PopeWatch: Que?

Saturday, February 25, AD 2017


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



Claiming that she was almost certain she had comprehend a word the new visiting Nigerian priest used during the homily, longtime parishioner Abby Longworth excitedly turned to friends and fellow parishioners today to inform them of the good news.

“I wouldn’t put my life on it, but I think he said ‘magisterium,’” Longworth whispered to parishioners, adding that she thinks he may have also used the word “obedient,” which, if her assumption was correct, meant the priest was delivering a homily about being faithful Catholics who adhere to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.

“If my theory is correct, and I pray it is, that would mean that this really is a kick-butt homily. He is Nigerian after all, and Nigerian priests are typically pretty solid, which only strengthens my theory that much more.”

While Longworth is excited to believe that she might’ve just heard a wonderful homily, she is now reportedly bracing herself for next week, when another visiting priest, Fr. Batongbacal Estrella, visits from the Philippines.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to PopeWatch: Que?

4 Responses to Rumadum Dum

  • @DJH. Unfortunately your probably correct. It might take a few more million dead fetus’s, a few more million sodomites, a few more million Islamic terrorists before the head of the serpent is finally crushed. I cringe.

    @ Mary De Voe. Yes. A very dark, deep and fast moving river for the fashionable mill stone necklace. After all, it’s fashion that they use to satisfy their lust. When / if this country makes it easier to rape children the target practice for CCL holders might come in handy. Mill stones. Just not enough to go around.

  • Oops.
    Wrong thread.

  • Oh Philip, I see I have scandalized you about posting on the wrong thread, but I appreciate your response. Philip, there will always be enough millstones or divine Providence will make more via volcanoes. I promise.

  • I apologize in advance. My minimum-age preference is eight-years-old for introducing youth to guns, marksmanship, and most important gun safety. Teaching them about Jesus, Redeemer, comes much sooner.

Potty Wars-2017

Friday, February 24, AD 2017


Last year the Obama administration attempted to coerce public schools into allowing mentally ill people who believe they are, or should be, the opposite sex from what their DNA says that they are, to use the bathrooms of the opposite sex.   The Trump administration reversed this yesterday leaving it to local and state governments to decide.  From the way this was reported in the mainstream media one might have thought that the world was coming to an end.  Of all the very mad policies embraced by the left none are madder than the belief that sex is an artificial construct and that people, at their whim, may adopt the sex that they prefer, biology be hanged.  This absurdity has become a core article of faith for the left, and that explains the fury with which common sense is met in this area by those on the port side of our politics.  This has little to do with that sad handful of the population who are mislabeled “transgender” and everything to do with the leftist war against reality.


Continue reading...

18 Responses to Potty Wars-2017

  • it seems that “Kaitlyn” Jenner is upset with President Trump. boo-hooo . . .

    The Congress didn’t vote for it. The Ninth Circus didn’t invent the Constitutional right for it. So, your former Chairman Obama dictated it. Then, threatened to cut-off US education funds from school districts that did not OBEY.

    FYI, liberals comparing girls’ locker rooms to (whites-only) drinking fountains is total nonsense.

    Thank God for small mercies. Each day, we are reminded that evil idiots have got to act like evil idiots.

  • The crime of assault is a violation of peaceable assembly. Striking fear and anxiety into the hearts of minor un-emancipated children, a captive audience of the state, is the crime of assault. Victimizing minor children who have no recourse to a safe place in their privacy is kidnapping by the state.
    It is said that Kennedy put a man on the moon. Obama put a man in a woman’s toilet.
    The law Obama made using Title IX makes the state liable, criminally liable, for every crime committed against every citizen under Obama’s dictate.

  • T. Shaw: Public schools act “in loco parentis” in the place of parents through power of attorney. Tax money belongs to the taxpayers even as the tax money is administered by the administration. Therefore denying any “FEDERAL” money to the states for education is embezzlement by the state.

  • I have always thought that “Life of Brian” clip to be among the best antidotes to this insanity. Last year, I saw an article about a “man” giving birth. The woman who thought she was a man was planning to have her breasts removed when she found out that she was pregnant. The author of the article never got around to asking why, if this woman thought she was a man, was she having vaginal sex? “Mental illness” is right.

  • Pingback: Canon212 Update: Spaced-Out Francis Twists and Flails Over Christ’s Command – The Stumbling Block
  • Those whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. The issues they champion are a sign of madness. Transgenderism??? My computer spell-checker does not recognize it as a valid word; yet the Democrats pander to the notion as if it were an actual minority to champion while ignoring the serious mental illness involved. Anyone, including medical practitioners who mutilate people, and God forbid, children, ought to be locked up. What ever happened to Primum Non Nocere ~Bill

  • That Monty Python clip is gold. I wander if God laughs or weeps at how stupidly we sometimes govern ourselves. The image of a child playing with a knife because he (or she 😉) thinks it’s a toy comes to my mind. I’m sure God wants to clubber the idiot who gave the child the knife in the first place. I know I do.

  • Fake news, fake concern about minority groups of persons- who are exploited by the people who claim to care while leading young people down the mentally deranging rabbit hole of Alice’s Wonderland.
    Real needs of real children trying to find their way in this world.

  • Ezabelle.

    I wish it was only a knife in your example, analogy.
    The concern I have is that this attempt to normalize sexual and gender disorder as being a freedom of sexual and gender identities for all to applaud.
    This false sense of individual freedom is more lethal than guns or knifes.
    This freedom of expression is nothing short of eternal slavery.
    Boys into the boys room.
    Girls to their respective washrooms.
    Is that too much to ask of our disordered neighbors?

  • “Is that too much to ask of our disordered neighbours?” Not at all Philip.
    I’m interested to know how many public schools actually implemented this ridiculous policy, and how many complaints they had from parents who opposed this. I’m also interested to know if there were any reported assaults on female students by so-called “transgender” pervert students who took advantage of this policy to prey on female classmates?

    Did Obama not realise he put innocent students at risk of harm with stupid law?

  • Thanks Donald.

    Wow. What complete disregard by Obama, considering he has two daughters.

  • This was one of the instances of overreach that brought us Trump. I knew people, left of center, who were bothered by the way Obama handled this.

  • Ezabelle: Obama had complete and total contempt for his constituents. Obama readily refused to represent his constituents and self-impeached himself everyday in the Oval Office. Obama’s tantrums are a sign of his disenfranchisement.. What treaty did Obama sign onto without Congress, the voice of the people? Acting alone, Obama has as much power as you, a private citizen does, Anzlyne.

  • Yes Mary agreed. My husband used to comment that Obama had no motivation whilst in office other than to always be the cool guy. It showed through his chumminess with Hollywood and the “It” crowd- dropping the mic, schmoozing Ellen, hi-fiving Michael Jordan. And I guess allowing girly-boys to use female toilets kept him in good standing with the rainbow crowd. All to be the “cool” President.

    But you are so right Mary, he had no intention to represent his constituents or do the will of ordinary Americans. And it went deliberately unnoticed by most of the media.

  • Yes Mary agreed. My husband used to comment that Obama had no motivation whilst in office other than to always be the cool guy.

    Hadn’t thought of it that way. I’d wager that’s true.

    Whatever his objects were, it did no bloody good for Democratic office-holders down ballot, who were decimated under his misadministration. I’ll bet you there’s quite a load of subterranean disgust among working politicians in the Democratic Party (something the media won’t report on either).

  • The absurdities and overreach of the Lil king was a stink that wafted over Hillary Clinton and permeated her pantsuit, mind and heart.
    This is plain to see, however the liberials can not face Truth because they don’t like Truth.
    They are agents of debauchery.
    Toilet wars, slaughter of the innocent’s and sexual deviant behavior ….these are the prideful degenerates that think they are “cool too,” yet are they? They think themselves wise, but their actions show how debased and miserable they are.
    Ashes on Wednesday to remind ourselves of our sinfulness, our destiny, our mission.
    I am to love the sinner.
    I am to love my neighbor.
    May God grant us the strength to witness the last four things as we allow our ashes to stay on our foreheads for the entire day.
    God help and bless Donald Trump, our President. An advocate for our children.
    A man who is not afraid to shake up the creepy left.

  • Thinking science can turn a male into a female is the zenith of pretense or the bottom of an immoral barrel. Now that we’re at the bottom, time to rise with an actual man in the White House and not some empty-headed Puppet.

PopeWatch: Image

Friday, February 24, AD 2017


An interesting communique from the Vatican:


The Secretariat of State includes among its responsibilities the protection of the image of the Holy Father, so that his message may reach the faithful intact, and so that his person is not exploited.

For the same reasons, the Secretariat of State safeguards all symbols and official coats of arms of the Holy See via the appropriate regulatory instruments at international level.

To render this protection increasingly effective for the aforementioned purposes and to stop any illegal situations that may arise, the Secretariat of State carries out systematic surveillance activities to monitor the ways in which the image of the Holy Father and the coats of arms of the Holy See are used, taking appropriate action where necessary.


Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Image

  • Is PF seeking first to understand… before being understood?

  • The Secretariat of State must protect the office of the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth, the Vatican. When Pope Francis is in error, the Secretariat of State must protect the Pope, not his error. Therein lies the great challenge.

  • Weren’t there protest posters against Pope Francis popping up around Rome recently? I wonder if it’s related to that.

  • Interesting that the Vatican is treating Pope Francis as a product.. Unfortunately, he is low quality product which nothing can salvage except the grace of God. Let us always pray for Pope Francis.

  • Hopefully, this episode will be the catalyst that makes Milo stop his homosexual activity and even return to the Catholic Church. If this were to happen I wonder how many invitations he would receive from the MSM and the Catholic Church to tell his story? My guess is few due to the awkward situation of having the guilty interview the repentant.

    Let us pray for him.

  • “[T]he Secretariat of State safeguards all symbols and official coats of arms”

    In Scotland, arms are protected by the Lyon Court against unlawful assumption and use, with both criminal penalties (it has its own Procurator-Fiscal) and civil remedies for the lawful bearer.

    The arms of foreign sovereigns are protected as a matter of comity; other foreign arms have to be matriculated, before they can be born in Scotland.

Bitter Harvest

Thursday, February 23, AD 2017




On one side, millions of starving peasants, their bodies often swollen from lack of food; on the other, soldiers, members of the GPU carrying out the instructions of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They had gone over the country like a swarm of locusts and taken away everything edible; they had shot or exiled thousands of peasants, sometimes whole villages; they had reduced some of the most fertile land in the world to a melancholy desert.

Malcolm Muggeridge – British foreign correspondent, War on the Peasants, Fortnightly Review, 1 May, 1933 

Eighty-five years too late, a movie on the Great Famine of 1932-1933 in the Soviet Union is being released tomorrow.  Some six million people were murdered by starvation in Stalin’s man made famine, and almost all of these people died in the most agriculturally fertile areas of the Soviet Union, especially the Ukraine.  This was Stalin’s way of imposing collectivization on the recalcitrant farmers of his empire, while eliminating the opposition to Communist rule in the countryside.  For Stalin the mass deaths were a feature not a bug.  While all this was going on most Western journalists in the Soviet Union actively attempted to conceal the existence of the famine.  Only a few brave journalists like Malcolm Muggeridge, then a partisan of the left, had the courage to speak out and tell honestly what they had seen with their own eyes.  Walter Duranty, who was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his reports from the Soviet Union,  of the New York Times denounced journalists who reported on the famine.  “Fake news” has a long pedigree on the left in this country.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Bitter Harvest

  • Stalin said: ” to kill one man is homicide. To kill 30,000,000 is a statistic.” Stalin enjoyed the death and dying of other people. The Russians tore up floor boards to get at grandma’s hidden preserves.

  • The Reds killed approximately 100 million of their people during the 20th century. In 1973, five (?) US Supreme Court justice set in motion the killings of 57 million and counting American gestational human persons. “And the beat goes on.”

  • We know a lot about the Holocaust and little about the Great Famine because there were few cameras in the Ukraine.

  • John Schuh: Too many Americans justify what Stalin did. One person cannot own another person” A. Lincoln. I was once told that Russia was justified because Russia needed the food. Ebeneezer Scrooge said, that many years ago: “Let Tiny Tim die and reduce the population.+ Nothing new here.

  • Watch “The Soviets” when it’s rerun on your local PBS. It’s chilling. At first Stalin selected specific groups and areas like the Ukraine to be anihilated. Then it got so Kruschev and the like would just ask Stalin for a quota of humans to kill…a 100,000 here, 200,000 there. Depravity.

  • This looks like the year for genocide films. The Promise, a film about the Armenian Genocide, will be out in April.


  • Bitter Harvest is getting panned all over the place. Too bad. It is the kind of film that needed to have been made. Perhaps the DVD edition could be used in fast forward to get a good presentation of the real events.

14 Responses to It Would Take a Heart of Stone Not to Laugh

  • Indeed, “it would take a heart of stone not to laugh” like a hyena.

    Guilty as charged!

    I habitually sit in the car listening to AM radio (Mark Simone and Rush L.) while the wife is shopping for crafts stuff. Yesterday, an older Long Island Jewish woman called MS and began the usual irrational anti-Trump rant. MS politely dragged her through the muck of her stupidity. I couldn’t stop laughing. People walking past the car must have thought I am nuts.

  • “Now some of us, like yours truly, got bailed out by our backers…”

    Fascinating. As I understand it, “backing” a premeditated riot, which is what
    this was, is a crime, and if the rioters or their backers crossed state lines to
    do so, or communicated across state lines– by phone, email, etc.– then a
    federal crime was committed by these mysterious “backers”. So, with
    luck, 10 years for these people is just the beginning of the sweet justice that
    shall rain down on these hired thugs and their puppet-masters…

  • In response to T.Shaw’s comment about Mark Simone and his trademark deftness in unveiling the daftness of leftist callers, he is (IMHO) the most penetrating, skillful—and hysterically funny. He strips away the layers of nutty reasoning until you see leftist idiocy in all its uncomfortable naked “glory”.

    The only other one who is able to do this in a repartee-type debate is the now-silenced Milo: so Simone, I hope, watches his back. You cant make the left look as venal and stupid as they are, or all the hypnotized young people will wake up.

  • In the words of Saint Thomas More, patron saint of lawyers: “If he offends God, then let God arrest him.”
    God freely wills to create man with free will. God will not contradict Himself and therefore, God will not annihilate man. Man’s abuse of free will brought death into the world God created. Man dies according to his free will. (The condemned capital one murderer is executed through the power of attorney of his own free will. I can hear his screaming “I do not want to die.” The capital one murderer must live the life he has taken and his victim is dead.)
    “You shall not put your hand against an innocent man.” This would be the Eighth Commandment: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” In a court of law this means that a person must tell the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth, “so help me God.
    Faith is a gift from God. Religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God. Atheists reject the gift of Faith from God, through their God-given free will. Atheists must be tolerated as death bed converts. The principles of atheism violate the First Amendment: “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Principles must be judged. Person must be tolerated.
    Man must live in peace to tolerate his neighbor. Who is capable of judging how another man must live his life loving his “Creator”?
    If God can create all mankind through an act of His will, and with the power of God keep all things in existence, then who can countermand the laws of God? Who can countermand the laws of God without incurring death upon himself; death upon himself to the tenth generation?
    If God refuses to contradict Himself, then mankind, in refusing to countermand God’s laws brings God’s blessings down upon himself; God’s blessings down upon himself to the hundredth generation.
    God wills to forgive the jihadists, the abortionists, the liar. God’s blessings are not brought down upon their progeny, for all eternity upon all their future generations. Zero, nada, zilch, zip.
    Do the souls in hell laugh? Laughter is caused by the human condition, sometimes the absurd incongruity of juxtaposition. But laughter is always caused by the recognition of Truth. The souls in hell have rejected the Truth and therefore, there is nothing but wailing and the gnashing of teeth. No, there is no laughter in hell.
    The souls in hell are not remembered. So, some say that hell is empty, but the wailing and gnashing of teeth may be heard in the chill of the night, or is it Satan crunching on the remains of their free will?

  • If concupiscence is a struggle, the Cosacks never bothered.
    Thank you for the open thread.

  • What have done wrong? I posted this on the open thread.

  • I suppose it is what I have not done right.

  • Mary De Voe.

    Your 10:29 post is poetry.
    Your insights are always welcome into the simple minded….( 🤔 ) I do enjoy them. Your a gifted writer.
    The only laughter from Hell might be Lucifer’s. After all, the unfortunate ones are his toys…for all time.

  • This is just like the SDS and the Weatherman in the 60s/70s only there’s better communication among themselves and with their uber wealthy puppet masters; the media gleefully reports on them and is for them. Nowadays it’s not just wacky professors but members of Congress and the courts and a former president who are fanning the flames. To the rioters not on the Soros payroll I say,”Get a job!”. Good to see that some will have long term employment making license plates in the big house.
    Any parent who brings a child to a riot should be charged with child endangerment along with destruction of property. It was a appalling to see 10 year olds lighting fires.

  • Philip Nachazel: I had not counted on such much needed consolation. I appreciate your kind words very much. and oh, I do hope this comment is not sent elsewhere but where ever it goes, know that you are much loved and prayed for.

  • This is the Liberal language of the Democrat–so sensitive and politically correct! I know people like this. There is something wrong with them.

  • Cam: Peaceable assembly to petition Government for a redress of grievances is our First Amendment. Inciting to riot, riot and uprisings are unconstitutional and cause the individual to disenfranchise themselves to any and all degree according to their actions, up to and including exile and treason.

  • Interesting. If the “backers” paid the bail, and ultimately pay the fine, I wonder if the thugs will report the payment as income on their returns? If not, the feds could pull an Al Capone on them. Ironic, wouldn’t it be?

Historical Rubbish

Thursday, February 23, AD 2017



I used to belong to the Society for Military History.  I withdrew my membership yesterday when I was informed by the Society that it had signed on to the following resolution by the American Historical Association.  Below is that resolution with my commentary:

The American Historical Association strongly condemns the executive order issued by President Donald J. Trump on January 27 purportedly “protecting the nation from foreign terrorist entry into the United States.” Historians look first to evidence: deaths from terrorism in the United States in the last fifteen years have come at the hands of native-born citizens and people from countries other than the seven singled out for exclusion in the order. Attention to evidence raises the question as to whether the order actually speaks to the dangers of foreign terrorism.

The resolution starts out with a sophistical piece of verbal sleight of hand.  Note the use of 15 years as the relevant time scale.  Why?  Why not 20 years or 25 years?  Because if a time scale longer than 15 years were used, 9-11 would be included, and the initial statement would be rendered false.  As an attorney, and familiar with weasel worded arguments, I have nothing but contempt for this type of lie of omission.

It is more clear that the order will have a significant and detrimental impact on thousands of innocent people, whether inhabitants of refugee camps across the world who have waited months or even years for interviews scheduled in the coming month (now canceled), travelers en route to the United States with valid visas or other documentation, or other categories of residents of the United States, including many of our students and colleagues.

Actually the Administration acted swiftly to fix the Executive Order for green card holders.  As for refugees, this was intended to be a temporary ban until proper vetting procedures could be put into place.  Last year the Director of the FBI testified before Congress that then current vetting procedures were inadequate.

The AHA urges the policy community to learn from our nation’s history. Formulating or analyzing policy by historical analogy admittedly can be dangerous; context matters. But the past does provide warnings, especially given advantages of hindsight. What we have seen before can help us understand possible implications of the executive order. The most striking example of American refusal to admit refugees was during the 1930s, when Jews and others fled Nazi Germany. A combination of hostility toward a particular religious group combined with suspicions of disloyalty and potential subversion by supposed radicals anxious to undermine our democracy contributed to exclusionist administrative procedures that slammed shut the doors on millions of refugees. Many were subsequently systematically murdered as part of the German “final solution to the Jewish question.” Ironically, President Trump issued his executive order on Holocaust Remembrance Day.

An organization that purports to represent American historians should do a better job with history.  As of 1939 the US had admitted 95,000 German Jewish refugees.  This was out of a total of 282,000 German Jewish refugees, and 117,000 Austrian Jewish refugees, who had emigrated from Nazi Germany, including Austria, up to 1939.


Continue reading...

11 Responses to Historical Rubbish

  • “An organization that purports to represent American historians should do a better job with history. As of 1939 the US had admitted 95,000 German Jewish refugees. This was out of a total of 282,000 German Jewish refugees who had emigrated from Nazi Germany up to 1939.”

    Do you have a source? I have a friend who would benefit from that info.

  • “By September 1939, approximately 282,000 Jews had left Germany and 117,000 from annexed Austria. Of these, some 95,000 emigrated to the United States, 60,000 to Palestine, 40,000 to Great Britain, and about 75,000 to Central and South America, with the largest numbers entering Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Bolivia. More than 18,000 Jews from the German Reich were also able to find refuge in Shanghai, in Japanese-occupied China.”


  • See KC Johnson (a mainline Democrat out in the world but hard right in History departments today). The race-class-gender narrative has pretty much consumed American history and people seeking the latest in conventional topics therein sometimes have to consult work published 35 years ago. What he doesn’t say is what’s happened to American history is what happened to sociology and anthropology earlier – it’s an apologetical discipline that works to defend contentious propositions favored by the academic clerisy as a subcuture. See Johnson’s discussion of Prof. Sarah Deutch of Duke, who has no business in a classroom.

  • I just cancelled the NY Times which I liked at the data reporting level in non political pieces but their data is way biased once it’s Trump related….half the daily initial articles are about Trump….negatively.

  • The sad state of historical study in the US. There was an excellent piece in the WSJ about dismissing the West altogether, but I don’t have a subscription. I saw the whole before I lost it and when I tried to pull it back up, it hit me with the subscription bit. But it shows what Ross Douthat said a couple weeks back. We are really a clash between two sides that see America (and to a greater extent the Christian West) as either good or evil. And it appears more and more the academics are joining with the evil assessment. Which makes you wonder. If history is written by the winners (and therefore able to be dismissed), and since it’s clear that the Left has won most of the academic world over to itself, does that mean the Left is the winner? And does that therefore mean we can take its approach to history with the same grain of salt?

  • I keep a HS AP American History text which I reference whenever I need to.

    The post-modern History texts mostly are agit-prop (agitation and propaganda). Plus, the current crop of students and teachers can’t handle the material as we could in the mid-1960’s.

    The leftists long since took over education. It’s not their faults that they’re functional illiterates. They represent generations of American “students” that have been corrupted with so-called American Studies classes that solely taught left-wing propaganda, PC victim groups, calumnies, and the trashing of uber-evil America.

  • We are really a clash between two sides that see America (and to a greater extent the Christian West) as either good or evil. And it appears more and more the academics are joining with the evil assessment. Which makes you wonder. If history is written by the winners (and therefore able to be dismissed), and since it’s clear that the Left has won most of the academic world over to itself, does that mean the Left is the winner?

    1. What is the function of intellectuals, but to tell us things are not as ordinary people see them and experience them?

    2. Trashing your ancestors can be a means for a clerisy to allocate to itself the authority over value scales.

    History isn’t written by the winners, but by the intelligentsia of the day, some of whom may have integrity. See the Spanish Civil War historiography.

  • Back to Sarah Deutch. Students in her classes at Duke got treated to a mess of topical blather about how the assault on Crystal Gail Mangum was a manifestation of a repeated pattern in American history and all too common today. We later learned that Crystal Gail Mangum concocted it out of whole cloth in an improvisation meant to avert a civil commitment. We also know (if we examine the statistical reports of the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics) that multi-assailant rapes of black women by white men are so rare they cannot be enumerated with ordinary survey research. (In fact, white-on-black rape of any description is unusual. There might be one or two a year in an ordinary metropolitan settlement the size of Durham). So, here you have Prof. Deutch, well paid by Duke and with a mess of professional accolades, spouting sociological fantasies to her students (and what are certainly known by the quants in the sociology department there to be fantasies). A year or so later, she crosses paths with Ralph Luker at an AHA conference. Luker discovers to his astonishment that Prof. Deutch was unable to digest the reality that the complaint against the three Duke students was a fabrication and proven as such by the state Attorney-General. “You mean about the charges being dropped…” she tells Luker. Not many people have minds which work that way, but Duke University under William Chafe’s regime was pleased to hire them.

  • The most striking example of American refusal to admit refugees was during the 1930s, when Jews and others fled Nazi Germany.

    And I wonder what the person writing this press release would have said at the time. “No, we can’t prioritise Jews fleeing from persecution, that would be setting a religious test!”?

  • Well done Donald. Glad to hear that members of SMH in the USA (I am in Australia) have resigned their
    membership, as I have done, because SMH signed on to the resolution of the American Historical Association.

  • Good to hear from you Peter! I was shocked that the SMH did this and I wanted them to know that there would be pushback.

Zachary Taylor and His Son-in-Law

Thursday, February 23, AD 2017

Jefferson Davis was the son-in-law of Zachary Taylor.  Marrying the daughter, Sarah Knox Taylor, of General Zachary Taylor, who opposed the marriage, he resigned his commission in the Army in 1835.  Tragically the new bride died three months after her marriage of malaria.  She was 21.  Taylor blamed Davis for bringing his daughter to the malarial infested region in which his plantation was located in Mississippi.  War would end the enmity of the two men who loved Sarah Knox Taylor.

Although he had resigned from the Army, however, Davis never ceased to be a military man, always retaining a fascination for all things martial. Thus it was only natural that Davis, a Congressman from Mississippi at the beginning of the Mexican War, resigned from Congress and raised a volunteer regiment, the Mississippi Rifles, which he led as colonel.

On July 21, 1846, the regiment sailed from New Orleans to join the army of Zachary Taylor in northern Mexico.

Davis had armed his regiment with 1841 percussion rifles, the latest technology, with much more reliable percussion caps substituted for flint locks. Davis’ men during the war would use the rifles with such deadly skill that ever afterwords the rifles became known as 1841 Mississippi percussion rifles.

Davis and his men participated in the siege of Monterrey in September of 1846. The war in northern Mexico then entered a quiet phrase which was shattered in February of 1847 by a Mexican offensive.

Continue reading...

One Response to Zachary Taylor and His Son-in-Law

  • Great Story. I have always thought that the Confederacy would have been better served by Davis in the field than in the presidency. He surely would have preferred that. But always for him duty was the highest call.

PopeWatch: Jesuits

Thursday, February 23, AD 2017


PopeWatch has long thought that much that afflicts the Church can be summed up in one word:  Jesuits.  Sandro Magister gives us a case in point:


Incredible but true. In the eighth chapter of “Amoris Laetitia,” the most heated and controversial, the one in which Pope Francis seems to “open up” to remarriage while the previous spouse is still alive, there is no citation at all of the words of Jesus on marriage and divorce, presented primarily in chapter 19 of the Gospel according to Matthew:

«Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”»

It is an astonishing omission. Also striking are two other moments of silence from Francis, on the same question.

The first took place on October 4, 2015. It was the Sunday of the beginning of the second and final session of the synod on the family. And on that very day, in all the Catholic churches of the Latin rite, at Mass, the Gospel passage read was from Mark (10:2-9), parallel to the one in Matthew 19:2-12.

At the Angelus, the pope avoided any reference to that passage of the Gospel, in spite of its extraordinary pertinence to the questions discussed at the synod.

And the same thing happened last February 12, with another similar passage from the Gospel of Matthew (5:11-12) read at Mass in all the churches. This time as well, at the Angelus, Francis avoided citing and commenting on it.

Why such adamant silence from the pope on words of Jesus that are so unequivocal?

One clue toward a response is in the interview that the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, the Venezuelan Arturo Sosa Abascal, very close to Jorge Mario Bergoglio, has given to the Swiss vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi for the blog Rossoporpora and for the “Giornale del Popolo” of Lugano.

Here are the passages most relevant to the case. Any commentary would be superfluous.


Q: Cardinal Gerhard L. Műller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, has said with regard to marriage that the words of Jesus are very clear and “no power in heaven and on earth, neither an angel nor the pope, neither a council nor a law of the bishops has the faculty to modify them.”

A: So then, there would have to be a lot of reflection on what Jesus really said. At that time, no one had a recorder to take down his words. What is known is that the words of Jesus must be contextualized, they are expressed in a language, in a specific setting, they are addressed to someone in particular.

Q: But if all the worlds of Jesus must be examined and brought back to their historical context, they do not have an absolute value.

A: Over the last century in the Church there has been a great blossoming of studies that seek to understand exactly what Jesus meant to say… That is not relativism, but attests that the word is relative, the Gospel is written by human beings, it is accepted by the Church which is made up of human persons… So it is true that no one can change the word of Jesus, but one must know what it was!

Q: Is it also possible to question the statement in Matthew 19:3-6: “What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder”?

A: I go along with what Pope Francis says. One does not bring into doubt, one brings into discernment. . .

Q: But discernment is evaluation, it is choosing among different options. There is no longer an obligation to follow just one interpretation. . .

A: No, the obligation is still there, but to follow the result of discernment.

Q: However, the final decision is based on a judgment relative to different hypotheses. So it also takes into consideration the hypothesis that the phrase “let man not put asunder…” is not exactly as it appears. In short, it brings the word of Jesus into doubt.

A: Not the word of Jesus, but the word of Jesus as we have interpreted it. Discernment does not select among different hypotheses but listens to the Holy Spirit, who – as Jesus has promised – helps us to understand the signs of God’s presence in human history.

Q: But discern how?

A: Pope Francis does discernment following St. Ignatius, like the whole Society of Jesus: one has to seek and find, St. Ignatius said, the will of God. It is not a frivolous search. Discernment leads to a decision: one must not only evaluate, but decide.

Q: And who must decide?

A: The Church has always reiterated the priority of personal conscience.

Q: So if conscience, after discernment, tells me that I can receive communion even if the norm does not provide for it…

A: The Church has developed over the centuries, it is not a piece of reinforced concrete. It was born, it has learned, it has changed. This is why the ecumenical councils are held, to try to bring developments of doctrine into focus. Doctrine is a word that I don’t like very much, it brings with it the image of the hardness of stone. Instead the human reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.

Q: I seem to understand that for you there is a priority for the practice of the discernment of doctrine.

A: Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine.

Q: But it can reach conclusions different from doctrine.

A: That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit.

Continue reading...

15 Responses to PopeWatch: Jesuits

  • Sophistry and rationalization. Pure unadulterated male bovine manure.

  • Incredible.

    While reading Abascal’s answers I can’t help but recall these words; “Let your speach be yea yea; or no no, and that which is over and above these is evil.” Matthew 5:37 – Douay-Rheams version.

    This is not good. ( A. Yes, but doctrine is part of discernment. True discernment cannot dispense with doctrine.)

    Maybe it’s me. I read double speak here. It’s as if Hillary Clinton is giving the answers.

  • Fr Abascal’s replies suggest that he is unfamiliar with the literature on the subject, which is really the hoary Biblical Question.

    Much of the argument over the Biblical Question, when the development of biblical criticism at last forced Catholics to confront the development of dogma and the historical nature of consciousness and dogmatic expression was thrashed out threadbare over a century ago.

    It is voluminously documented in the writings of Maurice Blondel (Histoire et dogme 1904), Alfred Loisy (L’Evangile et l’église 1902), Lucien Laberthonnière (Positivisme et catholicisme 1911) and Edouard Le Roy (Dogme et critique) and the correspondence between them (they were indefatigable letter-writers) and in the columns of periodicals such as La quinzaine and Annales de philosophie chrétienne.

    It is difficult today to appreciate the separation, up until then, of theology from history as a factor for understanding this conflict; it resulted in a lack of historical consciousness which at its extremes, and even among theologians, approached a mythic mentality. It drove men like Mgr Duchesne and Loisy to the opposite extreme of a ruthless historicism, leaving to theologians the task of reconciling doctrines with facts.

    In his letter of 18 August 1898 to Baron von Hügel, Blondel seemed to recognize the complementarity of his method of immanence with historical study. “The success which is so necessary and—with time—so certain of your biblical criticism seems to me intimately bound to the progress of the apologetic method of immanence, which alone, it seems to me, includes the freedom of evolution and the fixity of orientation in the life of humanity.”

    In his opposition to Loisy, Blondel insists on searching for the “real history” beneath its historical and written record. His philosophy of action allows him to see “tradition,” grounded in the actual lives of Christians, as the continuous link in the development of dogma. And, inversely, this living tradition of the life of faith reaching to the present allows the Christian historian, in faith, to recognize the integral supernatural reality of the originating events of Christianity.

    What they all shared, in opposition to Protetant Biblical scholars was the belief that the “Church is the continuation of the gospel; Christian development is not exterior to or alien to the gospel.” (Loisy to Blondel, 11 February 1903).

  • “That is so, because doctrine does not replace discernment, nor does it the Holy Spirit. ”

    Oh good. My discernment (and of course counsel of the Spirit) is that I can shack up with that hot neighbor of mine, not pay my taxes, give depressed wages to my employees and generally hate anyone who is not like me.

    Its about time I say.

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

  • As I said recently to RCIA students, “Pope Francis, is a Jesuit. Jesuits play loose with the liturgy, and the Magisterium can be most annoying to them”. And I am a graduate of Gonzaga University.

  • I feel your pain, Jerry: 12 years of Jesuit education myself including BA St Louis U (’79) and MA Santa Clara U (’85), but there were still Jesuits with a reasoning brain in their head and a deeply spiritual life formed on Christ in the Gospels (Did the Sp. Exercises of S.I ever talk about “interpreting” the Scriptures? Yeah, yeah, “discernment”, but that was discerning if one was following the Standard of Christ or the Standard of the Devil (#136-147)—a lost cause for Jesuits who entered after 1970, it appears).

    In conclusion, I feel your pain.

  • I think Giuseppe Rusconi clearly had Abascal on the ropes by his relentless serious of logical questions.

    I diagramed the discussion Abascal’s side of the argument, a series of retreats before Rusconi’s unrelenting advances, like this:
    • Abascal: premise: “historical context” of Scriptures (SS)
    • Abascal: Ok then: “discernment” of SS real meaning
    • Abascal: Ok then: SS need to be “interpreted”
    • Abascal: Ok then: Personal conscience has priority over SS
    • Abascal: OK then: SS’ Doctrine has always changed
    • Abascal: OK then: Discernment is higher than Doctrine.

    In the end, Abascal gave it up when he averred:
    ” ..Reality is much more nuanced, it is never black or white, it is in continual development.”

    Just cant make out anything here, for all the grey fog lying about. I guess Philip is right about the “hot neighbor” option.

  • Then, I guess S. Dominic was all wrong when he chose black and white as the symbols of his order, because he asserted that by reasoning, one could successively distinguish good from evil until it eventually became as clear as black from white.

  • A valid Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be rationalized away, because Jesus Christ is the witness. Pope Francis is the Vicar of Christ. If Pope Francis rationalizes Jesus Christ’s witness away, Pope Francis will cease to be the Vicar of Christ.

  • This is a serious question: In what way is this not moral relativism?

    Perhaps I misunderstand the concept or what is being said.

    It sounds to me like Abascal is saying “there is an objective Truth for each of us and it is up to us to discern that Truth for ourselves. If we do so, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are objectively in the right.”

    If that is correct, then the Roman Catholic Church is wrong and our sola scriptura Christian brethren are right: “read the Bible. Pray on it. God will tell you what to do.”

    What am I missing?

  • I am glad that Phillip made the comment. Had I, a woman, made the comment I would be drinking water with ashes in it and running around the temple three times to prove it was only humor. Gosh, I am tired and still running.
    I recently watch QUO VADIS by Henryk Sienkiewicz. In the film, Marcus seizes the cross from the wall, breaks the cross and throws the cross on the floor, saying: “I will not share my wife with anyone.” Some men cannot share. Some men become abusive because they need another person to stroke their inferiority complex.
    Keep up the good work. Gosh, I’m still running.
    If one of the spouses refuses to consent to an annulment, the marriage stays intact. So, how can one spouse in the Sacrament of Penance seek and procure an annulment without the consent of the absent party to the marriage? If we look at the issue from heaven we see that God is not giving consent to annul valid marriage through the Sacrament of Penance. If the person persists in his studborn refusal to accept the Word of God on his marriage, he may go to hell and still be married.

  • Fr. Abascal’s words are so convoluted! He says it is not reletavism, then in the same sentence says it is relative. Sheish!! This guy is so confused, and wants to spread his confusion. The words of Jesus are very clear! But, one must have eyes to see and ears to hear. This guys eyes and ears are blind and deaf!

    When I converted to become Catholic, I had the experience of seeing and hearing differently. I had read the book of John Ch 6 twice ( at least, maybe more) and never understood that Jesus was talking about the Eucharist. Then during my conversion, the next time I read it, it was SO obvious Jesus was talking about the Eucharist, I couldn’t read it any other way.

    Fr. Abascal seems obsessed with the Holy Spirit and discernment, but I think he is lacking the Holy Spirit to help him understand the obvious words of Jesus. His eyes and ears are blocked to the truth of Jesus.

    We have priests teaching against the obvious words of Jesus Christ. God help us!! Mother Mary, help us!

  • Clara: I must add to your wonderful comment. To receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist unworthily is condemnation. Isn’t there enough condemnation in the world?

  • The Jesuits that traveled the Great Lakes were my favorite Saints. But my opinion of Jesuits today was formed by Malachi Martin.

2 Responses to Ride to Dubno Open Thread

  • America said goodbye to a Sultan who had much in common with Mehmed IV.
    That being his ego.
    In the speeches, the Sultan Obama, references himself, his greatness and his illusions of grandeur. Sultan Obama, a laughable little man who is in love with himself. Hussain? Insane!

  • The music is not to my liking, anymore than the Cossacks of whom I am a descendant, by rape in 1595, to my liking.

Was Zachary Taylor Murdered?

Wednesday, February 22, AD 2017


I find it comforting that conspiracy theorists have always been with us, and that they are not only a feature of our times.  On July 4, 1850 Taylor had a busy day attending several Independence Day celebrations and a fund raising event for the Washington Monument.  The day was hot and Taylor drank a lot of ice milk and ate a great deal of raw fruit.  Unsurprisingly he came down with a gastric ailment thereafter.  Physicians treated him with the best medicine of the time, which often weakened or finished off the poor patients subject to it:  Taylor was dosed with ipecac, calomel, opium, and quinine at 40 grains per dose (approximately 2.6 grams), and bled and blistered.  Several of Taylor’s cabinet members came down with similar symptoms.  The 65 year old Taylor died on July 9, 1850.

In hindsight an analysis of Taylor’s death is pretty straightforward.  The White House had a tainted water supply with raw sewage running into it.  This probably killed three presidents:  Harrison, Polk (who died shortly after his term in office) and Taylor.  Cholera was the big killer in 19th century urban centers until sewers were installed, and Taylor likely died of some variant of that bacterial infection.

Taylor had opposed what became known as the Compromise of 1850, wanting to keep slavery out of the territories won from Mexico.  Some abolitionists claimed, without any evidence, that pro-slavery advocates had poisoned the president.  Although rumors abounded, no official investigation ever took place.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Was Zachary Taylor Murdered?

  • Old Rough and Ready’s remains were returned to their resting place and conspiracy theorists attacked the results, hard-core conspiracy theorists being ever immune to concepts like facts and evidence.

    They’re not immune, so long as the fact (or factoid) in question is congruent with their antecedent thesis. The birth certificates of Eleanor Darragh (the mother of Ted Cruz) and of Barack Obama have recently been ‘proven’ to be forgeries by people presenting themselves as mavens in the realm of digital imaging. The latter sets were hired by the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, who keeps getting re-elected even though he’s a manifest clown.

  • He was defeated in the last election Art. His successor seems to be just as much of a clown in the opposite direction.

  • Millard Fillmore did it! Gotta raise his profile somehow; I read about this theory among others on tabloid history, which speculates on outrageous theories; i.e., Beethoven’s deafness was from syphilis, Buchanan was gay, etc.

  • Or also, the culprit could have been unpasteurized milk.

    Raw milk, by the way, is a big hit out her in the SF Deranged Area. All those little germs, what harm could they do to an already fevered class of brains?

PopeWatch: And Stay off my Lawn!

Wednesday, February 22, AD 2017



It will be interesting to see how the younger fans of the Pope react to this:


Pope Francis wants youngsters to BRB from their cellphones at the dinner table, warning that the lack of face-to-face communication with adults could result in “war.”

“When we’re at the table, when we are speaking to others on our telephones, it’s the start of war because there is no dialogue,” the 80-year-old pontiff told students last week at Roma Tre in Rome.

The pope also chided today’s youths for their lack of manners, saying that instead of a friendly “good morning,” they opt for an “anonymous ‘ciao, ciao.’”

“We need to lower the tone a bit, speak less and listen more,” he said.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: And Stay off my Lawn!

Sweden and Trump

Tuesday, February 21, AD 2017


Oh this is too hilarious. Just twenty-four hours after Trump was ripped by the left in this country and the Swedish government for clumsily pointing out the problems that mass Islamic immigration has caused to Sweden, this happens:



As we reported last night, just days after the media mocked Trump for his allegations of major problems with Swedish migrant policies, the president was vindicated after a violent riot broke out in the borough of Rinkeby, also known as “little Mogadishu.” Now that the incident is over, in their “post-mortem” Swedish officials confirm that riots erupted in the “heavily immigrant Stockholm suburb” Monday night, as masked looters set cars ablaze and threw rocks at cops, injuring one police officer, Swedish officials said.

The violence erupted just days after President Trump was ridiculed during a Saturday campaign rally for mentioning Sweden alongside a list of European targets of terror. Trump later said his “You look at what’s happening last night in Sweden” remark was in response to a Fox News report on the country’s refugee crime crisis that aired on Friday evening.

“Sweden. They took in large numbers [of refugees],” Trump added at the Florida rally. “They’re having problems like they never thought possible.”

Sweden’s official Twitter account – which is operated by a different user each week – tweeted at Trump on Monday morning: “Hey Don, this is @Sweden speaking! It’s nice of you to care, really, but don’t fall for the hype. Facts: We’re OK!”

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Sweden and Trump

  • Muslims don’t commit violence so Trump is wrong.

  • The more the left criticizes Trump, the more they look like the donkey’s hind end that they are. It is no coincidence that the symbol of their party is the jackass.

  • As well as this under-reported tid-bit—the “‘refugee’ riots” in Sweden—has anyone noticed this fascinating under-the-radar gem: the “radicalized” US Muslim in North Carolina who intended to go on a shooting rampage with an as-yet-unidentified associate 2/19/2017?


    I also find fascinating he had an actual AK-47 with hundreds of rounds, and in his last post Saturday night (he was planning the attack on Sunday, hmm, Christian day of prayer) he told others on the site Whisper, “We’ll be on CNN tomorrow.”

    How come he could get a real AK-47, and where, is my question? Rather outmatches my puny legally-obtained and licensed 6-ways-to-Sunday-in-CA .38 S&W and 9mm Sig-Sauer.

  • IMHO, everyone should read the daily briefing from Robert Spencer’s jihadwatch.org, and see the total disconnect between the yellow-stream media and the reality he documents there.

  • The media, MSM, is traitorous!
    What is it going to take to flush out the impurities of fake journalism or propaganda journalist out of the center?
    They are criminals.
    Donald Trump has the cojones to call them what they are. Question is, will Americans boycott the advertisers doing business with CNN, MSNBC and so on?
    Until that happens the cesspool of liberalism will be stinking up the public domain.

  • Refugees Welcome Here! Massacres, rapes, murders, national ruination simply are prices we pay for having immigrants and refugees. For Sweden, “Das Dicke Ende Kommt Noch.” With, Thank God, President Donald J. Trump in office not so much for America.

    Can somebody supply us with reasonable rationales for open borders and mass muslim immigration? I only have two: stupidity and hatred for (evil, unjust) America and for the uses Americans make of their freedoms.

  • And this coming in; http://patriotupdate.com/terror-sweden-chemical-attack-strikes-subway/

    Subway….. It’s not just a sub shop ..Fer sure fer sure yeah don’t change know..It’s All Good.wink wink nudge nudge.

  • Cannot remember the source unfortunately: the forecast for Sweden is that by 2030 the Swedes will be a minority in their own country. What has happened to those of Vikings descent?? The situation is insane. Rather than stepping up security for its citizens and jailing the thugs that prey on women, the government tells women and girls just don’t go out at night. The rape and assault happens in the daytime as well.
    Godless liberals with no backbone.

PopeWatch: Pontiff as Party Leader

Tuesday, February 21, AD 2017



The Pope in a letter has given a  gathering of leftist groups in California their marching orders:


The following is the message sent by Pope Francis to the participants in the Meeting of Popular Movements taking place in Modesto, California, United States of America, from 16 to 19 February.

Dear Brothers and Sisters,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for your effort in replicating on a national level the work being developed in the World Meetings of Popular Movements. By way of this letter, I want to encourage and strengthen each one of you, your organisations, and all who strive with you for “Land, Work and Housing,” the three T’s in Spanish: Tierra, Trabajo y Techo. I congratulate you for all that you are doing.

I would like to thank the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, its chairman Bishop David Talley, and the host Bishops Stephen Blaire, Armando Ochoa and Jaime Soto, for the wholehearted support they have offered to this meeting. Thank you, Cardinal Peter Turkson, for your continued support of popular movements from the new Dicastery for the Promotion of Integral Human Development. It makes me very happy to see you working together towards social justice! How I wish that such constructive energy would spread to all dioceses, because it builds bridges between peoples and individuals. These are bridges that can overcome the walls of exclusion, indifference, racism, and intolerance.

I would also like to highlight the work done by the PICO National Network and the organizations promoting this meeting. I learned that PICO stands for “People Improving Communities through Organising”. What a great synthesis of the mission of popular movements: to work locally, side by side with your neighbours, organising among yourselves, to make your communities thrive.

A few months ago in Rome, we talked at the third World Meeting of Popular Movements about walls and fear, about bridges and love.[1] Without wanting to repeat myself, these issues do challenge our deepest values.

We know that none of these ills began yesterday. For some time, the crisis of the prevailing paradigm has confronted us. I am speaking of a system that causes enormous suffering to the human family, simultaneously assaulting people’s dignity and our Common Home in order to sustain the invisible tyranny of money that only guarantees the privileges of a few. “In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history.”[2]

As Christians and all people of good will, it is for us to live and act at this moment. It is “a grave responsibility, since certain present realities, unless effectively dealt with, are capable of setting off processes of dehumanisation which would then be hard to reverse.”[3] These are signs of the times that we need to recognise in order to act. We have lost valuable time: time when we did not pay enough attention to these processes, time when we did not resolve these destructive realities. Thus the processes of dehumanisation accelerate. The direction taken beyond this historic turning-point—the ways in which this worsening crisis gets resolved—will depend on people’s involvement and participation and, largely, on yourselves, the popular movements.

We should be neither paralysed by fear nor shackled within the conflict. We have to acknowledge the danger but also the opportunity that every crisis brings in order to advance to a successful synthesis. In the Chinese language, which expresses the ancestral wisdom of that great people, the word “crisis” is comprised of two ideograms: Wēi, which represents “danger”, and Jī, which represents “opportunity”.

The grave danger is to disown our neighbours. When we do so, we deny their humanity and our own humanity without realising it; we deny ourselves, and we deny the most important Commandments of Jesus. Herein lies the danger, dehumanisation. But here we also find an opportunity: that the light of the love of neighbour may illuminate the Earth with its stunning brightness like a lightning bolt in the dark; that it may wake us up and let true humanity burst through with authentic resistance, resilience and persistence.

The question that the lawyer asked Jesus in the Gospel of Luke (10:25-37) echoes in our ears today: “Who is my neighbour?” Who is that other whom we are to love as we love ourselves? Maybe the questioner expects a comfortable response in order to carry on with his life: “My relatives? My compatriots? My co-religionists? …” Maybe he wants Jesus to excuse us from the obligation of loving pagans or foreigners who at that time were considered unclean. This man wants a clear rule that allows him to classify others as “neighbour” and “non-neighbour”, as those who can become neighbours and those who cannot become neighbours.[4]

Jesus responds with a parable which features two figures belonging to the elite of the day and a third figure, considered a foreigner, a pagan and unclean: the Samaritan. On the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, the priest and the Levite come upon a dying man, whom robbers have attacked, stripped and abandoned. In such situations the Law of the Lord imposes the duty to offer assistance, but both pass by without stopping. They were in a hurry. However, unlike these elite figures, the Samaritan stopped. Why him? As a Samaritan he was looked down upon, no one would have counted on him, and in any case he would have had his own commitments and things to do—yet when he saw the injured man, he did not pass by like the other two who were linked to the Temple, but “he saw him and had compassion on him” (v. 33). The Samaritan acts with true mercy: he binds up the man’s wounds, transports him to an inn, personally takes care of him, and provides for his upkeep. All this teaches us that compassion, love, is not a vague sentiment, but rather means taking care of the other to the point of personally paying for him. It means committing oneself to take all the necessary steps so as to “draw near to” the other to the point of identifying with him: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” This is the Lord’s Commandment.[5]

The economic system that has the god of money at its centre, and that sometimes acts with the brutality of the robbers in the parable, inflicts injuries that to a criminal degree have remained neglected. Globalised society frequently looks the other way with the pretence of innocence. Under the guise of what is politically correct or ideologically fashionable, one looks at those who suffer without touching them. But they are televised live; they are talked about in euphemisms and with apparent tolerance, but nothing is done systematically to heal the social wounds or to confront the structures that leave so many brothers and sisters by the wayside. This hypocritical attitude, so different from that of the Samaritan, manifests an absence of true commitment to humanity.

Sooner or later, the moral blindness of this indifference comes to light, like when a mirage dissipates. The wounds are there, they are a reality. The unemployment is real, the violence is real, the corruption is real, the identity crisis is real, the gutting of democracies is real. The system’s gangrene cannot be whitewashed forever because sooner or later the stench becomes too strong; and when it can no longer be denied, the same power that spawned this state of affairs sets about manipulating fear, insecurity, quarrels, and even people’s justified indignation, in order to shift the responsibility for all these ills onto a “non-neighbour”. I am not speaking of anyone in particular, I am speaking of a social and political process that flourishes in many parts of the world and poses a grave danger for humanity.

Jesus teaches us a different path. Do not classify others in order to see who is a neighbour and who is not. You can become neighbour to whomever you meet in need, and you will do so if you have compassion in your heart. That is to say, if you have that capacity to suffer with someone else. You must become a Samaritan. And then also become like the innkeeper at the end of the parable to whom the Samaritan entrusts the person who is suffering. Who is this innkeeper? It is the Church, the Christian community, people of compassion and solidarity, social organisations. It is us, it is you, to whom the Lord Jesus daily entrusts those who are afflicted in body and spirit, so that we can continue pouring out all of his immeasurable mercy and salvation upon them. Here are the roots of the authentic humanity that resists the dehumanisation that wears the livery of indifference, hypocrisy, or intolerance.

I know that you have committed yourselves to fight for social justice, to defend our Sister Mother Earth and to stand alongside migrants. I want to reaffirm your choice and share two reflections in this regard.

First, the ecological crisis is real. “A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system.”[6] Science is not the only form of knowledge, it is true. It is also true that science is not necessarily “neutral”—many times it conceals ideological views or economic interests. However, we also know what happens when we deny science and disregard the voice of Nature. I make my own everything that concerns us as Catholics. Let us not fall into denial. Time is running out. Let us act. I ask you again—all of you, people of all backgrounds including native people, pastors, political leaders—to defend Creation.

The other is a reflection that I shared at our most recent World Meeting of Popular Movements, and I feel is important to say it again: no people is criminal and no religion is terrorist. Christian terrorism does not exist, Jewish terrorism does not exist, and Muslim terrorism does not exist. They do not exist. No people is criminal or drug-trafficking or violent. “The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence yet, without equal opportunities, the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and will eventually explode.”[7] There are fundamentalist and violent individuals in all peoples and religions—and with intolerant generalisations they become stronger because they feed on hate and xenophobia. By confronting terror with love, we work for peace.

I ask you for meekness and resolve to defend these principles. I ask you not to barter them lightly or apply them superficially. Like St. Francis of Assisi, let us give everything of ourselves: where there is hatred, let us sow love; where there is injury, let us sow pardon; where there is discord, let us sow unity; where there is error, let us sow truth.[8]

Please know that I pray for you, that I pray with you, and I ask God our Father to accompany and bless you. May He shower you with his love and protect you. I ask you to please pray for me too, and to carry on.

Vatican City, 10 February 2017


[1] Address to the 3rd World Meeting of Popular Movements, Paul VI Audience Hall, 5 November 2016. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/november/documents/papa-francesco_20161105_movimenti-popolari.html

[2] Evangelii Gaudium §52

[3] Ibid. §51

[4] Cf. General Audience, 27 April 2016. http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/audiences/2016/documents/papa-francesco_20160427_udienza-generale.html

[5] Ibid.

[6] Laudato Si’ §23

[7] Evangelii Gaudium §59

[8] Cf. St Francis of Assisi, Peace Prayer.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to PopeWatch: Pontiff as Party Leader

  • I’m wondering whether the following is a “rhetorical question.” “Is the Pope Catholic?”

    Subsidiarity Forever! We shall not be moved.

    I see two common stains in liberation and popular movements: envy and hatred. Both are sins against the most important Theological Virtue – Charity. It seems as if he “sleep walked” through this past Sunday’s Gospel.

  • I saw no reason to read past his thanks to the odious (c)atholic Campaign for Human

  • T Shaw wrote, “I’m wondering whether the following is a “rhetorical question.” “Is the Pope Catholic?””

    As Wittgenstein points out, there is one thing of which one can say neither that it weighs one kilo, nor that it is does not weigh one kilo and that is le grand K in Paris. Both statements are meaningless.

  • the
    Campaign for Human Development gave us the community organizer, Obama, a Saul Alinskyite as president. As much as 30 percent supports abortion groups. If Pope Francis wants peace, he, Pope Francis, needs to stop provoking Satan.

  • I’m no philosopher. And, I spent the past weekend with the wrong crowd – a bunch of over-aged boy scouts.

    Great World Philosophers:

    “To be is to do.” Socrates

    “To do is to be.” Plato

    “Do be do be do.” Sinatra

    Great Catholic Popes
    St. Peter
    St. Gregory the Great
    Pope Francis – like Sinatra above, he doesn’t belong.

  • Pingback: The Half Time Period Of Alinskyite Popes Is Rather Short. | Mundabor's Blog
  • Perhaps he has a split personality. Or maybe just a hypocrite. That was Jesus’ word for Pharisees:


  • Introspection and the Pope are clearly not on speaking terms.

  • This Pope has ‘Rules for Radicals’ down pat!

  • Reading the Pope’s words is simply too much like work and not worth the effort.

  • I think some forget this a tradition in the papacy, not that unique to Francis… In two encyclicals, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) in 2005 and Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) in 2009, Benedict reminded Catholics of the perils of indifference to modern human and ecological maladies. In Deus Caritas Est, Benedict details the church’s proper role in works of charity and in seeking social justice, expressing the interconnectedness of justice and charity as the complementary requirements of all people of faith. “Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due,” he writes, “is an essential task which every generation must take up anew.”

  • “Building a just social and civil order, wherein each person receives what is his or her due,” he writes, “is an essential task which every generation must take up anew.”

    And often killing tens of millions of people in the attempt, as the last century so graphically demonstrated. God save us from utopian economic and political schemes no matter the source. The Popes have a poor track record in these types of endeavors. They created the Holy Roman Empire and then spent most of the next thousand years fighting the Emperors of that amorphous entity.

  • The US and the Cupboard countries have given this bunch of leftist crap a gigantic NO! The Pontiff of Rome knows nothing except leftist drivel and being a bully. My five year old has more sense than this leftist drivel.

  • Stupid auto correct on this stupid phone. Visegard not Cupboard. Geez.

  • “Is the Pope Catholic?” The simple and obvious answer… NO, and… therefore it is impossible that he is Pope. Non-Catholics need not apply. (That goes for the previous 5 joker apostates as well). Pax Christi, pray for a Pope!

  • Tim Mc Hugh: “In two encyclicals, Deus Caritas Est (God is Love) in 2005 and Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) in 2009, Benedict reminded Catholics of the perils of indifference to modern human and ecological maladies.” The great divide is that when Pope Benedict wrote these principles he was referring to the sovereign human being, but Never, Never, the state, especially the state engineered by criminal tyrants.
    Man in his relationship with God, makes these decisions through his conscience and each person is different, and divine Providence provides for all differences.

Comments on Lincoln’s Eulogy of Zachary Taylor

Tuesday, February 21, AD 2017

Yesterday I ran a post containing Abraham Lincoln’s eulogy on Zachary Taylor.  Go here to read it.  It is an interesting eulogy and deserves some comment.  It should be noted that Lincoln was disappointed that the Taylor administration did not offer him a post that he had been seeking.  As one of the leaders of the Whig party in Illinois, he felt that this was a slight not only to him but to Illinois Whigs.  Outwardly he remained supportive of the Taylor administration, but privately he regarded Taylor as a weak leader and an immense disappointment.  Thus his eulogy was delivered more out of duty than out of any fondness for a man who turned out to be the last Whig elected president.  On to the eulogy.

Continue reading...

One Response to Comments on Lincoln’s Eulogy of Zachary Taylor

  • I think it was Herndon who pointed out that Lincoln was not meant to be a eulogist–at least not as the 19th Century expected it.

    His heart was definitely in the one he delivered for Henry Clay, but it still comes across as stilted.

PopeWatch: LarryD

Monday, February 20, AD 2017


LarryD at Acts of the Apostasy has given the benefit of every possible doubt to Pope Francis through this purgatory of a Pontificate.  PopeWatch was thus struck by this post:


I’ve read some reviews, synopses, and commentaries of Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio’s recently published booklet, “The Eighth Chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia,” and I gotta tell you, I never knew Episcopalians had cardinals. I knew they had bishops, but not cardinals.

Here’s the pertinent pernicious paragraph:

“The divorced and remarried, de facto couples, those cohabiting, are certainly not models of unions in sync with Catholic Doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. Therefore, the sacraments of Reconciliation and of Communion must be given even to those so-called wounded families and to however many who, despite living in situations not in line with traditional matrimonial canons, express the sincere desire to approach the sacraments after an appropriate period of discernment… Yes, therefore, to admission to the sacraments for those who, despite living in irregular situations, sincerely ask for admission into the fullness of ecclesial life, it is a gesture of openness and profound mercy on the part of Mother Church, who does not leave behind any of her children, aware that absolute perfection is a precious gift, but one which cannot be reached by everyone.” 

In other words, R.I.P. heroic virtue. Take the wide road. Don’t rely on God’s power to sanctify you each day – through prayer, through courageously bearing one’s cross, through sacrifice, through baptismal graces, through reception of the graces one receives worshiping at Mass – because gosh darn it, God doesn’t want you to be unhappy. God doesn’t want you to feel left out because you haz sincere desires. You can even be a cohabiting couple – simply express a sincere desire to approach the sacraments, and the Church won’t look the other way.

Imagine parents treating their children this way, giving them what they wanted because they felt they deserved it, and didn’t want to feel left out.

Oh…wait. Bad example.

That excerpt is more appropriate for inspirational posters one sees hanging in corporate meeting rooms and business corridors. This is Holy Mother Church we’re talking about, though, not Google headquarters.

The Church, though, doesn’t demand absolute perfection. She helps us become perfected and ultimately reach heaven, not hand out the Eucharist like it’s a participation trophy. None of us deserve the Eucharist – it’s an incredible gift from Jesus Christ of himself. All of us must meet requirements to be worthy of reception – one of which is to be in a state of grace. Remember the parable of the marriage feast in Mt 22?

“And those servants went out into the streets and gathered all whom they found, both bad and good; so the wedding hall was filled with guests. But when the king came in to look at the guests, he saw there a man who has no wedding garment; and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you get in here without a wedding a garment?’ And he was speechless. Then the king said to to the attendants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; there men will weep and gnash their teeth.’ For many are called, but few are chosen.”

This is serious business. What the cardinal is recommending, is that one can do evil in order to bring about a good. Since when, in all the history of the Catholic Church?

Continue reading...

12 Responses to PopeWatch: LarryD

  • Hebrews 13:8 “Jesus Christ, yesterday today, and the same forever. 9 Be not lead away with various and strange doctrines. For it is best that the heart be established with grace, not with meats; which has not profited those that walk in them.”

    The meats found in Amoris Laetitia are not fit for the sojourner who seeks his final destination. One who eats of this meat will find it difficult to journey on since his bowels will dictate his progress or lack there of.

  • Despair is the devil’s tool. Go ahead be as bad as you will, you cannot reach perfection. The Sacrament of Reconciliation may not be used to annul first marriages since two witnesses establish a judicial fact. There is only one testimony in the Sacrament of Penance. Penance, by the way, is for the penitent, not his ex-spouse. Undoing of the Sacrament of Reconciliation will help no one.

  • Sometimes extending the benefit of the doubt is not all that beneficial. This is a case in point.

  • A picture is worth a thousand words. The brief caption adds 10,000 words. I don’t take away “epciscopalian” cardinals. I say they are shallow thinkers cardinals. I am being charitable and nonjudgmental, here.

  • There is no question that the Church, under Pope Francis and those sychophants who cling to him, is in a de facto – not formal – schism. The SSPX is looking better all the time, and their canonical regularisation is only months away. I guess that is one good thing, at least, that we can thank Pope Francis for. Of course, their situation was perfectly regular in 1970, until in 1975 the jealous liberal bunch conned the CDF and Pope Paul into removing their canonical status under false pretences.

  • Thanks for the link, Donald.

  • Phillip.

    From “Disrupters” come the greatest bunch of pro-aborts the Catholic Church can muster…And from where? Chicago and San Diego. Great. At the very least I can feel comfortable knowing that the liberial Catholic Church is leading in the anarchy.

  • “Thanks for the link, Donald.”

    Thaks for writing a great post Larry!

  • Atta boy Larry D. better late than never.

  • This justification by the cardinal is provably false, because he says sacrament of Reconciliation. This requires from purpose of amendment, which those divorced remarried not living as brother and sister cannot offer.

  • ” after an appropriate period of discernment…” Saint Thomas More could have kept his head. Apparently he thought it better to enter the Kingdom of Heaven with his head under his arm than risk to going to Hell with it on his shoulders.

Lincoln on Taylor

Monday, February 20, AD 2017

I have never liked Presidents’ Day.  Why celebrate all presidents when only a select few of them, like Washington and Lincoln, deserve to be celebrated?   Officially the date is still the commemoration of George Washington’s birthday, which actually won’t occur until February 22.  However, I will keep up my tradition of writing about presidents on this day.

American presidents all fit into two broad categories:  those who had political careers and held political offices prior to their presidency and those who did not.  Only five presidents held no political office prior to being elected President:  Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, Herbert Hoover, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Donald Trump.  Zachary Taylor, the first non-politician to become president, is now an obscure figure to most Americans, his fame in the Mexican War almost entirely forgotten by the oblivion that has largely swallowed that conflict, and his relatively brief time in office ensuring that his administration would be one of the forgotten ones in popular memory.  Ironically, one of our two most famous Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, deliver a eulogy on the death of Taylor.  Tomorrow I will comment on the obituary.  Today, I want us to focus on Lincoln’s words, as we use the eulogy as a springboard to look at “Old Rough and Ready” throughout this week.  Here is Lincoln’s eulogy:

At Chicago, July 25th, 1850

GENERAL ZACHARY TAYLOR, the eleventh elected President of the United States, is dead. He was born Nov. 2nd, [2] 1784, in Orange county, Virginia; and died July the 9th 1850, in the sixty-sixth year of his age, at the White House in Washington City. He was the second [3] son of Richard Taylor, a Colonel in the army of the Revolution. His youth was passed among the pioneers of Kentucky, whither his parents emigrated soon after his birth; and where his taste for military life, probably inherited, was greatly stimulated. Near the commencement of our last war with Great Britain, he was appointed by President Jefferson, a lieutenant in the 7th regiment of Infantry. During the war, he served under Gen. Harrison in his North Western campaign against the Indians; and, having been promoted to a captaincy, was intrusted with the defence of Fort Harrison, with fifty men, half of them unfit for duty. A strong party of Indians, under the Prophet, brother of Tecumseh, made a midnight attack on the Fort; but Taylor, though weak in his force, and without preparation, was resolute, and on the alert; and, after a battle, which lasted till after daylight, completely repulsed them. Soon after, he took a prominent part in the expedition under Major Gen. Hopkins against the Prophet’s town; and, on his return, found a letter from President Madison, who had succeeded Mr. Jefferson, conferring on him a major’s brevet for his gallant defence of Fort Harrison.

Continue reading...