, but blind demonizing and making them out to be the organized kingpin of some vast conspiracy only makes us the fool, and tools of those who have their own agendas. Austin Ruse is doing us no favors. Let’s keep a level head.

  • enness: I once admired Lance Armstrong very much myself. Then he hooked up with left-wing whacko Sheryl Crowe (who lectured us on the necessary of using only 1 square of toliet tissue per bathroom visit – to save Gaia) , which was a tip-off to Lance’s politics and ideology.

    I’m very happy I didn’t actually mail in a check to Komen the other day, although I considered doing so. Then I checked my bank balance. The few bucks I have to give to charity this month went to my parish and to the Scott Walker campaign (no, giving to a a political candidate isn’t charity, but it is a very good cause.)

    When my mother died of cancer back in the ’80’s, I, and my siblings began giving to the American Cancer Society. I haven’t sent them a check in years. I will again, but only after I look into them to ensure they aren’t relying on fetal stem cell research, or are aligned with some nefarious organization.

    If there is one lesson this whole nasty business has taught us it is: research your charities. I’ve been reading about the reaction to this on secular sites and there are plenty of pro-lifers who had given to SGK in good faith for years, without ever suspecting they were in league with PP. The only way I discovered the link was because of Catholic blogs.

  • Donna, ugh, I’d almost forgotten about that.

    I donated, taking the B.F. Skinner approach, as I’ve been calling it — heaping rewards on the smallest step in the right direction. For the briefest second I considered a chargeback, but I feel like that would be appalling ettiquette and I can’t bring myself to do it. I will say that I certainly would respect them more if they returned the money.

Matthew’s Day Off, Extended Version (After 30 Years, New Ferris Bueller Commercial)

Monday, January 30, AD 2012

As one of our commenters found out, it’s a commercial for the ‘oh so choice’ 2012 Honda CR-V.  Here is what Honda has to say:

Celebrate the launch of the all-new 2012 CR-V, Honda brought Ferris Bueller’s Day Off back in a big game commercial. We cast Matthew Broderick as himself, skipping out on a day of acting work and living it up in his all-new CR-V. Relive movie history with Honda’s fresh twist and wonderful homage to this ’80s classic.

Think you’re a true fan of Ferris Bueller’s Day Off? We hid over two dozen references to the movie throughout the commercial. Some are obvious, some are very subtle. See how many you can find. #dayoff


Continue reading...

2 Responses to Matthew’s Day Off, Extended Version (After 30 Years, New Ferris Bueller Commercial)

6 Responses to A Day Off From Work. . . Heeeeee’s Back!

3 Responses to Barry Soetoro Live!

  • I’m sorry!

    I watched three consecutive hours of “Big Bang Theory” episodes. They also were fictions and reruns.

    At least I don’t cry while watching TV physicist farce.

  • Too tired … saw the Capitol Bldg. on Mon. afternoon which fell between two nights riding on a bus, but there were tears this am during the conversion of St. Paul and Jesus sending the eleven readings at church. Wish our deficit spending were as cute as the one in the picture.

  • To be fair, each POTUS since Mr Reagan, and the several Congresses then and now are to take their share of blame for the current mess. One would hope that adding debt for the heck of it, borrowing to pretend, and relying on Keynesian economics will be buried in the same deep hole once the nation digs itself out of the debt. This cartoon is an example of the old cinema days when they showed a humourous short film after a deadly serious longer one.

19 Responses to Tebowing, We Did It Before It Was Mainstream!

  • I used cringe at seeing Catholic high school basketball players cross themselves before taking a free shot. It seemed more superstition than prayer to me. Tebow is in a different milieu and it is a different age since the pre-Council years. There is no comparison with a priest kneeling at the old Mass rite OR a modern Catholic genuflecting reverently as she enters church. Tim is in a public televised place and being watched and cares not about public opinion and the anti-faith, religion critics. A good witness which is not equally received by all observers or commentators as we expect today.

  • That link to the New Advent article on posture at prayer turned out to be a really interesting historical and bibical review, including:

    Christ assumes that standing would be the ordinary posture in prayer of those whom He addressed:” And when you shall stand to pray”, etc.


  • Even better is that Roman Canon #1 – Eicharistic Praper # 1 speaks of all those CIRCUMSTANTIBUS all standing around, the whole congregation. The kneeling posiiton was part of the process for reconciling public sinners. Those who insist on kneeling ignore that the presiding and assisiting clergy stand. Similarly, standing for Communion and receiving on the hand are ancient practices the others are medieval inventions.

  • So long as Tim is sincere and fervent in his Faith, I am sure his kneeling is acceptable.

    Same same, Herm, as long as all that malarkey you’re commenting is done in charity to correct what you view as errors. Is it after 5PM where you are?

    Kneeling and genuflecting are personal signs of respect. In the military we saluted superiors and returned salutes of subordinates. We saluted the National Anthem at parade. As a veteran, I am allowed to render the hand salute when I am present for the playing of the National Anthem. I was only in a few years. I got out 36 years ago, or so. But, I still get the unconscious urge to snap to and and salute anywhere I here our National Anthem.

    And, reading that post on the movie “Glory”, I recall I served with the finest young men (Asian, Black, Hispanic and white) America ever produced.

  • Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think the GIRM even prescribes kneeling. I think it’s the USCCB supplemental norm. Elsewhere, people stand when we kneel and bow when we genuflect.

  • Shouldn’t Tebowing be done on the RIGHT knee?

  • TEBOW may be left-kneed and a kneel on that is as valid as one who is left handed crossing herself
    As to the posture for Mass, the bishops have decided kneeling for the Euch. Prayer and standing for Communion. The more “devout” of the laity and some clerics decide that 1. kneeling is more “traditional” which it is not and 2.that, though they have that choice, baby-feeding on the tongue is more “traditional which it is not.

  • HT,

    Perhaps your reference to “baby-feeding was not intended to be inflammatory, but I took it that way. Tell me, is your arrogance hard-earned or simply natural? In any case the facts are not that simple. From “

    “The history of Communion in the hand is usually told as follows: From the Last Supper on, and during the time of the apostles, Holy Communion was, of course, given in the hand. So it was during the age of the martyrs. And it continued to be so during that golden age of the Fathers and of the liturgy, after the peace of Constantine. Communion in the hand was given to the faithful just as we now do (in the more open and up-to-date sectors of the Church). And it continued to be the common practice until at least the tenth century. Thus for over half of the life of the Church, it was the norm.

    A wonderful proof of the above is held to be found in a text of St. Cyril of Jerusalem (313-386) in which he counsels the faithful to “make a throne of your hands in which to receive the King [in Holy Communion].” This Father of the Church further counsels great care for any fragments which might remain in one’s hands, since just as one wouldn’t let gold dust fall to the ground so one should take even greater care when it is a question of the Body of the Lord.

    According to the popular rendition, the change in the manner of receiving the consecrated bread came about in this way: During the Middle Ages, there were certain distortions in the faith, and/or in the approach to the faith, which took place and which gradually developed. These include an excessive fear of God and related preoccupation with sin, judgment and punishment; an overemphasis on the divinity of Christ which was virtually a denial of or at least downplaying of his sacred humanity; an overemphasis on the role of the priest in the sacred liturgy; and a loss of the sense of the community which the Church, in fact, is.

    In particular, because of excessive emphasis on adoration of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, and a too strict approach to moral matters, Holy Communion became more and more rare. It was considered sufficient to gaze upon the Sacred Host during the elevation. (In fact, this decadent practice of the “elevation”-so the mainstream treatment of this period continues-and the equally unhealthy Exposition and Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament find their origins during these unfortunate Middle Ages, a period whose liturgical practices we would do well to rid ourselves of).

    It was in this atmosphere and under these circumstances that the practice of Communion in the hand began to be restricted. The practice of the priest placing the consecrated bread directly into the mouth of the communicant developed and -sad to say- was imposed.

    The conclusion is rather clear: we should get rid of this custom whose roots are to be found in the dark ages. We should forbid or at least discourage this practice of not allowing the faithful to “take and eat,” and return to the pristine usage of the Fathers and of the apostles: Communion in the hand.

    It is a compelling story. It is too bad that it is not true.

    The Sacred Council of Trent declared that the custom of only the priest who is celebrating the Mass giving Communion to himself (with his own hands), and the laity receiving it from him, is an Apostolic Tradition.1

    A more rigorous study of the available evidence from Church History and from the writings of the Fathers does not support the assertion that Communion in the hand was a universal practice which was gradually supplanted and eventually replaced by the practice of Communion on the tongue.

    Rather, the facts seem to point to a different conclusion.

    Pope St. Leo the Great (440-461), already in the fifth century, is an early witness of the traditional practice. In his comments on the sixth chapter of the Gospel of John, he speaks of Communion in the mouth as the current usage: “One receives in the mouth what one believes by faith.”2 The Pope does not speak as if he were introducing a novelty, but as if this were a well-established fact.

    A century and a half later, but still three centuries before the practice (according to the popular account reviewed above) was supposedly introduced, Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604) is another witness. In his dialogues (Roman 3, c. 3) he relates how Pope St. Agapito performed a miracle during the Mass, after having placed the Body of the Lord into someone’s mouth. We are also told by John the Deacon of this Pope’s manner of giving Holy Communion.

    These witnesses are from the fifth and the sixth centuries. How can one reasonably say that Communion in the hand continued as the official practice until the tenth century? How can one claim that giving Communion on the tongue is a medieval invention?

    We are not claiming that under no circumstances whatever did the faithful receive by their own hands. But, under what conditions did this happen? It does seem that from very early on it was usual for the priest to place the Sacred Host into the mouth of the communicant. However, during times of persecution, when priests were not readily available, and when the faithful took the Sacrament to their homes, they gave Communion to themselves, by their own hand. In other words, rather than be totally deprived of the Bread of Life, they could receive by their own hand, when not to do so would mean being deprived of that necessary spiritual nourishment. The same applied to monks who had gone out into the desert where they would not have the services of a priest, and would not want to give up the practice of daily Communion.

    To summarize, the practice was that one could touch the Host when not to do so would mean being deprived of the Sacrament. But when a priest was available, one did not receive in one’s hand.

    So St. Basil (330-379) says clearly that to receive Communion by one’s own hand is only permitted in times of persecution or, as was the case with monks in the desert, when no deacon or priest was available to give it. “It is not necessary to show that it does not constitute a grave fault for a person to communicate with his own hand in a time of persecution when there is no priest or deacon” (Letter 93, my emphasis). The text implies that to receive in the hand under other circumstances, outside of persecution, would be a grave fault.3 The saint based his opinion on the custom of the solitary monks, who reserved the Blessed Sacrament in their dwellings, and, in the absence of the priest or deacon, gave themselves Communion.

    In his article on “Communion” in the Dictionaire d’Archeologie Chretienne, LeClerq declares that the peace of Constantine was bringing the practice of Communion in the hand to an end. This reaffirms for us the reasoning of St. Basil that it was persecution that created the alternative of either receiving by hand or not receiving at all.

    After persecution had ceased, evidently the practice of Communion in the hand persisted here and there. It was considered by Church authority to be an abuse to be rid of, since it was deemed to be contrary to the custom of the apostles.

    Thus the Council of Rouen, which met in 650, says, “Do not put the Eucharist in the hands of any layman or laywomen but only in their mouths.” The Council of Constantinople which was known as in trullo (not one of the ecumenical councils held there) prohibited the faithful from giving Communion to themselves (which is of course what happens when the Sacred Particle is placed in the hand of the communicant). It decreed an excommunication of one week’s duration for those who would do so in the presence of a bishop, priest or deacon.

    Of course, the promoters of “Communion in the hand” generally make little mention of the evidence we have brought forward. They do, however, make constant use of the text attributed to St. Cyril of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century at the same time as St. Basil.

    Henri LeClerq summarized things as follows: “Saint Cyril of Jerusalem recommended to the faithful that on presenting themselves to receive Communion, they should have the right hand extended, with their fingers together, supported by the left hand, and with the palm a little bit concave; and at the moment in which the Body of Christ was deposited in the hand, the communicant would say: Amen.”

    There is more to this text than just the above, however. It also goes on to propose the following: “Sanctify your eyes with contact with the Holy Body . . . . When your lips are still wet, touch your hand to your lips, and then pass you hand over your eyes, your forehead and your other senses, to sanctify them.” This rather odd (or even superstitious? Irreverent?) recommendation has caused scholars to question the authenticity of this text. Some think that perhaps there has been an interpolation, or that it is really the saint’s successor who wrote it.

    It is not impossible that the text is really the work of the Patriarch John, who succeeded Cyril in Jerusalem. But this John was of suspect orthodoxy. This we know from the correspondence of St. Epiphanius, St. Jerome, and St. Augustine. So, in favor of Communion in the hand we have a text of dubious origin and questionable content. And on the other hand, we have reliable witnesses, including two great popes, that placing the Sacred Host in the mouth of the communicant was already common and unremarkable in at last the fifth century.”

    I take communion in the hand. But it would not occur to me to ridicule those who prefer to take communion in the mouth.

    And your reference to the history of kneeling for communion is similarly simplistic.

  • I intended no sarcasm or disrespect with my comment that babies are fed by hand. That is a fact. I did my doctoral work on Eucharist and Reconciliation and was introduced to Jungmann’s great study of The Mass – (Of the Roman Rite? I think was the fulll title) way back in College before the Second Vatican Council and before my advanced studies- that was in the 60s. You may recall that ST PETER did not want people kneeling to him as if he were God- that gesture in his cultural context said something else than showing reverence/respect. You who are older may recall that the cardinals used kiss the Pope’s feet to show obeisance to him and it shocked people who thought that gesture was bizarre and was totally misunderstood on global TV. Even the kiss on both cheeks by males in that and other cultures is not accepted as normal in the West. Mr Bush 44 in your USA got in some hot water by holding hands in friendship with the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia in his Texas ranch.
    Therefore I am all in favour of adopting gestures and ;poses for worship that are understood in the culture of the society and age. I forget where but saw a refrence recently to a foreign missionary community where the person of highest dignity had to be the on the highest level at a ceremony, so where did the Eucharist get placed and the presider at Eucharist. If the Church’s leadership had been sensitive as St Parick was in Ireland to convert the naton with no red martyrs, by building on the local culture and respecting it while he transformed it, the Church would have been more successful in Fr Mateo Ricci’s Japan. Instead false “culture ” from Europe trumped him and the Church lost a more successful acculturation.
    The people may not have agreed with the USCCB adaptation of the GIRM, but they are the pastors and however they arrived at their norms for worship, they are the ones that won the vote of the entire group. Same for Italy and Germany. Bl JP 11 witnessed fairly scantily clothed females dancing and celebating at Eucharist in his many foreign pilgrimages. Norwegian friends commented to me that their cultural social customs are so different from the Latins, a handshake is their best effort at friendship when Mama Mia in Sicily and Madresita Carmen in the Andes of Peru wants to kiss and hug. American teens want to kiss on the lips and hug at special celebrations of Eucharist and Church events without the slightest idea that it can be perceived as unwelcome sexually. FINALLY for my one critic above, check your HISTORY and see that The KNEELERS were a class of penitents being returned to reconciliation and Eucharist, after the first stage which was more punishing and then they moved forward. i much prefer discussing issues with people who do not ask what time it is where I am, we are actually in Europe and we have no time to be sarcastic or demeaning and are not very happy when we are treated disrespectfully on a CATHOLIC Christian site. We endure enough of that from people in public office who call the Pope red socks and he is the anti-Christ and our governments are peopled by atheists and agnostics and “humanists” who favour abortion for pre-born humans.

  • Mike Petrik, how was I mistaken? Your links seem to confirm that kneeling is a US-specific norm.

  • For a person who consistently submits comments oozing with contempt and unfounded arrogance, you sure have some thin skin. I guess that is the license of one who posts anonymously. In any case I do not believe you when you say you meant no ridicule.

    And for the record if you think American teens kiss on the lips at Mass (I’m not sure what you mean by special celebrations of the Eucharist) you are mistaken, and if an American male teen decided to express his sign of peace to the American female classmate sitting next to him by kissing her on the lips, I can assure you she would be shocked and discomforted. I chair the board of a Catholic high school. I know hundreds of American teens. What you describe is ludicrous. But my children think you are quite hilarious.

    And I know the history of kneelers, yawn. I’m not interested in going back to the practices of the early Church — if I was I’d be a JW. The Holy Spirit has allowed many positive developments, and our traditional practice of kneeling is one of them. Have you been to Scotland?

  • Ah! So your experience of Church in the USA and elsewhere among teens is the only one. and you cannot distunguish between an unwelcome kiss on the lips by teens who are best friends but not lovers. I pity your lack of experience and your children’;s sense of humour. And you are the arbiter of what is or is not part of the Catholic culture and Church and history, It may not have been you but one person who posted dimissed the fact that kneelers were part of a stage in the sacrament of reconciliation. You call me”oozing and unfounded arrogrance.” And you chair the board of a Catholic high school? By the way, did you actually read my quick overview and see the examples of how cultural gestures are different in each place and some are easily misunderstood. Or are you so sure of your opinion facts are a distraction? Whatever your intent your inability to communicate with simple grace has done it for me. My old grade school Master used say “Beware the man of one book.” Smart man, and that was over sixty years ago

  • I guess that is the license of one who posts anonymously.

    At the very least, maybe everyone on this thread could get Gravatars:

  • At times I work in Puerto Rico. They don’t kneel down there. I thought is was because they think they are too good (pride) to kneel before God Almighty.

    When I was doing my post-doctoral field work in proctology/cranium-rectal surgery, I would read the geniuses’ posts and comments at “vox nova.” I no longer exercise that methgod of personal mortification.

  • HT,
    My comment re teens kissing in church was in response to yours, which specified American teens — and in this you are simply mistaken, not that I will convince you since you have done doctoral work and all. And your strawmen accusations and arguments are tiresome. As far as I can tell no one on this blog is offended by the Church’s historic and ongoing use of acculturation, but your posts assume so much. I can guess why that is.

  • Ah. sweet logic. What reasoning. What ability to read what was written. And not twist it.

    “Wherefore art thou?”

    I miss you so much, sweet logic, reasoning, readers who read what was written, and do not twist what was actually written.

  • Pingback: Genuflection goes Mainstream! « Quodcumque dixerit

Fr. Michael Rodriguez Responds to Bishop Ochoa

Saturday, January 14, AD 2012

The following is a press release from Fr. Michael Rodriguez concerning the unprecedented legal action taken by (his) Bishop Armando Ochoa against him (I formatted the press release to eliminate spaces, content has not been touched or changed):

On January 12, 2012, Most Rev. Armando Ochoa, Administrator of the Diocese of El Paso, filed a lawsuit against me.  Once again, I want to reiterate that his action is dishonest and unjust.  I pose the simple question:  over the course of the past 9 ½ years, who is the one who has been laboring, struggling, sacrificing day and night, and caring for the spiritual and material well-being of San Juan Bautista Catholic Church?  Has it been Fr. Michael Rodríguez or Most Rev. Armando Ochoa?  Based on the factual record, which of the two has greater credibility when it comes to protecting and furthering the spiritual and material patrimony of San Juan Bautista?


Over the course of my 9 ½ years as parish administrator of San Juan Bautista, by the grace and mercy of God, the following spiritual goods were “achieved”:

1) Restoration of the glorious Traditional Latin Mass

2) Gradual restoration of the Catholic Church’s sacred language, Latin

3) Gradual restoration of Gregorian Chant and sacred music

4) Devout and worthy reception of the Holy Eucharist on the tongue and kneeling, accompanied by preparatory and thanksgiving prayers

5) Silence at Holy Mass and a real catholic sense of the sacred

6) Modest dress and reverent behavior at Holy Mass and inside church

7) Two daily Masses at 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.

8. Holy Hours with Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament at least four times per week

9) Regularly-scheduled Confessions at least five times per week;  Confession available at any time, day or night, by appointment

10) Stations of the Cross every Friday in both english (12:30 p.m.) and spanish (6:45 p.m.)

11) Parish Lenten Missions in both english and spanish

12) Numerous vocations to the priesthood and religious life

13) Christ the King, Corpus Christi, and Our Lady of Guadalupe Processions through the neighborhood

Continue reading...

35 Responses to Fr. Michael Rodriguez Responds to Bishop Ochoa

  • Pingback: Bp. Ochoa’s Legal Action Against Fr. Michael Rodriguez (UPDATED) | The American Catholic
  • As Fr. R’s defence reads from here, he may be pushing the Latin Traditional Form too much. and seems to be overruling the desire of the US bishops to make standing the norm and the congregation with the choice for the ancient practice of receiving on the hand or the corrupt medieval practice of the tongue which is how babies are fed and can be quite unsanitary, I know both are the choice of HH BXV1 but that is his preference as bishop, not a demand as Pope. Reference to estoring the church building to the 2ancient foms of the Roman Rite” is open to question it would seem. The papal altar in St Peter’s Basilica which faces the people with a separate Sacrament chapel seems to be accepted. I seem to recall that the reserved Eucharist was removed from Cathedral high altars for epsicopal celebratons back there in the pre-Vat 11 days. The Eastern Church does not have the reserved Eucharist for prayer. That is perfectly legitimate for them but allright for the Latin Church. One may have to examine the definition of “reverence ” and not equate Latin Text w, but ut does highlight different ways of expressing Eucharistc devotion. Proper “reverence” is tricky, too many dismiss the Novus Ordo as intrinsically irreverent, and heretical for the extremsists. Father R is undoubtedly a very zealous and sincere but loyalty to one’s bishop is very important unless there are clear abuses of authority on his part which can be resolved by speciifc means

    IF there are fnancial iregularites as one report had it, one presumes that an audit of the books would solve that instead of being a public matter.

  • Did Jesus give Pontius Pilate a list of reasons – all the good spiritual and temporal works he had done – for why he shouldn’t be crucified?

    There is little doubt in my mind that Bishop Ochoa is a flaming lavender liberal Democrat, but should Father Rodriguez even defend himself knowing that Christ (who was always right) never did so.

  • What is not present here is any reference to the actual complaint, which concerns financial shenanigans.

  • Astute observation, Art Deco. It almost seems as though Fr Rodriguez is saying, “Look how many good things I have done,” and that becomes an excuse to ignore that he did them in the wrong way. I post this as a comment on Colleen Hammond’s web site:

    …there is something essential and primary that we need to look at in all of this. The suggestion that perhaps because Father Rodriguez’s intentions were good, his financial errors can be overlooked is incorrect (no, I am NOT accusing him of fiscal malfeasance – I am using this as an object lesson). I learned this from the industry in which I work: commercial nuclear power. In my job it is not sufficient that I do the right thing, but in the wrong way, nor is it sufficient that I do in the right way the wrong thing. I am required to always and everywhere do the right thing in the right way. If I do the right thing in the wrong way, then my failure calls into question before our Federal regulator, the US NRC, whether I even did the right thing in the first place to begin with. And if I obey all the regulations, codes and standards, but have done the wrong thing, then I call into question the engineering practices, procedures and programs that I used which I had claimed were the right way: are they really the right way when the result that I achieved is wrong?

    Now of course everyone will say, “Hey, Paul, you deal with the fires of Creation in nuclear reactor cores, and what you do can affect hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives, so of course you always have to do the right thing in the right way.” While that statement makes unfairly grandiose what impact my work can actually have (I am really not nearly that important), my response to this is simple, “Why wouldn’t the same be true of the oversight being provided for people’s eternal souls.” Using the excuse that money has nothing to do with that is to ignore what St. Paul wrote in one of his epistles, “The love of money is the root of all evil.” As a nuclear engineer (my actual job title is longer and less comprehensible) I don’t have the luxury of telling a US NRC inspector (or even my own boss at my current job) that “I did the right thing.” The inspector could bring civil or even criminal charges against me regardless of the happy outcome I achieved, and my boss would surely bounce my behind on the pavement outside my place of work. And if I had sequestered 31 thousand dollars outside of my department’s allocated funds, or made my mother a beneficiary of company funds, then you can bet criminal charges would be levied and I would be officially barred by the US NRC from ever working at a commercial nuclear power plant ever again. BTW, that has happened to some now unhappy jokers who thought they could play fast and loose with the regulations – you don’t want your name and photo on the inspection enforcement page at the web site of the US NRC.

    As Catholic Christians we are always and everywhere required to do the right thing in the right way. No excuses. No rationalizations. No “Bill Clinton” waffling.

  • I haven’t been following this case particularly closely, but my reaction to this statement is the same as Art Deco. This is a very nice non sequiter, but has nothing to do with the actual charges against him.

  • This is a very nice non sequiter, but has nothing to do with the actual charges against him.

    Exactly… I haven’t been following this either, but, if anything, this response supports rather than refutes the charges.

  • What Fr. Michael Rodriguez is doing is not helping him at all.

    But what Bishop Ochoa did by filing a legal action is unfathomable.

  • Consider the lawsuit
    It dimishes the teaching authority and the slavific ability of the Roman Catholic Church

    Why was the lawsuit filed?
    Was there no way to resolve the differences without making the difference public?
    Was it that priest who in his recalcitrance forced the bishop into this action? And if yes, what would the motivation be?
    Was it the bishop who in his pride who fully engaged the act?

    Consider: The renovations took place over a nine and a half year period. Is it possible that the bishop would be unaware for that long? If this was a serious concern of his, is it likely he would have waited until over a month after he stopped being the bishop of El Paso to file the lawsuit? Or is it personal? The bishop will soon be officially installed in Fresno, and will no longer be the administrator of the diocese of El Paso. He needs to inflict as much personal damage as possible before he is no longer able to. And the cost to the diocesan faithful and the universal church be dammned.

    If a string of San Juan Bautista parishoners is led before a judge in open court, what will their testimony be? Will they say they trust the priest with their money? Or will they say they trust the bishop? What would have inspired them to make their checks out to the priest as opposed to the parish? May personal conclusion is that I have stopped giving to my own bishop’s yearly appeal because I don’t trust him to make Catholic decisions. It makes sense to me that other Catholics in other dioceses would reach the same conclusion. Anyone who is truly Catholic prays incessantly to our heavenly father to send us not the bishops we deserve, but those who can take care of our souls, because the great majority of American bishops are possessed with a great poverty of fortitude, and bow lower before the godless laws of the United States than before the eternal Laws institued by Almighty God.

    My prayer: My God grant the vacant See of El Paso a holy bishop soon, that he may resolve the mess for the greater glory of God and the triumph of the Holy Catholic Church.

  • Father Rodriguez is listing the material and spiritual thing he did for the parrish. Let the lawyers talk now. And father Rodríguez, if you want to really remain catholic, come any time to the Fraternity of St. Pius X. We need priests just like you, to keep the faith and Tradition alive. Modernist Rome is beyond redemption.

  • $1000 / wk x 52 wks = $52,000 yr
    Less expenses, salaries, utilities, upkeep per yr.

    What a common household budget for a family would likely be.

    How the improvements were made – even with volunteer labor – is a good stmt.

    So many opportunities for worship and Sacraments for the parishioners is also a good stmt. And rare. How are these people now? I just wish this flash of oversight were in place for government spending instead of for a parish feeding souls so well.

  • I have not been following this closely, so someone please correct me if I’m wrong. It is my understanding that the issue had to do with the money collected for various renovations was kept in a private bank account rather than in the parish account. There is no suggestion that any money was used inappropriately–i.e. for anything other than renovations. However, the Bishop is arguing that the parish was attempting to keep money it had collected from the Diocese–i.e. that the Diocese had not received its ‘cut’ of the money collected by the parish. Now that money has ALL been taken by the Diocese, but the parishioners want it back, since they had not donated to the diocese but to the parish renovation fund.

  • “Hermit Talker”

    Summorum Pontificum makes it clear that every ‘stable group’ of Catholics who want the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite have that right, irrespective of a Bishop’s wishes. It is Church Law. If Bishop Ochoa wants to deny these people the EF, he is violating the law of the Church. Unfortunately, far too many Bishops have decided simply to ignore Summorum Pontificum, and to act with hostility towards any members of their dioceses who want the EF. We have, in fact, a silent revolution within the Church of modernist Bishops who have nothing but contempt for the Holy Father and tfor Catholic Tradition.

  • I find it amusing that Fr. Rodriguez accuses Bishop Ochoa of not obeying Summorum Pontificum when he himself arguably does not obey it. As he has stated in an interview with the Remnant, he does not believe as the Holy Father states that there is no contradiction between the ordinary and extraordinary forms of the Roman rite, and does not agree with the Holy Father that it would be wrong to as a matter of prinicple refuse to celebrate Mass using the ordinary form.

    Also, the instruction Universae Ecclesiae states that:

    “19. The faithful who ask for the celebration of the forma extraordinaria must not in any way support or belong to groups which show themselves to be against the validity or legitimacy of the Holy Mass or the Sacraments celebrated in the forma ordinaria or against the Roman Pontiff as Supreme Pastor of the Universal Church.”

    Arguably under this, Father Rodriguez could be forbidden to use the extraordinary form.
    Finally, by teaching that the extraordinary form is the ‘true Mass’ and that the ‘novus ordo’ is a corruption, he is going against the ordinary magisterium of the church himself. So much for the ‘faithful’ priest Father Rodriguez. His bragging of his accomplishments, don’t justify his disobedience, seeding of confusion amongst the faithful, and financial misconduct. With Shepherds like these, who needs wolves?

  • The facts are not known to me. I have absolutely no idea if Fr R. imposed the Latin Extra. Rite on his people, nor about his other theology of Church and whether he in fact is a heretical dissenter from the Bishop of Rome and the Church Catholic. As to finances, there is absolutely no evidence as to that. of which I am aware. So I am off the record on this topic at this ;point

  • Dearest Father,
    Having lived in a religious community during the 1970’s, being forced to attend a “Mass” using pizza and beer, being judged as “dangerous” for practicing private devotions, and that’s only the beginning, I praise God for your priestly service so full of zeal for souls. I promise my prayers as you endure these present trials and remind you that the devil’s anger against a faithful priest is greatly aroused. This time, the scandal is not because of any immorality but the scandal of a Shepherd who appears to have fallen prey to the devil’s intention to destro the Church from within. A passing thought, may the green eyed monster of jealousy be at work here? Stay vigilant before the Most Blessed Sacrament!

  • OK, I’ll bite, please explain your meaning in saying that the Catholic Church is “beyond redemption.”

    That’s a pretty 19th century Protestant statement there. My Lutheran, UMC, and Presbyterian friends wouldn’t say anything so bold.

    Is this your view alone or the official stance of the Fraternity of St. Pius X?

    I haven’t followed this story and only now did some reading. Obedience is hard. It is made all the harder when one is a celebrity. Maybe the Bishop is wrong. Maybe he is being unreasonable. Maybe there is a lot more going on than we can see from the outside. Regardless, a priest obeys solong as doing so does not compromise his duty to God. He obeys even when he disagrees, for what is “obedience” if it applies only tothe things we agree with?

    Counseling priest to abandon his duties and follow you into schism can’t be a Christian act.

  • Alfred Rambit,

    Father Rodriguez does celebrate the OF every day. The FSSP, ICK, and other traditionalist groups of priests never celebrate the OF, but they are not considered to be in violation of that paragraph of SP. Refusing to celebrate one of the rites isn’t a claim about its legitimacy or validity.

    How about the reverse. How many priests refuse to celebrate the EF? Are they in violation of SP? If these two forms of the Roman Rite are equal; if the EF is to be actively promoted…why are bishops acting with such hostility? It seems to me that they are the ones in rebellion against the Holy Father.

  • Alfred Rambit,

    Just another example: The Eastern Catholics never celebrate ithe Roman Rite. Does that mean that they believe it to be invalid?

  • Ivan K,

    “Father Rodriguez does celebrate the OF every day. ”

    No, he doesn’t. Read the ‘Remnant’ interview.

    As for FSSP, ICK, and Eastern Catholics, their preists do concelebrate the OF, and they do not speak of the OF as being inferior, and the EF as being the ‘True Mass’.
    Refusing to celebrate the OF is a violation of that paragraph if the reason for this refusal is that the OF is a deficient or inferior rite, is not the ‘true mass’, is not ‘Catholic’, etc.

    “How about the reverse. How many priests refuse to celebrate the EF? Are they in violation of SP? If these two forms of the Roman Rite are equal; if the EF is to be actively promoted…why are bishops acting with such hostility? It seems to me that they are the ones in rebellion against the Holy Father.”

    That’s my whole point. It’s silly for Fr. Rodriguez and others to criticize those who refuse to follow Summorum Pontificum if they themselves refuse to follow it. It’s like the pot calling the kettle black.

  • Some bishops and presbyters and the parish councils may consider resources that, given the distribution of presbyters to people today, and the need to provide music and lectors and other liturgical aids for a proper celebration of the Novus Ordo and the Extra’ary form of the Eucharist. There may not be enough of any required elements to provide adequately for all needs. It is also a continuing difficulty that as I read the story around the world, many Latin Mass devotees are in fact not in agreement with the Pope and Catholic Church as orthodox and authentic. I find them getting more evangelical “protestant” in their supposed definition and loyalty to what is orthodox.

  • Please avoid the silly. One knows who are in union with the Bishop of Rome, who are friendly but not in commmunion on all dogma and of course who are at the sign or get out stage!”

  • Pingback: Some additional updates on Fr. Rodriguez « A Blog for Dallas Area Catholics
  • The fact that this bishop took the scandalous step of going outside the church to attack Fr. Rodriguez says ALL any of us need to know. First he destroys everything the good priest created and sends him off to the hinterlands but then he must destroy the man’s reputation – and do it outside the church!

  • Given Fr Rodriguez disobedience in financial matters, and given the Bishop’s flaming liberal disobedience, perhaps both ought to read today’s Old Testament reading from 1st Samuel 15:16-23. The late Father Al Lauer has an excellent homily on this which is well worth the 14 minutes to listen to. None of us are pristine when it comes to obedience, especially me. Here’s the web link to the audio recording – hope it works!

  • I read a comment following an earlier article about this controversy. Someone posted a comment that Bishop Ochoa might be the priest, Xavier Ochoa, who fled from Santa Rosa, Calif to Mexico. The Bishop is not that priest. While the internet can be very helpful in researching things, posting such erroneous information without completely verifying such insinuations should be strongly avoided.

  • Sounds like another example of the “sharing/caring” liberal bishop cracking down on Tradition in defense, no doub, of NO novelties…..bring up the first 1900 yrs of Catholicism, watch the smiling drop……..

  • Interesting the dislike in some comments of “the Latin Rite”……does this mean the Mass immorial?
    Also, the comments on “democrats” attributed to the Bishop…must we use inadequate and outdated secular, american terms? No real difference we have seen over last decades in principle in either major party…..a fw minor details….no difference at all…… Catholic should be above attributing Madison ave propaganda slogans and sound bites to internal Catholic issues…..would said Bishop be alright if GOP? Libertarian?
    The issue is Catholic vs Modernist……it appears that this priest spoke up for the Catholic Churches teaching and then, magically, this Bishop finds some “financial issues” wrong with him.
    A Church tribunal/trial should wee this out and if said priest has evidence, lets hear it through proper channels……..perhaps said Bishop has a history against him as a man-man or not liking a trad priest……would not be the first time……..again, liberals in the church have a thin veneer unti la trad comes, then it can be rather harsh, oppressive and hateful…….

  • “Arguably under this, Father Rodriguez could be forbidden to use the extraordinary form.”

    um, no the Moto Proprio was clear that priest no longer have to beg bishops to say it and Pope Pius V (yes, the “bad old days” pre-1962) was clear it was to be said in perp……

  • “IF there are fnancial iregularites as one report had it, one presumes that an audit of the books would solve that instead of being a public matter.”

    Exactly, so why call in the unCatholic state? and, odd timing, no?
    sounds a lot more going on then on surface……pray, pray…….

  • Bishops letter was vague, did not spell anything out…….so, to Rome to trial it should go….or UCCB (heaven help the priest there, in that “good ‘ol boys” club)

  • “too many dismiss the Novus Ordo as intrinsically irreverent”

    well, when one sees who the players are behind said movements for the NO, why it was instituted and how close it parallels the Anglican,etc,etc…..who would not not want to be a part of it… spiritual and pray life has improved since not attending the NO (except, for occ when I go for confessio and stay for NO or, when travelling.Try not to make much of a habit of NO-if I wanted to worship like a Protestant Luthern or Anglican, would be one!)

    2 Churches running on same tracks, one will not get off and leave, like a fungus, it stays and a parasite, it sucks the marrow out…….Luther, at least, left……

  • “Dearest Father,
    Having lived in a religious community during the 1970?s, being forced to attend a “Mass” using pizza and beer, being judged as “dangerous” for practicing private devotions, and that’s only the beginning, I praise God for your priestly service so full of zeal for souls. I promise my prayers as you endure these present trials and remind you that the devil’s anger against a faithful priest is greatly aroused. This time, the scandal is not because of any immorality but the scandal of a Shepherd who appears to have fallen prey to the devil’s intention to destro the Church from within. A passing thought, may the green eyed monster of jealousy be at work here? Stay vigilant before the Most Blessed Sacrament!”

    Well said, many did not live through this time as you and I, or have rose colored blinders on….Satan happy, Christ suffering….

  • The wording used by Pius V in Latin did not imply the tridentine Mass would be forever, it was from this point on. He had reformed and united the various texts and rites in his time, which meant he corrected by unifying- not theologically but liturgically his predecessors’ work. Paul V1 had the exact same authority to allow vernacular translations of the official Latin texts and kept the authority to have his Vatican offices approve them. BXV1 following JP11’s initiative followed through with the same process for re-translating the Latin into English. Some try to say falsely and to me stupidly that Apb Bugnini, a Fremason and seven protestant clergy translated the Mass texts. The whole process was as noted, each episcopal conference or at least language group had input. Ther eference to Lutheranism and Aanglicanism is so humourous- their services were translations of the medieval, Reformation Catholic texts and they have always worked with our more recent texts and imitate them. Most mainline Churches in the USA are following our three-year cycle – and their liturgical scholars are seriously dedicated to healing the rift between us. The more Catholic than the Pope Catholics who are heretical sedevacante -ists and loyal Catholics who do not like the revised translations are using wrong arguments to justify fussing at it all. I remenber serving Mass at a very solemn High Mass for Christmas in the 1950’s in a Dominican church and the priest consectrated the bread and wine while the choir was going all-out with a magnificent Sanctus. That shocked me as a teenager, and as a younger Mass server I used see some priests fly through the Latin of the readings and the Canon, there was only one, the Roman with maximum speed and no sense of reverence. I am simply stating that there is no guarantee that a priest or musicians in the latest NO translations can be less reverent than a legitimate Latin Mass celebration. A dissenting SSPX Mass celebration is unworthy of attendance.

Bp. Ochoa’s Legal Action Against Fr. Michael Rodriguez (UPDATED)

Thursday, January 12, AD 2012

UPDATE IV:  Fr. Michael Rodriguez Releases a Second Press Release

UPDATE III:  Excellent synopsis at the El Paso Times

UPDATE IIBishops Ochoa Press Release 2012 01 11 – PDF

UPDATE I:  Court Documents: Bp. Ochoa Lawsuit Filed Against Fr. Rodriguez – PDF

Bishop Armando Ochoa of the Diocese of El Paso has raised serious accusations against Fr. Michael Rodriguez, the brave priest who stood up for the sanctity of marriage at the El Paso city council, by filing a legal action against Fr. Rodriguez due to alleged financial misconduct.

Fr. Michael Rodriguez has released the following statement:

It is unfortunate that Bishop Armando Ochoa, Administrator of the Diocese of El Paso and no longer our bishop, has decided to pursue legal action against me.  Such legal action is unjust.

Over the course of 9 1/2 years as the parish priest of San Juan Bautista Catholic Church, I poured my heart and soul into caring for this parish, both in terms of temporal goods, and especially spiritual goods.  I’m confident that hundreds of my former parishioners will eagerly testify to this.

In his January 11, 2012, press release, Bishop Ochoa stated, “Fr. Rodríguez’s handling and use of donated funds has compromised the financial integrity of San Juan Bautista.”  This is not true.  Bishop Ochoa’s statement also refers to “Fr. Rodríguez’s mishandling of funds.”  Again, this is not true.  I have always honored, respected, and made good use of the financial patrimony of San Juan Bautista.  I stake my entire reputation on this claim.

On September 20, 2011, I opened my heart to my bishop, like a son to a father, and was completely honest and forthcoming with him as to the financial affairs of San Juan Bautista.  I told him everything.  He chose not to believe me.  For the past four months, my canon lawyer has made repeated efforts to resolve this matter with Most Rev. Armando Ochoa, and he has refused.

I have a great love for my former parish of San Juan Bautista, and my former parishioners.  I am ready to fight for and defend them, whatever the cost.  I am also ready to protect my own good name and reputation.  I have never misappropriated or misused parish funds.

Finally, I am convinced that the real reason for my former bishop’s actions against me is due to my defense of the Catholic Church’s teaching with regard to homosexuality as well as my adherence to the Roman Liturgy of 1962.  If necessary, I will present prodigious evidence to support this contention.

I will continue to do my best to be a good and holy priest, no matter the cost.  I will continue to proclaim and teach the truths of the Roman Catholic Church, especially in the area of sexual morality, no matter the cost.  I will continue to adhere to the Ancient Rite of the Roman Catholic Church, no matter the cost.  Please keep me in your prayers during this difficult trial.  Please entrust me and my priesthood to the loving protection of Sancta Dei Genetrix, the Most Holy Mother of God.

Thank you and may the good Lord bless you as this joyous Christmas season continues.

End of statement.

This news is just coming in as I type this.  The El Paso Diocesan website has crashed where the bishops press release originates from.  When I am rested early tomorrow morning, I will transcribe the PDF file that I have of this press release in full.

Let us pray for all involved.

Continue reading...

37 Responses to Bp. Ochoa’s Legal Action Against Fr. Michael Rodriguez (UPDATED)

  • Pingback: . . .Bishop Ochoa Sues Fr. Michael Rodriguez. . . |
  • Sadly, I am unsurprised. In the end, the bishop will have to answe to God for doing what he is doing. Pray for our bishops and priests.

    I am absolutely flabbergasted and outraged. 🙁 The liberals in the Church have decided to do dirty fighting.

  • Why, on earth, would a christian, let alone a bishop(!), sue a brother in Christ? I am inclined, though not knowing all the ins and outs of the situation, to think that because the bishop has moved the issue into the public legal arena and is making such irresponsible attacks on a priest, who by the way has publicly suffered for defending the Church’s teaching while the Bishop fell short on defending doctrine, that the bishop has an axe to grind.

    We’ll see.

  • Pingback: Fr Michael Rodriguez Being Sued by Bishop Armando Ochoa « Fr Stephen Smuts Blog
  • Meanwhile, at the Archdiocese of Washington, DC blog, Msgr. Pope hides us all for difficulties we may be having in trusting our bishops. What strange times we’re living in. Oremus pro invicem.

  • That should say “Msgr. Pope chides . . . “

  • Is this the bishop who had two ordinations in ten years in his diocese?

  • Dunno. The report in the El Paso papers listed complaints that were disconcertingly specific. Most were penny ante and concerned with proper procedure and good accountng practice but some were serious complaints about missing funds ($31,000 worth) and making his mother a potential beneficiary of $200,000 in parish funds. I would reserve judgment for the time being.

  • “…some were serious complaints about missing funds ($31,000 worth) and making his mother a potential beneficiary of $200,000 in parish funds. I would reserve judgment for the time being.”

    Mehercule! So it’s possible that the Bishop isn’t all wrong! Scandal and corruption grow ever deeper. 🙁

  • When accused of misdeeds, the saints humbly submitted to the authorities.

  • Some time ago when I was reading the names of the pedophile priests Archbishop Mahony of L.A. was handling in the lawsuits against the pedophile priests, I encountered with the name of a Xavier Ochoa, a pedophile priest of the the Los Angeles Diocese. I kept on tracking the website where this name appeared and found that Xavier Ochoa was sent to Mexico and later on disappeared. The same website also disappeared.

    Soon after Fr. Xavier Ochoa was totally vanished from all websites, we have a bishop Armando Xavier Ochoa consecrated by Archbishop Mahony and sent to El Paso to become the Bishop of the El Paso Diocese. I have always felt that our Bishop has some sort of dubious origin. I have always wondered why he was more affiliated to the Archbishop of L.A. instead of the Archbishop of San Antonio.

    This is a point to ponder.

  • Pinky,

    Excellent point and I agree with your point.

    Not buts, just wanted say also that what Bishop Ochoa is doing doesn’t look right.

    Matthew 5:25 Make friends quickly with your accuser, while you are going with him to court, lest your accuser hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the guard, and you be put in prison; (emphasis mine)

    Matthew 18:15-17 [step 1] If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. [step 2]If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. [step 3]But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. [step 4]If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; [step 5]and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. (steps and emphasis mine)

    It looks as if, just based on the evidence in this post, that Bishop Ochoa skipped [step 3] and went straight to [step 5].

  • I suggest a comparison:

    What house does the bishop live in?
    What house does Fr. Rodriguez live in?
    What car does the bishop drive?
    What car does Fr. Rodriguez dirve?
    What kind of kitchen does the bishop eat from?
    What kind of kitchen does Fr. Rodriguez eat from?
    What kind of bed does the bishop sleep in?
    What kind of bed does Fr. Michael sleep in?
    What is the total personal wealth of the bishop? (not the diocses)
    What is the total personal wealth of Fr. Rodriguez? (not the parish)

    On a spiritual level —
    Does the bishop guide souls to heaven or hell?
    Does Fr. Michael guide souls to heaven or hell?

    How many hours does the bishop spend in the confessional?
    How many hours does Fr. Rodriguez spend in the confessional?
    How many Masses does the bishop celebrate a week?
    How many Masses does Fr. Rodriguez offer a week?
    How many Eucharistic prayer vigils does the bishop lead?
    How many Eucharistic prayer vigils does Fr. Rodriguez lead?

    Who would you trust with the eternal welfare of your soul?

  • I’m unclear as to why Bishop Ochoa felt compelled to file a civil (not criminal complaint) litigation action. That is publicly available.

    Were all other avenues exhausted? Canon Law? Was Father Rodriguez given the opportunity to make restitition and do penance? Did Father refuse?

    Here’s what pops into my sick mind.

    Bishop Ochoa has a beef with Father and is damaging Father Rodriguez’s otherwise good name by the revealing these non-public faults, not crimes or he would have gone to the DA, of which he believes Father is guilty. If Ochoa believes Father is innocent such as this is called “calumny.”

    I apologize to Msgr. Pope. Maybe it would have been better had I been not taught how to think.

  • Perhaps what is truly revealed is a complete distrust of the faithful in the willingness of their bishop to sanctify, teach, and govern them in a truly Catholic way.

    If they had confidence their bishop would let them build a church to truly glorify God
    If they had confidence their bishop would not tax them to fund activities contrary to Catholic doctrine

    there would never have been a need to keep the money from the bishop.

    It would have been the bishop working hard to improve churches in a way that would truly bring honor, glory and proper worship of God.

    I believe the suit filed is really a greater indictment against himself than the holy priest.

  • The more I read about this, the more I think we have two corrupt clerics, one a liberal Democrat looking for any opportunity to slam conservativism and orthodoxy, and the other a money launderer hiding behind the cloak of conservativism and orthodoxy.

    I could be wrong, but……………..


  • This is really the end, the nadir, of episcopal malice. Bishop Ochoa should be as thoroughly disgusted with himself as we are of him.

    This vindictive move by him does, however, throw some light on things, one of which would be his extreme sympathy with the buggery enthusiasts. Indeed it may indicate that he is more than just sympathetic to them.

    Needless to say, I won’t be holding my breath for Rome to do anything about this travesty.

  • This whole thing could be easily be resolved by Fr. Mike if he would just explain his side of the accusation of money mishandling. Most of us are not qualified accountants but this is not rocket science or corporate stock manuevering. If Fr. Mike can explain the missing $31,000 funds or show he did not receive the missing funds, and if he can show that he did not make his mother a potential beneficiary of $200,000 of parish funds then that should end the argument. It is reasonable to ask these questions since he was in charge ? If he cannot properly answer these “ifs” then there may be something to chew on here. Why don’t we ask Fr. Mike to post his comments and any proof or at least say that he is open to an accounting review to prove his point. Until then we might consider giving him the benefit of the doubt and pray that this ends well for him and the Church that has so many black eyes already. We don’t need this (amen ?).

  • I’m kind of an accountant.

    Give me three or five years of bank statements and canceled checks, paid bills/receipts, three hours, and a fifth of Dewars. I’ll tell you exactly what happened.

  • I can guarantee you that you’re not going to get enough information to fairly judge a fraud case on its first day in the news, even assuming that the newspaper assigned their best reporter / forensic accountant to the story.

  • T Shaw – That last comment wasn’t a reply to you. I didn’t refresh before posting.

  • There seem to be a lot of Catholic faithful demanding money from the bishop
    Is the bishop the culprit here attempting to re-direct attention by accusing another of his own misdeeds?

  • and the other a money launderer hiding behind the cloak of conservativism and orthodoxy.

    I think the precise charges would be some combination of misapplication of property, fraud, and embezzlement, not money laundering. If he is hiding behind a cloak, it is now. I do not think we have any reason to believe his public advocacy was a pose. He has been the pastor there since 2002. If I understand the complaint correctly, the chancery is contending the misapplication of funds amongst parish accounts began in 2009 and the commingling of parish and personal funds began in June of 2010.

    It looks as if, just based on the evidence in this post, that Bishop Ochoa skipped [step 3] and went straight to [step 5].

    In fairness to Bp. Ochoa, it ought be noted that the Bishop of Kansas City is now under indictment for conducting an internal investigation and then informing authorities, instead of immediately informing authorities. (Yes, I realize the issues are different and that this is a civil suit).

  • Regarding the 31K and 200K with Fr. R’s mom as beneficiary: It wouldn’t be the first time a pastor and Parish Finance Board have had a trusted third party hold parish funds to keep them from being confiscated by an angry bishop in retaliation toward a troublesome priest or parish. I’m not saying it’s right, of course. I’m just sayin’.

  • Pingback: Fr. Michael Rodriguez Responds to Bishop Ochoa | The American Catholic
  • This is so unfortunate, but to be expected from the Vatican II hierarchy. Perhaps good Fr. Rodriquez will end up thinking along the same lines I have been recently, that the Vatican II “Ecumenical Catholic Church” may longer be the Roman Catholic Church, but is a schismatic entity.

  • Frank,

    If the V-II Church isn’t the RCC, then what is? And what exactly is incorrect in the V-II documents themselves? Please be precise. Yes, I agree that the liberalism that’s crept into the Church like a cancer post V-II is satanic, but does that mean that V-II was wrong, or that liberalism is wrong?

  • Welcome to the world of Catholics who are attached to the traditional Mass. This is pretty much the attitude of most Bishops toward Priests who celebrate the Tridentine Rite. That’s one reason why the FSSP has not made much progress, in spite of the fact that they have more seminarians than most large Archdioceses: the average Bishop would rather see a parish close, for lack of a priest, than to hand it over to the FSSP or any other traditionalist group. Bishop Ochoa reminds me Bishop Nourrichard of Evreux, France.

  • Ivan K,

    I don’t mean to be a stick in the mud, but as I pointed out elsewhere, the allegation of 31 thousand dollars in missing funds and the allegation of why Fr. Rodriguez made his mother a beneficiary of parish funds both still need to be explained. Fr. Rodriguez’s most recent statement reprinted here at the American Catholic blog site ( does nothing to answer the questions that the law suit brings forth. Rather, it is a list Fr. Roriguez made of 30 spiritual works and 16 temporal works which he asserts that he did. Personally, I found the list to be just a bit more than self-serving. I am NOT, however, saying that Fr. Rodriguez did not do what he asserts he did. Rather, what I am saying is that when Jesus went before Pontius Pilate, he didn’t deliver a list of all the fine spiritual and temporal works that he had done. Perhaps, however, dealing with Federal nuclear regulators in my day job for 30+ years has made me too cynical and jaded, a character defect to be presented in the Confessional (again!).

  • Actually, I believe the parishioners more than the Bishop here, especially since they are the ones who donated this money. The parish was kept in a private account rather than a parish account precisely because they believed that the money would end up in the Bishop’s hands’ and that they wouldn’t be able to use it for parish repairs. The suggestion that the priest was some sort of high roller stealing from the parish is absurd, given everything that has come out about him. The priest listed the works that he had done primarily in order to explain how the money was spent.

  • Look at paragraphs 16 and 17 of Bp. Ochoa’s legal action. The issues are: raising money for building repair without the bishop’s permission and knowledge; and using raised money to ‘build an altar ‘to comply with the ancient norms of the Roman Rite.’

    The Bishop has not proved that any money was used for anything other than parish purposes. His charge is that the parish hid money from him, and used it on projects that he would have blocked. The issue for the Bishop is that this parish somehow got around him in implementing Summorum Pontificum. In doing so, they may very well not have followed all diocesan rules; but that, to me, is understandable given that the Bishop had intended to use those rules in order to block the ‘traditionalisation’ of the altar and sanctuary.

  • I wasn’t able to find any reference to 31,000 unaccounted for. The amount cited in the legal action is $25,000. And, again, there is no claim that it was used for the priest’s private benefit. There is even a suggestion that some of that was used for a family in need. Some, apparently was given to the priest’s brother (5,000, I believe), for ‘unspecified word, even though the brother wasn’t officially employed by the parish. I don’t know–we’ll see. To me it sounds like a Bishop using anything he can in order to harm this priest, and this parish. Small parish finances are by definition messy, and require a good deal of trust. However, when there is any real corruption going on, it’s usually pretty obvious, especially in a parish with such modest resources. There is no obvious malfeasance here.

  • The fact that Fr. Rodriguez named his mother as beneficiary of privately donated funds only means he trusted her to do the right thing in the event he was unable. One is required to do this when you open an account. If this was money that was taken from the Diocese that would be different. It was for the restoration of the sanctuary and the Bishop was trying to obstruct Fathers efforts to improve the Church. Father Rodriguez was not supposed to succeed at San Juan Bautista. He was sent there to disappear. If you go to the website you will see how many classes his brother has taught. $5000.00 is chump change when you compare it to the volume of valuable material on that website; which his brother operated and maintained. You can make innocent things look sinister and I think that is what is happening here. What a shame.

  • Thank you for the clarification, Robert. However, Fr. Rodriguez still disobeyed the established financial rules, however honorable his motives. The ends don’t justice the means.

    That said, I would love to have been in his parish. Indeed, he is a man of God, but like all men of God, he has failings. And yes, Bishop Ochoa’s embrace of liberalism and his focused pursuit of trying to ruin Fr. Rodriguez are wrong on so many levels.

  • Good to see a priest not playing partisan politics, but calling attention to elected officials behavior…..seems in line with ppoints 1 and 2 of the 6 point plan of Fr. Denis Fahey….not sure why this became public in secular media…..

  • “That’s one reason why the FSSP has not made much progress, in spite of the fact that they have more seminarians than most large Archdioceses”

    that and they have to rely on the current hierarchy alone……priests of the SSPX at least have 4 Bishops, with the full Holy Orders, to defend them against the wolves…..

14 Responses to Constitution, Shmonstitution

  • There are still otherwise very smart and knowledgeable people who continue to support the little antichrist. Some I know in my own field of nuclear energy. Yes, most in my particular field despise and loathe the obamination of desolation. But many (even most) of those who are bloggers insist on continuing to drink from the fountain of purple koolaide and for the life of me I cannot fathom why what would otherwise be intrinsically obvious to the caual observer (i.e., how the teflon-coated criminal is ruining the economy and the military) is rejected wholesale as some sort of right-wing paranoid propaganda. These are people who know 100 times what I know about nuclear engineering and physics (and I have been in the field 30+ years), but they are still in love with that godless man of sin and depravity even though his appointee to the chairmanship of the US NRC is about as ruinous towards the peaceful use of the atom as one can be. Oh, they complain without end about Chairman Jackzo’s anti-nuclear policies, but they worship the ground walked on by the man who appointed Jackzo to the Chairmanship. I just don’t “get” it. The hold Obama has on these people is demonic! What hope is there for our nation when otherwise rational and logical people are so beguiled by the wickedness and perversion that plagues our society?

  • This is not GOP “Obama Derangement Syndrome”, as the Obama-propaganda machine would have you believe.

    This is about stopping the corrupt regime.

    Dodd-Frank (both should be in prison) Act set up an unaccountable, hugely funded monster to fundamentally change the banking world.

    Under the Act the commissar of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau is appointed (now without Senate advice/consent) who will set his own budget in the amount of 10% of “the combined earnings of the Federal Reserve System” in fiscal 2011. The Fed must transfer the funds without question, which is estimated at $400 million. Boss Cordray’s budget is not set by Congressional appropriation and cannot be reduced by anyone.

    The Fed can’t intervene in the Bureau’s functioning, “appoint, direct or remove any officer or employee” or “merge or consolidate the bureau . . . with any division or office of the Board of Governors or the Federal Reserve Banks.”

    And, what does the regime do with all the money? If the recent Countrywide discrimination settlement is any indication . . . give it to left-wing provocateurs.

    The MSM Obama propaganda machine will not report that the regime’s $335 million crisis discrimination crisis settlement with Countrywide Financial Corporation will not go to the ‘victims’ but to leftist groups not connected to the fabricated crisis.

  • T. Shaw & Paul Primavera,

    How about a gravatar for your comments?

    Go here:

  • I do not know how to create a “globally recognized avatar or graphical depiction.” But from the link you provided, perhaps I can find out. Question: why would an avatar or icon depiction be necessary? Is it for ease of recognizing authors of comments, or is there another reason? Curious.

  • It’s easy to set up.

    As for your question, it makes The American Catholic look soooo much cooler if everyone had gravatars!

    Yeah, it’s a marketing answer, but it’s our commenters that really make our blog, why not spiffy it up with a pic (gravatar).

  • Hmmmm….I went to the web site and followed the directions. I wonder if it worked or if I am the victim of my own operator error.

  • OK, tell me how to link my gravatar to entries here at TAC. Thanks.

  • There is a video guide if you need direction.

    It can take anywhere from a few seconds to a day (max) for the image to begin appearing. So let’s see what happens by this time tomorrow.

    (that or you could ask a family member or friend more knowledgeable for assistance).

  • It works!

    Good job Paul!

    Now if T. Shaw would do something about his gravatar. . .

  • Sgt. Rock might be deemed a terrorist, though….

  • Thanks, Tito and Donald.

    I had translated Cicero’s orations against Cataline when I was in high school during the Watergate scandal – political corruption hasn’t changed all that much in 2000 years. I love Cicero. Some people say he was bombastic and hypersensitive and sometimes caved in when confronted. Well, I guess I have those defects of character at times. But he did want the restoration of the Republic, and when he incurred Anthony’s wrath, the politicians did what all politicians do everywhere if they can get away with it. Fulvia, Anthony’s wife, is said to have taken his decapitated head and repeatedly puncture his dead tongue with some sort of hair pin because his oratory had so inflamed her. In this day and age of a President thumbing his nose at the Constitution, perhaps that is a fate which awaits us all who dare speak out against dictators.

    Again, I still love Cicero. Nothing has changed for me in 30+ years except for the deterioration of my abilities in Latin and Greek. 🙁

  • Tibi multas gratias, mi amice!

January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Tuesday, January 3, AD 2012

UPDATE 1-8-2012:  We have eliminated Ron Paul due to spamming issues.  If you feel the need to cast a vote for Ron Paul, please do s0 by leaving a comment.

John Bolton, Rudy Giuliani, Buddy Roemer, and Paul Ryan never announced their candidacy for the GOP nomination as some had speculated, so they have been removed from the TAC Poll.  In addition, Gary Johnson has removed himself from consideration the moment he accepted the Libertarian Party Nomination.  Herman Cain has suspended his campaign which is nothing more than preventing the inevitable.

Here’s our latest poll so please vote in anticipation of the Iowa Caucuses (voting ends 7pm this Friday):


Continue reading...

65 Responses to January TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Roundup |
  • I am surprised to see that Santorum is doing so well on this poll. Is it because he’s Catholic? I hope not, because the Catholic church teaches, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” I do not see this practiced by Santorum in his legislative ethics, nor in his strident efforts to promote war with Iran, and now countries in South America (see the Iowa debate).

    The candidate who truly espouses peace is Dr. Ron Paul, and he has my support in the hopes that his administration would be one of peace & goodwill.

  • There is a difference between espousing peace Cynthia and being a naive fool about foreign powers that mean harm to us. Ron Paul crossed that line long ago. His viewpoint of course is that the rest of the world can go to Hell while America huddles down in Fortess America. Somehow I do not think that foreign policy lives up to the admonition of Christ that you cited.

    In regard to our Civil War Ron Paul believes it was completely unneccessary. Go to the link below explaining why he was wrong:

  • Two Paulbots have been banned for their charming attempt to recycle a slur against Santorum hurled by homosexual activists. All such additional attempts will go into the trash where they belong and the attempted commenter will be banned from this site.

  • It’s been pretty ugly for Santorum as the Militant Gay Lobby has been harrassing Santorum with their KKK tactics all throughout his Iowa campaign. It’s no coincidence that Paulbots are doing the same to Santorum considering that Ron Paul wrote racist newsletters up until the 1990s.

  • Oh look, the Paulbots are stacking our poll:

    “Little poll that sanatorium is winning…

    Submitted by Howimademy on Wed, 01/04/2012 – 19:54.

    Thought it’d be fun to just knock him out of first…silly, maybe…fun, yes. 🙂…”

    Of course this has ever been the tactic of Ron Paul cultists. Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

  • Too bad for them that they can’t win elections in real life.

    Or friends or jobs or a life . . .

  • What bothers me (off topic just a bit), is that Sarah Palin are warning Republicans to not alienate these 9/11 Truthers, ie, Paulbots.

    Of course, this came a day after she said that “its not (Michele) Bachman time”. Considering that she has almost zero executive experience, I found this truly rich.

  • Ron Paul is no doubt the most Biblical candidate for 2012, if you are a true believer you would support Dr. Ron Paul. Here is a short series explaining as to why he is:

    I urge everyone to watch this series so you can understand as to why he is the most Biblical candidate and why believers should support him and no other candidate. If you don’t you are just lying to yourselves and/or others.

  • Most Biblical? Indeed! Here is exclusive video of Ron Paul leading the Paulbots out of Iowa and across the Mississippi:

  • Are you proud to mock your religion?

  • I am a Catholic John. I mock the Ron Paul Cult that you are obviously a card carrying member of. Read back your original comment to yourself. It would be too much if applied to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, let alone Ron Paul. It comes across as completely over the top and invites the type of mockery that I gave it.

  • We will see.

  • They are just like cochroaches aren’t they…the Paulinista’s…they seem to be everywhere…I gotta give them credit…they are organized, but then so were the borg.

  • It was bound to happen in one of these polls that the Paulbots would manipulate poll. They know they can’t win, so instead of letting poll develop organically they spam it. Fortunately, that doesn’t work in politics. We can pretty much throw out the Ron Paul vote, meaning that Santorum has the Catholic vote behind him.

  • I am all in favor of ending the IRS.

    Thats one of the reasons I am voting for Ron Paul. (as if thats not enough by itself)

  • I would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic. Regarding Rick Santorum, I must ask, “What could be more ‘pro-life’ than peace?” What does “waterboarding” have to do with “family values”? I apologize for “Paulbots” who may have offended you. However, I am genuinely concerned that a President Santorum or a President Gingrich would start World War III in the Middle East by bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities for no good reason except political expediency.

  • I do not think Catholics can take Santorum seriously. Although he spouts pro life rhetoric at times, he places a higher value on politics. Why did he support Arlen Specter’s candidacy for Senate over Pat Toomey? Toomey was pro life while pro choice Specter was head of the judiciary committee and had fought Robert Bork.

  • Santorum was always a pro-life leader in Congress. He fought hard for every pro-life piece of legislation and always voted pro-life. In regard to the Specter endorsement in 2004, as the tight Presidential polls that year indicated, there was every prospect that 2004 was going to be a bad year for the Republicans. The Democrats had slightly more seats up than the Republicans, 19-15 in the Senate that year, but the playing ground was fairly even. On election night Kentucky, Florida and Alaska were fairly close, and South Dakota was won by a hair. Control of the Senate would have shifted if those elections had gone the other way, and they might well have.

    Santorum extracted a pledge from Specter that he would support every Supreme Court nominee sent up by Bush. This pledge was crucial if control of the Senate had shifted or if the Republicans had come back with a diminished majority .

    I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe. Bush lost Pennsylvania to Kerry, and I think it likely that Toomey might well have been defeated that year, considering that he only got 51% of the vote in 2010, the best election year for Republicans since Calvin Coolidge was in office.

  • “would say, there is no greater media cheerleader for Ron Paul right now than Judge Andrew Napolitano, who is Catholic.”

    He is also a paranoid conspiracy nut like Ron Paul. He is a 9-11 Truther among other charming conspiracy theories he partakes in.

  • Ron Paul does not ‘work well with others’ as the old grade school report card used to say. Whatever his viewpoints, if one hasn’t that power to sway other powerful and intelligent people to your side it is wasted. In all his years in Congress he has been a moody, strange loner. He’s like the kid who sniffed his fingers and his mother attach his mittens to his snow suit so he wouldn’t lose them. No one wants him on a team.

  • These folks make a habit of just spamming polls:

    Because nothing says your candidate is a massively popular guy on his way to winning a nomination than having to spend your entire day spamming meaningless internet polls.

    Well, at 8.6% unemployment, it’s understandable how they have the time to dither their day away. Doing arduous things like brushing up on that ole resume is just a bummer activity.

  • Completely counterproductive activity since everyone knows that the Paulbots do this, but they persist in it anyway merely to be annoying. Juvenile and delusional which basically sums up the Ron Paul Cult.

  • “I think what Santorum did was reasonable at the time, assuming that one’s goal is to have Supreme Court justices on the Court that will overturn Roe.”

    This is where I would take issue with you.
    Let us examine the nominees of Bush:
    Roberts: pro life, but I doubt he would overturn Roe v Wade due to his belief in Stare Decisis.
    Harriet Myers: ???
    Alito: Pro Life, but it is not clear he would overturn Roe V Wade.
    Digging deeper, it was Arlen Specter who reportedly dissuaded Bush from nominating Alberto Gonzalez.
    So, by making the political bargain Santorum did, he passed on opportunity to remove a staunch pro choicer in exchange for gaining no headway in overturning Roe V Wade. I am not sure I believe Toomey was a sure loser against Spectre, as Spectre generally won by thin margins, though you make a good point. I see Santorum as playing party politics rather than sticking to his stated principles. I really do not trust him. I am from Pennsylvania and have followed his political career going back to before he was elected to the US House when he upset Doug Walgren.

  • Considering that Alberto Gonzalez is a pro-abort I think it was a very good thing that Specter talked Bush out of nominating him, although I hadn’t heard that. In regard to Roberts and Alito, judging from their votes in a partial birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Carhart, I have little doubt that they would vote to overturn Roe if the opportunity presents itself.

  • I am a Ron Paul supporter. I’m not a Paulbot, not even sure what that means. I’m also a pro life follower of Jesus Christ. I’m not a pothead and I don’t spam polls. I do however go to any poll I can find and cast my vote for Ron. There are 3 people of voting age in my household and many times we can’t all cast our votes for Ron because most polls only allow one vote per IP address.

    I would like to personally apologize for the knuckleheads who tried to post the Santorum stuff on here. Something to consider though. We have a lot of young people in our camp, young people don’t really care to much for what us older folks would call propriety. I guarantee you, if you were to come over to Ron Paul forums or the DailyPaul and meet some of the people there that we are mostly, such as yourselves, kind and decent folk.

    Most of us only want to live in peace with our neighbors and the world. We love our country and see it slipping away from us. We are losing our God given rights buy the day, bankrupting ourselves with endless wars and entitlements, etc, etc. We love America, we love our neighbors, and we want to be free.

    You can hate us if you want to, not a very Christian thing to do but what the heck, live and let live. We are people just like you but with a different perspective, one that we did not get from CNN or FOX news. Many people don’t realize this but there is not one main stream media news network that isn’t owned by a larger enterprise that makes most of their money from the military industrial complex. Don’t take my word for it, look it up.

    As I said, I am staunchly pro life as many of my fellow Ron Paul supporters are, but for us, being pro life extends beyond the womb. There are 75 million human beings living in Iran, approximately 50 million women and children. I personally am not willing that even a single one of them be sacrifice so that I might sleep a little better at night. Besides, God has not given me a Spirit of fear, it’s in the Bible, you can look that up too.

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words. The media misrepresents Ron Paul and often flat out lies about him or puts words in his mouth. For example, Bill O’Reilly just said last night that Ron Paul said he didn’t want to be President, a bald faced lie. These are the kind of things that we are fighting against and some of us take it a little too far at times.

    God bless you all, and have a great day.

  • I agree, Don. I certainly think that Roberts and Alito would *like* to overturn Roe. As principled jurists (unlike Roe’s authors), they do have to take stare decisis principles into account, which does make the outcome harder to predict. That said, beyond reversing Roe outright, pro-life forces certainly favor judges who are sympathetic to their strategy of chipping away at Roe so as to limit its applicability as much as possible, and certainly Alito and Roberts fall within that description.

    I think the criticisms directed toward Myers were over the top and unfair. In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

  • In any case I have no reason to believe that her jurisprudence vis-a-vis Roe would differ from that of Roberts or Alito.

    The objection to her nomination went beyond how she’d decide cases to the potential quality of her jurisprudence. But that’s a debate for another time.

  • Ditto what Tito said re: “KKK tactics”

    Rick Santorum 2012!

  • Archie, I do want to commend you on your thoughtful comment. I do wish that more Ron Paul supporters were as reaonable and polite as you – frankly it would help his own cause if he didn’t have his supporters making such disgusting attack ads as this one against Huntsman.

    Please get the facts about our candidate before you dismiss him entirely, there are hundreds of videos all over the internet of Ron Paul in his own words.

    Archie, the reason most of the people here think he is so far out there is precisely because of what we’ve seen Paul say in his own words. Frankly people like O’Reilly are full of hot air anyway, and I don’t need to listen to him in order to come to my own conclusions.

  • Paul, thank you for your kind words. I saw the video you posted, silly really. I’m not sure what they were trying to prove. Huntsman is a decent enough guy and a very successful businessman, he obviously is not my first choice but I wouldn’t rule him out were he to win the nomination. My son speaks Chinese as well, so I’m really not sure how that’s a bad thing. What can I say, it’s politics, sometimes it’s ugly, sometimes just plain ridiculous.

    In fairness, Huntsman ran a very biased and misleading attack piece on Ron Paul as well, taking his words out of context and basically saying he was crazy. If you don’t agree with Ron that’s fine, but his views are particularly well thought out, not crazy. Concerning foreign policy, he has been supported by some of the better minds on the subject. The CIA has written and warned about “blowback” and the 9/11 commission report agreed with much of what he has been saying for years.

    Those of us in the Paul camp who have lived a little longer are a bit easier to deal with and welcome rigorous intellectual debate on the issues. If there is something that you have heard Ron say that troubles you or gives you pause, I am very interested to know what those statements may have been. BTW, I’m very pleased to hear that you are not one of the mindless drones who takes every word from FOX as if it came down from Mt. Sinai.

    Love and Peace in Jesus Christ

  • Father of five, Knights of Columbus Grand Knight here. Ron Paul is the only option for me when I size up the candidates against my faith. We don’t want the world to go to hell in a hand basket. Evil countries, evil men, and evil ideas around the world need to be stopped. It’s just the the US Federal Government should not be in charge of this. It’s not their role. The US Federal Government isn’t the only way to combat evil. We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.

  • “We can combat it here in our north western hemisphere and the other countries of the world can pick up their own slack.”

    The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.

  • Donald, I understand your point. I’m not saying Americans shouldn’t do anything about these horrible atrocities around the world. I’m just saying that tax should not be collected from all American’s to fund a military operation across the world.

    What I believe should happen is what happened before we became the police of the world. Allow American’s to join foreign armies in times of need so that if an American is willing they can make a difference. If 51% of able-bodied American’s joined a foreign force to combat evil and/or contributed funds to these causes I think we would see evil be defeated in many cases.

    If you think that 51% of able-bodied American’s would not serve or fund other countries across the world on their own… then you and I have something in common. If 51% of American’s would not give money or risk their lives for other counties, then why the hell is our Federal Government doing this in the first place? Is it because “it’s the right thing to do”, or because it’s “just and righteous”? That’s what they told us about Iraq and i have to say I don’t believe them anymore.

    This is why I have changed my mind. I will (or want to) contribute my time and money to causes I feel are “just” and “righteous”. I don’t want the government taking my money and giving it to who they feel, or just say, rightfully deserves it.

  • “The Ukranian man made famine under Stalin, the Katyn Massacre, the Rape of Nanking, the Cultural Revolution, and the list could be endless, shows how well that tends to work out in practice.”

    What did the US do about any of that?

    We did not bomb or invade them.

    Should we have bombed Ukraine, China, etc. to stop killing innocents?

  • We should do what we can T. Shaw to stop innocents from being massacred. Sometimes we effectively lack the power to do anything about it, but we should never rest our foreign policy on the presumption that murder of innocents abroad is none of our business. In regard to China, if we had effectively supported the Nationalists, corrupt though they were, in their war against Mao in 1945-49, how many tens of millions of lives might have been saved? After the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1919, the US and its allies had an opportunity to support the Whites against the Reds. Instead the US and its allies tired of the conflict, pulled out of Russia and the Soviet Union was established, with the consequences to the world that we are all familiar with. When we refuse to fight evils at the outset, the evils often do not disappear, but grow in strength and end up killing hordes of innocents.

    This section from Proverbs 24 has always hit home to me in this area:

    10 If you falter in a time of trouble,
    how small is your strength!
    11 Rescue those being led away to death;
    hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
    12 If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”
    does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
    Does not he who guards your life know it?
    Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

  • It was Catholics who put the worst president we have known in our lifetime, even over Jimmy Carter, into office. How can we do this again by voting for someone who cannot win with his crazy conspiracy theories and his isolationist thinking?

    Are we doomed to repeat history because we ignore it? Does anyone here think that the US has done anything to make clearly religious extremists, BIGOTS, whose religion like it or not, gives them permission to kill the infidel…that be us…just for existing into assassins hell bent oh no, paradise bent to kill us all. The entire Western Civilization.

    I have never heard Judge Napolitano espouse the conspiracy theory that the Truthers espouse but regardless, they are crazy. Ron Paul is pro life, thank God, but he is not prolife if he thinks he can negotiate us to peace with these people. They are more prolific than us, because most Catholics do not practice a prolife mentality and they are not unwilling to die. All I can see is that we are not willing to do what our fathers did, we are willing to die for our freedom and that of our brothers and sisters.

    How said for people like my father and I am sure many of yours or your grandfathers and mothers who laid down their life. Or was Hitler more of an enemy than a Islamist extremists who insinuate themselves into our culture, take advantage of our education, and good heartedness until ready to blow themselves up for what? 70 Virgins….doesn’t that offend anyone?

    When I stand before Jesus, I will have to answer for voting for someone who may use techniques of war, IN war, that I don’t necessarily care for, however, I feel better being able to say that I voted for a lesser evil in order to end the reign of a decidely anti life, scoundrel who has lied to us about everything and is not only trying to control our birth and death but how, when and where we can practice our faith, in fact I would venture to say, Obama would like to replace our Christian faith with a secularist faith based upon the ideology of green. To be a steward of this gift of earth is our task but climate change and all that has attached itself to it is not about science it is about ideology and a way to replace Christ, expecially in the minds of kids, with mother earth.

    We need a pit bull to go against the obama machine, not someone who thinks, much like Carter did (and look what that got us) that we can negotiate or worse just stick our heads in the sand and pretend there is no other world out there…no enemy by us.

    I am so saddened that we may be the reason for another 4 years of hopey changey until the only change will be our Church muzzled and more of us blown up.

  • Hello Chris, May I offer a brief rebuttal from the Ron Paul side? Sir, you are completely mistaken or misguided when you refer to Ron Paul’s foreign policy as isolationist. I know the media says it all the time but it simply is not Dr. Paul’s view. Ron Paul has stated repeatedly that were a significant threat present itself he would deal with it swiftly, vigorously, and completely, and then he would come home. That to me, does not sound like a man who is weak on defense, but rather a man who is wise on war.

    Ron Paul’s foreign policy is non-interventionist. Ron Paul wants free trade and friendship with all nations. When Ahmadinejad made serious overtures at the U.N. recently, that he was ready to negotiate, Obama wanted none of it. War has been the game plan from day one.

    Here’s a clip from General Wesley Clark stating as much in no uncertain terms.

    I could go into greater detail of course but if this clip doesn’t at least get you to look into what I’m saying a little deeper, any additional words on the topic would be meaningless.

    In regard to the evil horde of Muslim extremists eager to destroy us and our way of life. Sir, as someone who has shared tea and tobacco with Muslim men, who has done business with Persians (Iranians), Saudis, Yemenis, Lebanese etc. I have to tell you, I just don’t see it. My son who works in Naval Intelligence (no jokes please) doesn’t see it either and he is far more in the know than I am. I know these people personally. Most Muslims, Middle Easterners, Africans, what have you, they simply want to be left alone.

    Are there Muslim extremists? Absolutely. But there are Christian extremist, Hindu Extremists, every religion has it’s extremists. Here is something that so many people rarely ever think about. Of all the people in America who claim to be Christian, how many of them would you call fundamentalists, and out of the fundamentalists, how many would you label as extreme, and out of the extremists, how many are blowing up abortion clinics on a regular basis? I hope you are beginning to see my point. Islam is no different than Christianity, Muslims are no different than Christians or Mormons or any other group. Religious practice in the middle east is as cultural as religious practices everywhere else in the world. They are no more devoted to their faith and all that faith entails than the average “Christian”. Most Muslims don’t know the Koran any better than most “Christians” know their Bible’s.

    When we place sanctions on countries who have done us no harm, starving their children, devastating their economies and overall quality of life, when we threaten them with war and regime change, we create the very extremists that we fear.

    In your comment above you spoke of “our Christian faith”, I share that same faith. In my 20 plus years as a Christian, and a Christian who takes his faith perhaps a bit more seriously than some, though admittedly not as much as others, I have yet to discover this concept of Christ honoring preemptive war. If you can direct me to the appropriate scriptures supporting this position I will consider them with prayer. Until then, may I leave you with a verse from 2 Timothy,

    “For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind’.

    God Bless

  • I see Ron Paul is way ahead in this poll. I do not believe it is true Catholics who usually view National Catholic Register voting for Paul. The paulbots find polls over the internet and tell all of their paulbot buddies to go that site and vote for Paul. To love thy neighbor means help those all over the world. That’s what America’s been doing since her birth, starting at Tripoli, and part of why she’s been so blessed.
    God Bless America.

  • Archie,

    I too have sat and laughed and kibbitzed with may people of Middle Eastern background, including Muslims. Sufism is a lovely mystical version of Islam. Sufism was one man’s attempt to bring to Islam what we believe, that reason and faith are compatible and should work in cooperation. He was not successful because of the Koran’s religion and the pressure of the mainline groups, so it went the way of mysticism. But those who truly still adhere to it are lovely hearts. As a Middle Eastern Major in college, I have always had a love of the place, the people and the history. But I am not naive about their religion or their cultural ways. Are there extremists in all religions, heck yes, but how may certainly in this day and age blow up people of other religions for no reason. We have the nuts who go to military funerals and spew their hatred, but they don’t kill people, they don’t send their young children or mothers to die. The cool aid drinkers who think one or another of their prophets is Jesus incarnate or another Messiah tend to kill themselves rather than others. It is quite different and the difference come by the fact that we do not worship the same god…worshipping one god does not make it the same god. Their story is Abraham Isaac and Ishmael with the emphasis on Ismael. They cannot know God in any real way, a personal God for them is anathema. Jesus is just a prophet and not the last or with the last word.

    Have christians done bad things over time yes, and people always want to bring up the Crusades, but defending our own in the Holy Land was not necessarily doing wrong when we were asked in and it was a different age. We constantly judge our ancestors by our own 21st century values. We give everyone else a pass…loh that is their culture, we can’t comment or dislike it but when it comes to ourselves we say, how dare the Crusaders do this or that.

    Do not put Christian fundementalists in the same light with these people that is completely to twist the truth. If you are going to do comparisons, do them in this time and place. When was the last time CHristians savagely attacked any one of another religion without provocation, other than our religion/our God (to whom we are slaves remember that is the case for muslims) tells us it is what we should do?

    The Iranians are NOT going to negotiate. Iran is no different than STalin was or the Japanese even for their part back in the 30s and 40s. You are not dealing with honest people. Have you so soon forgotten Jimmy Carter’s debacle in that respect? While I have no use for Obama, he had to listen to HIlary and the people who know with whom we are dealing…zebras do not change their stripes.

    How about Obama’s tour of Mea Culpa at the beginning of his presidency, telling everyone how the US is to blame and we are sorry and we would just love to negotiate and work with you. Where did that get us? Perhaps that is why Obama stepped back a bit. He found out all he did was expose us to being considered weak and a target.

    I think Obama set out to wreck the country, period. All his ‘friends’ are out in th eopen communists, socialists and anarchists. He found out, we the people are in line with that and while most of his appointees drink the same cool aid, don’t think Hilary, does though I wouldn’t vote for her either. Like her or not, she is clearly working her tail off from the looks of her and she has here hands full.

    Can’t you see by the outcome of the so called “Arab Spring” that we are in for the biggist struggle of our lives. As soon as I saw the first country rise up, I began to pray, knowing full well it ws not going tobring a spring but a long winter of extremism.

    What does Ron Paul consider imminent danger? And I don’t want us to negotiate or give money to these people through the government. I am a believe not in redistribution of wealth, perhaps Distributionism but I don’t trust the government not to make that into socialism and communism as it is almost impossible for power not to corrupt. I believe in Subsidiarity whether it is here or abroad. When three planes are flown out to kill us for no reason other than we are who we are, we vote, we respect others’ religious rights, women’s rights…or we did before the feminist and gay rights movements and the cowtowing that the Obama administration is doing to their causes…that is a declaration of war. That you can’t pin point a country but must admit to a cultural enemy doesn’t change it. Makes it far more difficult and requires some not so typical tactics of war, but it still requires us to accept it for what it is and protect ourselves and our country.

    I do understand the culture and the religion. I don’t listen to the msm or anyone else on this one. I study history and I am tired of the tail wagging the dog in this country. Mostly I pray…and I would suggest we all do that rather than just listening to televisions and debates. I want a pit bull to go up against Obama and that isn’t Ron Paul and frankly it isn’t Ron Santorum though I admire him. It is Newt because he is knowledgeable and he has made our government work together before. One of the very few who have. He has the intelligence and the experience.

    If we were voting for a saint none of these people would deserve our vote. But we are not, we are voting for a man or woman who can reign in this government and it’s tenticles on both our money, our human rights and our religious rights to name the most important. We have ideologues on both sides and the only one who has ever been able to cut through that is Newt Gingrich. Like him or not, he converted and he was absolved ofhis sins. Who are we to second guess Christ. Is his personality great no, but this isn’t a personality contest. This is a contest for our country…is there a real monetary crisis coming…hell yes and no matter who gets in it will not be averted, perhaps mitigated but not averted.

    Let’s listen to history and to our God…let’s us pray for our country and that whomever we put into office, we will as a people put God back in the center of our lives and the life and laws of this country. That is where I stand.

  • Pingback: Character Assassination on Rick Santorum |
  • Pingback: Rick Santorum Friday Roundup |
  • So nobody’s supposed to vote in this poll unless you’re a regular on this site? How is it fair to completely remove a candidate from the poll based on that? Seems pretty biased to me!

  • Josette,

    You don’t have to be a regular at TAC, but Spamming does not reflect the electorate.

  • Ron Paul 2012!

  • first of all, just because we believe in the message of Ron Paul does not make us dishonest, cheaters, or less valuable in the eyes of the Lord or the United States. we each get 1 vote and believe me, we don’t have to cheat to have enough voters to beat any of the other candidates. We are also willing to support him from our pockets too. he does not take money from Lobbyists, churches, Wall street or big Government supporters. He attends Church ever Sunday, has raised a good, god Fearing family, has great values for himself and his offspring. How can you not support a man who is truly a Christian, a Military Hero, and honest person and a true Statesman? I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations!

  • “I do not need the Catholic Church to tell me who to vote for, nor do I need them to tell me right from wrong….I have been led to Christ with no help from you or your pope…..or any of your lying, child molesting priests! so, kick us out of you poll that has now become useless for anything but glorifying your bias and closed minds! I am so glad that I was not allowed to join your church and raise my boys under the catholic doctrine! I am Happy as a Methodist thanks! In Jesus name, may your lies and bias be unveiled to your congregations”

    Initially Sour Melody 00, I put your comment in the trash where the rantings of anti-Catholic bigots like yourself normally end up at this site. However, the sheer stupidity of coming to a Catholic website to urge support for a candidate, and while you are doing so spitting on the Catholic Faith, was so monumental that I had to share it with my fellow Catholics for their amusement. Thank you for the laugh that your bitterness, bile and bigotry produced.

  • Mel’s a typical paulbot $cumb@g. I had favorable feelings for Paul (he’s right on the Fed for the wrong resaons). I never thought libertarians were worth the powder it would take to shoot them.

    After Mel’s hate-filled tripe, Paul can go to Hell and so can his freaking son Rand.

    To ensure Paul never got elected; if, in some nightmarish scenario, Paul were nominated by the GOP, I’d vote for Obama. Then, I’d go to Confession because that would be a mortal sin.

  • Mel you black-hearted protestant murderer.

    Now, I remember why I always threw in when they passed the hat for the IRA, you rat.

  • I second Donald.

    I initially was going to trash your bigoted rant, but Donald did the right thing to show how vile your hate is to all the world.

  • “Blessed are the Peacemakers, for they shall be the children of God”

    Mathew 5:9 is Now Ignitum Today

Tuesday, January 3, AD 2012

With the new year upon us the fledgling Catholic website for Young Adults has changed their name from to Ignitum Today.  Ignitum Today offers wonderfully well written articles by young adults from all walks of life.  In our short time, I am one of the Chief Editors, we have introduced to the Catholic blogosphere such dynamic writers such as Fr. Ryan Erlenbush and Marc Barnes.

The change of the name is only cosmetic, the mission and overall content of Ignitum Today remains the same.  This change was set upon us by a copyright dispute that has not affected us in any other way besides the name change.

We look to evangelize our faith by sharing the stories of the JP2 and B16 Generation for all.  We hope you come and visit us soon (now would be better)!

Continue reading...

3 Responses to is Now Ignitum Today

MSNBC/NY Times Poll Alert: “Are Religious Rights Being Trampled on by Government?”

Thursday, December 29, AD 2011

Fr. Z says it best:

Perhaps other blogs will pick this up and help.

An article from the ultra-liberal New York Times (“Hell’s Bible”) is posted on the even more liberal MSNBC.

The article concerns the objections of the USCCB against pressure from the Obama Administration and/or states to force Catholic adoption agencies to allow homosexual “couples” to adopt.

You have to scroll down to the bottom of the MSNBC webpage to find the poll form.

Click here!

Continue reading...

5 Responses to MSNBC/NY Times Poll Alert: “Are Religious Rights Being Trampled on by Government?”

  • Chris Matthews of MSNBC has blatantly stated that he wants to see Obama re-elected. They are obviously using this survey to find chinks in their secular armor, and to defend Obama’s policies.

  • For roughly half a century, it has been the right of the Adoption Agency to determine who is fit to be a parent, why is it that the government feels that that right must be changed now? Why can’t we say that homosexuals aren’t fit to be parents?

    I agree that this is a complete intrusion of the rights of religion. Thanks for the heads-up on the poll (when I voted, roughly 18,300 voted and it was a 49-49-2 split).

  • Not a very good poll design– I tried a different browser after I voted and it would have let me vote again.

  • Interesting. I just voted @ 9:30pm Eastern Time and the poll results were:
    18,148 votes and 49-49-2 split.

  • Interestingly, the article states that the Lutheran Church in Missouri is going to go ahead with referrals to gay couples. I read that the Lutheran Church membership is dwindling, and they’re looking to expand their membership. Herbert W. Chilstrom is former presiding bishop of Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. Chilstrom has written an open letter to the Bishops of Minnesota asking them to accept gay ‘marriage’ because gays are like blacks or something (his words).

    Changing doctrine to accommodate members is a short-term solution. The one thing that make the Catholic Church strong is it’s unity, catholicity, apostolicity, and holiness. The Lutheran church is making itself weaker, not stronger by bending God’s word to accommodate its membership.

    Back in 2001, Dr. Robert Spitzer, a noted psychiatrist had reported that homosexuals who really want to be cured, can become heterosexual using a variety of techniques.

    “Contrary to conventional wisdom,” Spitzer concluded, “some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation, and achieve good heterosexual functioning.” Spitzer looked at 200 homosexuals – 143 men and 57 women. To the researchers’ surprise, good heterosexual functioning was reportedly achieved by 67% of the men who had rarely or never felt any opposite-sex attraction before the change process.

    Here’s a link to Dr. Spitzer’s discussion of his work:

    Incidentally, Dr. Spitzer was the lead on getting homosexuality removed from the DSM in the 1980s because it supposedly couldn’t be cured. They gay community raised him on a pedestal then. Now they want him to go away.

Sly, Bruno, and Arnold Together Again

Saturday, December 17, AD 2011

Action films have always been a favorite of mine and nothing comes close to action as those from the 80s.  With Expendables 2 coming out any man worth his salt will make a beeline to the nearest theater to watch an ensemble of some of the best of the 80s and today’s action stars.

In addition to Stallone, Willis, and Schwarzenegger you see my personal favorite Jason Statham along with Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Chuck Norris, and Jean-Claude Van Damme.  Of course there are more, but I’ll let you all figure the rest out in this trailer.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Sly, Bruno, and Arnold Together Again