Tomorrow PopeWatch will have much to say about the dismaying appointment of Bishop Blase Cupich to head the Archdiocese of Chicago. Mark Shea back in 2011 gave some reasons why this appointment is disturbing:
Bishop Cupich has informed all of his priests and seminarians that they cannot:
- pray outside of Planned Parenthood
- promote or organize peaceful protest outside Planned Parenthood in their parishes (naming 40 Days for Life specifically)
- or allow pro-life material to be distributed in their parishes unless it is published by the Washington State Conference of Catholic Bishops or the USCCB–who, ironically, support 40 DFL.
This information came to us directly from multiple Spokane priests. We were also told by these priests that Bishop Cupich identifies himself as pro-life, but disagrees with the “tactic” of praying outside of abortion clinics. The reason he gave for his decision is that he does not want his priests being identified with “extreme” pro-life persons.
We know you all understand the great concern that comes when a bishop is 1) not overtly supportive of pro-life activities and 2) will not allow his priests to fight for the pro-life cause by praying and giving witness to the sanctity of human life outside of Planned Parenthood.
My wife and I have written a letter that we will be sending to the bishop tomorrow and have copied the text below. I am asking that you also do what you can to help him change his mind, especially since we begin the fall campaign of 40 Days for Life in a few weeks.
Most Reverend Blase J. Cupich
Diocese Of Spokane
1023 W. Riverside Avenue
Spokane, WA 99210Your Excellency:
We have recently learned of facts that are highly disturbing to us. We are seeking clarification from your office.
We have been told that you have forbidden priests and seminarians of the Diocese of Spokane from praying in front of Planned Parenthood, participating in 40 Days for Life, organizing peaceful protest outside of Planned Parenthood (either as a part of 40 Days for Life or otherwise), and endorsing/allowing communication of pro-life activities involving the above two methods in a parish.
We also learned that no pro-life literature may be distributed in a parish except for those produced by the Washington State Conference of Catholic Bishops or by the USCCB. A few months ago, we learned that you declined to endorse 40 Days for Life—something Bishop Skylstad, your predecessor, did indeed endorse. Even the USCCB supports and promotes this organization.
We were concerned, but hoped you had a good reason for your decision, and that it might be a misunderstanding. With this new information, we find it hard to believe it is a misunderstanding.
As members of the Diocese of Spokane, we do not understand why our bishop, the man entrusted by the Church and by Christ to lead the flock, would not allow a peaceful protest of the destruction of human lives. The pro-life issue, which has been championed and endorsed by Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and the USCCB, is the most important of our age.
In the last 38 years, since abortion became legal in the United States, over 50 million children have been lost (that we know of) through the horror of abortion. While we are hoping that your denial of priests to pray for the unborn outside of the very place where children are murdered is a matter of disagreement on tactics, it seems as though you do not support the movement at all; again, we hope that is not true.
However, we do not understand how a bishop could not endorse praying the rosary, Our Lady’s prayer, for the sake of the unborn, their mothers and fathers and the workers, at the very scene of their deaths. Prayer and peaceful witness are the only ways that we will win the battle of converting hearts to believe in the sanctity of every human life. If what we heard is true, telling priests not to pray outside of abortion clinics would be equivalent to telling a priest in Germany or Poland that they should not pray outside of Death Camps. The same tragedy that happened in Germany is happening in our country today, but too many people are standing by without defending the unborn.
We need our priests and our bishops, our spiritual leaders, to take on the cause of defending the unborn! We need our priests and bishops to unabashedly proclaim the sanctity of human life! We need our priests and bishops to witness to the women who are going into a clinic and are in need of a friendly face! If they don’t lead the people of God, how will we win this battle for the lives of the unborn? How do we tell the world that the Catholic Church is the most pro-life faith when our bishops are not willing to sacrifice for the life of a baby?
We are not necessarily asking you to pray outside of Planned Parenthood or be the leader of 40 Days for Life, although we wish you would desire to do so.
But we are asking you to clarify why you would not allow your priests and seminarians to take part in this essential part of the pro-life movement. We are also asking you to publicly endorse 40 Days for Life, an important part of our witness in this diocese each year.
It saddens us that our new bishop is not overtly pro-life, let alone that he will not allow his priests and seminarians to express their own pro-life convictions.
Know that we will pray for you as the shepherd of our diocese. However, if this decision remains in effect, we will not be able to support you financially. We will be rescinding our 2011 pledge to the Annual Catholic Appeal, additionally.
It is essential that the Catholic Church be the beacon of hope in this time where our society finds it acceptable to murder innocent human life by the millions each year.
May God bless you in your ministry and give you wisdom as you lead our diocese.
I don’t get the guy. His reasoning isn’t even internally consistent since the USCCB (rightly) has no problem at all with 40 DFL, a perfectly peaceful, non-confrontational, non-gory form of civil witness for life. Plus, he’s just taken over a diocese that’s been through the ringer financially due to abuse lawsuits. So he deliberately spits in the eye of the most dedicated and loyal Catholics, provoking them to withhold their appeal funds out of conscience? What gives?
In 2012 Mark wrote: →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
After his defeat at the Third Battle of Winchester on September 19, 1864, go here to read about it, Early retired south to a strong position near Strasburg, Virignia, with his right anchored on the North Branch of the Shenandoah River, and his left on Fisher’s Hill, grandiloquently known during the Civil War as the Gibraltar of the Valley. The position was a very strong one, but with only 10,000 men to cover four miles, Early did not have enough troops to man it adequately.
Sheridan with 29,000 men quickly decided that a frontal attack would be fruitless without a flank attack. Crook was sent with his corps on an arduous march to flank the Confederate left on Fisher’s Hill. Crook was in position to commence his attack at 4:00 PM on September 22, while Sheridan pressed Early from the front. After some desultory fighting, the Confederate army routed. Battle losses in dead and wounded were minimal, but 1000 Confederates were taken prisoner. Early retreated to Waynesboro leaving Sheridan in undisputed control of the lower Valley, a control that Sheridan was going to use to destroy the granary of the Confederacy.
Here is Early’s report to General Robert E. Lee on the engagement: →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
I finished watching Ken Burns, The Roosevelts: An Intimate History. A fair amount of liberal hagiography for FDR and, especially, Eleanor, but on the whole I liked it, and I will review it in a future post. However, I was struck by a vignette that occurred in the final episode last night.
By 1944 FDR was in visibly failing health. Diagnosed with congestive heart failure, Dr. Howard Bruenn, a Navy Lieutenant Commander and cardiologist, followed him everywhere. He recommended extended bed rest which was an impossible diagnosis for a Commander-in-Chief during a World War.
At the Quebec Conference with Churchill, in the evening for entertainment, FDR had the film Wilson (1944) shown. A film biopic of the life of Woodrow Wilson from his election as Governor of New Jersey in 1910, the movie is largely forgotten today. It won several Oscars, but was a financial flop, people being too preoccupied with the current World War to want to see a movie about the first one. Alexander Knox, relegated through most of his career in character actor roles, does a good job in the role of Wilson. Making the dessicated, pedantic Wilson into a heroic figure was difficult, but the film, taking a fast and loose approach with much of the history of the period, and with the help of a majestic musical score, accomplishes the feat. It is definitely worth watching. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Hattip to Instapundit. A salute to Dalrock for coming up with another example of the font of stupidity that was Margaret Sanger:
In my last post I quoted from a radio program delivered by Margaret Sanger discussing the hardships women face in marriage and the importance of marriage counseling. Sanger described a young mother she met the day before on the train:
…she was beginning to feel very bitter toward her husband because she said that she could tell from his letters that he was actually enjoying the ↑excitement of↓ war! Already he had been to Iceland, England, Africa, and Italy! Oh, she was willing to admit there were plenty of hardships connected with it… but what had she been doing all this long while? Just staying home day after day minding the baby! “When he gets home,” she told me, “he can just sit with the baby for a while and she what it’s like. I’m going out and have some fun!”
I could see her point of view… what woman couldn’t. You don’t have to be a war bride to feel trapped… many a house-wife gets that feeling just watching her husband go off to the office every morning while she stays home facing the same meals, dishes, and children. How many divorces have their beginnings in just this very feeling of imprisoned futility.
The date of the program was July 19, 1944. This was just a little over a month after D Day and before the Normandy breakout. World War II was very much still raging in Europe, and American men were still fighting and dying there. Yet at this very time we had (if we believe the story), a woman complaining to strangers on a train about the exciting adventures her husband was enjoying in the European theater (most likely as a result of being drafted). →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
“The very fact that in World War II we chose to fight in alliance with one form of totalitarianism against the other two forms, though all were intrinsically wicked, proves not only the basic sympathy between Western materialism and communism but also the grave mistake of trying to drive the Devil out with Beelzebub.”
Bishop Fulton J. Sheen
The start of a new series. In this set of posts we will take a look at truly foolish things said by people I generally admire. First up, this gem from Bishop Sheen.
The idea that we chose to have the Soviet Union as an ally in the Second World War is a doozy. Hitler made the choice when he invaded the Soviet Union. If Bishop Sheen had then wanted us to be at war with both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, he would have had to have been content with Western casualty totals probably five times what they turned out to be, and his proposed course of action would have required the existence of Western leaders capable of explaining to puzzled populations why their nations were going to war with the Soviet Union that was holding down 80% of the Wehrmacht. Such a policy would probably have resulted in an eventual renewal of the alliance between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and led to a conflict that the Western Allies could not have won without resort to nuclear weapons, something that Bishop Sheen of course opposed.
At the end of the War we could of course have launched a new war to drive the Soviet Union out of Eastern Europe. With the exception of General Patton, there was zero appetite among the Western Allies for a new conflict after the vast blood letting that had wrecked most of Europe. I doubt if Bishop Sheen would have supported such a conflict for long, due to his coming out against the Vietnam War in 67. When the going got tough geo-politically, Bishop Sheen tended to hit the road. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
From the only reliable source of Catholic news on the net, Eye of the Tiber:
Akron, OH–Pope Francis has reportedly planned to remove Cardinal Raymond Burke from head of the Apostolic Signatura, demoting him to the largely ceremonial role as Head Chaplain for the Akron RubberDucks minor league baseball team.
Although his removal from the Roman Curia (the body of Vatican-based Cardinals who are close advisers to the Pope,) appears to be a slight to many conservative Catholics, some Akron-based Catholic RubberDucks fans believe Burke’s new role as chaplain and adviser to the minor league team will help revitalize the beloved Double-A affiliate of the Cleveland Indians.
President of the Akron RubberDucks Jacob Wallace told EOTT this morning that the team has been playing liberally in the past few years, and that it was time for a change. “We need to begin playing a lot more conservative…the way we used to play when were winning,” Wallace said. “We believe that his spiritual impact on the team will help us reduce errors. I have personally spoken to Cardinal Burke and he has assured me that there will no longer be anymore stealing bases. Anyone caught stealing will be removed from the team immediately. If we’re going to win, we’re going to win with integrity.”
Burke, who is not only a liturgical conservative, but also a baseball conservative, is also expected to change the RubberDucks jersey back to the old-fashioned retro jerseys the team wore when it was founded in 1997. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Something for the weekend. Scotland the Brave. I have always loved orchestral versions of this song, but I find the lyrics insipid. Therefore I was happy to find the above version with lyrics worthy of the tune.
Let Italy boast of her gay gilded waters
Her vines and her bowers and her soft sunny skies
Her sons drinking love from the eyes of her daughters
Where freedom expires amid softness and sighs
Scotland’s blue mountains wild where hoary cliffs are piled
Towering in grandeur are dearer tae me
Land of the misty cloud land of the tempest loud
Land of the brave and proud land of the free
Enthroned on the peak of her own highland mountains
The spirit of Scotia reigns fearless and free
Her green tartan waving o’er blue rock and fountain
And proudly she sings looking over the sea
Here among my mountains wild I have serenely smiled
When armies and empires against me were hurled
Firm as my native rock I have withstood the shock
Of England, of Denmark, or Rome and the world →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Supporters of Scottish Independence came up short of their goal in the vote yesterday:
Scotland spurned independence in a historic referendum that threatened to rip the United Kingdom apart, sow financial turmoil and diminish Britain’s remaining global clout.
A vote for the 307-year union is a relief for millions of Britons including Prime Minister David Cameron, whose job was on the line, as well as allies across the world who were horrified at the prospect of the United Kingdom’s separation.
Unionists won 55 percent of the vote while separatists won 45 percent with 31 of 32 constituencies declared.
Political leaders of all hues agreed that Britain would be changed for good nonetheless.
Unionists cheered, kissed and drank wine and beer in Glasgow, Scotland’s biggest city where secessionists won, while nationalist leader Alex Salmond conceded defeat in Edinburgh, which supported the United Kingdom.
“Scotland has by a majority decided not, at this stage, to become an independent country. I accept that verdict of the people and I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland,” Salmond said. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Hmmm. This is very interesting:
Pope Francis has told a group of Jewish leaders “first it was your turn and now it is our turn” in a discussion about the persecution and murder of Christians in the Middle East.
The leader of the Catholic faith drew a comparison between the Jewish Holocaust and the current persecution of Christians in Syria and Iraq during a meeting with 40 Jewish leaders at the Vatican on Wednesday.
“Pope Francis told us privately that he believes we are in World War Three,” said Ronald S. Lauder, the head of the World Jewish Congress.
“But unlike the first two world wars, instead of happening all at once this war is coming in stages,” he said.
“[Pope Francis] said ‘first it was your turn and now it is our turn’. In other words first Jews suffered savage attacks that were met with the world’s silence and now it is Christians who are being annihilated and the world is silent.”
Ar, it be about four score and seven years ago since our fathers made ye new nation, a liberty port for all hands from end to end, and dedicated t’ t’ truth that all swabs be created equal.
Now we be fightin’ a great ruckus, testin’ whether ye nation, or any nation so minted like it, can last through the long watch. We be met on a great boardin’ fight o’ that war. We have come t’ dedicate a spot o’ that field, as a final restin’ place for those who here swallowed the anchor forever that that nation might live. It be altogether fittin’ and proper that we be doin’ this.
But, truth be told, we can not set aside, we can not pray over, we can not hallow this ground. T’ brave swabs, livin’ and went t’ Davy Jones’ locker, who fit here, have blessed it, far over our poor power t’ add or swipe back. T’ world won’t writ what we say here, but it can never forget what those swabs did here. It be for us t’ livin’, rather, t’ be dedicated here t’ finishin’ t’ work which they who fit here have begun. It be rather for us t’ be here dedicated t’ t’ great chore remainin’ before us—that from these honored swabs we take increased love t’ what they died for—that we here Bible swear that these shipmates shall not have went t’ Davy Jones’ locker for nothin’—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth o’ freedom—and that government o’ t’ crew, by t’ crew, for t’ crew, shall not perish from t’ earth. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Hmmm, a debate has arisen on Saint Blogs as to whether Timothy Cardinal Dolan is a fool or a careerist. Kevin O’Brien at Waiting for Godot to Leave addresses the controversy:
For those of you who haven’t been following, let me summarize in brief. Cardinal Dolan has given what I consider to be a poorly reasoned, condescending and annoyingly folksy rationalization of his decision to serve as Grand Marshal of New York’s St. Patrick’s Day parade, which will now show the children along the route a group of “gay Irish” marching under a banner identifying themselves as such. Dolan rightly points out that we condemn the sin, not the sinner – and of course gays have been marching in parades for centuries (though not parading about as gays). He wrongly points out that if a man or a woman marches under a Gay Pride banner, it’s merely a way of indicating his or her sexual identity, and is in no way an endorsement of the sins that such a sexual identity seeks out.
I countered with an Open Letter to Cardinal Dolan in which I asked to march under the banner of IRISH ADULTERERS. I point out that, even though the sin of adultery is condemned, and even though I have not given in to consummating fully the temptations of adultery, I still consider this my sexual identity and the Church should not judge me for that, and certainly by marching under a banner in which I identify myself as having an inclination to adultery, I’m not endorsing adultery. Heavens no! I’m simply Proud of my inclination. I simply identify with my temptations. I could have said more. I could have suggested groups marching under such banners as GREEDY IRISH EMPLOYERS, or LAZY SLOTHFUL IRISH DRUNKS, or IRISH CHILD MOLESTERS. I mean, we can’t judge a child molester’s soul, only his sins – although if Dolan is affirming anything in this scandal, it’s that we are defined by our sins.
So that’s our story so far. And the general take on this situation is that Cardinal Dolan is a naive fool.
Maybe we have to consider the unpleasant possibility that His Eminence knows exactly what he is doing, he is not the fool, and that these are conscious choices.
Too many events have happened in Dolan’s history to suggest naivete or [foolishness]. There’s something else at work here.
No, it’s not him being a heretic, modernist, or whatever you want to say. Plain and simple, Dolan is a careerist. All of his controversial decisions from the Sheen dustup, to his role in the abuse scandals, to Holy Innocents, to now the parade have been about what’s best for the bottom line … his bottom line. What advances his profile is what is best for business.
This is one of those theories that fits all the facts – which means it’s probably true. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
America, the Jesuit rag not the country, interviews Mark Shea. The money quote:
I love the man. It’s almost inarticulate, but I have nothing but love for the guy. I think he’s the absolute real deal and I feel tremendous hope for the church. As I said before, I’ve loved every pope we’ve had, but I particularly have a soft spot for this man just as a human being apart from whatever he does as pope. I think the world of him. There are some people you just recognize as genuine people and I always respond really strongly to them. There’s no artifice about him and I really like that. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Father Z gives us the latest bad news from Rome:
Now that the cat is out of the bag, I’ll post this. I do not like the fact that Sandro Magister posted in this way, however. I’ve been biting the inside of my mouth for a while now. The optimist in me was saying that the official announcement would not be made until after the Synod of Bishops, or at least the beginning of the Synod. Or at all.
It’s not good news. At the time of this writing, it is still – officially – a rumor. I believe it, however. I have been trying to get myself into a mental and spiritual place to see it for what it is and, more importantly, for what it is not, and to plot my own reaction and subsequent course.
Vatican Insider has posted that His Eminence Raymond Card. Burke will soon be demoted by Pope Francis from being Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura to the Patron of the Knights of Malta.
The move is not lateral. That position is usually entrusted to older Cardinals. The present Cardinal Patron is Card. Sardi, who is now 80. Before him was Pio Card. Laghi. The reassignment would be a demotion, for the Patron of the Knights is not nearly the equivalent of Prefect of a Roman dicastery.
I didn’t think that Card. Burke would be moved to Chicago, though I had a little fun with that idea. I thought he might be moved laterally to the Congregation for Causes of Saints to replace Card. Amato, who is over 75. More on Saints, below.
There are a few points to make here, before the trads blow arteries and quite simply die and before liberals and dissidents, who suffer from Burke Derangement Syndrome, start their Lord of the Flies Dance.
First, it is possible that the three Roman tribunals (Penitentiary, Signatura, Rota), might be collapsed into a single dicastery for justice. I don’t know how that would work. I think it would be a really bad idea, but they didn’t ask me. If that is the case, the Signatura and the Penitentiary will not both need a Cardinal.
Second, according to a couple sources I have heard from, there is talk of collapsing the Congregation for Causes of Saints back into Divine Worship where, historically, it once belonged. Once upon a time the powerful Sacred Congregation of Rites had the brief for beatification and canonization. That would eliminate another cardinalatial chair in the Curia.
Furthermore, there is talk of collapsing minor curial offices, Councils and the like, into a Congregation for Laity. That could eliminate several other Cardinals in the Curia.
If you eliminate a position that has required a Cardinal, and that Cardinal is not 75 or 80, that is, ready for retirement, the Pope has to do something with him. Burke is only 66. What can the Pope do if there are no longer enough cardinalatial slots in the curia because he plans on eliminating them? Well, you can send His Eminence off to be the bishop of some important see in his own country, right? What if the Pope can’t do that because the Cardinal’s own countrymen have been drenching the same Cardinal in contumely? Not enough curial chairs, not a good option back home? Don’t forget that the Archbishop Secretaries of eliminated offices have to go somewhere too! They might need those dioceses back in their native places.
So, what? You put the Cardinal in the best possible cardinalatial role you can find. Some Cardinals who hit 75 and are at the end of service in a Congregation, are still useful. They reside in Rome. They can be on other Congregations until they are 80. They could head up some office such as, once upon a time, the Pontifical Commission “Ecclesia Dei”. That’s been put under the CDF. There are still, for example, Archpriests at the Major Basilicas. But, there’s already an American at St. Paul’s outside-the-walls: Card. Harvey, 64, also from Wisconsin, just like Card. Burke. Two American sexagenarian Cardinals from Wisconsin as Archpriests of Papal Basilicas at the same time? Not likely. I suspect that if Francis eliminates a few offices, such as Cor Unum or Justice and Peace or the like which have men who are still of service age, one of them will go, say, to be Archpriest at St. Mary Major, where the present man, Card. Abril y Castelló, is about to turn 79. An Italian could wind up as the Delegate for the Basilica of St. Francis where Card. Nicora, 77, is now.
It is fair to imagine that Pope Francis – certainly at the instigation of a few close advisers – is purging the Curia of his predecessor’s influence. →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Whilst the last members were signing it [i.e., the Constitution] Doct FRANKLIN looking towards the Presidents Chair, at the back of which a rising sun happened to be painted, observed to a few members near him, that Painters had found it difficult to distinguish in their art a rising from a setting sun. I have said he, often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.
James Madison, September 17, 1787
Our beloved national clown and Veep has been working overtime lately to lighten the national mood with his patented verbal pratfalls:
Vice President Joe Biden drew fire from a prominent Jewish group on Tuesday after he described unscrupulous bankers who prey on servicemen and servicewomen deployed overseas as “Shylocks” — a term frequently condemned as an anti-Semitic caricature.
“Shylock represents the medieval stereotype about Jews and remains an offensive characterization to this day. The Vice President should have been more careful,” Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman said.
Go here to read the rest.
In a joint appearance with the liberal group Nuns on the Bus, perhaps Joe was merely telling truth out of season:
Perhaps this could be the theme song for nuns on the bus? →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading
Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic, demonstrates yet again why I long ago designated him Defender of the Faith:
A continuing series
Thank you for your interest in writing for the National Catholic Reporter. Although we welcome your submissions at any time, we hope that these occasional posts help you to become exactly the sort of writer NCR is looking for. The following piece by Robert McClory illustrates two key abilities every great NCR writer needs to learn how to perform well. The first of these is how to:
Play dumber than a bag of hammers – Commenting on a recent column by Cardinal Francis George of the Archdiocese of Chicago in which George said this:
Now, George says, “society has brought social and legislative approval to all types of sexual relationships that used to be considered ‘sinful.’ Since the biblical vision of what it means to be human tells us that not every friendship or love can be expressed in sexual relations, the church’s teaching on these issues is now evidence of intolerance for what the civil law upholds and even imposes. What was once a request to live and let live has now become a demand for approval. The ‘ruling class,’ those who shape public opinion in politics, in education, in communications, in entertainment, is using the civil law to impose its own form of morality on everyone.”
I don’t understand what George is saying. If many states pass, for example, approval of gay marriage, aren’t Catholics free to oppose it in keeping with official church teaching, just as they are free to oppose the sale of contraceptives in drug stores? If the government requires insurance policies to cover the purchase of contraceptives, are not Catholics free to object, as George has done for months? But I don’t see how any of this amounts to a “ruling class” imposing “its own form of morality on everyone.”
The simple fact of that matter is that, unless he is too stupid to be allowed outside without supervision, McClory knows perfectly well what George means. But McClory has to pretend that he doesn’t; otherwise, he must explain why being governmentally coerced into committing a sin is fine as long as you’re free to feel bad about it as well as why being governmentally coerced into sin isn’t “imposing morality.”
The second ability any good NCR writer needs to know particularly well is how to:
Duck the question – Cardinal George continues.
“It means that those who choose to live by the Catholic faith,” [George] says, “will not be welcomed as political candidates to national office, will not sit on editorial boards of major newspapers, will not be at home on most university faculties, will not have successful careers as actors and entertainers. Nor will their children, who will also be suspect. Since all public institutions, no matter who owns or operates them, will be agents of the government and conform their activities to the demands of the official religion, the practice of medicine and law will become more difficult for faithful Catholics. It already means in some States that those who run businesses must conform their activities to the official religion or be fined, as Christians and Jews are fined for their religion in countries governed by Sharia law.”
One assumes that McClory knows that George’s last sentence has already happened several times since several private businesses have been driven into bankruptcy by the legal assaults of homosexuals. One also assumes that McClory remembers the Chick-Fil-A controversy of a while back in which the homosexual community as well as several prominent politicians publicly execrated Chick-Fil-A and wished for its destruction simply because its CEO opposed the concept of homosexual “marriage.”
Assuming that McClory knows all this, how does he respond? Like any great National Catholic Reporter writer would.
I hope some of George’s clearer-thinking colleagues would gather around their partner and urge him to consider a more positive, optimistic future for Catholicism. Is not the Holy Spirit still among us? →']);" class="more-link">Continue reading