21 Responses to Christopher Hitchens 1949-2011 AD, Requiescat In Pace

  • Well, Christopher Hitchens now knows that there IS a God and His name is Jesus Christ – a bit too late. That’s what is so sad. Of coruse there will be those who will say, “Maybe he did a death bed confession – you can’t judge.” True, I can’t. But the number of people he misled with his atheism is not insignificant. So no, I can’t say, “Requiescat in pace” precisely because I don’t know that he did make a death bed confession to repent of his life-long atheism. That being said, no, I don’t hope he’s in hell (let’s not get ridiculous).

  • I agree with almost everything you said Paul. Though my best guess would be that he believed after death before judgement and is now in Purgatory. But that is for God, not for us to determine.

  • I think Dante would’ve put him in limbo.

    It’s really amazing how respected he is. Nobody was more critical of the Church yet you were certain he wasn’t motivated by malice or political bias. He didn’t take cheap shots.

  • ‘[H]he believed after death before judgement and is now in Purgatory.”

    Come again?

    If you reject God in this life, do not acknowledge your bad acts to be sins and, so, can’t ask for mercy, how is it that you get a second pass at it in Purgatory? (I’m not trying to be difficult. I really don’t get the line of reasoning you’ve applied.)

    Taken out to its logical conclusion, virtually everyone would be saved for, having died, they would be fully cognizant of God’s greatness and the meaning of “eternity.” Who would choose Satan then?

  • RR – Similar question: Why Limbo?

    Again, we aren’t talking about one who hadn’t hear the Good News or was, to the best of my knowledge, cut off from the Truth by forces beyond his control (mental illness, etc.). That sounds like a rejection of God and, so, if unrepented in this life, the kind of act that damns the soul.

  • G-Veg,

    I think you have an opportunity immediately after you die to believe in Jesus.

    That or I got faulty Divine Mercy information.

  • Then only one in an angel’s position is doomed?

    Satan and the angels who chose him over God are doomed. They rejected God even though they saw Him. We can’t experience Him with our senses and, so, lack the certainty of the angels.

    If we retain free will after our death, surely we would choose God. Who, after all, seeing even a glimpse of heaven and hell would choose hell? If it is correct that we can make a post-mortem choice to be with God, there really isn’t much point in struggling with belief in this life. We can just acknowledge that believing without seeing is hard and we’ll wait until we are certain to believe.

    What would be the point of sacrifice and fidelity to the Church’s teachings in this life if we get to wait until we have direct, personal knowledge of Him to choose to be with Him?

  • Well, I am sorry that he died from cancer, never a good way to go as I know from the experience of dear relatives. When I consider the talent that Hitchens had as a writer, and how he used it, and the bitterness and bile that suffused much of what he wrote, this scene from the movie Papillon comes to mind:

  • Tito,

    I hope you have the Divine Mercy thing correct – and I wonder if, even now, someone were to do a Divine Mercy chaplet for him if it would help? God doesn’t live constrained within our concept of time…so, perhaps someone should do it for Mr. Hitchens?

  • If we retain free will after our death, surely we would choose God. Who, after all, seeing even a glimpse of heaven and hell would choose hell? If it is correct that we can make a post-mortem choice to be with God, there really isn’t much point in struggling with belief in this life.

    Well, as with your example of Satan and his angels, clearly some being see God as He is and still rebel against him.

    Further, it seems to me that if one has become accustomed, in this life, to rejecting God or at least holding Him at arm’s length, and to preferring one’s own will to any other, one would be a lot less likely to fully and unconditionally embrace God in such a “last chance” situation. Whenever we sin, we increase our attachment to sin, and our preference of our own will over God’s will. So it seems to me that even if we assumed that there is such a “last chance” opportunity for souls, when faced with God, that one would be far worse off if one had eschewed belief all through life than if one had subjected oneself to God all through life.

  • I read the last article of Mr Hitchen at 2012 Vanity Fair issue entitled “Trial of the Will”. I thought he might be debating between spiritual will and his personal belief. before he passed on. I wonder when he started believing as atheist. He came from an anglican family in England. In fact, his brother has encourage him to come back to anglican faith just after Mr. Hitchen was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. All we have to do is to pray for his soul.

  • As for the angels that rebelled, they have perfect knowledge, so once they made a choice, they never changed their minds.

    So those that rebelled, did so with complete knowledge of Heaven, so they are truly demons in all sense of the word.

    As for the Divine Mercy and visions of St. Faustina, I may have mis-heard or misunderstood what was told to me, but the person that explained God’s Divine Mercy is that right before judgement we are given the opportunity(ies) to believe in God and ask for forgiveness.

    Again, if I am misunderstanding this concept I plead mea culpa.

  • As for anyone having a second chance immediately afte death, Hebrews 9:27-28 states:

    And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment, so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

    —–

    This would appear to obviate any second chances once we pass from this life. As for me, I will be happy to making as far as Purgatory and I certainly hope someone prays the Chaplet of Divine Mercy for me once I die! It certainly can’t hurt!

  • Lord have mercy!

    I’m thinking (dangerous or farcical) Mr. Hitchens needs to apologize to Blessed Mother Teresa when he sees her.

    Pray for the living and the dead.

  • It’s interesting that the right is more respectful of this leftist than the left who never forgave him for his unapologetic support for the Iraq war.

  • Of course I have no idea of the state of the soul in question, but….

    Don’t you need to believe in hell to choose it? Would it be the default position to fall to Satan rather than land in God’s hands if you don’t have any genuine concept of either?

    Did Bl. Mother Teresa just step forward to intercede for Mr. Hitchens at a critical moment in time, when Satan gets his last best chance to grab a soul?

    A Divine Mercy chaplet definitely can’t hurt. Jesus, help.

  • Suz,

    While I am no theologian, my understanding is that a soul has to choose hell – knowingly and firmly – in order to go there. I guess, in this case, the deciding factor would be the level of ignorance on the part of Mr. Hitchens…did he really just not know (and never honestly think over) the concept of God? Or did he just resolutely refuse to believe because it would have forced him off some of his views? We won’t know, of course, until we get to the life of the world to come…but as has been noted, a Divine Mercy chaplet certainly can’t hurt.

  • I want to set aside the question of whether any particular person made a last minute conversion. Our faith includes the possibility that, up until the moment of death, Man can choose God. It doesn’t sound right though that one has to choose hell to spend eternity there. It also doesn’t sound right to say that one can die in rebellion, spend time in purgatory, then enjoy an eternity with God.

    If our purpose is to learn to love and serve God in this life so that we can spend eternity basking in His presence in the next, it seems to me that one can only choose or reject God when Free Will is ours, i.e. whenwe are alive.

    Angels are different because they share a higher spiritual state. “To those to whom more is given, more is expected.” Since the angels received a nearly complete knowledge of God at their creation, they are expected to entirely love and serve God from the outset. Their rejection of God carries a greater censure precisely because they have no excuse.

    As I understand the Church’s teaching, one who dies in a state of ignorance – say, for example, a boy in Afghanistan who has not heard the Good News but dies in a state of Grace – may go straight to heaven. Since less knowledge was given to him, less is expected of him. This is very different from, foe example, the Stephen Hawkins the scientist. He was given a first rate mind that clearly sees deeper into the work of God in the universe than most and was raised as a Christian. Absent a recantation of the prideful choices of unbelief and leading others to reject God, he must be doomed.

    As I understand it, praying for the dead isn’t an attempt to alter God’s judgment, we beg for God, through His various means, to intercede while the subject of our prayers are alive. Since we cannot know what happens in those last moments, we are praying that they convert in the last.

    Surely someone here can set me straight if I have it wrong. I am not so well versed as to be confident in my answer and want to be set right.

  • None of us know whether he repented or not on his deathbed, lets hope he did.

    But lets put this to rest this notion of having any sort of choice after death. Going to the source…. The Catechism of the Catholic Church

    CCC 1022
    Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgement that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven-through a purification or immediately,- or immediate and everlasting damnation.

    Also here:

    CCC 1864
    “Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven”. There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberity refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

    Much more from the Catechism, I encourage any of you unsure about this to look up judgement and death and see what the Church says on these topics.

    So let’s pray he had a conversion of heart on his death bed. Even a little peep of remorse and repentence before his last breath would save him. Otherwise, once you die you get no second chances.

Newt Gingrich on His Catholic Faith and the Eucharist

Saturday, December 3, AD 2011

Newt Gingrich was interviewed by Sean Hannity a few days ago where the topic of conversation were his thoughts on his presidential run.  During the course of the conversation the topic of faith came along in which Speaker Gingrich spoke about receiving the Eucharist.

Look for his comments on the Eucharist at the 00:52 exactly.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Newt Gingrich on His Catholic Faith and the Eucharist

Newt Gingrich: Receiving the Eucharist Brings Me Peace

Wednesday, November 30, AD 2011

Just listened to parts of the Newt Gingrich tonight by Sean Hannity while I was working and Speaker Gingrich said in the most Catholic language imaginable how receiving the Eucharist brings him peace and comfort.

That was an incredible line.  As soon as I can find it on YouTube, I’ll post it, but I may begin budging towards Gingrich based simply on his faith!

Continue reading...

33 Responses to Newt Gingrich: Receiving the Eucharist Brings Me Peace

  • I am glad Newt found faith, but he needs to find many more things before I would willingly support him. This is a pretty good Ron Paul ad, and I am not Ron Paul fan.

  • Sounds likes he is against same sex marriage and has taken actions that follow his convictions. On the other hand, if a state decides to support same sex marriage, then that is their choice even if he disagrees with it.

    Ron Paul is not my guy. He is off his rocker when it comes to foreign policy. Nonetheless, his ad on Newt is good.

  • I watched the same interview with Hannity and had the same response. I have never in my adult life seen such an open expression by a nationally known politician like Newt give such an embrace of the Eucharist as he did tonight. For me, if a person (Catholic) expresses himself/herself by speaking of the gifts of the Eucharist as he did tonight, it gives a good sense as to where he/she would be on most major issues of the day to our nation,party, and religion.

    Looking for more good stuff to come from his candidacy. The interview really woke me up to this guy who I have grown so used to over the last 20 years or so.

  • And Joe Biden says the rosary daily.

    Newt is a scumbag. I wouldn’t say that about any other candidate. Looking at his personal life, you can’t reach any other conclusion.

  • RR,

    Of course you’re going to say that, if all you get your information from the liberal media.

    Your comment really says a lot about you.

  • RR – so funny how far you are from understanding the thrust of this article and comments on this thread. First off, I could care less about what he did or did not do in his past that is already known. Our Lord did not come for the saved, he came for the sinner. I am impressed with Newt’s embace of our faith in the way he is doing. What he states now and his actions now are what should count. Second, your use of that foul term on this site indicates that you are far from bringing any valuable comments to inform anyone here.

    Thanks for the try but a place you might enjoy spending time would be titled soethin like the following …..www.msnbc.com

    Thanks and God Bless.

  • You raise an interesting question about expressions of faith in public life and I’m notsure where I come down on the answer you suggest.

    If there is something wrong with holding a man’s faith against him as he seeks public office, surely the opposite is true too? Yet, can we honestly say that we don’t prefer “our guy” when a candidate expresses himself in a way that taps into the core of our being?

    I think the opposite is true too for I cannot imagine how I could bring myself to vote for one who publicly declared himself to be an atheist. (I’m not alone in this regard and I think this is why candidate Obama worked so hard to establish “Christian” credentials – not because he’s a closet Moslem but because he believes in nothing and couldn’t say so for fear that it would be held as a defect by many.)

    Perhaps, then, the problem is with the underlying idea that faith isn’t a thing to be considered in candidacy. Perhaps it isn’t honest for the candidate to hide his faith or lack of faith and it isn’t honest for voters to pretend that faith isn’t an issue in elections.

    But, if so, how can a republic survive the resulting fracturing? If candidates were to declare themselves on faith matters, surely parties would spring up to allign those interests. What would be the difference, then, between us and, for example, Turkey or Lebanon?

  • It is obvious that Newt has totally forgiven himself for his adulterous behavior and all his political profiteering. How honest he is in his soul with God, only God knows. But from what I can see of him that is public, he is a real snake. Watch out Church–Newt is a user of the first order. God can take care of Himself, but us mortals need to be on guard against this guy. Never enough sex, glamor, money or self-importance. If he gets to be president, he will sit on the throne like a pompous little king. He sure doesn’t have my vote.

  • I know many of you don’t get any news that doesn’t come from Sean Hannity’s mouth so I’ll enlighten you on why thinking conservatives don’t think too highly of Newt.

    “Newt Gingrich will not be the nominee because, despite his daughter’s rebuttals to the horror stories of how Gingrich divorced his first of three wives, Jackie Gingrich told the Washington Post on January 3, 1985, “He walked out in the spring of 1980 and I returned to Georgia. By September, I went into the hospital for my third surgery. The two girls came to see me, and said Daddy is downstairs and could he come up? When he got there, he wanted to discuss the terms of the divorce while I was recovering from the surgery.” Gingrich went on to cheat on the second wife with the third. Regardless of the actual facts or even the spin, he won’t win women.” – Eric Erickson

    Richard Land says evangelical women will not vote for Gingrich under any circumstances.

    “He believes that what he says in public and how he lives don’t have to be connected.” – Marianne Gingrich, Wife #2

    And to top it off, he says he cheated on his wives because he loved his country so much!

    I won’t even get into the flip-flopping on everything from cap-and-trade to the health care mandate. He has a nasty attitude as evidenced by every debate. The exchange with Maria Bartiromo made him look like a fool. He complained about only having 30 seconds to answer so Maria said he can take as much time as he needs to which Newt responded, “that wouldn’t be fair to the others.” Yeah, that’s why it’s 30 seconds, idiot!

    How do you think he’ll work with John Boehner who led the eventually successful effort in the 90’s to force Newt to step down? Boehner, now there’s a Catholic I can get behind.

    I’m even skeptical of the conversion story. How convenient that he found religion while preparing to run for president.

    The moment I discovered he wasn’t even as smart as some made him out to be was when he released his tax reform plan. Few people even know about it because it really can’t be taken seriously. I’m not saying that I don’t take it seriously. I’m saying that NOBODY takes it seriously. He tried to one-up Perry before everyone criticized Perry’s plan. Newt’s plan is Perry’s super-sized.

    Then came the CBS foreign policy debate and I figured out why people think Newt is smart. He knows his history. Every answer he gave was a history lesson. The problem was that he doesn’t know how things currently work. He could only think in historical analogies. He doesn’t have coherent guiding philosophies unless you count political expedience as a guiding philosophy.

    If I had to vote, I can vote for any of the Republican candidates except Cain and Gingrinch. Cain because he doesn’t know anything about public policy and Gingrinch because he’s a horrible person.

  • I have little use for Gingrich as I indicated in this post:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/05/19/gingrich-and-the-fine-art-of-political-suicide/?preview=true&preview_id=30473&preview_nonce=acb56a2ead

    If he obtains the nomination, and that he might just do that is a tribute to the strong antipathy most Republicans, including myself, have for Romney, I will certainly vote for him in his race against Obama. He certainly is far from my ideal of a Republican standard bearer, but compared to Obama, it is an easy vote. I am by no means convinced that Gingrich will get the nomination, since I believe he has a talent for political suicide, but we shall see.

    As for the Paul ad, attack ads by Paul (R. Pluto), are certainly preferable for his campaign than his attempting to defend his usually infantile, and always dangerous, foreign policy positions.

    However, politics is one thing and religion is another. Gingrich has given no evidence that his conversion is not sincere and whole-hearted. I am glad that the Eucharist gives him peace and comfort, and I pray that we all may feel the same.

  • I have many concerns about Newt base on past behavior, but I’m more inclined to believe the eyewitness account of his daughter vs. the second/third/or fourth hand account of someone else.

    He definitely has baggage, but his ideas are very interesting and his ability to reason and articulate are second to none.

  • More than once I have heard Newt described as half genius and half crazy. Normally I would not vote for someone like that but if he is our only alternative to a president who is ALL aggressively liberal, anti-life and anti-Catholic, I may just have to.

  • I know many of you don’t get any news that doesn’t come from Sean Hannity’s mouth

    I think this one sentence pretty much sums up why I ignore most of the things you say.

  • Since we, as Americans, appear to have lost our moral conscience, the Holy Spirit will play a major role in this election. God often uses “characters” throughout history to effect His Plan. Liberal or Conservatives will agree , we all need God to help this world through its current calamities

  • I pray that he has found peace through his conversion.

    But, man–Gingrich’s record is a mess. Personally and professionally.

    This slate is really the best the GOP can do?

    Of the people who have polled more than ten percent during the cycle, I can’t see myself voting for Romney (Every person you need to be), Cain (remarkably inept on anything not brought to you by the number 9), and Paul (isolationism combined with naivete is a crap sandwich) or Bachmann (inexperienced at anything other than backbencher bomb-throwing).

    [Though in Paul’s case, I respect and understand the appeal of his candidacy.]

    I’m close to feeling the same no-go about Gingrich, even conceding his political skills and functioning wonky brain.

    I’m still most inclined toward Perry, though his implosion probably means he’s not viable any more, sad to say.

    “If God wanted us to vote, He’d give us candidates.”

  • I know many of you don’t get any news that doesn’t come from Sean Hannity’s mouth

    I think this one sentence pretty much sums up why I ignore most of the things you say.

    Mea culpa, it was background noise and when I heard him mention the Eucharist I literally fell out of my chair.

    Mea maxima culpa.

  • wow Dale , I often find what I fear most in others , is hidden deep within myself

  • I echo Dale’s sentiments. I like the two Ricks, but combined they aren’t polling into the double digits. I think things will pick up for one or both of them as Cain continues to plummet and more conservatives remember Newt’s foibles. I’ve actually been a Perry guy, but considering Santorum is just about as viable now and he’s the one who I agree with on more issues, I might wind up backing him (though by the time the primary gets to MD, it will be a moot point). Newt is more palatable than the rest of the field, but that’s primarily due to the rest of the field’s weaknesses.

    But we are deviating from the post topic, and I do appreciate Newt’s sentiments. That said, is anyone else uncomfortable with the idea of a twice divorced, re-married man receiving the Eucharist? I know those marriages took place before his crossing the Tiber, but they still count.

  • wow Dale , I often find what I fear most in others , is hidden deep within myself

    Meaning what, precisely?

  • That said, is anyone else uncomfortable with the idea of a twice divorced, re-married man receiving the Eucharist? I know those marriages took place before his crossing the Tiber, but they still count.

    I am.

  • I understand the repentant sinner requires forgiveness. Nonetheless, some damage caused by sin remains. The damage caused by his infidelities is for God and Newt’s family to work through.

    The worrisome part of Newt’s marriages, how they came about, and his infidelities is they are examples of a serious lack of judgment. It shows he possesses an impulsive nature, which might be okay when choosing between chocolate or vanilla ice cream, but not when it comes to maintaining a monogamous relationship, especially in the vows of marriage.

    This impulsive nature is intrinsic to Newt’s personality. It explains what so many have pointed out, his ability to commit political suicide. He says things without fully thinking the ramifications of them. He participates in ideas because they seem advantageous at the moment without thinking what long term messages he is sending. The words or ideas seem like a great affair to be involved in, so he marries himself to it and is faithful until the next opportune moment comes along.

  • He is off his rocker when it comes to foreign policy.

    Yes -because billions of dollars and countless lives later, everyone else is so spot on.

  • If he gets to be president, he will sit on the throne like a pompous little king.

    Not much different from the current occupant.

  • Besides Kyle Miller’s response, it appears that other posters are willing to drag up events in Newt’s life from a “SIN” standpoint and are not willing to forgive and forget bout these acts as it relates to his run for the Presidency. How shallow a position – with all do respect – to have given how we should except the major premise of our faith which is Forgiveness and non-judgment of others.

    To form an opinion of ones abilities as president based on previous actions and what they say today is one thing. However, to flog someone in a public forum like this should tell us that we may have to review the foundation of our faith first before we are to pull lever for or against someone.

    Comments expressed here about someone receiving the Eucharist after a divorce seem to be ill informed comments at that. If the person has asked for gods mercy and has gone through the process (as it appears Newt did) of preparing themselves to receive the Eucharist with a clean soul, it would not matter how many times the person was “divorced”. That is what our faith is about….forgiveness of our sins by our lord..if we truly mean it. If we do not believe this for ourselves and others of our faith….what good is our faith. As St. Paul says…we are still in our sin.

  • Good to see I’m not the only one who dislikes the Gingrinch. As for forgiveness, he didn’t wrong me. I don’t need his forgiveness. I’m not letting a former child molester, however remorseful, near my children and I’m not letting a horrible person, however remorseful, sit in the Oval Office. It’s not like, Newt was a child. He did these things as an adult including as Speaker. You can’t dismiss it as a previous life. You don’t change that much from age 56 to 68.

  • Yes -because billions of dollars and countless lives later, everyone else is so spot on.

    They’re less wrong, which is pretty horrifying to think about.
    I can’t support someone who wants us to abandon those who have been good allies to us, and for us to abandon the commitments we forced on others– Hello, Japan– just because fully legal military actions didn’t turn out so great. That’s totally ignoring that the long-term effects would be horrific for our nation itself.
    It’s like arguing that because cops in LA are sometimes criminal jerks and haven’t managed to remove the gang problem, we should withdraw from LA entirely.
    (If one more person waives his being a military surgeon for a few years, decades ago, as a card to show that he’s automatically right on military matters– or brings up that worthless “he got more military associated donations than everyone else before the candidates were chosen”– of over $200, with less than a hundred total– I may scream. Right up there with folks “informing” me that Obama is all my fault because I’m part of the “youth vote.”)

  • RR – that’s the point. He did not do anything to you for you to forgive him – it’s between he and God. And yes, he is not a child molestar -thank God. By bringing up that subject you show that you are comparing apples and oranges.

    I just hope you reflect on your own private life before posting how big a sinner Newt is. While you are reading this (right now at this very moment) remember God is looking at you….is your soul as clean as you expect of others? I hope so.

  • gregory rogsn, so you would let a repentant former child molester babysit your kids?

  • “I believe in . . . the forgiveness of sins; . . . ”

    Who can say?

    Maybe Speaker Gingrich has trully converted to the Holy Catholic Church.

    Maybe Newt Gingrich has repented of his sins.

    Maybe Gingrich has Confessed for all the sins of his past life.

    Maybe Newt has done penance.

    Maybe he has resolved to amend his life and through good works glorify Almighty God through Christ our Lord.

    Maybe some commenters have lowered bar for detraction to new depths.

  • RR – please know that I will pray for you today as well as the former Speaker of the House. We all need prayer and a true understanding of God’s love and mercy for all we do wrong in our lives. I will also pray I will not judge anyone involved in my life either publicly or privately.

    God Bless.

  • Pingback: Newt Gingrich on His Catholic Faith and the Eucharist | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Newt Gingrich on His Catholic Faith and the Eucharist « Catholibertarian

8 Responses to Occupy Wall Street vs. Tea Party

  • Okay I admit that I never saw The Colbert Report before but that was side splittingly funny. But seriously famale bodied? What insanity….

  • It was funny. What’s even more funny to me is that in an effort to put their best face forward a group of people got together and through silly little hand signs selected this couple to represent them. Based on what I’ve seen I think they made the right choice, but it still doesn’t say much for them whether they be male bodied males, female bodied females, female bodied males, male bodied females, etc.

  • I need the source for those stats. Please post a link. Thanks and God Bless.

  • PBW Einstein: Contact NYC City Hall.

    The source isn’t the regime’s propaganda machine (NYT, Commie News Net, etc.) or Obama’s Ministry of Troof. That’s why God created FOXNEWS.

    Additionally, the above support the violence. The think it distracts we the people from the economic misery your brilliant Obama regime is causing.

    There have been several more sexual assaults (including a hearing-impaired man) and assaults and batteries which the anarchists refuse to report allowing the criminals to persist in plying useful (to Obama) avocations.

    NB: Obama and his hate-filled co-conspirators have not condemned the violence.

    Obama-worshiping imbeciles unite you have nothing to lose!

  • You should add the “autonomous collective” bit from Monty Python’s Quest for the Holy Grail. When I hear OWS ppl speak, I immediately think of it.

  • Actually, the Tea Party paid for permits for their demonstrations – which entailed paying for a prescribed amount of porta-potties too. I remember how hard they worked to raise the money from a gress roots movement.

    And let’s not forget the open drug sales, unbridled sex, and scabies.

  • Their great contribution to the Commonweal: Zuccotti Lung.

    They’re threatening to close down Wall Street this morning.

    This PM rush hour, they’re promising to clog the Brooklyn Bridge (it’s for sale, ya’ know).

    Way to win friends and influence people.

    There are a couple hundred of them. There are 3,000,000 men and women coming and going to work today in NYC.

    I hope they don’t get too close to my stocks.

    Yesterday, one of them said we were going to see what molotov cocktails do for Macy’s. I work a block away from there. I’m scared.

    “Annoy a liberal: Work, Succeed, Be Happy.” – bumper sticker

Our Intellectual Elites: Pope Benedict XVI is a Nazi

Monday, October 17, AD 2011

Susan Sarandon comes out at a film festival and calls our German Shepherd a Nazi.

Words can’t describe what I want so say, so I’ll just print the excerpt from The Hollywood Reporter:

Sarandon was interviewed by Bob Balaban at the Bay Street Theatre in Sag Harbor on Saturday. She said she sent the pope a copy of the anti death penalty book, Dead Man Walking, authored by Sister Helen Prejean. Sarandon starred in the 1995 big-screen adaptation.

“The last one,” she said, “not this Nazi one we have now.”

Tofu anyone, while trying to digest the latest from Hollywood?

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Our Intellectual Elites: Pope Benedict XVI is a Nazi

  • What a moron.

  • Mike, I was just contacted by the Moron Anti-Defamation Coalition. They apparently take extreme umbrage at being compared to Susan Sarandon.

  • Gentlemen,

    She was not cc’d on the memo by the DNC regarding push for civility and stopping violence following the Gilford shooting tragedy. I am sure they will be sending her one in the near future.

  • Susan Sarandon, ‘nough said.

  • What do you expect from Susan Saran-wrap?

    Semper Fi!

  • Fair enough, Don. I withdraw my remark and apologize to morons everywhere.

  • Our Intellectual Elites

    Susan Sarandon ? BWAHAHAHAHAH.

    Seriously? Susan Sarandon – now you’re really jagging me – right? 🙂

    Another Hollywood air head has a brain fart and Our wonderful Lame Stream Media gush over it.

  • Thank you Mike. The League of Blithering Idiots sent me an e-mail and they are taking a poll of their membership to determine if they will extend honorary membership to Ms. Sarandon.

  • Isn’t that kinda like not Politically Correct, kinda like a profiling no-no, kinda like bullying, kinda schizo on the life concept, kinda not really high-minded, kinda devoid of the milk of human kindness, kinda like an Archie Bunker gone totally mean type mentality?

  • Susan Saradon attended catholic schools her whole life and graduated from The Catholic University of America.

    “If you want your children to fight for their faith, send them to public school. If you want them to lose their faith, send them to Catholic school.”
    -the wonderful Bishop Fulton Sheen

  • More deep theological insights from Ms. Sarandon:

    “In the 2008 U.S. presidential election, Sarandon and Tim Robbins campaigned for John Edwards in the New Hampshire communities of Hampton, Bedford and Dover. When asked at We Vote ’08 Kickoff Party “What would Jesus do this primary season”, Sarandon said, “I think Jesus would be very supportive of John Edwards.”

    I guess I missed the section of the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said “Blessed are the ambulance chasers with expensive haircuts for they will find favor with the Hollywood Glitterati!” but I am sure it is in there somewhere.

  • Supposedly Kipling was a nazi sympathizer because he had a reverse swastika attached to some of his book covers…as were members of this 1900’s Native America basketball team:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Native_American_basketball_team_crop.jpg

  • The swastika was a good luck symbol before it got appropriated by the Nazis.

    I was pleased to see Abe Foxman of the ADL also criticizing Ms. Sarandon’s remarks – props.

  • Poor parrot. Polly is a cracker. Polly is a cracker.

  • If anyone, Catholic or non Catholic, were to read “Jesus of Nazareth” by Pope Benedict they would know what a very kind, holy, devout Christian gentleman he is. What a privilege it is to have him as Pope, in these times when truth and faith are being utterly rejected. Interesting to note Pope Benedict recently asked for a stay of execution for an African American man in the United States who swore he was innocent. As usual, no one paid attention to the Holy Father. I wish those who judge him would read a bit about him first.

  • As a German-American with a distinctivly German given name and surname, I recognize that calling any German a Nazi is a too common but still bigoted slur. She degrades herself with such language.

    Of course, it should be remembered that Joseph Ratzinger was very much a liberal until his change of heart in the early 1970s. During the Right Wing dicatorship, the Ratzingers stood with the German Left and the Catholic Left in being very much opposed to Nazism. Blessed Nikolas Gross, pray for us.

945th Anniversary of the Battle of Hastings

Friday, October 14, AD 2011

Today, October 14 Anno Domini 2011, the Battle of Hastings occurred between the Anglo-Saxon King Harold and Duke William of Normandy.

The following is an animated version of the Bayeux Tapestry [1].

King Harold had a depleted force of 5,000 foot soldiers from a decisive victory of the combined Viking forces of Tostig and Harald Hadrada in the north of England the previous month.  Whilst Duke William had a force of 15,000 infantry, cavalry, and archers.  Facing superior numbers King Harold took up a defensive position that nearly won the day if it wasn’t for Duke William’s resilient command of a deteriorating situation.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to 945th Anniversary of the Battle of Hastings

October TAC GOP Presidential Poll

Tuesday, October 11, AD 2011

Rick Perry has suffered in the secular polls due to his performance in the debates, Herman Cain has gained traction, Mitt Romney has remained stable and just received an endorsement from Chris Christie who himself has officially stated he will not run for president (this time around).  In addition both Sarah Palin and Thad McCotter have also announced they will not pursue the nomination, in all this, Rick Santorum has maintained a lead among TAC readers of all candidates.

Will Santorum continue his popularity among Catholics or not?

Here’s our latest poll so please vote after watching tonight’s GOP debate:

Continue reading...

29 Responses to October TAC GOP Presidential Poll

  • Santorum would help his case if he didn’t sound like a whiny jerk, because he’s an A+ on the substance. Perry helped himself tonight, and I think Cain hurt himself just a little. Newt’s still the most impressive guy on the stage, but I’m not sure he can overcome his baggage.

    As for the rest of the field – who cares?

  • Perry is old news. Maybe that’s supposed to be impressive in Texas but on the national stage, he’s no match.
    Cain has peaked. He bet the farm on 9-9-9 and Bachmann and Santorum took the wind out of that sail. Maybe he has other tricks but it’s a very difficult task to stay fresh.
    Newt is running for VP.
    Santorum has two problems. He always looks like he’s about to explode and the Google problem. It’s nearly impossible to shake off a negative first impression.
    None of this matters since Romney is the Republican nominee. At this point I can guarantee it. The more contested race is for running mate. Marco Rubio is the front-runner but there’s a long list of real possibilities.

  • because he’s an A+ on the substance.

    If he is not proposing a credible plan to balance the books, he is not A+ on substance. His career before politics was truncated and his executive experience is nil. Only three or four of these candidates have what might be adequate preparation for the job and two or three of them have serious issues over and above the usual nonsense on fiscal policy. The stage manager’s cane, please.

    None of this matters since Romney is the Republican nominee.

    What is the point of making statements like that?

    Marco Rubio is the front-runner but there’s a long list of real possibilities.

    There is no front-runner because there is no contest for this position.

  • What is the point of making statements like that?

    What is the point of making a statement like that?

    There is no front-runner because there is no contest for this position.

    There’s no popularly elected position of running mate but there certainly is a contest.

  • I didn’t watch the debate.

    Four more years of Obama and we’re finished. You need to prepare for it.

    Anyone had better beat the incompetent community agitator (pitting against each other haves vs. have-nots and foisting class envy and social unrest are not leadership) whose last best hope is a couple hundred unemployable hippies “occupying” Wall Street and his lying, lap dog media.

    Pray for the best. Prepare for the worst.

  • If you wish to beclown yourself by making declarative statements about things the answer to which you do not know, be my guest.

    The only ‘contest’ for the vice presidential slot goes on in the head of the nominee and the nominee will likely be unknown for another four or five months. Since most recent nominees have made choices apparently driven by idiosyncracy and short-term contingencies, you are not going to have a clue even if you know the nominee.

  • For me, Santorum is the best by far, and I can understand his behavior, he is hardly mentioned in any TV show (look O’Reilly), even when he present much substance in debates. And even during the debates, rarely he is called to the center of the discussion.

    Maybe, if he feels he is better positioned, he can show more calmness.

    Cain is out with his 999, he is trying to be VP, as well Bachmann, Paul, Huntsman. So, there are four candidates Romnoway, Perry (good candidate), Gingrich (carrying stones) and Santorum.

    Santorum 2012.

  • Who is Buddy Roemer, a NASCAR driver?

  • Just wondering with Cain’s 999 plan whether that includes a free topping : )

  • *This* is the cream of the GOP crop, eh? And against a badly-flawed, detached incumbent whose term has seen unemployment hover at 9+%?

    Astonishing. I’m reminded of this:

    http://tinyurl.com/4y47jg4

  • I’ll take Santorum ANY DAY OF MY LIFETIME over any GOP or Democratic candidates these past 30 years (with the exception being Ronald Reagan).

  • I am afraid that I am gravely dissatisfied with all the Republican candidates, although, except in the case of Ron Paul, I would vote for any of them over Obama. (In a Paul-Obama race I would write in Bob McDonnell.)

    1.Michele Bachman-Bad habit of making things up. Knowledge base that is broad and an inch deep. Poor presentation of herself when coolness and a calm head are needed from a candidate.

    2.Herman Cain-His 999 plan is rubbish and would lead to lower income individuals paying far more in tax than they do now. Personally an impressive man, he gives little indication of having thought deeply about most of the problems confronting the country. If the country is fed up enough with professional politicians however, he has a definite shot.

    3.Newt Gingrich-Just go away Newt. You aren’t going to be getting the nomination and you are wasting our time. More skeletons than a small town graveyard.

    4.John Huntsman-Would be surging to the lead if Democrats were Republicans. Wrong party.

    5.Ron Paul-Klaatu barada nikto!

    6.Rick Perry-An astonishingly bad candidate after so many elections! The speed with which he went from front-runner to pack trailer is truly amazing. If he is going to have a comeback he is giving no sign of it.

    7.Rick Santorum-Closest to my own political positions, Santorum is a lousy candidate. His 41% to 59% loss to Casey the Lesser in 2006 was stunning, since Casey was a pretty weak candidate. Pennsylvania was going to be tough for any Republican in 2006, but bad tactics by Santorum turned a tough race into a rout. Has a talent for making enemies within the party. All the Touhey supporters are nodding their heads.

    8.Romney-The weather-vane. Pro-abort and now pro-life. In favor of Romney care; opposed to Obamacare. Moderate to liberal governor of Massachusetts, and now a born again conservative. I have absolutely no trust in him. I also doubt if he has the fighting instinct for the 2012 race. The Left will be throwing every thing imaginable against the Republican nominee next year, and I doubt if Romney can stand up to it.

    Time to pray for a dark horse, although if the economy continues to tank, it may not matter and Obama may be dead meat in any case next November.

  • Huntsman keeps getting described as a moderate or a liberal, but this seems to be more over matters of style than substance. On policy he seems pretty conservative (note: this is not an endorsement of Huntsman).

  • Huntsman is a conservative trying to run as a moderate who went too far and is now perceived as a liberal. He forgot that he has to win the primaries first. He’ll make a great Secretary of State.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Pingback: FRIDAY LATE-MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Santorum (is that Latin for Saint?) is likely best on so-con issues, but his foreign policy is essentially a W redux, which is largely what got us in the mess we are currently in.

    Ron Paul looks crazy because he is the only sane person left in this country. That said, if you want to get elected, you need the crazies (i.e., the rest of the country) to vote you in and therefore must speak their language. Klaatu barada nikto, indeed.

  • Ron Paul looks crazy because he is the only sane person left in this country.

    Yes yes, he’s the only true patriot, liberty, constitution, blah blah blah. Meanwhile he’s hanging out with the 9/11 truthers, urging us to go back to the gold standard, and pretending that those craze moolahs would just love us if weren’t for those damned dirty Jews.

    If that’s sanity, I’m happy to be crazy.

  • Count me in, I’m happy to be crazy as well.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Gosh- dismissive comments – “lousy” “go away” about these good, intelligent, hardworking and very capable people doesn’t help the social or fiscal conservative cause. Pres. O’s team doesn’t need our help casting aspersions on our candidates. Santorum and Gingrich are my choices.

  • “O’s team doesn’t need our help casting aspersions on our candidates.”

    But we certainly do. In politics it does no good to ignore the flaws in the primaries only to have the adversary party rip into the flaws in the general election.

  • Please, please, please do not vote for Rick Santorum. The man is as thick as a plank. EG: Diane Sawyer said the presidenial candidates spend millions on their campaigns adfvertising and looked into their campaignt T shirts The 3 major candidates had shirts made in the USA. Then she showed Gingrichs’ and it was foreign made and when asked it took him a few minutes and he figured it out and replied he’d get USA made shirts….then Ron Paul, took him a few minutes to think about his foreign made shirts and he decided to dispose of them all immediately and get USA made ones. A llittle slow those two but they got the idea. When she asked Rick Santorum… his response…it’s hard to find anything made in the USA, and hard as she tried couldn’t get him to think about it and give the right answer. And he’s running for President, just a little scary!!
    As a Pennsylvanian who suffered him as senator, believe me, I know this is typical. Also, he has a bad habit of maintaining a position until (apparently) someone explains to him that he will get more votes for saying the opposite and then – VOLTE FACE! I know he is really, really pro-life but he is not presidential quality.

  • I love Herman Cain! He has to be our next president! None of the other candidates can even come close to the character he possesses, and I look forward to him getting the nomination…

  • Rasmussen: Cain 43, Obama 41

    Mitt Romney hardest hit.

    In all seriousness, it’s futile to trust in polls this far out. That being said, anybody voting for Mitt solely because he’s the most electable candidate should be forced to hand in their voter registration cards.

    Which, of course, is nothing more than a symbolic gesture since you generally don’t need them to vote.

  • Cain for President, Santorum VP

  • CAIN for president, John Huntsman vp

President Obama Mocks U.S. Catholic Bishops: “Darn Tooting!”

Wednesday, October 5, AD 2011

President Obama mocked Catholic bishops at a St. Louis fundraiser last night as he was touting the new Health & Human Services regulations that would require Catholic institutions to go against the teachings of Jesus.

“Darn right!” an audience member at the fundraiser shouted as Obama described the regulation.

“Darn tooting!” Obama said back.

The contempt that President Obama has shown towards Christians is almost palpable.

This is a man that worships himself on Sundays by lifting weights instead of attending a Church service.

It is becoming imperative that President Obama needs to be voted out of office next year due to this incident and many other policies that he has implemented.

 

Continue reading...

19 Responses to President Obama Mocks U.S. Catholic Bishops: “Darn Tooting!”

  • “Darn tooting” is mockery? Maybe I’m too young to understand the 70’s lingo. Looks like you’re typical run-of-the-mill policy disagreement to me.

  • He needs to go out because of his policies. That he’s an ass is a secondary reason that would make his early dismissal more satisfying.

  • RR,

    Affirming a “shout-out” at violating religious freedom is mocking the bishops.

  • “Affirming a ‘shout out’ at violating religious freedom is mocking the bishops.”

    Well, let’s take a look at these remarks in context. This is what the linked-to story actually said:

    *****

    “Insurance companies can’t drop your coverage for no good reason,” said Obama. “They won’t be able to deny your coverage because of preexisting conditions. Think about what that means for families all across America. Think about what it means for women.”

    “At that point, an audience member shouted: “Birth control.”

    “Absolutely. You’re stealing my line,” said Obama.

    “Breast cancer, cervical cancer, are no longer preexisting conditions,” Obama continued. “No longer can insurance companies discriminate against women just because you guys are the ones who have to give birth.”

    At this point, a member of a laughing audience shouted out: “Darn right!”

    “Darn tooting,” Obama answered back—to laughter. “They have to cover things like mammograms and contraception as preventive care, no more out-of-pocket costs.”

    ****

    When Obama says “they” won’t be able to deny coverage, he obviously is talking about insurance companies (a favorite bete noire of the left), NOT bishops.

    As far as I know, no Catholic institution has ever objected on moral grounds to covering genuine preventive health care such as mammograms. Nor is refusal to cover preexisting conditions a hallmark of Catholic medical ethics. All of these practices have, however, been common among health insurance companies (because of the very nature of insurance, which is based on minimizing risk to the insurance provider; from a purely economic point of view, covering a preexisting condition makes as much sense as selling someone fire insurance AFTER their house has burned down, but I digress.)

    In any event, it is certainly fair to say that this exchange indicates the depth of Obama’s committment to passing these regulations. It may also be fair to say that these remarks indicate a lack of concern about the violation of religious freedom involved.

    However, to characterize this as a direct “mockery” of the bishops is stretching things quite a bit.

  • Obama is playing to his core constituency, the something for nothing crowd. These are the same people of course railing against the cost of health insurance premiums and never making the connection between government mandates on insurers and the cost of the insurance. We shall see next year how many people still believe in the illusions of unicorns, pixie dust and better living through government fiat.

  • The contempt that President Obama has shown towards Christians is almost palpable.

    -Tito Edwards

    Meanwhile, from the pulpits in the diocese in which I live – from the out-of-town parishes to the downtown cathedral – silence remains the Church’s most-used method to communicate basic Christian moral teaching to the laity.

    Obama is playing to his core constituency, the something for nothing crowd. … We shall see next year how many people still believe in the illusions of unicorns, pixie dust and better living through government fiat.

    -Donald R. McClarey

    Obama isn’t playing, he’s prepping the battlespace.

    Much of the agenda of Obama and his core constituency is contrary to Christian morality. For example, there’s no practical difference in this life between desiring “something for nothing” and coveting thy neighbor’s goods. (I’ll leave drawing the connection between other elements of the Obama agenda and the commandments against coveting thy neighbor’s wife and adultery as an exercise for the reader.) Because the Church might be an impediment to Obama’s ambitions, it must be destroyed – or at least rendered impotent to influence voters by mockery.

    Exit question: Does silence from the pulpits imply the Church’s consent?

  • I could care less if Obama is “mocking bishops.” As a Catholic for 78 years, living in the diocese of Boston (

    Who could care less if “Obama is mocking Bishops?” Living under Bernard Law, in the Boston archdiocese, who could fault Obama’s perceived derision of the Bishops. But his “darn-tooting” repudiation of Catholic befiefs, tradition, and teaching is totally something else again. It lells all people (Catholics among them) that he doesn’t give a fig for anything but a responsive applause from his captive telepromter/audience. Well, I got news for Barry — you crossed a line too far — with anyone who thinks that for a few yuks you can endanger the health and welfare of all those that rely on the charity and compassion of Catholic Hospitals, Catholic adoption agencies, so that you can promulgate exactly what?
    You’ve totatally alienated any reflective Catholic, or perhaps anyone who is concerned about the role “the State” plays in preaching/preening to the Churches (and Mosques and Synagogues) about the concerns you have for anyone.
    By the way, run this past Axelgrease and Poofle.
    They, like you, are history.

  • “It is becoming imperative that President Obama needs to be voted out of office next year due to this incident and many other policies that he has implemented.”

    “…[B]ecoming imperative”? Did you just wake up, sir?

  • Edward,

    I should have said, “becoming more imperative.”

  • Elaine,

    I respectfully disagree with your incorrect analysis.

  • Tito,

    Can give reasons as to why her analysis is in incorrect?

  • Whoops, added an extra “in” there

  • I wouldn’t agree with every word Elaine wrote, but she’s right that this headline is unfair. The President wasn’t talking to or about Catholic Bishops; he was talking about a policy they disagree with. We need to distinguish between political disagreements and personal attacks.

  • The insurance mandate forces Catholic institutions in providing contraceptives in which Archbishop Dolan was telling President Obama that this is unacceptable. Hence when the audience member shouted “darn right” he was saying ‘hell yeah, we’ll make Catholic institutions’ provide contraceptives, which President Obama affirmed with a “darn tooting”.

    It’s all there in the post.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • “In any event, it is certainly fair to say that this exchange indicates the depth of Obama’s committment to passing these regulations. It may also be fair to say that these remarks indicate a lack of concern about the violation of religious freedom involved.

    However, to characterize this as a direct “mockery” of the bishops is stretching things quite a bit.”

    Exactly.

  • Tito – No. When the guy in the crowd said “darn right”, he was saying “darn right”, and also disagreeing with the bishops’ position, although he might not be aware of it.

    If Archbishop Dolan were standing right next to him and had been stating the argument, then the President said the argument was stupid, then the guy in the audience said “darn right”, then yes, that would be a mocking of the bishops’ position.

    If Obama said “the bishops are jerks” and the guy in the audicence said “darn right”, then he would have been mocking the bishops.

  • Pinky, RR, et al,

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    I see mockery, you all see roses and posies.

  • “Hence when the audience member shouted “darn right” he was saying ‘hell yeah, we’ll make Catholic institutions’ provide contraceptives”

    How do you know what that audience member was “really” saying, unless you can read that person’s mind?

    My guess, which I admit is only a guess, is that he/she probably wasn’t thinking about Catholic institutions or bishops at all — the person was thinking about the alleged greed and heartlessness of insurance companies who deny coverage for preexisting conditions and for preventive care.

    The person in the audience obviously assumed that birth control qualifies as preventive care. While that could mean he/she actively rejects or despises Church teaching regarding contraception, it could just as easily mean that this person is not Catholic and has never had reason to think about or care what the Church teaches regarding contraception.

    That doesn’t mean I’m seeing “all roses and posies” here or trying to defend the policy in question. What I take away from this exchange is not that Obama “mocked” the bishops but that he ignored them — which is some ways is worse than mockery.

Sexual Authenticity: An Intimate Reflection on Homosexuality and Catholicism

Wednesday, October 5, AD 2011

An Article by Melinda Selmys, author of the book Sexual Authenticity: An Intimate Reflection on Homosexuality and Catholicism.

Twelve years ago, I converted to Catholicism and began a long dialogue with my own sexuality. At the time, I was involved in a lesbian relationship that had been going on for a little over six years. I had, in the course of researching the Catholic position  with  a  view  to  refuting  it,  encountered  the  Church’s  teachings  on homosexual relationships before, so when I decided to embrace the Church as my mother, I knew that meant giving up my lesbian partner. I called her that night and explained my decision.

At the time, I thought that I was signing up for a life of celibacy. I was okay with that:  before I became a Catholic I was a hard rationalist, and it wasn’t a long stretch to port my idealistic devotion to rational self-possession into an iron-clad commitment to  Catholic sexual teaching. I would simply apply my will to the problem, subsume my passions to the rule of Reason, and everything would be fine. Right?

Continue reading...

25 Responses to Sexual Authenticity: An Intimate Reflection on Homosexuality and Catholicism

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Interesting.

    Is there a meaningful distinction between “gay identity” and “queer personality”? Should there be? A gay identity seems no more contrary to Church teaching than a female identity. If that’s the case, it would make sense to encourage a gay identity within the Church rather than making Catholics choose between the two.

  • Honest self-examination and self- knowledge are essential if we’re going to make any headway in achieving chastity, in or out of marriage

    Amen to that. She seems to be doing a marvelous job at it, and it is wonderful that she is willing to share so much. Her advice is not only helpful for the LBGTQ community, but for “straights” as well. We all face temptations, and self-mastery is difficult for the best of us (just ask St. Paul). It is particularly difficult in a society that constantly encourages us to give in to our passions rather than rule them.

  • I don’t have anything to add, but thanks for posting this.

  • This is one of the most honest, intelligent pieces on the subject I have ever read. This will better help me relate to some of my friends who are gay and lesbian and has enlightened my understanding and insight. Thank you for writing this and for your transparency.
    God bless!

  • Paul, kind of the opposite. From their website: “By developing an interior life of chastity, which is the universal call to all Christians, one can move beyond the confines of the homosexual identity to a more complete one in Christ.”

    What’s wrong with a homosexual identity? I remember reading something critical of the organization you linked to. I can’t remember where I read it. I think it was a blog by a chaste gay orthodox Catholic. The criticism was related to the issue I pointed out. Instead of creating a welcoming environment for the “gay and Catholic,” they seem to be saying “don’t be gay, be Catholic.”

  • RR,

    I wouldn’t consider “gay” identity to be equivalent to “male” identity or “female” identity as you suggested. Rather, “gay” identity would be more like “alcoholic” identity or “addict” identity.

    “Male” and “female” identities are normal. A “gay” identity, while real, is no more normal than an “alcoholic” identity or an “addict” identity. The Church needs a creation of a “gay” identity no more than it needs a creation of an “alcoholic” or “addict” identity. But the sympathizers of the gay community and the gay community itself insist on normalizing a “gay” identity as something natural like a “male” or “female” identity, and that simply isn’t the case. Being gay, like being alcoholic may have a genetic pre-disposition factor to it, but it still isn’t natural. It’s abberant (did I spell that correctly?)

    Now that doesn’t mean that we persecute and harrass gay people any more than we persecute and harrass alcoholic people. We all have our own special demons to taunt us. But let’s not normalize the abnormal; let’s not legitimatize the illegimate.

  • I thought again about RR’s idea of a separate identity for gays in the Church. Galatians 3:27-28 bears upon this:

    27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

  • As Paul W Primavera says, or alludes to, our primary personality should be that of Christ. In that context, we do not develop an alcoholic personality, nor a wrathful personality, nor a lecherous personality, nor a “much afraid” personality. Those are disorders, and we don’t embrace them as fundamental to our nature or our being. Someone who is prone to these things is called to work on letting Christ heal them. That does not happen by socializing oneself into them. An alcoholic who is letting Christ heal him acknowledges that he is an alcoholic, but I don’t think that is the same as saying he has an alcoholic personality.

    As the Canadian bishops said in their guideline to ministry with young people with same-sex attractions, Catholic theology does not use the word ‘gay’. Any adjective on the word ‘personality’ is too limiting – the important factor is the human person, created in the image and likeness of God, and beloved of Him.

  • Thank you very much for your witnessing.

  • Good on her.

    The description of attraction that she mentions jives with my personal experience– attraction to someone’s appearance often boils down to reading character traits into their appearance. (For example, I can’t remember a time I thought that Tom Cruise was attractive, but I also can’t remember a time I didn’t know he was a jerk.)
    Possibly an aspect of SSA is the way that all sexual attraction gets flanderized? I’m quite straight (TYVM) but I’m far from attracted to men in general, and I can see how admiration based attraction or friendship-attraction could very easily be interpreted as sexual, with the right base assumptions. It would just be another influence, but if the deck is stacked enough….

    (Side note: quickly scanning things can be bad for your mental health. I saw this was a post by Tito in my reader, scanned quick and saw the phrase “I was in a lesbian relationship;” serious confusion.)

  • Amazing article and an amazing personality….a sort of Catholic existentialist in her stress on choice over inclination.

  • Paul, the Galatians passage isn’t entirely relevant since there’s no problem with a female identity or American identity within the Church.

    I’ve thought about the “homosexuality as a disease” perspective and I’m not sure it matters. There are no sober alcoholics who feel that they need to be recognized as a distinct group. If they exist in some bizzaro world, then I don’t see any problem with it. It seems like some are confusing the fact that separate identities don’t exist in other analogous situations with the idea that they shouldn’t exist.

  • We are called to respect the inherent dignity of all persons as we live in relationship as husbands and wives, fathers and mothers, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, not to view one another as objects of sexual desire, but as persons who have been created equal in dignity while being complementary as male and female, made in the Image of God to live in a communion of authentic Love.

  • RR said,

    “There are no sober alcoholics who feel that they need to be recognized as a distinct group.”

    So why do gays (or at least some gays and their straight liberal supporters) feel they rate special recognition? There is no Jew or Greek, slave or free, straight or gay – to paraphase a verse of Scripture.

    I think that some people want gays to have special recognition because that would serve to legitimatize the deviancy of their sexual actions. People need to stop being gay just as people need to stop being drunken addicts. Having a homo-erotic impulse is no different than having a compulsion to drink.

    We’re powerless and our lives are unmanageable (1st step)
    Only a Power greater than ourselves can restore us to sanity (2nd Step)
    We have to make a decision to turn our will and lives over to His care (3rd Step).

    And that’s exactly how this whole thing ought to be treated (not forgetting of course steps 4 through 12). One can recover – as this post on which we are commenting so elegantly demonstrates.

    But one other thing is important: we are NEVER recover-ED. Alcoholics who say that usually go out drinking again – it’s called arrogance and pride, the first to come in a slip (Sobriety Loses Its Priority). Rather, we are recover-ING (steps 10, 11 and 12). Whether it’s sobriety from a drinking complusion or sobriety from homo-erotic impulses, it’s still a DAILY reprieve contingent on one’s spiritual well-being. Giving special recognition to a gay identity or an alcoholic identity only serves to inflame the ego which inevitably leads to a slip (whether from homo-eroticism or drinking).

    But some people – even straights out of some perverse sense of tolerance – WANT homosexual filth to be declared as normal and would rather gays go to hell than gays find happiness in Jesus Christ. Sad.

  • Paul, sure we’re all God’s children but there are Jews and Greeks, slave and free, straight and gay.

    “So why do gays (or at least some gays and their straight liberal supporters) feel they rate special recognition?”

    Read the blog post!

    “Sexual identity is not just about sexual desire. A lot of the time people embrace a gay or lesbian identity because of real, genuinely foundational elements of personality that seem “queer” to other people. The LGBTQ community becomes a safety zone, and a gay identity becomes a security blanket, that protects the elements of personality that are under attack from mainstream culture. Anyone who is leaving a gay identity behind needs to find other ways of protecting those elements of personality, otherwise we just end up retreating back into the village when we come under fire.”

    “I think that some people want gays to have special recognition because that would serve to legitimatize the deviancy of their sexual actions.”

    It’s worth repeating:

    “Sexual identity is not just about sexual desire. A lot of the time people embrace a gay or lesbian identity because of real, genuinely foundational elements of personality that seem “queer” to other people. The LGBTQ community becomes a safety zone, and a gay identity becomes a security blanket, that protects the elements of personality that are under attack from mainstream culture. Anyone who is leaving a gay identity behind needs to find other ways of protecting those elements of personality, otherwise we just end up retreating back into the village when we come under fire.”

  • RR, I still don’t think gays rate special identity any more than alcoholics do. You disagree.

  • Foxfier, I made the same mistake about Tito. I thought maybe Tito was a woman until it registered. Anyway, Jesus and St. Paul are abundantly clear that the single life is a calling. Categories such as straight and queer are not biblical ones. These emerge from a culture of sexual politics. Sexuality is here seen to be defining in a way that Scripture never suggested.

  • I’m glad my kids were all napping when I had time to read this entire article, because it reduced me to tears. The author and I share a common experience of homosexual behavior. When I was a young woman, who had survived some childhood trauma within the family, I had an incredible amount of difficulty forming stable relationships with men. A well-meaning counselor (because counseling can solve any problem, right?) suggested that my difficulties were caused by suppressed homosexuality. I was twenty, it was 1991, and this seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Seven years later, I began to realize that her advice had been incredibly destructive. With the prayers, love, and support of my closest friends and a priest who is the finest example of his vocation I have ever known, I ended the relationship. It took me five years and exacted a physical, emotional, and financial toll that I’d rather not describe in detail.

    The difference between Mrs. Selmys’s story and my own is that I was never “gay.” I’m not terribly attracted to men aside from my husband (and father of our four children) and Jim Cantore (okay, you can laugh), but I think that’s more a function of love than anything else. I can see a good-looking man and think that he’s good-looking, and the same with a lovely woman, but there’s no sexual component to it.

    I am terribly, terribly grateful to Mrs. Selmys for sharing her tale and her experience. I know several other people who share the experience of living in a homosexual relationship and then choosing to live a chaste life, and the temporal conseuences have been terrible for most, if not all, of us. That said, the freedom I (and my friends) have found in following His will is a greater joy than any roll in the hay could ever provide.

    Thanks for listening.

  • Thank you so much for this. I struggle with SSA every single day and have been experimenting with other men recently. It’s been very emotionally draining and it just sucks the life out of my faith. This article was very encouraging for me as I struggle daily to be a half-way decent Catholic.

  • I have just said a prayer for you Freddy. Keep the Faith! God is stronger than any sin.

  • I hope it is an encouragement, Freddy. And I like-wise just said a prayer for you.

    God give you strength.

  • Freddy, may God bless you and keep you. You’ll be in my prayers always, and you have my love and respect.

  • Pingback: Sexual identity and desire « Joyful Papist

Cross & Eagle Award for Most Improved Blog

Tuesday, August 23, AD 2011

The Cross & Eagle Awards (C&EA) will be recognizing another legend and this particular blogger is in the field of apologetics.

This defensor fidei travels the country evangelizing both Catholics and non-Catholics alike, educating in the Catholic faith, and defending the eternal Truths.

In my estimation, he probably created his blog with minimal thought, not knowing what a tremendous tool it could be to evangelize.

Imagine not having to travel to another parish hall or hotel to do another presentation in person.  Not that he has stopped doing this, it’s that he can now reach a wider audience.

Unfortunately his blog wasn’t one of the best out there.

This all changed recently.

He changed the layout, improved the graphics by leaps and bounds, and made it much more interactive.  Yes, he improved the look of his blog overall.

Who is this mustachioed Catholic?

I am happy to present the 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for the Most Improved Blog in the Catholic Blogosphere to. . .

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Cross & Eagle Award for Most Improved Blog

Cross & Eagle Award for Most Prolific Blogger

Monday, August 22, AD 2011

The Cross & Eagle Awards (C&EA) will be honoring a true legend in Catholic Blogosphere history.

To qualify even for consideration you need not only be talented in writing and knowledgeable about our Catholic faith, you need to write often.  That is the kicker.

Many a Catholic blogger has stopped blogging due to an increase in the family unit, new job, blogging fatigue, carpal tunnel affliction, and even death.  And that’s just a short list.

This particular blogger didn’t allow a growing family nor inclement weather stop him.  Not even a beard that has gotten out of control has slowed down this convert.

Being a warrior for Christ, he is horizontally integrated in various forms of media battling heresy and anti-Catholicism in it’s many forms as well as educating the faithful and non-Catholic in our rich and long Catholic Tradition.

Even when his template was no longer supported or his antiquated version of blogger, he stayed the course, WordPress be damned!

Don’t know who this character of the Wild, Wild Web is?

Here is only a sample of the many publications he writes for online:

Crisis Magazine, National Catholic Register, Catholic Exchange, Inside Catholic, and a whole lot more.

I am happy to present the 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for the Most Prolific Blogger in the Catholic Blogosphere to. . .

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Cross & Eagle Award for Most Prolific Blogger

VirtuousPla.net, The Social Network for Young Adult Catholics

Monday, August 22, AD 2011

I’d like to announce a new Catholic website targeted for Young Adults:

VirtuousPla.net will be providing Catholic perspectives on every topic that matters to young adults–life, religion, relationships, and fun.

We have gathered 30 of some of the brightest young adult Catholics in the world that are already providing insightful articles ranging from current events to poetry.

Please click on the pic above or click here to see what it’s all about!

 

Continue reading...

One Response to VirtuousPla.net, The Social Network for Young Adult Catholics

Cross & Eagle Award for Most Catholic Non-Catholic Blog

Sunday, August 21, AD 2011

The continuing Cross & Eagle Awards (C&EA) is breaking new ground by honoring a non-Catholic blog today.

No, no, no, I will no longer entertain any submissions for the National Catholic ReporterThe Tablet, U.S. Catholic,  or America Magazine for this award.  This is a serious category and I will not tolerate such ornery suggestions.

Where were we, ah yes. . . there are a few notable exceptions to our separated brothers and sisters in Christ in the Protestant Blogosphere.

VirtueOnline, Mere Comments, and yes Get Religion come to mind.

But the winner of this rapidly-becoming prestigious award does more than be almost Catholic, he actually defends Catholic Church teaching when under assault from the world.  That cannot be said for some aforementioned “Catholic” blogs.

As much as this particular blogger reads like a solid orthodox Catholic blog, he is resistant to put his swim-trunks on to jump the Tiber.  Yet he is able to show to the world, more so than his state’s motto, that timeless Truths always lead back to the Church that Jesus established with Saint Peter as its Rock.

His wit is quick and his humor dry and to the point, he certainly reflects his proud patrimony he inherited from Canterbury.

I am happy to present the 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for the Most Catholic Non-Catholic Blog in the Catholic Blogosphere to. . .

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Cross & Eagle Award for Most Catholic Non-Catholic Blog

Last Call to Vote in GOP Presidential Poll for Catholics

Friday, August 19, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) GOP Poll will be accepting votes until tonight, so if you haven’t voted, now is the time.

Thus far former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is still leading with 23% (up 1 point since Wednesday) of the vote followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry with 17% (down 2 points since Wednesday) of the vote.

Continue reading...

Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Award for Longest Post Title

Thursday, August 18, AD 2011

The Cross & Eagle Awards (C&EA) will venture again into the unique today.

In the Catholic Blogosphere there are many authors that can make their point in a paragraph or two.  There are others that can write a 2,000 word essay in driving their point.  Still there are others that, like today’s cinema movie trailers, like to make their point not in their post, but in the title of their post!

This particular blogger makes a habit of writing his essay in the post title.  He, yes there’s no way around that, demonstrates that you can pack a powerful SEO punch by loading up on the post title.

He’s on the other side of the pond, but remember we are Catholics first before we are Americans or British or other.

Lately though he has been blogging on the Rupert Murdoch scandal in Britain.  He normally reports on all things Catholic and Anglican.

I am happy to present the 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for the Longest Post Title in the Catholic Blogosphere to . . .

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Award for Longest Post Title

Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Award for Best Author Pseudonym

Wednesday, August 17, AD 2011

The Cross & Eagle Awards (C&EA) aren’t your run-of-the-mill awards with standard categories and predictable results.  Not that all C&EA’s will be off-beat, but that some names, or pseudonym in this instance, in the Catholic Blogosphere are just so unforgettable, they need a category to themselves.

This next winner is just that, pretty unforgettable, genuine, and unique.

This 15th Century Hussite romantic is the Master of Ceremonies for his parish as well as the liturgy editor of a crusading blog, that frankly has stopped blogging (but only recently).  Nonetheless, his name deserves recognition because I can’t imagine anyone else ever making up this pseudonym.

His attention to detail may well explain his love of protocol in all things liturgical.

So without further delay:

I am happy to present the 2011 Cross & Eagle Award for the Best Pseudonym in the Catholic Blogosphere to. . .

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Cross & Eagle Catholic Blogging Award for Best Author Pseudonym

TAC Presidential GOP Poll So Far

Wednesday, August 17, AD 2011

The American Catholic (TAC) GOP Poll is still accepting votes until this Friday evening.

Thus far former Pennsylvania U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is leading with 22% of the vote followed by Texas Governor Rick Perry with 19% of the vote.

Texas U.S. Representative Ron Paul follows with 13% of the vote with undecideds rounding the top four at 11%.

Top tier candidates Michele Bachmann is way back with 2% of the vote with Mitt Romney at 5% of the total vote.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to TAC Presidential GOP Poll So Far

  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY EVENING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • In regards to the TAC Presidential GOP Poll, it would be interesting how many “Catholics” would still vote for Obama.

  • Santorum has to be one of the dumbest dudes God ever created!

    Diane Sawyer said the presidenial candidates spend millions on their campaigns adfvertising and looked into their campaignt T shirts The 3 major candidates had shirts made in the USA. Then she showed Gingrichs’ and it was foreign made and when asked it took him a few minutes and he figured it out and replied he’d get USA made shirts….then Ron Paul, took him a few minutes to think about his foreign made shirts and he decided to dispose of them all immediately and get USA made ones. A llittle slow those two but they got the idea. When she asked Rick Santorum… his response…it’s hard to find anything made in the USA, and hard as she tried couldn’t get him to think about it and give the right answer. And he’s running for President, just a little scary!!

  • I will not vote for a cafeteria Christian in name only Republican thug and thief… nor a godless Democrat thug and thief.

  • Fr. Leo Padget,

    That would be interesting.

    We’ll do a poll on that later in the year, just for the record!

  • So Rick Santorum is dumb because he was the only candidate in the exchange who didn’t pander?

  • Will gladly vote in the 2012 election for any of these candidates to replace Pres. Obama.
    Still depressed at times that our country would elect someone with his background and lack of experience. Especially troubling that so many Catholics could vote for someone who is more pro-abortion than NARAL.