April 18, 1942: The Doolittle Raid

Tuesday, April 18, AD 2017


Seventy-five years ago 80 very brave Americans, led by Army Air Corps Lieutenant Colonel James H. Doolittle, brought the nation a badly needed morale boost.  The War in the Pacific was going badly as defeat followed defeat.  Navy Captain Francis Low hit upon a plan to send a message, not only to the American public, but also to Japan, that the United States was not beaten and that it would strike back and prevail.

16 Mitchell B-25B bombers were placed on the carrier USS Hornet.  In great secrecy the Hornet and its escorts steamed to within 650 nautical miles of Japan when the force was discovered by a Japanese picket boat which was sunk by gunfire from the USS Nashville.  Fearing discovery the Doolittle force launched immediately, some 10 hours earlier than planned, and 170 nautical miles further from Japan.

The raiders reached the Japanese Home Islands at around noon.  They had split up into groups ranging from two to four planes and struck targets in Tokyo, Yokohama, Yokosuka, Nagoya, Kobe and Osaka.  The raiders then planned to fly their planes into Nationalist controlled China and make their way back to the US.  Miraculously 69 of the raiders did just that.  Three of the raiders died and eight were captured.

Of the captured raiders, three were executed by the Japanese on October 15, 1942 following a show trial.

The remaining five POWs were placed on starvation rations, with one of them dying prior to liberation by the Allied forces at the end of the War.  Jacob DeShazer, one of the POWs, came back to Japan as a missionary in 1948 and worked there for 30 years spreading the Gospel.

One Response to April 18, 1942: The Doolittle Raid

Leave a Reply

2 Responses to Publicans and Other Sinners

  • Taxes are too high, indeed. Medieval serfs handed over less of their product than the typical (about 51% of us) American taxpayer.

    It’s not only federal income taxes. There are state and local income taxes, real estate taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, etc. The cruelest excise taxes of all are on liquor.

    Due to a minor miscalculation in estimated taxes, fro 2016 we had a refund and filed in early February. Early onset Alzheimer?

    Regarding publicani, St. John the Baptist advised them to collect no more than authorized.

  • Medieval serfs handed over less of their product than the typical (about 51% of us) American taxpayer.
    Tax receipts in total amount to 30% of gross domestic product. A subset of that would be direct taxes (or ‘personal’ taxes), which amount to about 12% of personal income. IIRC, Jerome Blum had it that early modern serfs in the Hapsburg dominions were under quite a range of assessments (which varied locally), and could here and there be notionally liable for 70% of their crop.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Frogs

Tuesday, April 18, AD 2017



I hope that the Pope is paying attention to what the Orthodox Metropolitan of Mosul is saying:


Security and the rule of law are what Christians most need in Iraq, but it seems no one wishes to offer them, says Metropolitan Nicodemus Dauod Matti Sharaf, the Orthodox Syriac Archbishop of Mosul.

Speaking to the Register last month in Erbil, Metropolitan Nicodemus, who was the last bishop to leave Mosul when ISIS invaded the city in 2014, had strong words for the West: he said, citing an example, that the developed world places the welfare of frogs ahead of Christians, that the West needs to wake up to the threat of Islamism, and blamed past U.S. leaders and their allies for ruining his country. He likes President Trump, saying: “Let’s try the crazy one because we tried the normal one, and he destroyed our lives.”  

The 40 year-old Orthodox prelate, who Britain banned in December despite being formally invited to meet Prince Charles, also shares his views on Islam and why he greatly values the example set by Hungary for the respect its leaders have shown for Christians.

3 Responses to PopeWatch: Frogs

  • Many good quoted from the Archbishop in that article. Here is another:

    said “Those people [ISIL supporters in
    Europe] are the same ones who came here many years ago. And we accepted them. We
    are the original people in this land. We accepted them, we opened the doors for them, and
    they push us to be minorities in our land, then refugees in our land. And this will be with
    you if you don’t wake up. If you don’t wake up please tell us because we have caravans
    [house trailers for refugees]. When we go back to our villages, we won’t sell those
    caravans, we’ll leave them for you when you become refugees from your [Western]
    country. Believe me, this will be”

  • Pope Francis is unable to see or speak the truth. As a leader he has only negative effectiveness. Let us pray that he comes to his senses soon or resigns his job.

  • The Vatican and the western hierarchy opposed the American intervention in Iraq after 9/11 probably because they knew that Islam is suffering from a revival of jihadism. They know that they need the help of Muslims but seem not to understand that even the “moderates” are indifferent to the fate of the eastern churches. Or maybe it is that after Vatican Ii they have fallen prey to the pessimism and lack of confidence in their civilization that we see in most European leaders and of course the American left, of which many of our prelates are a part.

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

Monday, April 17, AD 2017

With respect to the advice given by the Author—to suspect the Man, who shall recommend moderate measures and longer forbearance—I spurn it—as every Man, who regards that liberty, & reveres that Justice for which we contend, undoubtedly must—for if Men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind; reason is of no use to us—the freedom of Speech may be taken away—and, dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter.

George Washington, March 15, 1783




The Red Fascists who run The Wellesley News at Wellesley College in Wellesley, Massachusetts, do not think much of freedom of speech.  Here is an editorial they wrote last week in which they attacked speech they disagree with:


Many members of our community, including students, alumnae and faculty, have criticized the Wellesley community for becoming an environment where free speech is not allowed or is a violated right. Many outside sources have painted us as a bunch of hot house flowers who cannot exist in the real world. However, we fundamentally disagree with that characterization, and we disagree with the idea that free speech is infringed upon at Wellesley. Rather, our Wellesley community will not stand for hate speech, and will call it out when possible.

Wellesley students are generally correct in their attempts to differentiate what is viable discourse from what is just hate speech. Wellesley is certainly not a place for racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech. Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech. The founding fathers put free speech in the Constitution as a way to protect the disenfranchised and to protect individual citizens from the power of the government. The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful and damaging.

10 Responses to Free Speech For Me, But Not For Thee

  • To discriminate, to discern right from wrong, is not hate, but wisdom.

  • I have nothing postive to say about leftism. This is a good post.

  • Without a doubt, that’s fully in accord with the attitudes of the student affairs apparat at Wellesley as well as an important section of the faculty. None of the rest of the faculty or the administration are willing to do much about it due to status considerations. The trustees could repair this problem, but they do nothing because they are generally hollow men.

  • I don’t need to read the whole article to see just how lacking in logic and clear thinking its writers are. The poor writing reveals the lack of logic, just in the excerpt quoted. I will quote ONE sentence which proves their inability to think clearly:

    ‘Shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others is not a violation of free speech; it is hate speech’

    Anyone with any understanding of logic would see that the pronoun ‘it’ in the second clause refers, grammatically and logically to the subject of the first clause: ‘Shutting down speech.’ The only rational reading of that sentence is that ‘Shutting down rhetoric is hate speech.’

    Perhaps they are aware that their political stance is hate.

  • One cannot reason with lunatics.

  • “The spirit of free speech is to protect the suppressed, not to protect a free-for-all where anything is acceptable, no matter how hateful or damaging.”

    What a load of excrement.
    Ask Milo Yiannopoulus about free speech on campus’, Berkeley for instance. Outing undocumented immigrants who are students there? That was the chatter the brown shirts​ came up with to pardon the violence they created. The fact is the brown shirts won’t tolerate anyone who doesn’t think like them. Seems​ Wellesley is drinking the same kool-aid as Berkeley.

    Poor snowflakes.

  • That is a university? What a pile of excrement that place is.. and so is their thinking.

  • The notion of “Repressive tolerance” is not new. It goes back at least to Herbert Marcuse’s 1965 essay of that name and similar ideas were expressed by Felix Dzerzhinsky at the time of the Russian Revolution.

    Marcuse argues that tolerance which enlarges the range of freedom is an end in itself but it has always been partisan and intolerant toward the protagonists of the repressive status quo. For him, the issue is only the degree and extent of this intolerance.

    Hence, “Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left. As to the scope of this tolerance and intolerance: … it would extend to the stage of action as well as of discussion and propaganda, of deed as well as of word.”

    Marcuse justifies this privileging and protection of radicalism on the Left on historical grounds: left leaning revolutionary movements are driven “from below’” by the masses in a fight against injustice while radical right movements are drive from above by the ruling classes and only result in further repression and control.

    This is what Alain Badiou, the Grand Old Man of the French Left means, with his ridicule of those who want a “decaffeinated revolution – 1789 without 1793” and his insistence that “if you say A – equality, human rights and freedoms – you should not shirk from its consequences and gather the courage to say B – the terror needed to really defend and assert the A.” Hence, his insistence that “”Materialist dialectics assumes, without particular joy, that, until now, no political subject was able to arrive at the eternity of the truth it was deploying without moments of terror. Since, as Saint-Just asked: “What do those who want neither Virtue nor Terror want?” His answer is well known: they want corruption -another name for the subject’s defeat.”

  • Without exaggeration, that editorial is – on its own definition – hate speech. So many times in so many places in so many ages, the Reign Of Terror follows the revolt.So often now saying “what you say offends me” is hate speech. Saying “you must provide me a safe space” is hate speech. Guy McClung San Antonio, Texas ps: No doubt in many of these totalitarian dystopias it would also be hate speech to say “Remember The Alamo!”

  • That last paragraph is a doozy.
    Right now we can’t define what constitutes “free” or what is “racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or any other type of discriminatory speech”
    What about “shutting down rhetoric that undermines the existence and rights of others”?

    There can be no discourse, no rhetorical discussion, no persuasion about a viewpoint when the audience already knows it all. Knowing it all hampers education.

    Our assumptions or traditional ideas about how teaching and learning take place are usually didactic. Facts are facts-teacher is right, students are spoon fed
    . Not really the best way. It seems that our teacher education programs have not produced vibrancy and challenge in education. I hate to blame the students and call them snowflakes- they just don’t know what they don’t know. The system seems to make teachers want safety in their career more than they want excitement about learning and figuring things out.
    Jesus used rhetoric – parables, questions– to teach his followers and also to teach them to think.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Jesuits

Monday, April 17, AD 2017


One feature of this pontificate that is striking is how the intellectual and spiritual decay that has infested the Jesuits for more than half a century has suddenly become the guiding force within the Church.  Sandro Magister gives us a recent example:


Among the priests born in the diocese of Carpi, that Pope Francis will visit on Sunday, April 2, there is one who is giving him a tough nut to crack.

His name is Roberto A. Maria Bertacchini. He was formed in the school of three Jesuits of the first rank: Frs. Heinrich Pfeiffer, an art historian and professor at the Gregorian, Francesco Tata, former provincial of the Society of Jesus in Italy, and Piersandro Vanzan, a prominent writer for “La Civiltà Cattolica.” A scholar of Augustine, he is the author of books and of essays in theology journals.

Last week Fr. Bertacchini sent to Francis and to Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, prefect of the congregation for the doctrine of the faith, a six-page “memorandum” highly critical of the ideas presented in a recent interview with the new superior general of the Society of Jesus, the Venezuelan Arturo Sosa Abascal, who is very close to the pope.

They are ideas, writes Fr. Bertacchini, “of such gravity that they cannot be passed over in silence without becoming complicit in them,” because they threaten to “result in a Christianity without Christ.”

The complete text of the “memorandum” is on this other page of Settimo Cielo:

> Promemoria…

While an abridgment of it is presented below.

The interview with the general of the Jesuits criticized by Fr. Bertacchini is the one given to the Swiss vaticanista Giuseppe Rusconi and published on the blog Rossoporpora last February 18, after the interview subject himself reviewed it word by word.

Settimo Cielo gave an extensive account of it in several languages.


On the interview with the general of the Jesuits on the reliability of the Gospels

by Roberto A. Maria Bertacchini

In February the general of the Jesuits gave an interview in which he insinuates that the words of Jesus on the indissolubility of marriage are not a point of theological stability, but rather a point of departure for doctrine, which must then be appropriately developed. This – taken to the extreme – could even lead to supporting the exact opposite, or the compatibility of divorce with Christian life. The initiative has in my view primed an explosive situation.

Of course, Arturo Sosa Abascal, SJ is very careful not to fall into outright heresy. And this, in a certain sense, is even more grave. It is therefore necessary to retrace the thread of his reasoning.

The question that he poses is whether the evangelists are reliable, and he says: it is necessary to discern. So it is not a given that they are [reliable]. Such a grave statement should be reasoned out at length and in depth, because it is indeed possible to admit error in a narrative detail; but to call into question the veracity of doctrinal teachings of Jesus is another matter.

However it may be, our Jesuit does not get involved, but – very deftly – appeals to the pope. And since Francis, in dealing with couples that are separated etcetera, up to the time of the interview had never cited passages in which Jesus referred to the indissolubility of marriage, the implicit message of our Jesuit was glaring: if the pope does not cite those passages, it means that he has done discernment and maintains that they are not of Jesus. So they would not be binding. But all the popes have taught the opposite! What does it matter? They must be wrong. Or they must have said and taught things that were correct for their time, but not for ours.

Let it be clear: the eminent Jesuit does not say this “apertis verbis,” but he insinuates it, he lets it be understood. And so he gives a key of interpretation for the pope’s pastoral approach to the family that departs from the traditional teaching. In fact, today “we know” that very probably, or rather almost certainly, Jesus never taught that marriage is indissoluble. It is the evangelists who misunderstood.

A Christianity without Christ?

The question is of such gravity that it cannot be passed over in silence without becoming complicit in it. The danger is that this could result in a Christianity reductive of the message of Jesus, or a Christianity without Christ.

In the Gospel for the Mass of last February 24 there was the passage from Mk 10:2-12 on repudiation. So is it acceptable to think that it is not known if Jesus uttered those words, and that they are not binding?

The “sensus fidei” tells us that the evangelists are reliable. However, our general of the Jesuits rejects this reliability, and in addition takes no interest in the fact that Saint Paul had also received this doctrine from the Church as being of Jesus, and handed it on as such to his communities: “To the husbands I order, not I but the Lord: the wife may not be separated from the husband, and if she separates, let her remain without remarrying or let her be reconciled with the husband, and the husband may not repudiate the wife” (1 Cor 7:10-11).

The consistency of this passage with the texts of the synoptic Gospels on repudiation and adultery is perfectly clear. And it would be absurd to imagine that these depend on Paul, and not on pre-Paschal traditions. Not only that. In Eph 5:22-33, Paul revisits the same teaching from Jesus and even reinforces it. He revisits it, because he cites the same passage of Genesis that is cited by Jesus; he reinforces it, because Christ loves the Church in an indissoluble way, to the point of giving his life, and beyond earthly life. And Paul makes this fidelity the model of conjugal fidelity.

Thus it is entirely clear that there is an evident continuity of teaching between pre-Paschal and post-Paschal preaching; and also clear is the discontinuity with Judaism, which instead kept the institution of repudiation. But if Saint Paul himself founds this discontinuity on Christ, does it make sense to bring the Gospels into question? From where comes that leap which inspired the practice of the ancient Church, if not from Christ?

It should be noted that divorce was also admitted in the Greco-Roman world, and in addition there existed the institution of concubinage, which could easily result in a subsequent conjugal union, as attested to for example by the experience of Saint Augustine. And in historiography the principle applies that cultural inertia does not change without cause. Therefore, the change being attested historically, what could be the cause if not Jesus? If this then was Christ, why doubt the reliability of the Gospels?

Finally, if Jesus did not speak those words, what is the source of the drastic comment from the disciples (“But then it is better not to marry!”) in Mt 19:10? Matthew was one of those disciples, and they do not come across well: they show themselves slow to understand and attached to the traditions that Jesus challenges. So from a historiographical point of view, the pericope of Mt 19:3-12 is entirely reliable: and as much for reasons of internal criticism as of external.

The dogmatic context

Moreover, to state that it is not known if Jesus actually uttered those words and that, in essence, they are not binding is “de facto” a heresy, because it is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture. 2 Tim 3 is very clear: “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, convincing, correcting, and training in righteousness.”

“All” evidently also includes Mt 19:3-12. Otherwise it is attested that there is an “other” word that prevails over Scripture itself and over its inspiration. In fact, affirming the unreliability of some words of Jesus is like opening a fissure in the dam of “fides quae,” a fissure that would lead to the collapse of the entire dam. I illustrate:

a) If Jesus did not say those words, the evangelists are not reliable. And if they are not reliable, they are not truthful; but if they are not truthful, neither can they be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

b) If Jesus did not say those words, must he really have said all the others that we take as good? Someone who is unreliable on one innovative question can be likewise on others, like the resurrection. And if, to give the priesthood to women, “La Civiltà Cattolica” does not hesitate to bring into question a solemn magisterium invoked as infallible, will there not be chaos? To what biblical authority can one appeal, if the exegetes themselves are perennially and ever more divided? This is the sense in which the dam collapses.

And that is not the end, because in following the doubts of the Jesuit general it is not only Saint Paul who is trodden underfoot, but also Vatican II. In fact, this is what it states in “Sacrosasnctum Concilium” 7:

“Christ is always present in His Church [. . .] He is present in His word, since it is He Himself who speaks when the holy scriptures are read in the Church.”

Since the passages on the indissolubility of marriage are read at Mass, and to be precise: Mk 10:2-12 on the Friday of the 7th week of ordinary time and on the 27th Sunday of year B, Mt 19:3-12 on the Friday of the 19th week of ordinary time, and Mt 5:27-32 on the Friday of the 10th week, it follows that Vatican II in a certain way attributes those words to the authority of Jesus.

Thus those who follow the doubts of the Jesuit general not only disavow Vatican II, and moreover in a dogmatic constitution, they also doubt Tradition to the point of making abstract and unattainable the very authority of Jesus as teacher. So we are facing a genuine carpet bombing, before which the firmest of reactions is absolutely necessary.

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Jesuits

  • Forgive me, but I have a mental image of Pope Francis upon reading this Memorandum becoming angry and saying “oh, this is just awful just awful, Bertacchini is using reason, clear reason, if only he wouldn’t reason, if only he would appreciate messy and unclear thinking..

  • David, His Humbleness won’t bother to read it. Sadly, I doubt he would be able to follow it.

  • Fr. Bertacchini is most courageous and inspired to confront quasi heretical thinking in his superior and most probably Pope Francis himself. Three things will now probably happen. Fr. Bertacchini will be reassigned not to be heard from again. The issues he raised will be left unaddressed. Hardly anyone in the clergy will come to his defense. And the thing is Fr. Bertacchini no doubt realized this would be the probably outcome but did it anyway. That’s what makes him a hero.

  • I was left with the same impression when I read the comment from the “Black pope.” Of course I could never have produced this irrefutable argument.

  • My Italian isn’t great, but it seems like you left out an important point: that the article states that the Holy Father specifically rebuked the Jesuit leader (who claimed that Pope Francis has never referred to the passage where Jesus condemns divorce) by referring to the passage six days later in a homily.

Leave a Reply

He is Risen!

Sunday, April 16, AD 2017

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

9 For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

11 Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins.

18 Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.

24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

1 Corinthians 15: 3-26

A glorious Easter to all TAC contributors commenters and readers!

4 Responses to He is Risen!

  • And a Happy Easter to you, too, Mr. McClarey!

  • Happy Easter to you and yours Clinton!

  • Happy Easter!

    The Resurrection – The First Glorious Mystery. Desire a strong Faith. Meditate on Christ’s Glorious Resurrection, when on the third after His death He rose from the tomb; and for forty days appeared to his Blessed Mother and disciples.

    The only begotten Son of God by His Life, Death and Resurrection has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life. Amen! Alleluia!

    The above is from in my yuge, little Rosary booklet.

  • Alleluia Alleluia
    Now for the grief: Coincidentally I was watching King of Kings where Robert Ryan made a wonderful St. John the Baptist, better than Charlton Heston. Jesus was NOT baptized. Rip Torn as Judas was good too, but not ordained at the Last Supper and of course, Jeffery Hunter made a rather unimpressive Jesus, lame reading words.
    The greatest Story Ever Told: if you notice,von Sydow has his hair cropped at the back of the neck. I could not watch it without knowing that Jesus’ hair was never cut. One must wonder what this story tried to tell. I do appreciate The Ten Commandments.
    Happy Easter.

Leave a Reply

5 Responses to Trump on Passover and Easter

  • It was good to hear your video script of the President, Donald Trump who was able, with sincerity, to deliver his message on the great Feast of our Redemption. Jesus died that all God’s people will have Eternal Happiness and that All would are be saved, if they followed His Laws and Commandments.
    God Bless America and The President.
    Frank Swarbrick

  • The video is in great contrast to the views of our former POTUS. I applaud our President and taking special care to “report,” what the failing msm wouldn’t do…The Coptic Christian bloodshed on Palm Sunday.

    Thank you for posting this video.

  • Its been a long time since we heard a President speak like this to warm a believing heart.

  • Indeed. Obama never delivered, would never deliver such an address,

Leave a Reply

O Sacred Head

Saturday, April 15, AD 2017


Something for the weekend.  O Sacred Head Surrounded.  The lyrics of this hymn derive from the latin poem Salve Mundi Salutare.  The authorship is open to doubt although I agree with those who attribute at least part of the poem to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, based upon stylistic similarities with portions of his other writings.    The sanctity and eloquence of Saint Bernard alloyed with the musical genius of Johann Sebastian Bach makes a potent combination indeed.

On a personal note this hymn has always moved me as no other does.  I had it played at my son’s funeral and when I depart this Vale of Tears I have requested that it be played at mine.  It reminds me that God died for me, something I find absolutely stunning.  Love and sacrifice begin and end with God, who regards each man as if there were no other.

Leave a Reply

Report to the Emperor-First Draft

Friday, April 14, AD 2017

(I post this each year on Good Friday.  A holy and happy Easter to all contributors, commenters and readers of TAC.)

I thank you Marcus for taking on the onerous task of acting as my secretary, in addition to your regular duties as my aide, in regard to this portion of the report.  The Greek, Aristides, is competent, and like most Greek secretaries his Latin is quite graceful, but also like most Greek secretaries he does not know when to keep his mouth shut.  I want him kept away from this work, and I want you to observe the strictest security.  Caiaphas was playing a nefarious game, and I do not think we are out of the woods yet.  I do not want his spies finding out what I am telling the Imperator and Caiaphas altering the tales his agents are now, no doubt, spreading in Rome.  Let us take the Jew by surprise for once!

6 Responses to Report to the Emperor-First Draft

Leave a Reply

The Ten Commandments

Thursday, April 13, AD 2017

All the good the Saviour gave to the world was communicated through this book. But for it we could not know right from wrong. All things most desirable for man’s welfare, here and hereafter, are to be found portrayed in it.

Abraham Lincoln, September 7, 1864





Holy Week and Passover coincide this year.  Dennis Prager in the above video imagines what a paradise the world would be if everyone obeyed the Ten Commandments.  Religion is not some extra element in Western Civilization, but at its very core.  Take it away and what is left is an alien and self-destructive force, not long for this world and with no hope of the next.



11 Responses to The Ten Commandments

  • How can we possibly know that they are True? Have you seen the tablets? I haven’t. And they didn’t have a tape recorder either. So who knows?

  • If we limit our knowledge of history to what we have seen with our own eyes than we have a May Fly view of existence. The Ten Commandments form the center of the Law of the Old Testament. That they are also True, i.e. good, can be determined by human reason alone, especially when pondering deviations from the Ten Commandments.

    (JFK is parodying the abominable statement of the new Superior General of the Jesuits, linked below:


  • The Dolores Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, by Anne Catherine Emmerick is the vision upon which Mel Gibson based his film The Passion of The Christ. It is available in audio book. “Love God with thy whole heart, mind and strength and thy neighbor as thyself” is the whole law and the prophets.
    Everywhere in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible, the Ten Commandments are expounded, again and again.

  • that is: The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It needed repeating.


  • Many, including some Catholics, have removed commandments and replaced it with Suggestions. False mercy and a disbelief in Hell have corralled many into honoring false God’s, ie LBGT as a normal acceptable forms of lifestyle to the point of discrimination laws muting the consciences of God fearing business owners. Abortion as Rights.
    Sodomy, pedophelia, pornography… God’s of today to name just a few.
    If we don’t come back to the basics, the Ten Commandments, we will suffer the fire from above..No deluge this time..but a fire that will rain down on much of humanity.

    Our Lady, Queen of Peace, save souls from the fires of Hell.

  • Unlike posted speed limits, which are merely recommendations, The Ten Commandment are mandatory, true, and vital.

    I saw on Facebook the latest detritus (“:Opinion is not truth.” Plato) from the head dastard at the so-called “Society of Jesus.” Those people never fail to disappoint.

  • The 10 Commandments, contrary as they are to the concupiscence of the eyes, flesh and the pride of life, are now being questioned indirectly by Pope Francis and directly by his spokesman Fr. Abascal, the new superior of the Jesuits. Can anyone have imagined this: that we are being invited to disbelieve the teaching of God by the Pope himself? I guess aside from praying for these people we should be thankful that we realize what is happening and inform others as this blog does so well.

  • “we are being invited to disbelieve the teaching of God by the Pope ” I hear you Michael Dowd and the confusion caused by what is happening in the Church, from top to bottom, hurts me almost physically.
    When we travel we meet so many Catholics so effusive of the goodness of the pope that we are left speechless.

  • Oddly enough, I was marveling about how the very nature of our culture is dependent on Christian/Jewish morals… even the need to write it that way is odd but based on love of other, since like Mr. Prager pointed out on his radio show yesterday, the big argument between us is that we think the Messiah has come, and he does not. (I didn’t catch why it had come up, just that little snippet.)

    It’s not going to fall, although it can get weaker or stronger; it is not a fast way, but it WORKS. Wonderfully made. 😀

  • It would have been 15 commandments if Moses hadn’t been such a klutz

Leave a Reply

The Case for Christ

Thursday, April 13, AD 2017


Anyone seen this movie yet?  I will be seeing it although not this weekend due to the fact my bride and will be having a total of ten teeth extracted by an oral surgeon on Good Friday.  (Yep, my family specializes in rotten teeth and expensive dental bills.)

I have Lee Strobel’s  books in my library although I confess that I have not read them yet.  (Too many books, too many things to do, too little time.)  His story is compelling:  an award winning atheist investigative journalist who embarked on a crusade to debunk Christianity after his wife, to his dismay, became a Christian and who ultimately, through his investigations, became a Christian.

In the spirit of Easter miracles, if you must faint do so into a soft area, I must point positively to a post by Mark Shea:

Bishop Barron on the stubbornly historical nature…

of the Christian faith:

Christianity is not fideist, that is to say, reliant upon a pure and uncritical act of faith on the part of its adherents. Rather, it happily embraces reason and welcomes critical questions. Secondly, and relatedly, Christianity is a stubbornly historical religion. It is not a philosophy (though it can employ philosophical language), nor is it a spirituality (though a spirituality can be distilled from it); rather, it is a relationship to an historical figure about whom an extraordinary historical claim has been made, namely, that he rose bodily from the dead.

Or as Paul bluntly put it:

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the Twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God which is with me. Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed.

Now if Christ is preached as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised;* If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. (1 Co 15:3–17).

This is not a story set in Joseph Campbell realm of cloud cuckoo land myth and legend.  This presents itself, both consciously and even accidently as historiography.  When Mark pauses to mention that Simon of Cyrene was the father of Alexander and Rufus for the benefit of his Roman audience, it’s because he is telling a story that involves the father of two guys they know personally (Romans 16:13).  That’s why the other gospels don’t mention this detail. The shout out makes given Mark’s audience but not given the audiences of the other gospels.  Simon of Cyrene was a real guy who really helped Jesus–who was real–carry his cross down a particular street to a particular spot outside the walls of the actual city of Jerusalem, where he was really crucified just like Spartacus.  And he really rose from the dead in a tomb nearby that you can still go and see.  And when Paul was writing most of the people who saw this dead man after his resurrection were still alive and you could talk to them.  And they believed it so much that they went on to die gruesome deaths for it.

History.  Not myth. Not legend.

12 Responses to The Case for Christ

  • Haven’t read the book, but did just see the movie “The Case for Christ”. One of my take-aways was a grief for the journalism of the past. Solid, unbiased. Anyway, the movie was very well done. I learned a lot. Wonder how it presents to a non-believer. So the next day, on the big screen, I see “The Ten Commandments” and believe this, and “The Case for Christ” should be shown in every high school, college and church for everyone’s viewing pleasure and journey to eternity.

  • Nate your comment got accidentally destroyed by me. Please repost it if you wish.

  • Death is the wages of sin. Jesus Christ is an innocent man. Death had no hold on Christ. Jesus was raised from the dead by God. If Jesus had sin on His soul, Jesus would have had to die for His own sins and mankind would not be redeemed and God, our Father in heaven would have not kept His promise of a Redeemer. God would be a liar. Our Lady too, would not be THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, preserved from original sin, created in original innocence and preserved in original innocence and therefore, assumed into heaven, body and soul. Catholicism makes sense, common sense.

  • “accidentally”… sure Don. 🙄 😉

    Not sure I could repost what I said (once written my brain purges the words to maximize RAM space) but it was something along the lines of CS Lewis’ point that Jesus was the True Myth. And that science and postmodernism have given myths a bad rap nowadays.

  • Saw the movie on Palm Sunday. Have a few comments.

    Read the NCR review by Steven Gredanus on Saturday. Showed it to Mrs. D. She being a movie fanatic gets emails from the local theaters. Checked and saw no sign of it. Went to their web sites and saw no sign. Went to a theater the next county over, found it, then saw a link back to another part of a local theater’s page (same chain). It was playing locally but the did not promote it and went to extensive lengths to bury it on their web page. Funny thing is there are more atheists in the next county where they did promote it.

    Went and saw the movie. It’s good, although the arguments were nothing new to me. The best parts were the depiction of the massive accumulation of evidence and the re-enactment of Strobel’s emotional journey.

    That night I bought the Kindle version of the recent edition and finished it last night. Very good. Don, you would like the Chicago crime trivia in each chapter. After reading it I’m convinced that Christianity is either real or (here’s the new part for me) the most successful conspiracy of fraud in history. Need to repeat, I know it’s real. One disappointment: the latest edition appears to be a re-write, with some interviews of more recent vintage than 1980-81. As such it still stands as Christology, but is weakened as autobiography.

    Everyone should see it.

  • Sorry to hear about the teeth. Feel better! Did you pick Good Friday out of sympathy with the suffering Christ?

  • Yes we did. Our dentist is a good Catholic who graduated from Notre Dame so he thought it was a grand idea!

  • “accidentally”… sure Don. ”

    Comments below comments that I am replying to are always at risk of my ham-fisted punching of the keyboard!

  • TomD, thanks for mentioning Kindle availability.

  • Here is the video I was trying to post yesterday where Jordan Peterson points out that myths are important.

  • Your dentist wanted to play Pilate?

  • Angel of Mercy was rather the role he was playing that day.

Leave a Reply

Holy Thursday, Saint Justin Martyr and History

Thursday, April 13, AD 2017


Now, Justin concludes, since Christianity is the historical and personal manifestation of the Logos in his totality, it follows that “whatever things were rightly said among all men are the property of us Christians” (Second Apology of St Justin Martyr, 13: 4).

Pope Benedict XVI, March 21, 2007



On Holy Thursday we commemorate the first Mass, the first miracle of the Eucharist.  None of us having been there, how do we know it occurred?  Faith of course, but faith buttressed by the knowledge that our Faith is supported by historical facts.  We know when Christ lived.  At each Mass we remember that He suffered under Pontius Pilate which allows us to date the Crucifixion and the Last Supper to plus or minus a few years.  We know when Caiaphas was High Priest.  Judaea, the province in which Christ lived, was not some make-believe land but a province of the Roman Empire and we know much about it at the time of Christ.  Above all, we have the Gospels and the Epistles of Saint Paul, documents written while those who saw and heard Christ still lived.

This of course was only the start of the historical record of Catholicism, the Universal Church.  Each generation produced new writers who give us precious facts of the journey through history of the Faith of Christ.  One of the most important of the early writers about the Church is Saint Justin Martyr.

Justin Martyr was born in Flavia Neapolis, ancient Shechem,  modern day Nablus, in Judaea circa 100 AD.  He was brought up a pagan.  Having enough money to pursue the study of philosophy, he encountered the teachings of Christ, after a long and methodical search for the true philosophy, and became a convert.  Having found the true philosophy, he traveled around the Roman Empire, spreading it, garbed in his philosopher’s gown.  Eventually he settled in Rome.  He wrote eight treatises defending Christianity.  His best known work is his First Apology which he addressed to the Roman Emperor Antonius Pius, one of the best of the emperors, who reigned from 138-161 AD.  This Apology was a plea for the Emperor to stop persecuting the Christians.  In this Apology he gives us many details as to how Catholics worshiped in Rome during the middle of the Second Century.   His description of the Eucharist is a treasure for all Catholics as we attend Holy Thursday Mass today.

5 Responses to Holy Thursday, Saint Justin Martyr and History

Leave a Reply

Cast Out of the Friendly Skies

Wednesday, April 12, AD 2017


The above video doesn’t cover the truncheon training for the new stewardess.  I have rarely seen a business commit public suicide like United Airlines:

The CEO of United Airlines apologized again Tuesday amid a global uproar sparked when a passenger was dragged screaming from his seat on a flight that, it turns out, wasn’t even overbooked.

“I continue to be disturbed by what happened on this flight, and I deeply apologize to the customer forcibly removed and to all the customers aboard,” CEO Oscar Munoz said in a statement. “No one should ever be mistreated this way.”

United has been under siege since videos of Sunday night’s violent confrontation on the plane at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport went viral, drawing hundreds of millions of views around the world. Social media outrage rained down on the Chicago-based airline.

United spokesman Jonathan Guerin said Tuesday that all 70 seats on United Express Flight 3411 were filled, but the plane was not overbooked as the airline previously reported. Instead, United and regional affiliate Republic Airlines, which operated the flight, selected four passengers to be removed to accommodate crew members needed in Louisville the next day. The passengers were selected based on a combination of criteria spelled out in United’s contract of carriage, including frequent-flier status, fare type, check-in time and connecting flight implications, among others, according to United.

Three passengers went quietly. The fourth, who was literally pulled out of his seat and off the plane, was David Dao, a physician in Elizabethtown, Ky.

Late Tuesday, CNBC reported that a pair of Chicago attorneys, Stephen L. Golan and Thomas A. Demetrio, are representing Dao. A statement from Golan said Dao is undergoing treatment in a Chicago hospital for unspecified injuries.

17 Responses to Cast Out of the Friendly Skies

  • I imagine United will survive. They’ve only lost about 1.1% over the past couple of days. July 2016, they were around $40 (according to my interpretation of their stock graph), now about $70 (down a couple of dollars). I think the public ridicule could be more damaging than the violence, so we shall see.

  • “Thank you, sir! May I have another!”

    “The beatings will continue until morale improves.”

    This is only one of the reasons I will not fly unless it’s absolutely necessary. I needed (retired) to fly for business purposes and learned to maintain a low profile and keep moving. One trick was paying (if they didn’t ask for “free” volunteers) $30 or more for a seat in the emergency exit row, I attained early boarding and more leg room. Another trick – booze. – flight three hour-plus get two. The $6.75(?) was well spent.

  • Another case of mandatory volunteerism gone bad. “Tonight’s in-flight film features; Fight Club, Planes Trains and Automobiles and Fist of Fury. The Captain just informed me that the offerings are complementary.”

  • Whether from foolishness or consequent to federal regulations, they didn’t offer enough compensation to induce 4 people to voluntarily leave the plane. (They might have received the requisite number of volunteers had they offered cash rather than vouchers). They were also exceedingly imprudent in attempting to remove people who had already boarded. What gets you is that the crew members in question could have been transported to Louisville by car in just a few hours, but the on-site manager elected instead to yank paying customers off the plane. Critics of United maintain they bump people 2-3x as often as competing airlines, so one might suggest a deficient corporate culture is at work here.

    This Dr. Dao is an embarrassingly juvenile creature.

    United’s been roasted before. Eight years ago, baggage handlers for United broke a guitar owned by a traveling crew of Canadian musicians and did so almost deliberately. United refused to compensate the man for the damage (maintaining he’d missed an absurdly short deadline to file a claim), so he wrote a song about dealing with their officialdom which went viral and took a chunk off their market cap.

    Airlines are a Bertrand oligopoly with thin profit margins. They really cannot afford to be repelling customers in this manner. You’d think they’d know that at United.

  • Who is more boocoo dinky dau? United? Dr. Dao?

  • Oh my goodness.
    That clip was precious and spot on in this thread. “Sir..CALM down.” Beautiful.

  • I’m reminded of those “COPS” shows where the perp is hauled physically out of his car, slamed to the ground by a few armed police, one of whom is kneeling on his head and they all yell “relax” as they forcefully bend his arms behind his back to cuff him.

  • Pretty unconvincing, especially when it comes to the contract of adhesion. Legally correct has little to do in this case with morally correct, especially in a case where you either agree to the contract written by the air line or you don’t fly. Additionally the whole debacle was a mammoth public relations disaster for United of epic proportions, something they might wish to consider prior to bullying passengers again.

  • The Bear has not flown commercial since 1621. In those days, aeroplanes were floating palaces.

  • I am considering flying United in hopes of being booted, beaten and enriched with a multi-million dollar, out-of-court settlement.

  • T.Shaw
    😎 I’m certain a few barristers on TAC could come to your defense….33 and a third isn’t just an old speed for phonographs.

  • Multi-millions $ sure beats the $800 and a free trip reportedly offered to 4 passengers for vacating their seats. On second thought the $800 and trip was a sure thing. The multii-millions settlement is not, if the information on http://www.thepilotwifelife.wordpress.com link is correct. More like arrest on several counts and a trial in federal court.

  • “I am considering flying United in hopes of being booted, beaten and enriched with a multi-million dollar, out-of-court settlement.”

    I like the concept T.Shaw. However, in my case I would fear that if my fellow passengers found out that I am an attorney they would happily join in group stomping me to death.

  • LOL. That reminds of the 10 reasons why lawyers would be good substitutes for lab rats.
    Sounds as if you and Mrs. McClarey will be releasing many poor souls from Purgatory with your dental appts. Good luck.
    Good luck.

Leave a Reply

Screen Pilates: Arthur Kennedy

Wednesday, April 12, AD 2017

Continuing our series on screen portrayals of Pilate that I began in 2011 during Holy Week.    The posts on portrayals of Pilate by Rod Steiger, Richard Boone, Barry Dennen, Hristov Shopov, Telly Savalas, Frank Thring, Stephen Russell, Greg Hicks, Cyril Richard, Stephen Moyer, Dennis King, Brian Mitchell, Leif Erickson, Peter Firth, David Bowie, Lowell Gilmore,  Hurd Hatfield and Vincent Regan, may be viewed  here, here, here, here  here , here, here, here, here , here , here, here, here , here , here , here , here and here.

The film Barabbas (1961) starring Anthony Quinn, focuses on the murderer, (Zealot?) Barabbas who was freed by Pilate instead of Christ.  As I was sure was the case with the historical Barabbas, he commits new offenses and finds himself again before Pilate portrayed by Arthur Kennedy.  Largely forgotten today, Kennedy who passed away in 1990 was a notable actor of the forties, fifties and sixties, and was considered one of the best supporting actors of his day.  He plays Pilate as something of an intellectual as he engages Barabbas in an impromptu debate as to whether states are merely bandits like Barabbas writ large.  This debate echoes this passage in book IV of the City of God by Saint Augustine:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, “What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor.”

2 Responses to Screen Pilates: Arthur Kennedy

Leave a Reply

Bear Growls: More of the Same

Tuesday, April 11, AD 2017



Our bruin friend at Saint Corbinian’s Bear points out that the Pope never misses an opportunity to disappoint:


The whole idea of blogging is that somebody does something and the blogger offers insightful commentary. But Pope Francis is so mind-numbingly stupid there’s just nothing to add.

Muslims mass-murder Christians in Egypt and the Pope says this:

We pray for the victims of the attack carried out unfortunately today, this morning, in Cairo, in a Coptic church. I am close to my dear Brother, His Holiness Pope Tawadros II, and to the Coptic Church and to all the dear Egyptian nation I express my profound condolence; I pray for the deceased and the wounded, I am close to the families and to the whole community. May the Lord convert the heart of all those persons that sow terror, violence and death, and also the heart of those that produce and traffic arms.

Sorry, Bear got nothing.

9 Responses to Bear Growls: More of the Same

  • I S L A M
    (WWMD: What Would Mohammad Do?)

  • Wonder what he could say about the mass political starvations of history… no shots fired- just keeping people from food and millions of deaths of the most innocent and helpless.

  • The less I pay attention to what that Argentinian Marxist Peronist heretic says, the better off I am.

  • Mads starvations would be blamed on capitalism. Or global warming. Or the nations who refuse to take in Muslims. Anything but the source with this guy.
    The next edition of Mario Vargas Llosa’s book The Guide to the Perfect Latin American Idiot should have the Pope on the cover.

  • It’s a weird obsession of the Holy Father’s, but still…I’ll give him this much, if you’re a gun manufacturer and you’re shipping a crate to the Muslim Brotherhood, that ain’t right.

  • “… and also the heart of those that produce and traffic arms.”

    Just wondering, what arms manufacturer produces suicide vests?

  • “shipping a crate to the Muslim Brotherhood, that ain’t right.”.
    I agree that is why I wish ISIS had not all that access to oil and why I am glad at least some of the chemical weapons were destroyed.

  • I agree wholeheartedly with LQ Cincinnatus above– the less attention I
    pay to this Pope’s bloviations, the better off I am. It pains me that it’s
    come to that. There is a certain symmetry, however, for this Pope has
    made it clear that he has nothing but contempt for Catholics of the
    “Promethian neo-Pelagian” variety like myself.

  • This Pope has made it clear he has nothing but contempt for reality.

Leave a Reply

One Response to Quotes Suitable for Framing: Jimbo Jones

  • A lawyer associate/friend once told me the first thing one learns in Law Scholl is the short answer for all issues is, “It depends.” No lawyer jokes, some of my best friends are lawyers.

Leave a Reply