Catholic Deplorables

Sunday, October 16, AD 2016

 

My friend Jay Anderson comes out temporarily from blogging retirement to note the recent history of Democrats atttempting to control the Catholic Church:

 

In case you’re wondering, the “middle ages dictatorship” that is the Catholic Church and her Bishops is right there in the middle of Hillary Clinton’s so-called “basket of deplorables”. And the Clinton team had a plan to rid themselves of these troublesome priests by “plant[ing] the seeds of the revolution” against the Catholic hierarchy and its teachings via infiltration and subversion.

Some of us caught on to this plan a decade ago…
 

Vindication. Yes, an opportunity to gloat. To say “I told you so.”

Not a very pretty sentiment, but that’s about the only thing that could bring me out of blogging retirement (but only for this one post) in the electoral Annus Horribilis that is 2016.

So it turns out that what we knew ALL ALONG about the Soros-funded DemoCatholic front groups Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and its sister organization Catholics United was, in fact, 100% on the money. We have an admission right out of the horse’s mouth (or, rather, out of the horse’s leaked emails). I haven’t the time nor the inclination to get into a long retrospective detailing the war of words that I and other like-minded bloggers waged over several years — beginning a decade ago — against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United. Instead, I will direct you to the links below, which will more than fill you in and give you a taste of what was being said and what was at stake.

In short, my part in this drama began a decade ago during the 2006 elections, when Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good published a Catholic voter guide that played down the priority given by the Church to traditional life issues in favor of a hodge-podge of issues straight out of the Democrat Party platform. At first, I began by just blogging about and linking to what others were saying about this mysterious group who had suddenly appeared on the scene in the midst of a mid-term election. As the evidence poured in, especially evidence that linked the group to funding provided by none other than George Soros, it soon became clear that Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was little more than a front group for the Democrat Party and its efforts to blur the lines on life issues with Catholic voters.

And then, the week before the November 2006 elections, our own Catholic Chronicle — the usually fairly orthodox newspaper of the Diocese of Toledo, Ohio — published a front-page puff piece on the efforts of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good in our own diocese to promote their vision and their voter guide (the story reported the efforts in a straightforward manner, without questioning the problematic aspects of the group and its voter guide).. The proverbial you-know-what must’ve hit the fan in the Chancery offices once the very orthodox then-Toledo Bishop Leonard Blair (now Archbishop of Hartford, CT) caught wind of it, because the article was gone from the Chronicle’s website within a matter of hours after it was published. Alas, it was too late to remove the article from the print editions, which went out the weekend before the elections on the following Tuesday to parishes Diocese-wide. So, in response to the Chronicle’s article, I penned a letter to the editor taking the Chronicle and the main protagonist of the article, Prof. Richard Gaillardetz, to task for the misrepresentation and manipulation of Catholic teaching. The Chronicle eventually published my letter, along with a few others disagreeing with the article and its timing, a couple of months later. Following the letter’s publication, the response from the Catholics in Alliance crowd was swift and predictably unpleasant. You can read the comments here for a taste. This war of words against Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United (and various offshoots like Catholic Democrats, etc.) went on for several years and took many twists and turns, which you can read about in the links at the bottom of this post.

In the end, it is my belief that, ultimately, those of us leading the charge against these groups lost that war (at least in the short term covering 2006, 2008, and 2012). Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United accomplished their aims of convincing Catholics that voting for a party that views government-funded abortion on demand as a sacrament, and that views the destruction of the traditional family as a prerequisite to achieving its policy goals and destroying the institutions — such as the Church and other religious people and organizations — that might stand in that party’s way of achieving said policy goals, was not only morally acceptable, but was, in fact, the MOST Catholic way to vote. See, e.g., Doug Kmiec.  “These groups are merely drawing attention to long-ignored issues of importance to Catholics,” some said. “These groups are doing the Church a service by focusing on the need for a ‘consistent ethic of life’,” they said (never mind that these groups NEVER talked about such life issues as abortion, euthanasia, or the sanctity of the family). Entire blogs were established for the purpose of propagandizing the issues that the DemoCath groups argued were being ignored because of Catholic voters’ allegedly “obsessive” focus on “a narrow spectrum of issues regarding family and sexuality” (i.e. the sanctity of life and the family). Sometimes, these blogs had well-meaning founders who definitely raised important issues for Catholics to consider when they were deciding how to vote, but these blogs often quickly devolved into DemoCath propaganda organs as certain bloggers and frequent combox commentators used those fora to press forward the agitprop that ultimately undermined the good of the Catholic Church and her teachings in favor of the pursuit of Democrat Party policy goals. Far too many Catholics who should have known better allowed themselves to be swayed by the arguments of those whose only purpose was to weaken the resolve of Catholic voters to stand for the Catholic Church’s teachings on the primacy of life and family issues, and instead were duped by these malefactors to trade that birthright for a mess of feel-good leftist policy pottage. And that party repaid them by, among many other things, suing nuns to force them to provide birth control in their medical policies. And, in response, Catholic voters had so weakened their resolve to stand for traditional life issues, that they re-elected the guy who has consistently attacked their Church. Which was the goal of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United all along. Today, there is no identifiable “Catholic Vote” left to speak of thanks to the likes of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United.

So, it turns out to be a rather bittersweet bit of gloating, at best, when I read the latest WikiLeaks email dump, which includes a 2012 email exchange in which HilLIARy Clinton’s current campaign chairman, John Podesta, openly brags about being involved in efforts to infiltrate the Catholic Church and foment a “Catholic Spring” (i.e. a bottom-up rebellion against the Church hierarchy and its teaching authority akin to the “Arab Spring” — albeit without the violence, one hopes — that led to revolutions in Egypt, Libya, and Syria). The means of fomenting this takeover of the Church? Why, none other than Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Catholics United:

Hi, John, 
This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage even though 98% of Catholic women (and their conjugal partners) have used contraception has me thinking . . . There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic church. Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen. The Bishops will undoubtedly continue the fight. Does the Catholic Hospital Association support of the Administration’s new policy, together with “the 98%” create an opportunity? 

Of course, this idea may just reveal my total lack of understanding of the Catholic church, the economic power it can bring to bear against nuns and priests who count on it for their maintenance, etc. Even if the idea isn’t crazy, I don’t qualify to be involved and I have not thought at all about how one would “plant the seeds of the revolution,” or who would plant them.

Just wondering . . .

Hoping you’re well, and getting to focus your time in the ways you want. 
Sandy 

Sandy Newman, President 
Voices for Progress 
202.669.8754 
voicesforprogress.org

_________________________________

From:[email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: 2012-02-11 11:45
Subject: Re: opening for a Catholic Spring? just musing . . .

We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up. I’ll discuss with Tara. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the other person to consult. (emphasis added)

Continue reading...

30 Responses to Catholic Deplorables

  • Great post.

    I just forwarded this to the Holy League chain.
    So called (c) atholics are preparing to elect another form of Obama. Another tape worm.

    Bishop’s..?…………………. crickets chirping. 🙁

  • 30,000,000 women and girls have been aborted. Half of the 60,000,000 human beings destroyed are women and girls, the other 30,000,000 human being aborted and denied their human life are men and boys. …and they clapped. Must have been Alinsky;s radicals. The First Amendment cannot be changed by radicals or communists. The First Amendment can only be changed by three fourths of the states ratifying any change to our Constitution. That Hillary Clinton promises to remove our First and Second Amendment is the imposition of atheism and totalitarianism.
    The person is irreplaceable, and self-determining. “We, the people ” are made up of persons.
    Communists refuse to acknowledge God and the image of God in the sovereign person. Communism does this by obliterating the sovereign person, immersing the reality of the sovereign person into the masses and ignoring the person up to and including homicide.
    God does not contradict Himself. Hillary contradicts herself by seeking the vote and with promises to remove the person’s freedom to vote.

  • Probably a bit more than half of those aborted were girls– there’s a known “sex bias” in second and third children for cultures that highly value having a son.
    Plus the women who end up dying from abortion related injuries, or killing themselves because they realize the truth of what happened.

  • If Hillary Clinton knew what the word “deplorable” means, Hillary would not be using it.

  • Donald u may recall I also tried to pull the alarm about the Obama Administration designs on willfully undermining the proper Catholic teaching authorities with their “palace coup” hidden intentions. Check back in your archives to my blog entry in 2012. I would distinguish the Catholic Left and the Catholic Right criticisms and moves as such: the Right is concerned that the pope or singular Bishops do not stray over the line of established doctrines and create temporary heresies. The Left seeks to obliterate established doctrines and replace the teaching authorities in the Church with liberal theology professors and liberal political activists and politicians. The Right is on guard for what makes for prudential judgment territory. The Left wants their judgments to be Catholic doctrine for all intents and purposes. The dangers of Catholic lapdog Vice Presidents like Biden and Kaine are reason enough to vote for Trump. The 8 years of the Obama-Clinton war on traditional Christian beliefs must be stopped. Trump is the only viable chess move at this point

  • It appears in the general scheme of the current administration, much of the future the religious rights we enjoy now have been already decided by the “commission on civil rights” as outlined in the recent report.

    Full Report available here

    http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/Peaceful-Coexistence-09-07-16.PDF

    “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties
    A Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, DC
    Briefing Report”

    and the quote by Chairman Castro

    ” COMMISSIONERS’ STATEMENTS AND REBUTTALS”
    Chairman Martin R. Castro Statement
    “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
    religion.” — John Adams

    The phrases “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia,Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance.
    Religious liberty was never intended to give one religion dominion over other religions, or a veto power over the civil rights and civil liberties of others. However, today, as in the past, religion is being used as both a weapon and a shield by those seeking to deny others equality. In our
    nation’s past religion has been used to justify slavery and later, Jim Crow laws. We now see“religious liberty” arguments sneaking their way back into our political and constitutional discourse (just like the concept of “state rights”) in an effort to undermine the rights of some
    Americans. This generation of Americans must stand up and speak out to ensure that religion never again be twisted to deny others the full promise of America.

  • Kurt Schlichter, “You’re deplorable. You’re irredeemable. […] this sick old woman dismisses you from the company of those whose opinions have value, whose interests matter, who have any moral claim to participation in self-governance. You are less than nothing. You are vermin to be, at best, driven from society. Will Hillary Clinton ever be your president? No, and she makes no excuses and offers no denials that a Hillary Clinton presidency means the division of the country into those people she considers worthy and those people she does not.”
    .
    Keep deplorable my friends.

  • Good to hear from you Tim! I miss your valuable contributions to our blog!

  • Dylan said you don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows but I really did not know how coordinated it was.

    Luke 12 – 1 …..‘Beware of the yeast of the Pharisees, that is, their hypocrisy. 2 Nothing is covered up that will not be uncovered, and nothing secret that will not become known.

  • Anzlyne.

    Bravo.
    God is in control.
    Not the beasties.
    They will suffer when they reach the point of no return.

  • @HW: “The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian
    religion.” — John Adams.
    The government of the United States and all free nations is founded on the self-determination of the sovereign persons who institute their government. Who has the civil authority to determine what another sovereign person believes or how the sovereign person refers to “their Creator” in FREEDOM.

  • @HW: Why do you defend Hillary’s intent to dictate to all sovereign persons who institute governments how they will exercise their innate God-given free will and First Amendment?

  • I think he’s wrong. The vast majority of self-identified Catholics who vote Democratic are anywhere but at Mass on Sunday. The one’s who are at Mass consist of people who (1) are not disarranged in the least by half-entertaining a jumble of inconsistent notions, and likely never read up much on anything or (2) are members of the church-o-cracy. Without a doubt 90% + of Catholics at Mass have never heard of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good or any like group and they hardly convince anyone who has heard of them. The audience for such groups would be people hanging around the church-o-cracy, and it isn’t to persuade them. An attorney I once knew had this to say about the criminal trials he’d participated in: “you don’t convince a jury. The jury makes up its mind in five minutes. Your job, as a lawyer, is to give your side on the jury the arguments they can use to defeat the other side”. It is amazing, however, the degree to which George Soros is the living embodiment of a Bond villain.

  • Mary-
    That quote isn’t from John Adams.
    It’s part of a quote from a treaty.
    Specifically with Tripoli.
    http://www.usconstitution.net/tripoli.html
    Here’s the whole quote:
    Article 11.
    As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, — as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, — and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

  • Puts quite a different spin on it, no?

  • The Americans hoped to avoid depredations by the Barbary Pirates. The stratagem failed.

  • Yes, I think that was when we first paid a ransom for hostages.

  • Initially, and then we paid them in hot lead. It took two wars but we put a stop to the Barbary Pirates.

  • Hi Art
    “Without a doubt 90% + of Catholics at Mass have never heard of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good… ”
    I think you are right about that – but the evil is more widespread. Our diocese collects for CRS and Campaign for Human Development. ..
    Our parish still gives out Advent and Lent meditations from Ken Untener, still sings campfire songs at mass and chides catechists not to say “disordered” when discussing morality and homosexuality with youth groups.

  • Most likely a much higher percent has heard of “Catholics United,” it was just in places where you can’t fact-check or respond to them.
    Like the news paper. Or, for my area, a radio ad. They had a LOT of those on a few years ago, normal radio too.
    The impulse reaction is– hey, they’ve got to be really Catholic, or they wouldn’t be named that.

  • The Americans hoped to avoid depredations by the Barbary Pirates. The stratagem failed.

    One of our earliest attempts at “no, really, we ARE NOT a threat to you.” (Given who it was said to, and their motivations, the meaning of “founded on” is very different than what the modern partial quote is used to imply.)
    Worked about as well as every time since…..

  • Our parish still gives out Advent and Lent meditations from Ken Untener, still sings campfire songs at mass and chides catechists not to say “disordered” when discussing morality and homosexuality with youth groups.

    Well, you might ask yourself what’s in it for your parish priest or the lay staff he hires. You get a mess of people who want to be den mothers or social workers (or property managers), and that’s what you get. That’s the supply. If you want a gruesome example of what the demand is, the clientele of Charlotte Catholic High School (including the quondam religion teacher instigating the mess) show it to you. Up until 3 years ago, you could at least say that these characters did not have the Holy See. Now they do.

  • Pingback: MONDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Catholic leftists are, with a handful of honorable exceptions, Leftists first and Catholics fifth.
    –Donald R. McClarey

    I saw what you did there in your column. Cleverly done sir.

  • What’s the controversy all about? Democrat values already permeate the Catholic Church. ‘Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’ efforts seem redundant.

    The real question is where a ‘Catholic Alliance for the Catholic Good’. Now that is something we should get excited about.

  • “… demand the end of a middle ages dictatorship.”
    “Dictatorship?”
    I’ll have to notice if there are armed Swiss guards and locked doors behind us at the next Mass I attend.
    Who, it must be asked is the “dictator”?

  • The First Amendment can only be changed by three fourths of the states ratifying any change to our Constitution. .

    Don’t kid yourself. The First Amendment (any part of the Constitution) can be changed by the vote of 5 of 9 justices (so called; injustices would be more apt).

  • @MdV: I think HW was quoting from Chairman Martin Castro, not defending Hildebeast. But the quotation marks are not completely clear.

  • c mat. Any violation of our Founding Principles is a miscarriage of Justice. The Justices are not immune to their mistakes. All persons are free to leave or to have three fourths of the states ratify their opinion as law of the land.
    Miscarriage of Justice and incompetence is still a charge in a court of law. In Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade and Terry Schiavo , the victims became wards of the court. It is proper to inquire as to the where qbouts of our brothers and sisters.
    The Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    Foxfier. Thank you.
    It is time to take our Catholic Church back from the community organizers who hold gay parades with our donations and create Heritage Girls instead of Girl Scouts, hold Holy Hours and Eucharistic parades throughout the cities, the cities that belong to each and every person in joint and common tenancy and insist that if our USCCB is not thoroughly Catholic that they may have to get a job to support themselves. “We, the people” are a community of Persons not to be amalgamated into masses for the communist dictators. oh I mean community organizers.

The Barque of Peter Sails Through History

Sunday, August 28, AD 2016

Barque

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre.

The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour.

The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe.

The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all.

She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

 

Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, in his review of Von Ranke’s The Ecclesiastical and political History of the Popes of Rome, during the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. (1840)

 

 

Continue reading...

12 Responses to The Barque of Peter Sails Through History

  • . Pope Francis prefers air conditioned planes to that yuuuge double ender row boat even though a rented sailboat could take him to all the Americas and save fossil fuel except for docking and departure and dead air on a windless day….but who’s counting fuel tonnage.
    ( PS…murderer confesses in two nun murders in Mississippi. Sounds like he didn’t want witnesses in a petty burglary case.)

  • Pope Francis is a blip in history. The Barque of Peter defies history.

  • And Pope Francis will one day discover much to his dismay that he is a mere blip in history – or perhaps more like the bite of some microscopic insect like a flea or a tick.

  • Regardless of what PF is now or will be remembered as in the future, we are stuck with him. Something far more important is guiding this old barque…and it’s not Francis.

    Pray. Pray. Pray.

  • Maybe it’s a lack of humility. Maybe it’s hubris (overweening pride) without arête (heroic excellence). I think it’s a common theme among the corrupt, failed elites that have seized control over just about everything.
    .
    Philip, I believe that “something” is The Holy Spirit and Christ who will be with His bride to the end of tome. .
    .
    “Holy Trinity, One God, have mercy on us.”

  • T. Shaw.

    Yes.

    The Holy Spirit is working in His Church.

    For your discernment of course;

    http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/index.php/articles/item/2127-apocalypse-now-another-great-sign-rises-in-the-heavens

    Come Holy Spirit come, and help prepare the bride for the coming of the groom.
    Keep your lamps trimmed!

  • Some commenters on Fr Z’s blog pointed out another interesting astronomical occurrence next year… a total solar eclipse visible only in the continental US will occur on Aug. 21, 2017, exactly 54 days before the centennial of the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima.

  • Elaine.

    Illumination of Conscience at time of solar eclipse. (?)

    Speculation of course, however what a great grace, just before the end of the year of Mercy.

    Only God truly knows.

  • Forgot to mention that the significance of the 54 day interval is that it matches the duration of a 54 day rosary novena (6 novenas of 9 rosaries each, 3 prayed in petition and 3 in thanksgiving).

  • We are currently in one now, 54 day Novena, for the leadership of our nation. Started in on the Assumption and ends on Friday October 7th…Our Lady of Victory. Our Lady of the Holy Rosary. Today is day 12.

  • Thanks for the uplift Donald. We needed that. Christ is in the boat with us and would wonder why we are so disturbed by the stormy seas at the present time.

  • Pingback: CATHOLIC TUESDAY EDITION | Big Pulpit

Neo-Pacifism and the Catholic Church

Monday, November 30, AD 2015

ask-the-inmates-auschwitz-battaile-politics-1353136548

One of the many maladies afflicting the Church since Vatican II has been neo-pacifism.  Violence is denounced as if it is the problem rather than a manifestation of conflicts that arise from many different causes.  That is why while Jihadis compile an impressive body toll, the reaction of the leaders of the Catholic Church is to cluck non-violence at all and sundry as if that is a reaction that solves anything.  Traditionally the Church has often taken a much more robust attitude towards combating evil, not shying away from armed force when necessary.  That tradition in the Church is as dead as full pews at Mass and full confessionals prior to Mass.  Oakes Spalding at Mahound’s Paradise takes Bishop Barron to task for his embrace of non-violence in the wake of the Paris Massacres:

Now, anyone familiar with Catholic history or Biblical exegesis would realize that Barron’s description of the traditional Christian response to violence and war–while superficially plausible to those with, say, a Cliff Notes exposure to the Bible–is false. The tradition is not pacifist or even “non-violent” when it comes to resisting aggression. In a sense Barron is sketching out a new interpretation of Christian tradition (after 2,000 years)–some sort of out of context melding of the thoughts of the quasi-Baptist Martin Luther King and the quasi-Hindu Mahatma Gandhi (as Mullarkey earlier suggested). In addition casually interchanging the concepts of sin, violence and “dysfunction” (whatever that is) is dangerously misleading, even (dare I say it) heretical.

But let’s leave those precise considerations aside and instead ask these questions: are Bishop Barron’s views on Christianity and violence attractive? Are they persuasive? Do they make, say, a non-Catholic want to become a Catholic? After all, presumably we want to reverse that 6.5:1 statistic. Don’t we?


Bishop Barron wants to be liked by the secular world. Indeed, I would say that is the driving force behind his own apparent intellectual dysfunctions. And if you put it to him politely, I think he might even sort of agree. “But that’s how you evangelize,” you can imagine him saying. “Talk to them on their own terms, without finger wagging.”


Of course, many non-Catholics will applaud. Finally (so goes the response of the applauders), here’s a Catholic who admits it’s all a bit too much to fight for the Catholic faith (or even to non-physically defend it). See, in doing so, he’s admitting what we have said all along, that much of what the Catholic Church has stood for and done over the last 2,000 years has been wrong.


They will applaud. But they won’t become converts. They will patronize Bishop Barron as they would the dim Anglican vicar. But in the end they won’t take him seriously.


If this is evangelism, it’s for those who have an IQ below 80.


Christ took on violence and swallowed it up with his mercy.


If that’s the best argument for Christianity, then Christianity is obviously false. There’s at least as much violence in the world now as there was 2,000 years ago. Christ didn’t vanquish it. Unless the Bishop means, metaphorically or whatever or, you know, in some deeper sense. If that’s the case, then applause. Finally (according to the applauders) Catholicism has been denuded into just another silly and harmless religious affectation.


(Correct answer: Christ vanquished sin, or at least the eternal consequences of sin for those who honestly repent and ask Him to forgive them.)


Respond to violence with non-violence. Violence tends not to work.


Now, again, this is calculated to get applause. But it is also imbecilic. And as much as some will say they believe it, almost no one actually does. Tell it, by the way, to the Holocaust survivors who were liberated by troops and tanks, not Buddhist floral arrangements.  I suppose it might get some of the New Age crowd. Then again, why should the New Age crowd become Catholic when they’re already getting their oatmeal somewhere else?

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Neo-Pacifism and the Catholic Church

  • It was poignant for him because he recognized the buildings?

    What an arrogant guy. He wants us to know he studied in Paris.

    In the old testament they say.. they (others) worship “no-gods”
    We have “no-leaders”

    Abdicators.

  • I have come to believe that it is not war we should fear, but that which makes war necessary.

  • I admired St. John Paul II, but not everything he said or did. He was a pacifist, which is ironic, given that Poland never failed to fight for her faith or her people.
    Much of this pacifism comes from the Latin American clergy, whose experience with war is minimal compared to the rest of the world.
    Until the insipid V2 document about Muslims the Church saw Islam as a heresy – an evil one. No V2 document can change Islam and I hold that it is a heresy.

  • Part of the eagerness of Catholic clerics to embrace pacifism over the past half century is that it has largely been cost free for them and their flocks.  They could call for non-violence, get good coverage from the liberal media, and someone else would pick up the tab.  (That is your cue boat people.)

    Perfect summary

  • This observer is quite pleased that our years of crusades against Islamist hordes were so passive. Then there was that “bushido” crowd in the orient that we handled by bowing peacefully, and that European peacemaking handshaking with the Nazis and fascists….

  • If Bishop Barron wishes to pacify the situation he should advocate concealed carry laws everywhere in the world. This would surely give pause to the bad guys. But giving pause to the bad guys is not what Bishop Barron is all about telling folks they ought welcome becoming road kill for the terrorists.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EXTRA – Big Pulpit
  • Assuming you listened to this full video … it is clear that the Fr. M does nothing more than provide a very intense, passionate appeal to the same plan made by B. Barron.
    Once again, TAC is so dang hell-bent on pointing on the sticks in others eyes …. it fails to see it’s own logs.

  • Gandhi’s and MLK’s pacifisms weren’t apathy, defeat, or surrender. They were sharp, successful struggles employing nonviolent/nonweaponized means.
    .

    In the Gospels, St. John the Baptist did not advise the soldier to desert the army when asked what the soldier needed to do to prepare the way. And, late in the Gospels, Jesus advises us to sell our mantels and buy swords.
    .
    One thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. Edmund Burke.

  • Bishop Barron doesn’t have children and grandchildren in the line of advance of the coming Caliphate (as do I). Belgians appear to be getting the message (not their leaders yet, but that will change soon enough) and are arming-up, according to my well-placed sources. And thank God, we had a S John of Capistrano at the Siege of Belgrade (1456), and not yet another milquetoast Barron-type bishop.

    Bp. Barron and the rest, since you’ve shown you can’t lead, and that you doubtfully would follow, at least in a useful capacity, please just get out of our way.

  • And as for this pope, we needed a P S. Pius V, and so far we have a meddling, muddling Adrian VI. Expect Rome to be sacked and burned again.

  • It seems to me that there is something discordant in Christianity’s approach to violence. On the one hand, Christ’s statements and examples argue strongly against justifications. On the other, 2000 years of reasoning have led to a large number of plausable answers that leave us free to defend ourselves and protect others.

    The tie-breaker, if even there is a balance to the arguments, is the practical experience which makes plain that evil will not be turned aside by “mere” good. Something divine is required if Man refuses to fight, and miracles are often in short supply to our species, due to our lack of faith.

    Forgive me for saying so but I think the author gives short shrift to the noble tradition that pacifism represents. Indeed, I suggest there are few things more noble than the willing martyr.

    Our pacifist Christian brothers and sisters are often derided as living under the wings of men who are not similarly constrained by conscience. I admit to feeling that way myself. So too, there is something of the coward in many who reserve the right to defend themselves but decry society’s more general right.

    Still, do we doubt that a strict application of God’s words, during His time among us, is the more noble, right, and good choice, that the early Church was right to refuse to bear arms? I suspect not. I suspect that we recognize the practical realities and that our lack of faith necessitates our handling most adversity directly.

  • “Still, do we doubt that a strict application of God’s words, during His time among us, is the more noble, right, and good choice, that the early Church was right to refuse to bear arms?”

    I do so doubt. It is one thing for a man to undergo death due to an unwillingness to commit violence. It is quite another for a man to stand idly by while women and kids, perhaps his wife and child, are put to the sword. I have nothing but contempt for such a man.

    In regard to the Church and military service under Rome prior to Constantine, some Christians did serve. The main reason why Christians as a rule did not serve was because service in the Legions prior to Constantine usually involved sacrificing to idols. Christians certainly flocked to join the Legions once this was no longer the case. Saint Augustine’s comments on military service are instructive:

    “4. Do not think that it is impossible for any one to please God while engaged in active military service. Among such persons was the holy David, to whom God gave so great a testimony; among them also were many righteous men of that time; among them was also that centurion who said to the Lord: “I am not worthy that You should come under my roof, but speak the word only, and my servant shall be healed: for I am a man under authority, having soldiers under me: and I say to this man, Go, and he goes; and to another, Come, and he comes; and to my servant, Do this, and he does it;” and concerning whom the Lord said: “Verily, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.” Matthew 8:8-10 Among them was that Cornelius to whom an angel said: “Cornelius, your alms are accepted, and your prayers are heard,” Acts 10:4 when he directed him to send to the blessed Apostle Peter, and to hear from him what he ought to do, to which apostle he sent a devout soldier, requesting him to come to him. Among them were also the soldiers who, when they had come to be baptized by John,— the sacred forerunner of the Lord, and the friend of the Bridegroom, of whom the Lord says: “Among them that are born of women there has not arisen a greater than John the Baptist,” Matthew 11:11 — and had inquired of him what they should do, received the answer, “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.” Luke 3:14 Certainly he did not prohibit them to serve as soldiers when he commanded them to be content with their pay for the service.

    5. They occupy indeed a higher place before God who, abandoning all these secular employments, serve Him with the strictest chastity; but “every one,” as the apostle says, “has his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.” 1 Corinthians 7:7 Some, then, in praying for you, fight against your invisible enemies; you, in fighting for them, contend against the barbarians, their visible enemies. Would that one faith existed in all, for then there would be less weary struggling, and the devil with his angels would be more easily conquered; but since it is necessary in this life that the citizens of the kingdom of heaven should be subjected to temptations among erring and impious men, that they may be exercised, and “tried as gold in the furnace,” Wisdom 3:6 we ought not before the appointed time to desire to live with those alone who are holy and righteous, so that, by patience, we may deserve to receive this blessedness in its proper time.

    6. Think, then, of this first of all, when you are arming for the battle, that even your bodily strength is a gift of God; for, considering this, you will not employ the gift of God against God. For, when faith is pledged, it is to be kept even with the enemy against whom the war is waged, how much more with the friend for whom the battle is fought! Peace should be the object of your desire; war should be waged only as a necessity, and waged only that God may by it deliver men from the necessity and preserve them in peace. For peace is not sought in order to the kindling of war, but war is waged in order that peace may be obtained. Therefore, even in waging war, cherish the spirit of a peacemaker, that, by conquering those whom you attack, you may lead them back to the advantages of peace; for our Lord says: “Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God.” Matthew 5:9 If, however, peace among men be so sweet as procuring temporal safety, how much sweeter is that peace with God which procures for men the eternal felicity of the angels! Let necessity, therefore, and not your will, slay the enemy who fights against you. As violence is used towards him who rebels and resists, so mercy is due to the vanquished or the captive, especially in the case in which future troubling of the peace is not to be feared.”

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102189.htm

  • Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  • Thank you for sharing your thoughts and references, Mr. McClarey. One undoubtably runs the risk of being thought a fool for challenging the Church in her teachings.

    I acknowledged the well-reasoned teaching of our faith through the ages. I am no pacifist myself for I lack the faith to move mountains. I rather think though that our Lord was speaking clearly when we were told that one with a faith the size of a mustard seed could move mountains and I suspect that such a one would be impervious.

    I am not he.

    This conversation rather illustrates my point though: Christianity exists in this world and, as such, is adapted to practical considerations. I have forgotten where but Jesus, in explaining why Moses allowed for divorce, suggested that it was an accommodation, granted due to Man’s hard hearts. So too here I think.

    Peter, in his zeal, struck with a sword to save his master. He was upbraided for his efforts. Jesus affirmed that he was content to be a lamb led to slaughter, that he could call angels to his aid but chose not to.

    It seems to me that there was no cause greater, for which justice more demanded violence, than to save Jesus. Yet, Jesus Himself refused the aid that justice demanded.

    The world is imperfect and, so, Christianity accommodates that reality. Had we the faith, we would have no need to defend ourselves or protect others. Christian teaching is merely accommodating our faithless need to do so.

  • “Yet, Jesus Himself refused the aid that justice demanded.”

    Yep, because His death was necessary for the atonement of sins. Before Pilate He noted that His kingdom was not of this Earth, but if it were His subjects would fight for Him so that He would not be handed over for crucifixion. (John 18: 36).

    Saint Remigius, the Apostle to the Franks, was instructing King Clovis of the Franks prior to his baptism about the Faith. He had just described the crucifixion. Clovis was greatly affected by this. Clutching his battle ax, he said, “If only my Franks and I could have been there! We would have avenged the wrongs done to our God!”

  • Some good points here but the tone of the article was snotty and condescending. Cheap shots like, “whatever that is” with regard to dysfunction are just too snarky. Yet the author himself uses the term “dysfunction” later in the piece. I’ll choose different content next time.

  • “Si vis pacem, para bellum.” USAF/SAC motto, “Peace is our profession.” One could conclude they were successful. After Nagasaki, there never was a nucular war.
    .
    Speak softly and carry a big stick. TR built a fleet and sailed it around the World.
    .
    “Yet, Jesus Himself refused the aid that justice demanded.” A meditation on the Fifth Sorrowful Mystery, The Crucifixion, Think of the love that filled Our Lord’s Sacred Heart during the three hours agony on the Holy Cross, and ask Him to be with you at the hour of death.
    .
    I often meditate on the fact that Christ voluntarily consigned himself to ignominious agony and death on the Holy Cross. It is mankind’s most unjust, evil, and disobedient act in history since Creation.
    .
    My thoughts are that if Christ had resorted to saving Himself. He, I think, would have consigned mankind to universal damnation. But, He obeyed God’s will and in HIs love for us saved us by His courage, forgiveness, mercy, and obedience. HIs sacrificial act is the greatest in the history of Creation. I believe that Christ is the bravest man that ever lived.
    .

  • T. Shaw, My thoughts have often run parallel.

    Did Jesus have foreknowledge? Scripture suggests to me that He did. If so, what man would choose that death? What man, knowing the specific violence and feelings that death entailed, would choose that death?

    Alike us except for sin?

    Indeed He was the most courageous man to have lived.

  • As Donald points out, it is one thing to refrain from violence even if necessary to defend oneself. It is quite another to do so when necessary to defend the weak from predators. One cannot imagine Jesus Christ observing a violent rape and responding by holding a sign and candle.

  • If that’s the best argument for Christianity, then Christianity is obviously false. There’s at least as much violence in the world now as there was 2,000 years ago.

    Not actually so. Could be argued, depending on how you’re measuring the amount of violence, but far from “obvious.”

    MLK and Ghandi wouldn’t have been possible pre-Christ world; their pacifism only works on Christian (maybe Jewish) groups, where the response to “I’m going to sit here and shame you” is not “Hey, you’re really easy to behead that way!”
    *****
    I figure the ‘neopacifism’ is a product of people not realizing that a lot of Christian assumptions are not baselines– the world wars kind of rubbed the noses of Europe in the fact that humans aren’t easily Christian, when (as I understand the philosophy) they’d spent the last century or three trying to find ways to ignore that their culture was rooted in Christianity.
    Yeah, natural law is natural– but that means that there are consequences to not following it, not that everyone follows it as a matter of course, and a lot of Christian morality isn’t natural law.
    Europe is decently sized, loud, and has(had) a lot of money to spend. Of course their mental quirks are going to be over-represented in the world.

  • MLK and Ghandi wouldn’t have been possible pre-Christ world; their pacifism only works on Christian (maybe Jewish) groups, where the response to “’I’m going to sit here and shame you’ is not ‘Hey, you’re really easy to behead that way!'”

    Heh… 🙂

  • Pingback: This War Will Be Fought Among Our Homes | The American CatholicThe American Catholic
  • Sorry, I guess this would be a better post under which to leave this comment. I find this quotation helpful in light of the discussion above. I also like Google.

    “I am not a pacifist. I do think that sometimes, in our finite and conflictual world, violence has to be used in defense of certain basic goods.” –Bishop Robert Barron

  • Pelayo, Charles Martel, Queen Isabel the Catholic, Don Juan of Austria, John Sobieski and the Winged Hussars were NOT pacifists.

    Oh, yeah, they never dealt with the Second Vatican Council either.

April 29, 1865: Johnson Postpones Day of Mourning For Lincoln

Wednesday, April 29, AD 2015

 

 

On April 29, 1865, President Johnson in his second Presidential Proclamation postpones the national day of mourning that he proclaimed in his first Proclamation:

By the President of the United States of America
A Proclamation

 

 

Whereas by my proclamation of the 25th instant Thursday, the 25th day of next month, was recommended as a day for special humiliation and prayer in consequence of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States; but

Whereas my attention has since been called to the fact that the day aforesaid is sacred to large numbers of Christians as one of rejoicing for the ascension of the Savior:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, do hereby suggest that the religious services recommended as aforesaid should be postponed until Thursday, the 1st day of June next.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this 29th day of April, A. D. 1865, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth.

ANDREW JOHNSON.

By the President:

W. HUNTER,

Acting Secretary of State.

Continue reading...

If Only All Catholics Thought As Highly of the Church

Sunday, February 8, AD 2015

 

In response to President Obama’s ignorant exercise in moral equivalency in invoking the Crusades and the Inquisition, ( as T.Shaw noted fewer people were turned over for execution by the Inquisition, actually Inquisitions, in all of history than die in American abortion clinics on any week day), go here to read about it, Jonah Goldberg quotes from his book Tyranny of Cliches which explains why such Catholic bashing is ahistoric and unfair:

 

As a fairly secular Jew I cannot and will not speak to the theological questions, in part because I do not want to. But mostly because I do not have to. The core problem with those who glibly invoke one cliché after another about the evils of organized religion and Catholicism is that they betray the progressive tendency to look back on the last two thousand years and see the Catholic Church — and Christianity generally — as holding back humanity from progress, reason, and enlightenment. They fault the Church for not knowing what could not have been known yet and for being too slow to accept new discoveries that only seem obvious to us with the benefit of hindsight. It’s an odd attack from people who boast of their skepticism and yet condemn the Church for being rationally skeptical about scientific breakthroughs.

In short, they look at the tide of secularism and modernity as proof that the Church was an anchor. I put it to you that it was more of sail. Nearly everything we revere about modernity and progress — education, the rule of law, charity, decency, the notion of the universal rights of man, and reason were advanced by the Church for most of the last two thousand years.

Yes, compared to the ideal imagined by atheists and secularists this sounds like madness.

But isn’t the greater madness to make a real force for good the enemy because the forces of self-anointed perfection claim to have some glorious blueprint for a flawless world sitting on a desk somewhere? It is a Whiggish and childish luxury to compare the past — or even the present — to a utopian standard. Of course there was corruption, cruelty, and hypocrisy within the Church — because the Church is a human institution. Its dark hypocrisies are the backdrop that allow us to see the luminance of the standard they have, on occasion, fallen short of. The Catholic Church was a spiritual beacon lighting the way forward compared to the world lit only by fire outside the Church doors.

You know that you live in loony tunes times when a secular Jew like Goldberg has a better appreciation for the role of the Church in History than some Catholic bloggers:  (Ahem, that is your cue Mark:)

Not feeling the hysteria…

…over Obama’s Prayer Breakfast remarks. It’s just today’s Panic du Jour from the Noise Machine. Here’s what he actually said:

“And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ…

“So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith. In today’s world, when hate groups have their own Twitter accounts and bigotry can fester in hidden places in cyberspace, it can be even harder to counteract such intolerance. But God compels us to try. And in this mission, I believe there are a few principles that can guide us, particularly those of us who profess to believe.

“And, first, we should start with some basic humility. I believe that the starting point of faith is some doubt — not being so full of yourself and so confident that you are right and that God speaks only to us, and doesn’t speak to others, that God only cares about us and doesn’t care about others, that somehow we alone are in possession of the truth.” (source)

This seems, not merely reasonable, but rather pedestrian.

 

 

Continue reading...

16 Responses to If Only All Catholics Thought As Highly of the Church

  • Sadly I clicked the link more to read the comments. Read only about a quarter so can’t say absolutely. The comments that I did read were pretty sad. It seems the readership over there is fairly leftist in its nature. Not only is America bad but so is Christianity. Little difference between the defensive wars of the Christian Crusades and the Muslims who then, and now, advance by force. Mark has created quite the echo chamber.

  • What about John’s Gospel 15:16 choosing and appointing his own to be fruitful for the Father.
    Are we to throw up our hands and place the (coexist) bumper stickers all over our automobiles? Are we to see the next step in tolerance become a national
    acceptance of bestiality. Then marriage for that pervert so his/her dog horse pig or who knows what has “RIGHTS?”

    OBAMA IS EVIL INCARNATE.

  • I have been struck by the fact that the winners not only get to write history, they get to name history.
    The “Reformation” — yeah, in the same sense that the secessionists were trying to “reform” the Union.
    Likewise the “Age of Reason” portrayed as dawning full-blown as if everyone just decided one day to throw off the shackles of the Church and live by science one day. No mention of the universities founded by the Church nor of the religious orders dedicated to teaching and scientific discovery.
    And, of course, if you try to mention any of this in a discussion of the Church’s role in history you will be laughed at.

  • The only thing that will correct those liberal progressive secularist commenters about about whom Philip talked is what corrected the children of Israel and Judah. In the case of the latter, it was chastisement by the Assyrians and Babylonians. In our case it will be chastisement by Muslims. God never changes. He does the same thing in the same way because He does the right thing in the right way. He is entirely capable and willing to use our enemies to bring us to justice, and that will constitute God’s mercy for the innocent whom these same liberal progressive secularists murder with complete abandon.

  • Tom Collins.
    “…that the winners not only get to write history, they get to name history.”

    I relationship to these so-called winners a short sentence comes to mind from Braveheart; “History was written by those who hung the heroes.”

    The winners will receive a crown of glory that will never tarnish rust or be stolen.

    Unfortunately for the world winners, many will have spent their heaven while on earth. Then they will ponder their existence upon earth. Perplexed at the absurdity they demonstrated while chastising those who believed and lived out the Gospel messages as best they could. Now. All alone in the eternal darkness they unceasingly cry out a hatred towards God. A scream of infinity. A never ending scourge that they themselves created in their enlightened mind and superior thought.

  • The “Reformation” was badly needed when Pope Leo X was Pope. The Church had distorted and warped the gospel so badly that Martin Luther had to speak up about it. In much the same manner that many are speaking out against the Pope today.

    Luther never left the Church. They threw him out and had a death sentence placed upon his head. He stood his ground and at least was able to restore the gospel, in it’s purity, to much of the Christian world.

    If we are speak of ‘history’…we might as well be as honest and objective as possible. And I’m not one of the kooks that believes that the Catholic Church is not Christian. Only that because of our self-centered nature, the gospel needs to be placed back onto the rails from time to time.

  • Folks, stay focused on the topic of the post please. I do not want this becoming a back and forth on Martin Luther, a subject which has zip to do with this post.

  • Was reminded of something recently– do you know how The Inquisition (the instruction from the Church, and later the organization, got its name?

    The Pope put out an instruction that, if they were going to punish people for anything on the list, they had to actually prove the person was guilty.
    *Gasp*
    How horrible!

  • And I can’t help but notice that most talk of the Crusades (or, more flinch worthy, “the medieval crusade”) is sort of like starting a story when the guy who’s been taking a massive beating finally raises a hand.
    As opposed to something like this:
    http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2005/11/the_truth_about_islamic_crusad.html
    long quote:
    630 Two years before Muhammad’s death of a fever, he launches the Tabuk Crusades, in which he led 30,000 jihadists against the Byzantine Christians. He had heard a report that a huge army had amassed to attack Arabia, but the report turned out to be a false rumor. The Byzantine army never materialized. He turned around and went home, but not before extracting ‘agreements’ from northern tribes. They could enjoy the ‘privilege’ of living under Islamic ‘protection’ (read: not be attacked by Islam), if they paid a tax (jizya).

    This tax sets the stage for Muhammad’s and the later Caliphs’ policies. If the attacked city or region did not want to convert to Islam, then they paid a jizya tax. If they converted, then they paid a zakat tax. Either way, money flowed back to the Islamic treasury in Arabia or to the local Muslim governor.

  • Goes on to note that the polytheists did not get the option to pay for ‘protection.’

  • Pingback: When Would We Have to Resist Pope Francis? - BigPulpit.com
  • President Obama says that we shouldn’t get on our moral high horse re:
    what Muslims are getting up to these days, since Christians also did some
    bad things a long time ago …

    Which makes me wonder if Democrats will cease demonizing conservatives
    now, since it was Democrats who legislated Jim Crow, progressive Democrat
    Woodrow Wilson who re-segregated the federal workforce, Democrats who
    filled the ranks of the KKK, Democrats who blocked civil rights legislation
    for decades…

  • So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.

    That’s the trillion dollar question, is isn’t it? Is ISIS in fact a distortion of Islam, or a more pure form of it?

  • So this is not unique to one group or one religion. There is a tendency in us, a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith.

    That’s the trillion dollar question, isn’t it? Is ISIS in fact a distortion of Islam, or a more pure form of it?

  • @c matt. Amen that is the trillion dollar question:
    Were the the followers of Christ in doing evil actually following Christ, and are the followers of Mohammad in doing evil actually following Mohammad…?
    Even if the evil committed were the same (and it’s not), there is the question of moral equivalency in the two religions to a relativistic elite. Can a religion at is root be evil? Can judeo-christian thought be a superior culture? Can religion be important in a secularist age?

  • Was reminded of something recently– do you know how The Inquisition (the instruction from the Church, and later the organization, got its name?

    The Pope put out an instruction that, if they were going to punish people for anything on the list, they had to actually prove the person was guilty.
    *Gasp*
    How horrible!
    –Foxfier (10:44am)

     

    Inquisitors didn’t accept anonymous accusations either. This puts them way ahead of today’s US universities with their “rape!” tribunals.

Pinkos

Tuesday, September 23, AD 2014

Father Z and I have similar feelings about what is going on in the Church today:

 

 

Some wag out there used his photoshopping skills to Hello-Kitty-ize some heroes of the silver screen.

Samples:

No… I just don’t have the heart to post Batman.   Or Superman, for that matter.  I just … can’t.

These days, this is what I feel is being done to our Church right now.

Yes, I wrote “feel”.  I’ll start thinking again after a couple shots of espresso and some fresh air.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Pinkos

  • at least the bows are functional.

  • “The human institution, alas, functions about as well as most human institutions do, and it is a sign of her divine origin that the Church has survived for twenty centuries of rampant mismanagement and folly.”
    Yes indeed. A Jesuit in-law of mine once said “The Church knows all about scandal. The Church was born in scandal. On the night of its founding one of the first twelve bishops betrayed the Founder to His death. You can’t get any more scandalous than that”.

  • We live in a time of violence and evil and our leaders are clad in lavender mewling “hello kitty”.

    The leadership of our Church may find that as they struggle to get the “smell of the sheep” about them, that there are no sheep to be found. They are all on the front lines of a violent war against God, alone but resolute.

Crux with John L. Allen Jr., A New Catholic Website Published by The Boston Globe

Tuesday, September 2, AD 2014

John L Allen Associate Editor of Crux MagazineJohn L. Allen Jr.’s name came up during an introductory meeting between the new owner of The Boston Globe, John W. Henry, and the editor of the same daily, Brian McGrory.  It was an auspicious meeting because it was taking place one day after the Boston Red Sox winning the 2013 World Series, which Henry also owns.

Taking note of the popularity of the new Pope and wanting to capitalize on it, Allen’s name was floated to anchor this new online Catholic magazine named Crux.  Crux would be an addition to the online publishing niches that the Globe operates.  Considering the large Catholic population of the Boston area and the appeal of Pope Francis, it was a natural fit.

Henry was a self made man in financial trading and also successful in breaking the ‘Curse of the Bambino‘ by winning the 2004 World Series.  Looking back at Henry’s track record, it can be said that he took bold ventures in unfamiliar territory and did well.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Crux with John L. Allen Jr., A New Catholic Website Published by The Boston Globe

End of Summer, Feed Is Working Again, and The French Revolution

Monday, September 1, AD 2014

It’s the unofficial end of Summer and it’s my annual gratuitous post of myself day.  The pic below was taken in mid-July, but I waited to fix the feed to The American Catholic in order celebrate the Summer.  Needless to say, it’s fixed and the Summer is almost over.

During the Summer I asked my fellow blogger Don for some book recommendations for the French Revolution.  Of the few he did mentioned, I picked up Simon Schama’s ‘Citizen’.  The reading is in-depth, interesting, and balanced.  I’m a bit over halfway finished of the 948 pages and am so far impressed.  Considering that we are in the post-Cold War era, I wanted to know a bit more on the French Revolution since their errors have already engulfed Europe and has almost metastasizing here in the United States.  The book is good and if there is any criticism of Simon Schama’s work it’s that he views Christianity, in particular the Catholic Church, through a materialistic lens.

My opinion on the subject is that the French Revolution is the confluence of anti-Christian ideas emanating from the so-called era of enlightenment.  These very same ideas unleashed the short-term devastation of the rape of nuns, the execution of priests, and the degradation of houses of worship.  The long-term affects have furthered the cause of eliminating God from all aspects of life blossoming further in the Communist Revolution in Russia and continued to bear the fruit of death in World Wars I & II.  From this compost grew what we now call modern liberalism & democratic socialism.

End of Summer Tito Edwards Simon Schama Citizens 500x625Happy Labor Day!

 

Continue reading...

36 Responses to End of Summer, Feed Is Working Again, and The French Revolution

  • The best histories of the French Revolution probably remains those of two Catholic historians, Hilaire Belloc and Lord Acton.
    Belloc brings out the central rôle of Carnot, the War Minister and effective head of the Committee of Public Safety and gives full credit to the “generation of genius,” Kléber, Moreau, Reynier, Marceau, and Ney commanding the army of Sambre et Meuse, Hoche, Desaix, and St. Cyr on the Rhine and, above all, Bonaparte and Masséna in the Appenine campaign.
    Acton rightly divined the underlying political motive. “The hatred of royalty was less than the hatred of aristocracy; privileges were more detested than tyranny; and the king perished because of the origin of his authority rather than because of its abuse. Monarchy unconnected with aristocracy became popular in France, even when most uncontrolled; whilst the attempt to reconstitute the throne, and to limit and fence it with its peers, broke down, because the old Teutonic elements on which it relied – hereditary nobility, primogeniture, and privilege — were no longer tolerated. The substance of the ideas of 1789 is not the limitation of the sovereign power, but the abrogation of intermediate powers.”
    The love of equality, the hatred of nobility and the tolerance of despotism naturally go together, for, If the central power is weak, the secondary powers will run riot and oppress The Empire was the consummation of the Revolution, not its reversal and Napoléon’s armies gave a code of laws and the principle of equal citizenship to a continent.

  • Thanks Michael!

    Those recommendations are going on my Reading List for next Summer, awesome!

  • Simon Schama’s ‘Citizens’ was published for the bicentenary of the French Revolution. It is regarded as the best work on the subject in the 20th century. The French hated it, calling it ‘Thatcherite history’. Its main thesis, that the violence of the Revolution was inherent, particularly upset them.

    In particular, Schama makes the point that pre-Revolutionary France was not an ossified feudal society but one that was obsessed with modernity. He also stresses that when the revolutionaries destroyed the Church they destroyed the social welfare system with drastic results in the 1790s.

    People tend to mythologize their revolutions. Englishmen did so regarding 1688; Americans still do over theirs (even though many of the mythologizers are well-educated) and the French are no exception.

  • Odd that Michael Peterson-Seymour (who sounds as if his ancestors fought at Waterloo) should be an unreconstructed Bonapartist. All the more so since one assumes that he is a Catholic.

  • I find a 948 page book to be daunting.

    I am eagerly awaiting the shortest book in history: subject what Obama did right.

  • I want to clarify that the criticism of Simon Schama’s book, Citizen, is my own. He refers to nuns and monks and unfulfilled citizens, it, not meeting any of their potential because they are cloistered. I am not sure if he was be sarcastic, which would be fine, or serious, which would explain my criticism.

  • Pingback: Why Secular Humanists Can't Cope With Islam - BigPulpit.com
  • My complete recommendations to Tito:

    “In regard to the French Revolution a good starting point is Citizens by Simon Schama:

    http://www.amazon.com/Citizens-A-Chronicle-French-Revolution/dp/0679726101

    Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France still cannot be beat as an analysis of the early Revolution and is eerily prophetic. Carlyle’s History of the French Revolution is quite dated, and written in his usual odd style, but has valuable insights overlooked by many modern commenters.

    The late Henri Lefebvre, although a Marxist, did valuable work on both the French Revolution and Napoleon and I recommend his tomes. His style is dry as dust, but his research is impeccable.”

  • Um, what beach was that?

  • Tito Edwards: I expected you would look more like Padre Pio. You look happy.

  • Tamsin,

    An undisclosed location on the gulf coast of Florida.

    Mary De Voe,

    LOL. Very happy, my wife was there with me, but she had to take the picture. 🙂

  • My brother Mike lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida. Say “Hi” to him for me.

  • Thank you for fixing the feed!

  • Tito, I share your view of the French Revolution. It lives on in the Social Radicalism that permeates so much of our politics. Social Radicalism is a phenomenon that bears close scrutiny. It transcends the individual with a mindset all its own. If not scrutinized and moderated the mindset morphs into moral chaos. This can happen in slow creeping fashion or with the rapidity of revolution. The French Revolution is a signal example. It started with the whole nation seeking to justly address a financial crisis but rapidly resolved into open rebellion and uncontrollable rage. Carlyle describes it thus: “On a sudden, the Earth yawns asunder, and amid Tartarean smoke, and glare of fierce brightness, rises SANSCULOTTISM, many-headed, fire-breathing, and asks; What think ye of me?” Do I engage in hyperbole when I compare the presentable, well-clothed and well-intended modern social radical with the maddened mob of Paris? Yes but to make a point. I cross a Robespierre and risk the guillotine, the loss of my life. The modern well-dressed social-radical only asks that I risk my soul. Who does me less violence?

  • John Nolan wrote, “Odd that Michael Peterson-Seymour (who sounds as if his ancestors fought at Waterloo) should be an unreconstructed Bonapartist. All the more so since one assumes that he is a Catholic.”
    Another Catholic, G K Chesterton described the tragedy of England:
    “A war that we understood not came over the world and woke
    Americans, Frenchmen, Irish; but we knew not the things they spoke.
    They talked about rights and nature and peace and the people’s reign:
    And the squires, our masters, bade us fight; and scorned us never again.
    Weak if we be for ever, could none condemn us then;
    Men called us serfs and drudges; men knew that we were men.
    In foam and flame at Trafalgar, on Albuera plains,
    We did and died like lions, to keep ourselves in chains,
    We lay in living ruins; firing and fearing not
    The strange fierce face of the Frenchmen who knew for what they fought,
    And the man who seemed to be more than a man we strained against and broke;
    And we broke our own rights with him. And still we never spoke.”
    Hilaire Belloc, too, another Catholic, whose grandfather served in the armies of Napoléon, declared, “Those who ask how it was that a group of men sustaining all the weight of civil conflict within and of universal war without, yet made time enough in twenty years to frame the codes which govern modern Europe, to lay down the foundations of universal education, of a strictly impersonal scheme of administration, and even in detail to remodel the material face of society—in a word, to make modern Europe—must be content for their reply to learn that the Republican Energy had for its flame and excitant this vision: a sense almost physical of the equality of man.”

  • William P Walsh wrote, “It started with the whole nation seeking to justly address a financial crisis but rapidly resolved into open rebellion and uncontrollable rage.”
    Certainly, it did start with a bankrupt government, but here is the curiosity: this bankrupt nation found itself able to sustain twenty years of war against the whole of Europe and to raise and maintain an army to fight it. For most of that period it had 700,000 men in the field. As for “open rebellion,” it crushed it wherever it showed itself, in Brittany, in Lyons, in the Vendée. It takes something rather more than “uncontrollable rage” to do that.

  • “It takes something rather more than “uncontrollable rage” to do that.”

    1. Mass murder against opponents.
    2. Mass repudiation of the debts of the Old Regime.
    3. The military genius of Napoleon and some of the other generals and marshals that rose to the fore as a result of the Revolution.
    4. Total War-no longer was war the sport of kings but rather the preocupation of peoples.

  • Donald R McClarey

    “3. The military genius of Napoleon and some of the other generals and marshals”

    I would certainly agree with that. There is a sense in which Napoléon, Dumoriez (despite his later defection), Kellerman, Hoche and Kléber were the French Revolution – It is their legacy.

    “4. Total War-no longer was war the sport of kings but rather the preoccupation of peoples.”

    The levée en masse and all that it entailed was the achievement of Carnot, but we sometimes forget what an astonishing achievement it was. The army was increased from 645,000 in mid-1793 to 1,500,000 in September 1794. The unbroken succession of victories, from Fleurus in June 1794 to Marengo in June 1800 were all, in a sense, his. He was ably seconded by Lindet, in effect, minister of food, munitions and manufacture.

    The political will and administrative skills needed to raise, equip, train, discipline and provision armies on that scale was enormous and quite without precedent. Much of the credit must go to the Committee of Public Safety, which was, in effect, the War Cabinet and to the brilliant innovation of seconding the “Deputies on Mission” from the National Assembly, as political commissioners to the armies.

  • Michael points out my inattention to the economic situation in France. I admit to a lack of formal study of that dismal science. I have yet in mind the diabolical ingredient of revolution. The first revolution starts with Lucifer’s “Non Serviam” and every revolution carries that sentiment in its bloodstream. The laws of economics are swept away when everything can be stolen from rightful owners. The State can be most efficient when it can murder the opposition. “If God does not exist, all things are permitted”. The Social Radical who looks so benign in his well-tailored clothing can do great injustice with a pen-stroke. If the end justifies the employment of any means, we are living in a state of moral chaos. We are then lunatics pulling down our house upon us. But I sing to the choir, as I sort out my thoughts.

  • I can assure Tito that Schama when referring to cloistered religious is not giving us his own opinion, but that of the revolutionaries whose construct of what constitutes a ‘citizen’ is an important theme of the book.

    I am an admirer of Belloc but he was fundamentally wrong on two counts – all his life he believed a) that the French Revolution was a ‘good thing’ and b) Dreyfus was guilty.

  • John Nolan
    I think both Belloc (and Chesterton, too) wrote a great deal in reaction to the way the Revolution and Napoléon were portrayed in England.

    There is a print, which can still be seen in the bar parlours of some country inns, of the handshake of Wellington and Blucher after Waterloo. They must have been produced by the million

    http://tinyurl.com/m42zlof

    Chesterton summed up the whole business pretty well.

    “Our middle classes did well to adorn their parlours with the picture of the “Meeting of Wellington and Blucher.” They should have hung up a companion piece of Pilate and Herod shaking hands. Then, after that meeting amid the ashes of Hougomont, where they dreamed they had trodden out the embers of all democracy, the Prussians rode on before, doing after their kind. After them went that ironical aristocrat out of embittered Ireland, with what thoughts we know; and Blucher, with what thoughts we care not; and his soldiers entered Paris, and stole the sword of Joan of Arc.”

    To both Belloc and Chesterton, the fall of Paris to the Allies could only be compared to the sack of Rome by the Goths.

  • An interesting summary of an enormous matter,re. the French Revolution: “It started with the whole nation seeking to justly address a financial crisis but rapidly resolved into open rebellion and uncontrollable rage.” – William P. Walsh
    However, from whence came the bitterly murderous hatred of the Catholic Faith and its individual servants, only the abyss could cough up that demon.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour

    Chesterton wrote ‘The Crimes of England’ in 1916. It’s a polemic, brilliant in parts, but it ain’t history. The author’s unreasoning ‘Teutonophobia’, his withering scorn for Pitt, Castlereagh and Peel (in contrast with his hero-worship of Charles James Fox) and his take on the French Revolution and Bonaparte simply parade his prejudices. Comparing the Allied occupation of Paris in 1814 with the sack of Rome by the Goths takes hyperbole to new heights, especially since French armies had looted and plundered their way across Europe for the previous twenty years. Historical method requires conclusions to be based on evidence. Both Belloc and Chesterton were counter-historical, if not positively anti-historical. They rightly challenged the consensus of the Whig historians, but what they put in its place was too intuitive and subjective. Since it did not rely on evidence it could be sometimes right, but more often wrong.

    Simon Schama’s book is revisionist, not least in that he uses the narrative approach which was unfashionable in 1989 (Orlando Figes does the same in his study of the Russian Revolution ‘A People’s Tragedy’). But both men are historians; Belloc and Chesterton, for all their brilliance, were not.

  • The errors of the french revolution came from somewhere!
    The protestant reformation shaped Europe and the world in ways we are still discerning. That “reformation” preceded the Enlightenment, which came to the “spirit” of revoltion of the 18 and 19 centuries everything from the very un- “reason”able reign of terror to marx to the culture kampf– and what follows in russia and mexico and china and on and on and on

  • John Nolan wrote, “Comparing the Allied occupation of Paris in 1814 with the sack of Rome by the Goths takes hyperbole to new heights…”
    Hardly. In both cases, the capital of civilisation fell to the barbarians from beyond the Rhine.
    Belloc’s evaluation of the Revolution is not all that different from the great French historian of the Revolution, Louis Blanc. Blanc, one recalls, during his exile in London (he had fought on the barricades during les journées de juin 1848), had access to Croker’s unrivalled collection of manuscripts and pamphlets.
    Acton summarises Blanc’s principle: ”He desires government to be so constituted that it may do everything for the people, not so restricted that it can do no injury to minorities. The masses have more to suffer from abuse of wealth than from abuse of power, and need protection by the State, not against it. Power, in the proper hands, acting for the whole, must not be restrained in the interest of a part.” That was also the view of the great Dominican, Lacordaire, “Between the weak and the strong, between the rich and the poor, between the master and the servant, it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free.”
    This was a principle Belloc and Chesterton would have heartily endorsed. It is the negation of Liberalism and its doctrine of laissez-faire.

  • “In both cases, the capital of civilisation fell to the barbarians from beyond the Rhine.”

    Please. Even as hyperbole that is over the circus top. The French Revolution was a complex historical event, but by the time Napoleon fell it had devolved into one of the first military dictatorships in modern times, one with delusions of grandeur. It was a very good thing for the peace of Europe that Napoleon fell in 1814 and that he was soundly thrashed in 1815 at Waterloo which brought an end to his “Golden Oldies” attempt at a Bonaparte revival.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “[B]y the time Napoleon fell it had devolved into one of the first military dictatorships in modern times.”
    That is to misunderstand the nature, both of the Republic and the Empire. Napoléon was no more a military dictator than Augustus or Charlemagne. As Chesterton said, “French democracy became more democratic, not less, when it turned all France into one constituency which elected one member.”
    Elizabeth Barrett Browning (Swinburn’s “Sea-Eagle of English feather”) understood:
    “And kings crept out again to feel the sun.
    The kings crept out — the peoples sat at home.
    And finding the long-invocated peace
    (A pall embroidered with worn images
    Of rights divine) too scant to cover doom
    Such as they suffered, cursed the corn that grew
    Rankly, to bitter bread, on Waterloo.”

    Those “carrion kings, unsheeted and unmasked,” described by Michelet, the great historian of the Revolution.

  • “That is to misunderstand the nature, both of the Republic and the Empire. Napoléon was no more a military dictator than Augustus or Charlemagne”

    Augustus was a military dictator, the last man standing of the ambitious warlords/politicians who murdered the dying Republic. Charlemagne was not a military dictator but the scion of a family that had been running the chief of the Frankish states for some time. Napoleon owed his position to his military brilliance and his willingness to use military force against civilian rule and nothing more.

    “French democracy became more democratic, not less, when it turned all France into one constituency which elected one member.”

    That quote always had my vote for the dumbest thing written by Chesterton.

  • M P-S, the ‘barbarians from beyond the Rhine’ produced Lessing, Schiller, Goethe, Haydn, Mozart and Beethoven, to name but a few. I’m sure those German citizens, living in their peaceful towns and villages, often in the shadow of old-established monasteries on which the local economy depended and which were soon to be destroyed, were overjoyed at the arrival of Revolutionary French armies with their portable guillotines. Germany in the eighteenth century was civilized in the real sense that the local ‘civitas’ enforced its own laws for the benefit of the citizens. It is telling that the incidence of capital punishment in the German states was far lower than in France or England.

    Michael, get off your hobby-horse and face facts. Bonaparte has a good record when it comes to establishing (or more correctly re-establishing, since the Revolution had destroyed much) institutions in France; but he also erected a police state. His hubristic lust for conquest led (as in the case of Hitler, with whom he has much in common) to eventual nemesis. And France only recovered its 1789 levels of foreign trade in the 1830s by which time Britain had far outstripped it.

  • “I can assure Tito that Schama when referring to cloistered religious is not giving us his own opinion, but that of the revolutionaries whose construct of what constitutes a ‘citizen’ is an important theme of the book.”
    .
    The sovereign personhood of the newly begotten human being (His body and his soul) constitutes the nation from the very first moment of existence. His absolute moral and legal innocence are the standard of Justice and the compelling interest of the state in its duty to deliver Justice and in protecting the newly begotten human being. Francisco Suarez says that: “Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights.”
    .
    The newly begotten human being who constitutes the state from the very first moment of his existence and through his sovereign personhood endowed by “their Creator” is the citizen. At birth the new citizen is given documents to prove his citizenship and a tax bill.
    .
    The French Revolution must have been dealing with the loss and denial of citizenship by the state as in “persona non grata”. Religious persons, priests and nuns, do not forfeit or surrender their God-given sovereign personhood and/or citizenship by answering their vocation. A higher calling, in fact, purifies their citizenship and brings “the Blessings of Liberty”.
    .
    It is nothing less than communism, oppression, for another individual or the state to tell a person who is a citizen that he is not a citizen without indictment for a capital offense, treason. It appears that being a religious person in France during the French Revolution was treason, the absolute reversal of the truth.
    .
    This same separation of citizenship and soul is happening here in America, where having a soul has become treason, treason in the land of atheism.

  • Donald R McCleary wrote, “’ French democracy became more democratic, not less, when it turned all France into one constituency which elected one member.’ – That quote always had my vote for the dumbest thing written by Chesterton.”

    And yet it was, in effect, endorsed by Walter Bagehot, a man politically poles apart from Chesterton. Writing of the nephew, that shrewd cynic observed, “The nature of a constitution, the action of an assembly, the play of parties, the unseen formation of a guiding opinion, are complex facts, difficult to know and easy to mistake. But the action of a single will, the fiat of a single mind, are easy ideas: anybody can make them out, and no one can ever forget them. When you put before the mass of mankind the question, ‘Will you be governed by a king, or will you be governed by a constitution?’ the inquiry comes out thus—’Will you be governed in a way you understand, or will you be governed in a way you do not understand?’ The issue was put to the French people; they were asked, ‘Will you be governed by Louis Napoleon, or will you be governed by an assembly?’ The French people said, ‘We will be governed by the one man we can imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine.'”

  • “The French people said, ‘We will be governed by the one man we can imagine, and not by the many people we cannot imagine.’”

    Preposterous. The plebiscite of 1851 was instituted only after wannabe Napoleon had instituted repression. It had as much validity as one of Stalin’s show trials in the thirties. Like his much greater uncle, wannabe Napoleon owed his imitation imperial title, eventually granted him officially through another plebiscite with an unimaginative 97% yes vote, to the bayonets he controlled rather than the ballots he manufactured in pretend plebiscites.

  • Donald R McClarey
    Louis Napoléon may not have been supported by a numerical majority of the nation, that’s as may be; but there is no doubt that he had the support of a determinant current of opinion—determinant in intensity and in weight, that is, as well as in numbers. That was true of his uncle also and it needed no plebiscite to establish this obvious truth.

  • “but there is no doubt that he had the support of a determinant current of opinion”

    Nope, like his uncle he had control of the military and crushed all opposition. Speculations about his “true” popularity among the people or the elite are meaningless when he made certain that his opposition had no voice.

  • Mary De Voe’s, “It is nothing less than communism, oppression, for another individual or the state to tell a person who is a citizen that he is not a citizen without indictment for a capital offense, treason. It appears that being a religious person in France during the French Revolution was treason, the absolute reversal of the truth. . This same separation of citizenship and soul is happening here in America, where having a soul has become treason, treason in the land of atheism.”, nails it.
    In America today, the newly begotten human being is no longer protected, the person who is religious, a veteran, a supporter of Constitutional rights is a potential domestic terrorist. Remember Andrew Cuomo’s saying that a supporter of the Second Amendment has no place in New York State. If he becomes President, that may apply to the whole country.

  • I started to watch Simon Schamas tv program about judiasm since i enjoyed his shows about England. I caught an episode in the middle and what amazed me was that the program seemed more of a rant against the injustices perpetrated upon the Jews by Christians than a true unbiased history of Judaism.
    I was a bit shocked but it may explain this “book is good and if there is any criticism of Simon Schama’s work it’s that he views Christianity, in particular the Catholic Church, through a materialistic lens “

Illegal Immigration and the Church

Wednesday, July 9, AD 2014

immigration_billboard

 

 

 

I admit to some puzzlement as to why the Church in this country is so stridently in favor of illegal immigration.  The Church in America being in favor of legal immigration I can understand, with so many Catholics tracing their ancestry to the waves of immigrants from Europe in the 19th and early 20th century.  But until the day before yesterday in historical terms the Church was never in favor of illegal immigration.  I think much of it tends to be that many of the powers that be within the Church in this country tend to favor the political left in most contexts.  They are embarrassed that fights over abortion,  gay marriage and religious liberty aligns the Church with political conservatives.  Being in favor of illegal immigration allows these clerics to align with political forces they find much more congenial.  Jack Cashill at The American Thinker gives us a case in point:

 

 

Motives, however, are rarely as simple as money. On the question of the church’s motives, one local Catholic explained how the noisy “peace and justice” cliques within the church seized a new opportunity to lure the Church leftward. As she explained, these cliques were attempting to negate the rightward drift of practicing Catholics on life issues by elevating workers’ rights to a comparable status. In the 2000 election, she noted, they tried the same tactic with the death penalty. 

The problem for the P&J crowd is that the Catholic Church considers abortion “always morally evil” — “murder” in fact — but has no official position on immigration, legal or otherwise. One can read all four gospels and every encyclical ever written without encountering a single “undocumented immigrant” swimming across the River Jordan. Serious Catholics treat the hierarchy’s showy preference for immigration issues over life issues as some sort of Job-like test of their fidelity.

I had absolutely no intention of saying anything at the press conference. But with the woman’s lucid argument still resonating in my head, I could not resist the urge to inject a note of realism into the Q & A happy talk that followed the speeches.

“Bishop,” I blurted out, “what do you say to those Catholics troubled by your alliance with these left-leaning groups given their historic affection for abortion rights?”

The Bishop looked at me as if I had just peed on his shoe. “What are you talking about?” he scoffed. As respectful as I try to be to my Catholic clergy, I did not appreciate the public dissing. “Let me tell you what I mean,” I answered and elaborated in more detail what I had already said.

“This isn’t about left or right,” he finally answered. “This is about justice.”

“Bishop,” I smiled, “May 1st? International Worker’s Day?”

I had expected the other reporters to give me the evil eye, but they did not. My question seemed to remind them of the role that reporters used to play, “Bishop,” said the next fellow. “You keep saying that the Church is supporting immigration. Isn’t this really about illegal immigration?”  I did not have time to listen to the answer. I had a 12 o’clock appointment across town, and I had already spent $9.00 on parking.

A few months later the unions repaid the Catholic Church for its support in a way that left me feeling much more insightful than I actually am. The Los Angeles Times summarized the issue succinctly enough: “California’s leading union organization, bucking organized labor’s long-standing neutrality on the issue of abortion, is for the first time taking a strong stand in favor of abortion rights.” 

Specifically, the union asked its 2.1 million members to reject Proposition 85. This initiative would merely have required abortionists to honor the standards of ear-piercers and aspirin dispensers and get parents’ permission before going to work on their daughters.

Spearheading the union assault on parental rights was none other than Dolores Huerta, star of the press conference I had attended at the Cathedral. As the Times noted, Huerta, “a Roman Catholic,” had persuaded a pro-choice group to put its many interns to work passing out pro-abortion propaganda to the union delegates before the vote was taken. The union support proved crucial in defeating Prop 85 by a narrow 53 to 47 margin.

Said Tod Tamberg, an Archdiocesan spokesman, “It doesn’t preclude us from working together on those areas where we do share common concerns.” The “it” in question is the union’s decision to sanction what the church considers to be murder. In the battle for the Hispanic soul, the Church hierarchy had already surrendered, and God only knows why.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Illegal Immigration and the Church

  • “I was a criminal and you welcomed me.”

    “I was a murderer and you welcomed me.”

    “I was a thief and you welcomed me.”

    Shaw 7:9

  • Said Tod Tamberg, an Archdiocesan spokesman, “it doesn’t preclude us
    from working together on those areas where we do share common concerns.”
    The “it” in question is the union’s decision to sanction what the Church
    considers to be
    murder.
    .
    So, if I follow Mr. Tamberg’s line of thinking, the Church should avert Her eyes
    and lend support to any group with whom “we share common concerns”.
    I’d ask Mr. Tamberg and his fellow travelers: if NAMBLA sought the Church’s
    help setting up a program of, say, mentoring inner-city youth, would Tamberg
    likewise urge the Church to ignore Her revulsion and give the group Her
    support? And if not, Mr. Tamberg, then why not?
    .
    I would agree that there are all too many in the US Church’s administration who
    are more interested in using Her infrastructure and public presence to further
    their own political ends– even when those ends are contrary to the Church’s.
    What can we do about it?

  • “What can we do about it?”

    By protesting it and calling the purveyors of this type of malarkey out each and every time. Too many times Catholics simply suffer in silence when “professional Catholics”, ordained and unordained, use the Church as a hobby horse for their cause du jour.

  • “professional Catholics”,

    Amy Welborn described them thus: steeped in “bored out of their minds careerism”.

  • Immigration has been a ‘theological issue’ from the time of the Exodus and giving of the Torah. They did not use the word ‘immigration’ but instead, ‘resident alien’. Now that can embody many categories today, it certainly encapsulated those Canaanites, etc who still lived in Israel [as the Native Americans do with us today]. Rahab and her family were a prime example of this-and became the forebear of King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ Himself [see Matthew 1.1-18]. It encapsulated those who migrated into Israel for many reasons-famine, etc. as we see in the Moabitess Ruth, who again became the forebear of David and the Lord Jesus. Justice was to be done with and for them for Israel themselves had once been ‘aliens’ in Egypt (as had the Patriarchs at various times).

    Archbishop Kurtz, the present head of the National Bishop’s Conference recently wrote a pastoral letter to his own diocese which is instructive. I believe. In it he called for immigration reform within the law. That’s the way to go IMHO. Make legal immigration, one that does not split families etc ‘easier’ [now the exact dimensions of what that means is way beyond my pay scale and I presume each person in here has their own position on the matter] However, I know that at least one wing of my ancestry from Ireland landed in New York long before Ellis Island was set up and working. They certainly did not have papers when they arrived. I have a sense they were lucky to be walking off the boat. At that point, the Irish men were met at the docks by reps of the Democratic Party offering to help them at least get a meal etc. They were also met by the military who needed ‘able body’ men to enlist in the US Army to fight in the Mexican-American War [Somehow my male ancestors did not get into that war, they would later fight in the Civil War].

    A major issue at the moment of the illegal immigration is the failure of Mexican, Central and some Latin American countries to establish justice within their own borders. Some are still ‘banana republics’ where oligarchies rule and the rest suffer destitution. They do little or nothing for their citizens, and now with the drug cartels do nothing to protect their citizens from these new ‘mafiosa’.

    There should be and is a way, although I also know that it is complex, through this whole problem of ‘immigration’. I can tell you that the solution is not to do anything. Another solution is not to make this a liberal/conservative issue as tempting as that may be. Socialism in Cuba and now Venezuela is not working. Liberation theology in its ‘politicized’ [social class based and open to acts of violence] is dying or dead. Thanks be to God. However, the Church [and I mean from the Pope on down to all of us] cannot collude either with ‘the status quo’ in these ‘banana republics’ or in the byzantine politics of liberal and conservatives in America. “You shall not oppress the resident alien” still holds.

  • Don, you’re right about the illegal alien thing being used to draw the Church leftward. But you know, helping these criminals will backfire on the Church. This idiocy will tick off all the Non-Catholics in this country and turn many of them into Anti-Catholics. And also, what guarantee do we have that these ‘immigrants’ will be good Catholics or good citizens? They’re already criminals by virtue of being illegal aliens. News story after news story shows these people tend to be drawn into other illegal and criminal activities, and reports over the years show that even many legal south of the border immigrants tend to drift away or outright leave the Church for Evangelical sects a few years after they come here. Our fearless leaders need to do some serious rethinking of their immigration policies before they do even more damage to the Church and our country.

  • ‘You shall not oppress the resident alien’ still holds.”

    But the right and duty of the State to set reasonable limits on immigration also still holds.

  • Milton Friedman said, “You can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both.”

    About 92 million Americans (ages 16 to 64) are unemployed or no longer looking for work – lowest labor force participation rate in decades.

    God Almighty has not altered the laws of supply and demand, nor has He willed the necessary, immediate globally-huge expansions in the Earth’s exploitable resources, jobs, and capital assets.

    The mendacious Messiah has been unable to save the American middle class even despite $7 trillion in added national debt and the FRB printing $3 trillion (most of which went to Wall Street, special interests, crony-capitalists, et al).

  • Some Catholics and evangelical Christians are beginning to feel like resident aliens in their own country.
    Ruth did cross the Jordan from Moab. She accepted the Torah and abided by the laws and customs of Israel.
    When we find ourselves in a hole, the standard advice is to stop digging. And dithering. Closing the border and severely limiting new applications for even legal immigration until we can get a hold on it. O for leadership that pleases God!
    People who are here and cannot be immediately turned back will just have to be converted! to pro life, law abiding Catholic capitalists! 🙂

  • “But you know, helping these criminals will backfire on the Church. This idiocy will tick off all the Non-Catholics in this country and turn many of them into Anti-Catholics.”
    .
    I was thinking this on the way home just a few minutes ago. If reports of a January job memo are to be believed (the gov’t looking for logistics companies to bus massive amounts of people throughout the country), then perhaps this was part of the plan all along–to divide the Church internally. The bishops and priests may be all for keeping these people here (many are in fact children), but vast numbers of laity are not, including many who are regular contributors to the collection plate.
    .
    For my part, I’m at a loss as to what to do about this. I don’t see any good answer to this problem.

  • “When we find ourselves in a hole, the standard advice is to stop digging. And dithering. Closing the border and severely limiting new applications for even legal immigration until we can get a hold on it.”

    I think even 10 years would be a great advance down the road of assimilation. We could maintain the one million legal immigrants per year with no trouble. Currently we have 37,000,000 legal immigrants in this country which is the highest in our history. The number of illegal aliens is anyone’s guess. I think the best estimate is between 12-15 million, overwhelmingly from Mexico and Central America, with a net 700,000 each year, which I expect to decline due to the birthrate of Mexico and Central America rapidly declining.

  • to paraphrase from The Incredibles, if everyone is an American, no one is an American.

    What does it mean to be an American citizen? Do citizens have claims on their government that differ from the claims of non-citizens?

    In a way, it seems that Sister Walsh wants our earthly government to act as the Body of Christ. But who is suffering from the heresy of Americanism, then?

  • Don

    When I read the source documents on Catholic Social teaching I see a lot of good common sense.

    When I hear or read the Social Justice advocates I really wonder how they got here from there.

    Perhaps I got through grad school with zero reading comprehension skills. Or not.

  • I think the difference Hank is because those who claim to be champions of the SJ teaching of the Church often seize upon only a part of it, rather than attempting to understand and implement the entire teaching.

  • Good answer Donald.

  • I don’t know about others but it seems at least from reading Shea and some others, some Catholics believe importanting a bunch of mexicans will end up making this country more Catholic.

    Stephen Dalton, this article may be of some interest to you.

    After reading it I’m ready to compromise: Let’s seal up the border so that people can’t come north, AND guns can’t go south.

  • Nate, I read the article you linked to, and I agree with you, seal the southern border, and I’d add, revive Operation Wetback, and send every illegal back to Mexico!

  • Bear with me, folks, as I tell a little story.
    .
    My wife is a Filipino immigrant. It will be another two years before she can become a citizen. She had to fight tooth and nail to get this far. Her children in the Philippines (she is a widow) find it next to impossible to get a visa to visit her here in the United States. We even considered me taking a job at new nuclear build in the United Arab Emirates (they are building five new 1500 MWe APR-1000 reactors – super System 80+ pressurized water reactors originally designed by Combustion Engineering – Obama wouldn’t think of a useful project like that here in the US, but I digress) because it would be easier for her children to visit her there in a Muslim country than to visit her here in the post 9-11 People’s Demokratik Republik of Amerika.
    .
    I once worked with an Iraqi nuclear engineer and a Nigerian nuclear engineer at a former place of employment. Both had to go through hell and back to get here into the United States. The Iraqi man had a devil of a time getting his wife over here. He and his family are devoutly Catholic and he used to attend apologetic sessions that I ran as religious education training at a local parish. The Nigerian girl (also Christian but not Catholic, and by the way drop dead gorgeous in addition to having a better brain in her head than I have in mine) had no hope of bringing her parents here. Both were freaking great engineers. If either had been Muslim or Mexican, then the Obama Administration would have welcomed them with open arms.
    .
    Indeed, if you’re a Mexican drug lord or welfare recipient or a Muslim protected under liberal diversity, then you get a free pass under the Obama Administration, whose enforcement of the law selectively favors criminals and indolents and anti-Christian religions. and is biased against those (especially Christians) who actually work, produce something for a living, and pay taxes. I have seen it happen with my own eyes. My legal immigrant wife worked two jobs before she married me just so that she could make ends meet and not go on state assistance. The idea was abhorrent to her. She would make a bad Democrat. (Fortunately, she has since been able to quit the night job.)

  • It’s curious that Mexico suddenly decided to relax security on its southern border to allow immigrants of all ages from Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala to illegally enter into, and then pass through, sovereign Mexican territory.
    .
    Why didn’t Mexico halt the progress of these immigrants at its southern border by denying them access to Mexico or by deporting those who successfully breached Mexican border security?
    .
    This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.

  • I agree with Slainte on this. Strange the very tough southern border of Mexico lets all this huge number of people through.
    Slainte said “This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.” It seems an almost unavoidable conclusion to me.

  • Slainte & Anzlyne said: “I agree with Slainte on this. Strange the very tough southern border of Mexico lets all this huge number of people through.
    Slainte said ‘This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.'”

    I agree with both of them.

  • My daughter attended an all girls Catholic school. There were no illegal in that school. Why isn’t the Catholic church educating the illegal? Why does the taxpayer need to pick up the tab. The Catholic church should put its money where its mouth is and pay to send every illegal to a Catholic school. They are so much better than public schools and illegals deserve a good Catholic education at the expense of the Catholic Church

Converts

Wednesday, May 28, AD 2014

 

 

 

One of the sources of ever renewing strength to Catholicism has ever been our converts.  My bride is an example of this.  A United Methodist when we married, she converted to the Faith after two years.  Her doubts about the Eucharist were resolved when she drew my attention to these lines from a translation of Tantum Ergo, the masterpiece of Saint Thomas Aquinas:

Faith tells us that Christ is present,

When our Human senses fail

Now she is a far better Catholic than I, and if I ultimately behold the Beatific Vision it will largely be I think because of her prayers for me.

Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, directs our attention to a recent convert:

You guys should have a spring in your step tomorrow morning because you just picked up someone who I would consider to be a MAJOR convert and his family, a guy who may astonish some of you. I’m not going to quote from his outstanding piece because it’s too long and too personal and you really do need to read the whole thing anyway.

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Converts

  • What this blog post says about the orthodox Anglican movement is 100% correct. As sincere, well intentioned and devout as they are, the entire movement is fragmented into a hundred different sects each rivaling the other. And while some of its leaders are paragons of virtue and honor, others can be as abysmally given over to corruption as certain Roman clergy. And yes, I agree with the comparison of the current Roman pontiff with the Archbishop of Canterbury. One orthodox Anglican bishop told me at one time that he could accept Benedict XVI as supreme pontiff, but when Francis got elected, oh the dismay and disappointment! he will never come into the Roman fold with Francis as pontiff.

  • Wonderfully clear-eyed. Welcome aboard, Mr. Griffith–here’s your bucket, now start bailing!

  • As sincere, well intentioned and devout as they are, the entire movement is fragmented into a hundred different sects each rivaling the other.

    Actually, I think eight different sects have appeared since 1966, shearing off after each new bit of grossness on the part of the House of Bishops; James Hashcookies Pike, broads in cassocks, Edmund Lee Browning’s buffooneries, massive embezzlement by the denominational treasurer (for which Edmund Lee Browning would take no responsibility), &c. (Did another appear after they consecrated homosexual alcoholic narcissist Vicky Gene Robinson? I’ve lost track).

  • Rather bittersweet to read this. Yet another convert who actually read the instructions! And I bet he thinks he is supposed to follow the instructions! Such troublemakers.

    His initial experience, …worship is, properly, sacramental and liturgical in nature. The Catholic church provides that for me in abundance. And, I never have to worry about my rector – to say nothing of my bishop – advocating same-sex blessings from the pulpit, hoisting a pro-abortion banner, marching in a gay-pride parade, or indulging in universalism… is in one parish. There are many more parishes in which the laity eagerly await the coming of the Doctrinal Change, and the priest sees his primary pastoral role as maintaining their faith by entertaining this possibility.

  • You are correct that I exaggerated, Art. this list of Continuing Anglican Churches is smaller – from Wikipedia:

    The following is a list of North American church bodies commonly called “Continuing Anglican,” with the approximate number of their parishes in North America shown in parentheses. Some also have affiliated churches in other countries.

    American Anglican Church (12)
    Anglican Catholic Church (150) includes the Traditional Anglican Church of Canada (11)
    Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (12)
    Anglican Churches of America (2)
    Anglican Church in America (75)
    Anglican Church of Virginia (8)
    Anglican Episcopal Church (5)
    Anglican Orthodox Church (10)
    Anglican Province of America (60)
    Anglican Province of Christ the King (42)
    Christian Episcopal Church (5)
    Diocese of the Great Lakes (5)
    Diocese of the Holy Cross (20)
    Episcopal Missionary Church (30)
    Holy Catholic Church–Western Rite (20)
    Orthodox Anglican Church (5)
    Reformed Anglican Church (5)
    Southern Episcopal Church (3)
    United Anglican Church (6)
    United Episcopal Church of North America (20)

  • “Over the past twenty years I have come to believe that worship is, properly, sacramental and liturgical in nature. ”
    .
    Funny, that’s just about how long it took me to reach the same conclusion.

  • “Welcome aboard, Mr. Griffith–here’s your bucket, now start bailing!” Dale Priceless.

  • Pingback: St. Joan of Arc: A Guide for Every Age - BigPulpit.com
  • I’m glad Greg has come home. He will resolve his questions with time. However, I read the comments on his blog “Stand Firm in Faith” and the anti-Catholic vitriol and ignorance is astounding, troubling and upsetting. Even from those who claim to know better. For example, Matt Kennedy of that blog says that the Catholic Church “denies the gospel.” Holy Smoke, how do ever begin to have a conversation with that kind of argument? I have been this side of the Tiber for over 6 years officially and about 15 unofficially. I’m home, and even though there are some issues (after all, it is humans who make up the Church), I continue to have a great sense of peace, relief and gratitude to the grace and mercy of God and to the Church for receiving me into the Barque of Peter.

  • We also walked out of TEC the Sunday after the ordination of Gene Robinson and walked into the local Catholic Church the next Sunday. That was 11 wonderful years ago.

  • Certainly this is good news for him, and I’ve asked the Blessed Mother to pray for him that it works out well. But it seems to me that he’s saying that he reviewed all the options and the Catholic one is best. I prefer the converts who say “The church building is ugly, the people stand-offish, the preaching uninspired, but it’s the one true Church so I have no choice.”

  • The Gospel is the death, burial, & resurrection of Jesus Christ. One of the things that drew me to Catholic worship services was the stating of the gospel every single service. I had listened in vain for decades in Protestant churches for the Gospel.

  • “Some of us are born Catholic…”–Donald R. McClarey

    Were that true there would be no need for infant baptism, would there now?

  • I read Mr. Griffith’s blog regarding his coming into the Catholic Church and I have to say I have never read a less inspiring conversion story. It does not sound like a conversion to the Truth of Jesus Christ. It sounds like an intellectual decision making the Catholic Church the least of the worst. In truth, the Catholic Church is the only Church, every other form of organized religion is just a pale imitation of the incredible gift that Jesus heads. To encounter the Eucharist and the grace and joy that comes with truly knowing the Lord is present to us and within us is a miracle of the highest order. Mr. Griffith did not once even mention Jesus Christ or the authenticity of His Church. I will pray that the Holy Spirit will pour out some fervor and desire for the Lord as he continues on his spiritual journey. For the first time in his life, he will actually be receiving the body, blood, soul and divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. May that experience alone open his heart, so that it overrides his head.

  • Deb, completely agree with you. I’m glad this fellow joined in Communion with the one true Holy Catholic Church of Christ, but at this Pentecost, I hope the Holy Spirit grants him the gift of fervor in piety that is lacking in his conversion story. I’m reading GK Chesterton’s St. Francis of Assisi biography & in it Ches makes the point of what made St. Francis unique in human history: he treated religion as a Love-affair. Welcome home, Mr. Greg, but in your knew journey with the Bride of Christ (aka the Catholic Church), try to embrace this “love-affair” approach of St. Francis & not a Pharisee-like mentality. Pope Francis is giving us an example that should cause us to be challenged in our walk as Christian disciples (not occasions to unceasingly criticize Pope Francis), be open to the Holy Spirit’s workings through Francis (don’t shut the Spirit of God off, listen). We’ve been gifted with great Christian teachers lately- Francis, Benedict, St. John Paul II.

  • “We’ve been gifted with great Christian teachers lately- Francis, Benedict, St. John Paul II.”
    .
    Pope Francis’ motto ought to be “Do as I do, not as I say.”

  • We’ve attended Anglican Usage Masses in Scranton. The liturgy is what the liturgy of the Roman Rite should be. The language harks back to the Golden age of English, the Elizabethan, and makes no concessions to the PC doctrine of inclusiveness. The host is given on the tongue and received, as one kneels at the altar rail. Evensong is beautiful. Benedict XVI did a great thing for the Church by establishing Anglicanorum Coetibus, to set up Ordinariates to make the swim across the Tiber easier.

  • Mary De Voe, Pope Francis (like Benedict & St. John Paul) both walks the walk & talks the talk. Pope Francis is an orthodox teacher of the Faith, actually listen to what he preaches. In some press interviews, he has said some things that are excruciatingly subtle yet orthodox but could have been said in a more clear fashion. Sadly, the mainstream media has taken these subtle statements & taken them out of context & reduced them to soundbytes. (I wish he didn’t naively do press interviews – a very informal, unclear & ineffective way to teach- & stick with formal modes of papal Teaching -like encyclicals & actions- but we all make mistakes.) But in his more formal papal teachings from symbolic acts of mercy to homilies, Pope Francis has been very insistent in his orthodoxy (although unreported by media), such as the fact that he warns against the dangers of the true Enemy (Satan) of the Gospel more than his previous two papal predecessors combined. People who listen to media constantly quote (out of context) his “who am I to judge” statement ONCE & on a very informal way, but how many quote his constant & numerous warnings against the Enemy (Satan) of the Gospel? Zip.
    The Church shall always be in debt to servant Pope Benedict’s Anglican Ordinariates, true sources of Beauty in the Mother Church & true examples of Ecumenical embrace. Anglican-Use Mass is how the reformed Roman-Rite Mass after Vatican II should have looked like (vernacular English but with all the rich music & Communion reception in mouth/kneeling, etc.). Bless the Lord

  • *said* ONCE & in an informal way- is what I meant

Catholic Party?

Tuesday, May 6, AD 2014

 

 

Hattip to Dale Price.  An interesting article written by Michael Brendan Dougherty at The Week.  Saint Blog’s is going to be arguing about this one for quite some time:

When you add to this the fact that the cultural formation of most engaged Catholics is primarily the ideological combat of political and cultural factions, they tend to treat the pope as their “party leader,” and to treat “the world” as an opposing party. It’s difficult to describe how distorted this mental image is to true faith, but some examples could suffice.

Look for instance at the reaction of conservative Catholics to the pope’s phone call to Jaquelina Lisbona, a woman in Argentina civilly married to a divorcée, in which Francis supposedly counseled her to practically ignore church teaching on divorce, adultery, confession, and Holy Communion.

Phil Lawler at Catholic Culture speculated, “[F]or all we know, she and her husband are now living as brother and sister, in which case there would be no reason why she could not resume receiving the sacraments.” Of course, if this were the case the parish priest could have determined this without the extraordinary phone call from Christ’s vicar.

Before deleting it (perhaps in embarrassment), Jimmy Akin reminded his readers at the National Catholic Register that the pope has the power to act as the church’s chief legislature and to execute judgments immediately, and so therefore he could annul the first marriage and radically sanction the second, implying all this could be done over the phone. That he would have short-circuited the church’s entire juridical process, undermined faith in the church’s discipline, and undercut Catholic priests seems to bother Akin not at all. This same defense was used to justify the pope’s breaking of liturgical rubrics, essentially employing the Nixon defense that “when the pope does it, it’s not illegal.”

Let me suggest that these two good Catholic men are acting not as church men but as party men, and falling into what Hillary Jane White aptly diagnosed as “papal positivism.” Lawler and Akin are not alone. The bulk of Catholic media is devoted to moon-faced speculation about how the discreet governing decisions, words, and gestures of the pope are accomplishing some larger goal that we further speculate must be in the pope’s head or heart. It’s very easy to make the pope into a saintly superhero when you act as his ventriloquist.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Catholic Party?

  • Oh you better watch out, I’m pretty sure those are fighting words to Shea… 😉

  • When it comes to matters of positive law, liturgical or juridical, it is certainly true that the pope is not bound by them, for he can make and unmake any law whatsoever.
    Ever since the 12th century, canonists have insisted on the pope’s sovereignty, borrowing the language of the Roman jurists in describing the Emperor; he is “legibus solutus” [not bound by laws] he is “lex loquens” [the living law] and, perhaps, most frequently and famously, “quod placuit principi, legis habet vigorem” [what the Prince pleases has the force of law]
    However, we should note that the most vigorous proponents of the plenitude of power were often scathing critics of its actual exercise, although they tended to employ the polite fiction that His Holiness had been “misled by his (unspecified) evil advisers &c”

  • Only TRUTH has freedom of speech in the secular and in the divine.

  • Pingback: Should the Church Refuse Court-Mandated Abuse Settlements - Big Pulpit
  • Donald McClarey, why did you not say the same when Pope Benedict XVI was Bishop of Rome? (“Liberals” probably said the same things you now say about Pope Francis whenever certain teachings from Pope Benedict made them “queasy”. We don’t like to be challenged, I get it.) I’m as orthodox Catholic as they can get & I don’t see why “traditionalists” & “liberals” can’t embrace both Pope Benedict & Pope Francis. As for me & my house, we love them both; long live Benedict & Francis, servants of Christ, Successors of St. Peter the Apostle. Nate Winchester, why are you so opposed to Mark Shea? Maybe because Mark Shea is guilty of being a serious orthodox Catholic who is open in mind & heart to being challenged to grow in holiness by listening to our good Pope? Nate, why are you so afraid of being faithful to the Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth? Trust the words spoken by our Lord Jesus on Matthew’s Gospel.

  • “Donald McClarey, why did you not say the same when Pope Benedict XVI was Bishop of Rome?”

    Actually I did when the Vatican did something foolish under Pope Benedict:
    http://the-american-catholic.com/2011/10/27/a-fisk-of-towards-reforming-the-international-financial-and-monetary-systems-in-the-context-of-global-public-authority/

    The difference of course is that Pope Benedict, other than the condom flap where I heavily criticized him, was a tower of orthodoxy in his pronouncements. Alas, the same cannot be said for Pope Francis.

    Any Catholic who thinks we all merely need to shut our eyes and trust any pope of the day needs to read a great deal more Catholic history.

Church of the Zeitgeist

Thursday, March 20, AD 2014

Church of the Zeitgeist

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

William Butler Yeats, Second Coming

For any who think that there are not bishops and higher prelates rubbing their hands with glee at the prospect of ditching most of the morality in sexual matters taught by the Church since the time of the Crucifixion, Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, gives you the cold shock of reality:

Roman Catholics?  Many of us former Anglicans know from bitter experience that the Episcopalianization of churches always starts small.  A bishop here, a bishop there:

Two Catholic bishops in the UK have expressed hope that the upcoming Extraordinary Synod on the Family, to be held in Rome in October, will bring about massive changes to the Church’s approach to marriage and human sexuality.

Bishop Terence Drainey of Middleborough told the far-left magazine The Tablet that he is hoping for and expecting a “radical re-examination of human sexuality.”

Drainey told The Tablet that this “re-examination” should be made “in light of modern psychological and anthropological insights and the lived experience of lay people.” This, he said, “could lead to development in church teaching on all aspects of marriage and family life: contraception, homosexuality, divorce and remarriage, cohabitation; even the position of women in the Church.”

“The Church has to hold in tension its imperative to proclaim the high Christian ideals to which all should aspire with its desire at the same time to welcome with love and compassion those whose lives are complicated and messy,” the bishop said.

“A careful discussion of this dichotomy could yield pastoral solutions in the areas of family life where many are struggling, enabling the Church more readily to welcome and include these people,” Drainey said.

Bishop Drainey said the issues to be addressed by the Synod and brought up in a Vatican questionnaire are “multifaceted and complex” to which there are no “simple soundbite answers.”

Sound familiar?  If you’ve been hanging around here long enough, it better.  So you might want to hold off criticizing those Catholics who are worried about such trends or you may see a day when you yearn to hear their voices and find that they’re no longer there.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Church of the Zeitgeist

  • Bishop Terence Drainey of Middleborough has just erased heaven, both in heaven and here on earth.

  • When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, when encountering true evil, would say: “Saints preserve us.” A saying I have adopted because it so much says what needs saying.
    Now, Drainey would discard the Church Triumphant and impose the Church not so holy.
    Jesus Christ, Who led a sinless life as an innocent man, a virgin, too, would be exiled and expelled. Discounting God is the work of atheism. Usurping the brotherhood of Jesus Christ is not Catholic.
    Destroying the future of persons conceived in true innocence and virginity is the work of the devil. Saints preserve us. Drainey appears to not have the brains with which he was born.

  • Related thoughts from Ed Peters, as quoted by Father Zuhlsdorf [Fr. Z’s comments in brackets]:

    Why the gathering storm over divorce might be worse than was that over contraception

    Interesting parallels are being suggested between, on the one hand, Paul VI’s dithering over contraception in the 1960s (which, though reversed by his reassertion of Church teaching in Humanae vitae, contributed to widespread repudiation of that teaching by Catholics), and Francis’ recent mixed signals (or what are widely perceived as mixed signals) over the future of Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage and the reception of holy Communion. Notwithstanding some important differences between the two men and situations, I write to suggest that the stakes for all might actually be higher this time around.

    Consider two points:

    First, Church teaching against contraception had to be teased out over the centuries from natural law theory and what we call now ‘theology of the body’. It rests today largely on conclusions of logic, philosophy, and theology. Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage, in contrast, is expressly proclaimed in the New Testament and any literate Catholic can read Jesus’ strong words about it in the Bible. This teaching was heatedly and repeatedly defended by the Church Fathers, was reiterated consistently in numerous Councils, and has been expounded by all major theologians.

    Second, short of personal admission, there is no way to tell whether this Catholic couple or that is practicing contraception, and so there are virtually no ecclesiastical consequences possible in the external forum for disregard of Church teaching by pew Catholics. Indeed, with exceptions too rare to mention, there weren’t even official consequences for high-profile Catholics defending contraception in the ’60s. But cohabitation and post-divorce ‘marriage’, in contrast, are public acts falling squarely with the parameters of well-established (if inconsistently applied) public consequences (withholding of Communion being the best known). Millions of Catholics abide by this consequence. The millions of others who do not abide by it pretty much know they do not.

    What does this mean?

    It means, I suggest, that the complexity of the arguments underlying Church teaching on contraception allowed for the ecclesial equivalent of “plausible deniability” in regard to acceptance of that teaching by rank-and-file faithful, and the nature of the contraceptive act virtually excluded public enforcement measures. [NB:] But Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage is utterly obvious to any but the deliberately blind and the appropriateness of public consequences for public violation of that teaching has been unanimously upheld, and usually observed, for two millenia. Those factors combine to imply, I think, higher stakes in the divorce debate today than those confronting the Church over contraception a generation ago. [Couple all that with today’s increasing antinomian spirit and plummeting ability to think clearly.]

    Now I think Church teaching against divorce-and-remarriage will, in the end, be squarely upheld in principle. My concern is different: what if Church teaching is duly upheld but, as happened after Humanae vitae, that teaching is allowed to twist slowly in the wind? For ecclesiastical officialdom to look the other way on contraception was, in a sense, possible; [Because of its more hidden, private nature.] but for it to do so in regard to divorce, remarriage, and the reception of holy Communion would be immediately recognized as the practical abandonment of a major doctrino-disciplinary point.

  • We have always known that, whilst the Church cannot err, there can be error and widespread error, in the Church, lasting for centuries.

    In the age of her greatest doctors, we find, as Bl John Henry Newman recounts, a virtual consensus on the subject of baptism by heretics. “The Apostolical Canons say, “Those who are baptized by heretics cannot be believers.” The Synods of Iconium and Synnada declare that “those who came from the heretics were to be washed and purified from the filth of their old impure leaven.” Clement of Alexandria, that “Wisdom pronounces that strange waters do not belong to her.” Firmilian, that “we recognize one only Church of God, and account baptism to belong only to the Holy Church.” “It seemed good from the beginning,” says St. Basil, “wholly to annul the baptism of heretics.” Tertullian says, “We have not the same baptism with heretics; since they have it not rightly; without, they have it not at all.” “Then may there be one baptism,” says St. Cyprian, “when there is one faith. We and heretics cannot have a common baptism, since we have not the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Ghost in common. Heretics in their baptism are polluted by their profane water.” St. Cyril says, “None but heretics are re-baptized, since their former baptism was not baptism.” St. Athanasius asks, “Is not the rite administered by the Arians, altogether empty and unprofitable? He that is sprinkled by them is rather polluted than redeemed.” Optatus says, “The stained baptism cannot wash a man, the polluted cannot cleanse.” “The baptism of traitors.” says St. Ambrose, “does not heal, does not cleanse, but defiles.”

    They all erred. Great and holy bishops and doctors of the Church, St Athanasius, St Ambrose, St Basil, St Cyril were all simply wrong. Pope St Stephen (254-257), standing alone and distaining to give the grounds or motives of his decision, held the contrary. He pronounced the baptism of heretics to be valid and, a hundred and fifty years after his death, his teaching prevailed. St Augustine embraced it and the Novatians and the Donatists were anathematized for rejecting it.

    Bishop Terence Drainey of Middleborough may rival these Fathers in sanctity, learning and zeal, but he can err, as they erred, even in things pertaining to the Faith. Why suppose the bishops of Germany incapable of error, when the bishops of Phrygia, Galatia, Cilicia and all Asia Minor erred at the Synod of Iconium?

  • if they do not get what they publicly ask for and the boss says no will they as brits say, “put theit money where their mouth is and resign” ?

  • Some remarks by R.S. McCain a few months back, which, while concerned with the protestant congregations, describe some of our predicament.

    http://theothermccain.com/2013/09/08/courage-alessandra-let-us-determine-to-die-here-and-we-will-conquer/

    I suspect those of us who grew up in Anglicanism are inured to loser clergy. (David Mills description of the Episcopal bishops he had known: “…most of them very mediocre men…”). You expect your pastor to be manipulative, evasive, inane, and altogether useless for most intents and purposes. (But inveterately defended by the organization (wo)men who dominate vestries; “the worship which unites us rather than the issues which divide us” &c.). You see less of that in the Catholic Church (but more bad taste). The extension of grinning boobery into the College of Cardinals (Timothy “Bravo” Dolan) following upon the manifestation of dithering nincompoopery (see the Archpriest of the Basilica of St. Mary Major) is most demoralizing, though the current Pope’s serial hoof-in-mouth episodes do provide diversion from time to time.

    We’re not quite in the 10th century yet, but these chaps will do a great deal of damage before the Church is done with them.

  • Pingback: Wherever the Catholic Faith Flourishes, Quality of Life Improves - BP
  • The gates of hell shall not prevail…..

  • The bishops of England, Ireland, Germany and Austria have long been a bunch that I would not look up to.

    It has been speculated that when Papa Bergoglio turns 80 he will resign and return to Buenos Aires. He has maintained Argentine citizenship. What is clear is that in the past year, the lunatics have asserted themselves and are running the asylum. In any case, the answer is to pray, fast, give alms and hope in the Lord. The pagan roman government executed Him – but did not stop Him. In the end, the pagan Roman government withered away.

Quotes Suitable for Framing: Thomas Babington Macaulay

Thursday, March 14, AD 2013

Joseph Stalin: How many divisions has the Pope?

Pius XII (later, to Winston Churchill) : Tell my son Joseph he will meet my divisions in heaven.

 

 

After the events of this week, with the election of the 266th Pope, this quotation from the anti-Catholic writer Lord Macaulay written in 1840 comes vividly to mind:

 

 

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work of human policy so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. The members of her communion are certainly not fewer than a hundred and fifty millions; and it will be difficult to show that all other Christian sects united amount to a hundred and twenty millions. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca. And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

Continue reading...

17 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: Thomas Babington Macaulay

  • Reason, dignity, silence filling hearts and minds with love, simplicity, endless depth, clean efficiency, clarity, universality, and absolute beauty is part of how the Church abides for the essential Part who built it on earth as the gateway to heaven.

    Lifespans are long enough for us to figure it out.

  • More Macaulay, an anti-Catholic who understood the strengths of the Church much more than many Catholics:

    “Far different is the policy of Rome. The ignorant enthusiast whom the Anglican Church makes an enemy, and whatever the polite and learned may think, a most dangerous enemy, the Catholic Church makes a champion. She bids him nurse his beard, covers him with a gown and hood of coarse dark stuff, ties a rope round his waist, and sends him forth to teach in her name. He costs her nothing. He takes not a ducat away from the revenues of her beneficed clergy. He lives by the alms of those who respect his spiritual character, and are grateful for his instructions. He preaches, not exactly in the style of Massillon, but in a way which moves the passions of uneducated hearers; and all his influence is employed to strengthen the Church of which he is a minister. To that Church he becomes as strongly attached as any of the cardinals whose scarlet carriages and liveries crowd the entrance of the palace on the Quirinal. In this way the Church of Rome unites in herself all the strength of establishment, and all the strength of dissent. With the utmost pomp of a dominant hierarchy above, she has all the energy of the voluntary system below. It would be easy to mention very recent instances in which the hearts of hundreds of thousands, estranged from her by the selfishness, sloth, and cowardice of the beneficed clergy, have been brought back by the zeal of the begging friars.

    Even for female agency there is a place in her system. To devout women she assigns spiritual functions, dignities, and magistracies. In our country, if a noble lady is moved by more than ordinary zeal for the propagation of religion, the chance is that, though she may disapprove of no doctrine or ceremony of the Established Church, she will end by giving her name to a new schism. If a pious and benevolent woman enters the cells of a prison to pray with the most unhappy and degraded of her own sex, she does so without any authority from the Church. No line of action is traced out for her; and it is well if the Ordinary does not complain of her intrusion, and if the Bishop does not shake his head at such irregular benevolence. At Rome, the Countess of Huntingdon would have a place in the calendar as St. Selina, and Mrs. Fry would be foundress and first Superior of the Blessed Order of Sisters of the Gaols.

    Place Ignatius Loyola at Oxford. He is certain to become the head of a formidable secession. Place John Wesley at Rome. He is certain to be the first General of a new society devoted to the interests and honour of the Church. Place St. Theresa in London. Her restless enthusiasm ferments into madness, not untinctured with craft. She becomes the prophetess, the mother of the faithful, holds disputations with the devil, issues sealed pardons to her adorers, and lies in of the Shiloh. Place Joanna Southcote at Rome. She founds an order of barefooted Carmelites, every one of whom is ready to suffer martyrdom for the Church; a solemn service is consecrated to her memory; and her statue, placed over the holy water, strikes the eye of every stranger who enters St. Peter’s.”

  • I am not sure I would describe Lord Macaulay as anti-Catholic. He famously defended Elizabethan Catholics against the historian Hallam’s charge of disloyalty.

    “If, indeed, all men reasoned in the same manner on the same data, and always did what they thought it their duty to do, this mode of dispensing punishment might be extremely judicious. But as people who agree about premises often disagree about conclusions, and as no man in the world acts up to his own standard of right, there are two enormous gaps in the logic by which alone penalties for opinions can be defended…

    We do not believe that every Englishman who was reconciled to the Catholic Church would, as a necessary consequence, have thought himself justified in deposing or assassinating Elizabeth. It is not sufficient to say that the convert must have acknowledged the authority of the Pope, and that the Pope had issued a bull against the Queen. We know through what strange loopholes the human mind contrives to escape, when it wishes to avoid a disagreeable inference from an admitted proposition. We know how long the Jansenists contrived to believe the Pope infallible in matters of doctrine, and at the same time to believe doctrines which he pronounced to be heretical. Let it pass, however, that every Catholic in the kingdom thought that Elizabeth might he lawfully murdered. Still the old maxim, that what is the business of everybody is the business of nobody, is particularly likely to hold good in a case in which a cruel death is the almost inevitable consequence of making any attempt.

    Of the ten thousand clergymen of the Church of England, there is scarcely one who would not say that a man who should leave his country and friends to preach the Gospel among savages, and who should, after labouring indefatigably without any hope of reward, terminate his life by martyrdom, would deserve the warmest admiration. Yet, we can doubt whether ten of the ten thousand ever thought of going on such an expedition. Why should we suppose that conscientious motives, feeble as they are constantly found to be in a good cause, should be omnipotent for evil?”

  • “I am not sure I would describe Lord Macaulay as anti-Catholic.”

    I am:

    “It is impossible to deny that the polity of the Church of Rome is the very master-piece of human wisdom. In truth, nothing but such a polity could, against such assaults, have borne up such doctrines. The experience of twelve hundred eventful years, the ingenuity and patient care of forty generations of statesmen, have improved that polity to such perfection that, among the contrivances which have been devised for deceiving and oppressing mankind, it occupies the highest place. The stronger our conviction that reason and scripture were decidedly on the side of Protestantism, the greater is the reluctant admiration with which we regard that system of tactics against which reason and scripture were employed in vain.”

  • Donald R McClarey

    Of course Macaulay rejected Catholic doctrine, whilst defending Catholics against the charge that their holding such doctrines made them bad citizens.

  • “have improved that polity to such perfection that, among the contrivances which have been devised for deceiving and oppressing mankind, it occupies the highest place.”

    That goes well beyond merely rejecting Catholic doctrine MPS. This was not an aytypical remark by Macaulay. I think he had a rare understanding of the earthly strengths of the Church, but that he was anti-Catholic I have no doubt.

  • “What more deadly enemies had France in the days of Louis the 14th than the persecuted Huguenots? Why not try what effect would be produced on the Jews by that tolerant policy that has made the English Roman Catholic a good Englishman, and the French Calvinist a good Frenchman?”

    This is not the language of the typical anti-Catholic

  • “Why not try what effect would be produced on the Jews by that tolerant policy that has made the English Roman Catholic a good Englishman,”

    Considering that the legal disabilities that Catholics suffered under in Great Britain were not removed until 1829, and that bigotry against Catholics remained robust thereafter during Macaulay’s life, refering to England’s “tolerant policy” during Macaulay’s lifetime I think would have been regarded by most English Catholics as being at best a rose colored view of things and at worst the view of a non-Catholic who didn’t know what the devil he was talking about.

  • Fom everything I read here, Macaulay was a genteel anti-Catholic. He was too great a thinker, too careful a writer and speaker, to permit himself to descend into baser anti-Catholic sentiment. He was not anti-Catholic such as we see now, demanding that the Church back out of all public discussion under threat of government force and thinking ill of all religion. Being a careful thinker, he could, without threat to his own beliefs, recognize the beautiful and admirable even with that which he passionately disagreed, and recognize the bad in that even with which he claimed allegiance.

    In short, a truly ethical rhetor, and a truly generous and precise thinker.

  • Being honest doesn’t make someone not anti-Catholic…..

  • To whom was your comment addressed, Foxfier?

    If mine, I did note that he was anti-Catholic in my first line.

  • It’s a TL:DR summation of the notion that “If someone says true things that are favorable to X, they can’t be anti-X.”

  • It has been around a long time. But I very much think it grew up afterwards. After the church was inaugurated at Pentecost. A while after…. We see it take shape, and then it is there, but not from the start.

  • “Considering that the legal disabilities that Catholics suffered under in Great Britain were not removed until 1829…”

    The passage I quoted was from Macaulay’s essay on the civil Disabilities of the Jews in the Edinburgh Review of 1831and he was arguing that they should be extended the same rights that had been granted to Catholics by the 1829 Act.

    In fact, Catholics had been allowed to purchase and inherit freehold land to hold commissions in the armed services by the Papists Act 1778 (which Jews could not), the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1791admitted them to practice law (which Jews could not) and the 1829 Act allowed Catholics to sit and vote in both Houses of Parliament, to be members of municipal corporations and to hold all offices, civil and military (except Lord Chancellor, on account of his ecclesiastical patronage)

    In practice, many Catholics, particularly in Scotland, refused to take the Oath of Allegiance prescribed by the Acts of 1778 and 1791, until the death of the Cardinal Duke of York in July 1807. The Sheriff Court Books show a remarkable number of people taking the Oath in the September and October of that year. One of my own ancestors did so at Ayr and, within a couple of months was appointed a Justice of the peace, an office usually granted automatically to landowners. He later became a captain in the Yeomanry (National Guard).

  • Macaulay was a Whig. He didn’t have much time for the High Anglican ‘Church and State’ party either. His April 1839 put-down of Gladstone is one of the most devastating and masterful in the language.

  • Yes, Macaulay held to the Whig interpretation of history, and his comments concerning Roman Catholicism were extremely generous considering. He was not fond of high Anglicanism either, which was wedded to the political ideology of the Torey party.

  • “Papists Act 1778”

    The title is telling MPS. The passage of this baby step toward toleration caused the worst riots in British history, the Gordon riots of 1780 in London, in which numerous Catholics were murdered and embassies of Catholic nations attacked, and Catholic chapels and churches in the embassies destroyed. The riots and their aftermath effectively set back the cause of full Catholic emancipation for a half century. Catholics in Great Britain would have found it easy during Lord Macaulay’s lifetime to regard themselves as hated by most of their fellow countrymen at worst, given a very grudging tolerance at best.

The Conclave; A Glimpse Into Heaven

Monday, March 11, AD 2013

Cardinals speak of feeling as if the weight of the world is on their shoulders. While we watch the awe and majesty of a Conclave to pick the next pontiff, the Princes of the Church speak of it with trepidation, some with fear. The 115 cardinals who will pick the next pontiff rightfully feel their solemn responsibility. The Church’s greatest task is to save souls and the man who will figuratively grasp the keys given to St Peter by Jesus assumes an awesome responsibility.

The procession from St Peter’s to the Sistine Chapel may be one of the most moving and beautiful events a believer (and even a non-believer) may ever witness. As the Litany of the Saints is chanted the cardinals process into the Sistine Chapel, pulling themselves away from the outside world to pray and vote for the Successor of St. Peter. For the truly faithful, the days of the Conclave are often one of the rare moments in the public life of the Church where the mainstream media isn’t dictating who the cardinals should pick and why the Church’s Teachings need to be changed. Now some will attempt to do just that, but it often comes across as shallow and shrill due to the solemnity of the moment.

Monday on ABC’s World News Tonight, Diane Sawyer interviewed South African Cardinal Wilfrid Napier. His Eminence, who was present at the last Conclave, was asked what it was like picking the future pontiff. The Cardinal from Durban spoke of looking at Michelangelo’s Last Judgment painted above him in the Sistine Chapel, and pleading for Jesus to help him make the right decision.

Continue reading...

Both World Wars Were A Catalyst For Religious Growth; What Future Tragedy Will It Take For Another Revival?

Sunday, December 16, AD 2012

Sadly it often takes tragedies for religious faith to grow. It seems an unfortunate part of our fallen nature. We have been hit by a spate of tragedies as of late; in its wake we often see churches full of worshippers seeking answers where once there were but a few. Following both world wars, there existed a religious resurgence that unlike the recent tragedies did not ebb and flow. It remained constant due in large part to the horrific loses of human life.

Modernism was alive and well and condemned by the likes of Pope Pius X even before the Guns of August began in 1914. The Catholic and Protestant churches were increasingly seeing relativistic elements entering their seminaries. However unlike recent times, they were quickly addressed. Though we are gaining the upper hand, it has been 40 years since Pope Paul VI lamented that “The Smoke of Satan” had entered the Church. In my just released book; The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn, I speak about the positive events occurring within the Church, as well as those movements who aim to do us harm. In addition, the book delves into how we got into this mess in the first place.

Following World War I there was a great return to religious devotions, especially those having to do with the Blessed Mother. The events of Fatima which had occurred during the war and were being followed closely around the Catholic globe. As I mentioned in my article on the Schoenstatt Movement, the likes of Father Josef Kentenich chastised theological authorities who were giving short shrift to these devotions as well as those who dismissed popular devotions to those who recently passed away like the future Saint Therese of Lisieux (The Little Flower.) Father Kentenich reminded these scoffers that Jesus did indeed say that we must become like little children if we are to enter the Kingdom.

The well heeled of Europe and many American ex pats found their way to Paris to rebel against the religious side of the equation. On the whole, they were a gloomy lot who seemed to drown their sorrows in all matter of drink and sexual exploits which only made them more unbearable. Some even found their way to more exotic locales like Casablanca, as did the fictional Rick Blaine (Humphrey Bogart) in the epic film Casablanca.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Both World Wars Were A Catalyst For Religious Growth; What Future Tragedy Will It Take For Another Revival?

  • In Spain, the Franco regime and its views led to pent-up hostility towards the Catholic church after Franco died.

    France began slipping away from the Faith at the time of the Revolution and not even the numerous apparitions of Mary have been able to return the French to her former status as Eldest Daughter of the Church.

    The unification of Italy in the 19th century unleashed hostility towards the Catholic clergy, seeing them as privileged (gross oversimplification).

    Germany, Holland, Austria….others know the reason for the decline better than I do.

    In the USA, I blame the turn in popular culture as well as the Kennedys. In the 1950s, during the beginnings of the Cold War, Hollywood made many movies based on Old Testament stories. Fr. Peyton and Loretta Young made Catholic themed programs and Bishop Sheen was popular.

    The 1960s…there was the heartwarming Dragnet episode where the little Latino boy returns the Baby Jesus to church before Christmas Eve Mass.

    The 1970s were indifferent to religion.

    Today, there is open hostility to religion from Hollywood and academia, and far too many young people eat it all up.

  • Dave.
    Fr. John Hardon, (d.2000) gave striking warnings of a future American landscape if Catholics didn’t return to the sacraments.
    Catholics because they are the privileged members of the Body of Christ.
    Fr. Hardon; “If American Catholics do not return to the true faith, return to frequent the sacraments, then they will experience the sufferings of First century Christians.”

    The battleground is Christian America.

  • Penguins Fan wrote

    “France began slipping away from the Faith at the time of the Revolution…”

    The “slipping away” began almost a century and a half earlier, in the aftermath of the Wars of Religion in France (1562-1598) and the Thirty Years War in Germany (1618-1648) These ended in a stalemate; the Reformation gained no new territory, but it proved impossible to restore the unity of Christendom. The all but inevitable result was the growth of scepticism: both sides could not be right, but they could both be wrong. Theology, as a science (a means of knowledge) was generally viewed as discredited. It was to such people that the Pensées of Pascal were addressed.

    On the eve of the Revolution, few of the middle classes went to Mass in the great towns, hardly any of the artisans. The faithful were a sincere though ill-instructed and dwindling minority. Nothing better illustrates the condition of the Church than that priests like the Abbé Sieyès and bishops like Talleyrand were not untypical. Acton notes that “Those among them who had been chosen by the Church itself for its supreme reward, the Cardinal’s hat—Rohan, Loménie de Brienne, Bernis, Montmorency and Talleyrand—were men notoriously of evil repute.” Maury, afterwards Cardinal and Archbishop of Paris, was a man whose character was below his talents.

  • ‘However, what price will it take for our hubris and narcissism to defer to God’s love, truth and reason?’

    Vital question. Something like pulling the plug or a ‘forty’ day or year span of character building or voices to balance the scale in culture.

    ‘In the USA, I blame the turn in popular culture as well as the Kennedys. In the 1950s, during the beginnings of the Cold War, Hollywood made many movies based on Old Testament stories. Fr. Peyton and Loretta Young made Catholic themed programs and Bishop Sheen was popular.’

    The 1960s…there was the heartwarming Dragnet episode where the little Latino boy returns the Baby Jesus to church before Christmas Eve Mass.

    The 1970s were indifferent to religion.

    Today, there is open hostility to religion from Hollywood and academia, and far too many young people eat it all up.’ –

    … to the point of Churches being locked due to the victimization.

    The violent insane seem to attack the defenseless, such as in schools, theaters, and gatherings. What provokes violent behavior are celebrated elements of the culture which have lost civility and balanced character traits of decent restraint.

    I think of some not funny comedians, the loss of board games to computer ones played alone, the gang phenomenon, the irony of the women’s liberation movement and the outrageous displays of today’s women, artisans becoming ‘artists’ of the useless, and more, and vaguely, electronic replacement of human activity/work. Mental inability and illness, loss of human care to gov. regulations and courts strangling progress.

    ‘On the eve of the Revolution, few of the middle classes went to Mass in the great towns, hardly any of the artisans. The faithful were a sincere though ill-instructed and dwindling minority.

    … a man whose character was below his talents.’ ***

    Education becoming unrelated to the character building of good judgement or virtue. Lifetimes given to learning from the inspirations and beauty of our Creator have value. So what will bring more than a temporary turn to religion in reaction to sorrowful tragedy is what M P-S wrote. Character. The culture of death is deterring religious growth and its strength of character; so maybe, simply accepting God’s gifts of Faith, Hope, and Love (in even horrible circumstances brought on by evil afoot) would serve to rebuild His recommended culture of life.

    People finding the great comfort of a more religious life, however found, will grow to see the discomfort in a solely material world and loss therein. Hunger and thirst for more works both ways.

  • I think this is a complete misreading of the past century.

    WWI saw the collapse of faith in state, royalty, race, and progress, which were the reigning beliefs in Europe. The facade of faith was slipping away, and France drifted into despair. Nihilism, drugs, and eventually existentialism did little to fill the void. Russia fell. The US won the war and retained its optimism or something like it, until the decadence of the 1920’s collapsed into the Great Depression. Germany went a different route, re-embracing race and progress in an awful way. By the end of WWII, the spirit of despair ruled most everywhere. European countries gave up their empires and gave in emotionally to the Soviets. America held together because of its devil rather than because of its god.

    There are little ripples throughout history which can make it seem like one decade is holier than another. And we are affected by (not controlled by) our culture, so I shouldn’t say that all of us within a given country move in lockstep. But the trendline for the past 100 years has been ugly. The wars led to loss of faith among millions.

  • Pingback: Redefining Marriage Proves We are Entering a Real Dark Age | Big Pulpit
  • There are some great posts here. Yes, Penguins Fan when faith begins to slip it can fall in a hurry, much like someone climbing a mountain, a momentary slip can take the climber a great deal of time to return from where he momentarily slipped.

    Philip, Father Hardon was prophetic, he was fond of saying the modern rebellion began in the 1930s. I can’t remember exactly the date he was referring to but it had to do with a group of priests in pre- WWII (Belgium?) taking liturgical matters in their own hands. He saw the slipping away of reverance and the degree to which the sacraments were being dismissed as a harbinger of something awful to come.

    Michael Paterson Semour, yes few realize the true impact of the Reformation when it was put into the hands of men like Jean Calvin who saw to it that mystery was dismissed. In addition, Calvin saw to it that churches were closed during the week to prevent “superstitious rituals” like Marian Devotion and Eucharistic Adoration from continuing. Putting doubts in people’s minds certainly set the stage for the unholy terror that was the French Revolution. George Washington and Alexander Hamilton saw it for what it was but even thinkers like Thomas Jefferson were fooled into thinking that it was an Englightened event.

    PM, yes as I indicated in my article it is hard to believe that Hollywood helped the faith with many fantastic films, and it even had powerful messages in TV dramas as late as the 1970s. However, Father Peyton saw the troubling signs years before and tried to prevent the catastrophe which is now controlling our media culture. In the 1940s, Father Peyton believed Hollywood could evangelize the world through films, but he also knew it would also become a target of the dark side.

    Pinky, true we are responsible for our actions but wealth and prosperity have always been the tool to which the dark side lures societies going back to Sodom and Gomorrah, Nineveh, Rome etc to walk away from God. However, tragedies have sobered people up long enough to see the error of their ways. For a decade starting in the mid 1990s, Poland was ordaining half of Europe’s priests. Look at the saints France gave us after the nightmare of 1789.

    It is important to note that we will be the last man standing so to speak. The faithful will come our way because Jesus predicted that it would happen (The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church.) Let’s hope and pray that in the final showdown large segments of the populace see through the demonic disguise of the evil one.

Why We’re Not Going Anywhere

Wednesday, November 14, AD 2012

Archdiocese launches Campaign for Religious Liberty

Let me explain, in as clear and precise terms as I can, why social conservatives are not going anywhere, nor should they go anywhere, but should remain right at the heart of the conservative movement and gain acceptance among libertarians as well, and should reject as the foolish garbage that it is all suggestions to the contrary.

First, our principles are not electoral losers. Leftists believe they are on “the right side of history”, comparing the campaign for “marriage equality” with every civil rights struggle of past eras. They believe that this fact is reflected in the way the youth vote splits and the purported reasons why. At the same time, they gloat and brag about the size of the Democratic share of the minority vote.

The merits of the “marriage equality” campaign don’t need to be discussed here. I’ve discussed them to death on this blog in previous posts. The fact remains that minorities are opposed to “marriage equality.” If Hispanics can be won over to the GOP on the immigration issue, it will put a stop to this “wrong side of history” nonsense for a generation. The uncomfortable alliance between racial minorities who hold socially conservative views and white liberals will finally be blown apart. Unlike them, when racial minorities finally do side with the GOP en masse, we won’t attribute white liberal hatred for them to “racism” (even though it sure looks like it sometimes). This is a battle of values, not skin colors, and a failure to see that is one of the reasons why the white liberal left will never win the future they mistakenly believe to be theirs.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Why We’re Not Going Anywhere

  • This is a good post, Bonchamps. This is subject matter in which you are very knowledgeable and very articulate. Thank you.

  • I think this minorities are really social conservatives thing is bunk. When you have aroung 65 to 70% of black children in this country born to sinhle mothers, calling thme social conservatives is grossly ignorant at best. The situation with Hispanics is similar As Heather MacDonald points out:

    “I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

    The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites.”

    Now, this is not to say we should jettison social issues. Not at all. Anyone who even has a cursory knowledge of how economics and culture affect one another knows that it would drive the final nail in the GOP coffin if they further capitulated on this issue. After all, the left understands the connection very well, which is why their push for a nanny state has ahd a symbiotic connection with their push for “liberalization” of socila issues.

    As and far as the Akin and Murdoch situations are concerned, the biggest problems weren’t their gaffes but the way the republican party under the leadership of Mitt Romney this election cycle, threw them under the bus.

  • They still come out to vote against gay marriage and still oppose abortion. California Hispanics voted for Prop 8. I think the Church’s influence had a lot to do with this as well.

    Perhaps these positions alone are not sufficient to consider them reliable social conservatives, but it ought to be enough to consider them potential occasional allies. The point is simply that if the outstanding immigration issues are addressed (in a way that does not compromise border security), the real bunk will be found in the line that social issues are what harm the GOP. Hispanics may not be as solid on social conservatism as whites, but white social conservatism will not be a deal breaker for them as it is with white liberals – and really, white liberals alone. Black voters are even more socially conservative than Hispanics.

  • Oh, I do not think that social conservatism hurts the GOP either. In fact, as I said, to operate under that misconcption will be the death knell of the party. It’s just that this idea of minority social conservatism as a means to pander to them vis-avis social conservatism is non sense. What these pro-illegal immigration repulicans are trying to do, in effect, is sell them a knock off item when they can get the real thing at the same or even a cheaper price.

  • I think the Blacks and Hispanics who do vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of the social issues. I agree with Greg that this is overblown, but I do note that most elected officials who are Black or Hispanic and Republican tend to be quite solid on the social issues.

    If we can stop illegal immigration, a big if, I think the Hispanic population over time will trend Republican like most immigrant groups if they prosper. Blacks are a much greater problem for the Republicans making inroads but they are a shrinking section of the population, largely due to an atrociously high abortion rate, something that quite a few Black leaders used to be concerned with until quite recently in historical terms.

    One of the factors that may impact on Black allegiance to the Democrat party long term is the shrinking of Black urban centers in the North as Blacks move out to multi-racial suburbs and the South.

  • My point is simply that social issues aren’t a deal breaker for Hispanics. Neutralize the immigration issue and I guarantee you the Hispanic male vote and married vote will break for the GOP, and more women will come along as well. They don’t have to be hardcore social cons and we don’t have to pretend they will be.

    I’m not saying open the borders, either, by the way. But if we address the cartels as the national security menace they are, far beyond a normal criminal problem, we can come to some agreement on the situation within the US.

  • “I think the Blacks and Hispanics who do vote Republican tend to do so mainly because of the social issues.”

    I cdertainly blacks and Hispanics in the lower income brackets who vote republican do so mainly because of social issues. Whether or not this is true of blacks and Hipsanics in the upper income brackets do so I don’t know.

    Whether or not we can stop illegal immigration outright is, as Donald says, a big if. But we can secure the border to where we get it under control. Problem is, the federal government, regardless of party, lack the will to do so. To get a good insight into how bad the problem is, particularly in Arizona, I would urge readers to read Jan Brewer’s book, Scorpians for Breakfast. Then you will understand why I find Cardinal Dolan’s remarks so scandalous as well as the “orthodox” Catholic commentariat’s silence, let alone failure to denounce them.

  • Surely, a fundamental conservative ideal is free and consensual relations between individuals and groups, as expressed in the great Physiocrat principle, “trade knows no frontiers.”

    In other words, the free movement of labour and capital are the conservative default positions. Of course, restrictions can be justified in particular circumstances, but conservatives should never allow themselves to be misrepresented as the protectionist or anti-immigrant party.

  • In the words of the populist comic strip Pogo, “We Have Met The Enemy And He Is Us.”

    “the problem is not with our values, but with their articulation.” That, right there, is the heart of the matter. Why was Reagan popular? He wasn’t nicknamed “The Great Communicator” for nothing!

    [Sidebar: I would ask Mr. Mockeridge to visit an urban church some Sunday morning if he believes that social conservatism is dead in that area. Would that some of the fervor found there could infuse our Catholic parishes!]

    It has to start in the primaries, where people will run who don’t give a rat’s patoot whether they win the nomination as long as they get the ideas out there, articulate, principled and clear.

    We must abandon the left’s “groupthink” politics (even as they are being used here) and formulate ideas and propositions, based on principle and character, that can be articulated in such a way as to appeal to individual people as individuals. The Left herds us into groups and then creates issues that put us into contention with each other: Classic “divide and conquer.” That tactic itself needs to be exposed and blared from the rooftops and when opposed, blared even louder. The evidence is damning and the counterpoint automatic.

    Just as a shift from peacetime to war can mean a wholesale change in leadership (remember Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter Short,) the key now is to identify and “hand out gold watches” to GOP establishment members who can’t get by their shopworn stereotypes and “Ken” doll notions. We did not ask for this war but it is here, “and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    All that need be done is what Bonchamps spells out in the last section. We need warriors who are fully aware of the enemy’s tactics and capabilities. The sine qua non of political candidacy should be an at-minimum-conversational familiarity with Sun Tzu, Machiavelli and Clausewitz as well as Scripture. Drop the silver-spoon whitebreads and get some honest to gosh scrappers in there. Stick to policy but pull no punches. Stir up passions! Speak to the people as people and not demographics.

    Like all bullies, the Left is confident only when it thinks its target is cowed and suppliant. It is time to dispel this illusion.

  • Of course, restrictions can be justified in particular circumstances, but conservatives should never allow themselves to be misrepresented as the protectionist or anti-immigrant party.

    A country is not a hotel. The social and political disruption which would attend open borders would be a nightmare. There are two sorts of countries which can tolerate free immigration:

    1. Societies of migrants with a great deal of unsettled lands (with the proviso that it helps if the migration streams are not from irreconcilable groups).

    2. Countries which are unattractive in which to settle.

  • Art Deco

    In a world in which economic growth increasingly depends on the cross-border movement of goods, services, technology and capital and where the old barriers to such movement have been reduced or eliminated, as obstacles to progress, it is difficult to see why flows of labour should not yield similar benefits.

  • Pingback: THURSDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • In a world in which economic growth increasingly depends on the cross-border movement of goods, services, technology and capital and where the old barriers to such movement have been reduced or eliminated, as obstacles to progress, it is difficult to see why flows of labour should not yield similar benefits.

    The fundamental neoclassical theory predicts gains from trade in factors of production. Econometric analysis of the dimension of those gains reveals (with regard to trade in labor) the following:

    1. The gains are small
    2. They accrue predominantly to the immigrant populations themselves (the residual to the extant population amounting to around 0.1% of gross domestic product).
    3. The benefit to the extant population is crucially dependent on welfare policy.

    The main brain for this sort of empirical study in this country is George Borjas, who is not an advocate of unrestricted immigration.

    Also, the social and political challenges which derive from ‘diversity’ are not captured in economic statistics.

  • In discussing minorities and values voters, keep in mind that 73% of Catholic Latinos and 95% of black Protestants voted for Obama. They did this knowing, well some of them knew, Obama’s support of infanticide, abortion, gay marriage, anti-religious freedom and secular humanism. These groups may be values voters, but self-interests trump all other interests.

  • Kyle has a point, but it isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate who supports the murder of your unborn children. It isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate who supports curtailing your most cherished freedoms into the closet while parading filth out in public for your children to emulate. It isn’t in self-interest to vote for a candidate whose economic policies keep your people shackled to the public treasury instead of being able to stand up independently without government telling you what to do. Truthfully, I do not think that these people really know what their self-interests are. 🙁 I don’t mean to detract from Kyle’s point – they vote for what they think is in their self-interests, but not for what is really in their self-interests. And then we conservatives are called closed-minded, hateful, intolerant racists because we think its immoral to murder a black or Hispanic baby – or any baby for that matter.

  • “[Sidebar: I would ask Mr. Mockeridge to visit an urban church some Sunday morning if he believes that social conservatism is dead in that area. Would that some of the fervor found there could infuse our Catholic parishes!]”

    I’m not sure of what you mean by this question. But the fact of the matter is that Hispanics and blacks are not nearly as socially conservative as those who tell us we need to pander to them are. When you have up to 70% out of wedlock birthrate among blacks and 53% out of wedlock births among Hispanics, you cannot honestly claim that they are predominately socially conservative. Just because you attend Church doesn’t mean you are socially conservative. There are many regualarly mass attending Catholics are not social conservatives.

  • There’s a difference between being a social conservative and being a moral person. I wouldn’t use rates of sin to decide who is and isn’t a social con. If you read Charles Murray’s analysis of white America in “Coming Apart”, he reveals one of the paradoxes of our time: that the poor tend to claim social conservative values while not practicing them in real life, while the wealthy reject social conservative values while actually practicing them in life. He calls upon the new elite to preach what they practice for the benefit of society.

  • By “not practicing,” I would include voting as a practice that has not shown to follow social conservatism some are perceived to espouse. Voting and lifestyles are becoming bedmates. Voting is less driven by what we should do and more driven by what I want. It wasn’t always this way, but more of America is willing to go off the moral cliff. If America showed as much concern for the moral cliff as it does for a hyped up fiscal cliff, there would be no fiscal cliff. But worrying about social values is such a “what’s good for society, the country as a whole” issue. That can’t stand up to the self-interest draw of a fiscal cliff hot topic. That will affect my pocket book!

  • I’m sorry, Bonchamps, but this is not even remotely relavent to the issue at hand. If yu want to support this or that immigration policie, do it on the basis of its merits, not as a means to pander to a particular racial or ethnic group. To do so would kill the GOP.

  • “this is not even remotely relavent to the issue at hand. ”

    What are you talking about? This is my post. I made it the issue.

  • Blacks and Hispanics are much like the “Catholic” vote: an illusion.

    Some people are going to be socially biased against the GOP because they’ve been lied to, and some people just want handouts. It would be much more useful to start sorting people as “cultural democrats” vs “active democrats” and go after votes that way.

    We will not win over people who care more about sex and free money than principles; we already have the people who care more about not killing babies than free money and sex. We need to reach the people who voted for Obama because “that is what decent people do.”

  • Greg: “Then you will understand why I find Cardinal Dolan’s remarks so scandalous as well as the “orthodox” Catholic commentariat’s silence, let alone failure to denounce them.”

    100% with you there, bro. Dolan is, and has been, incompetent.

    Women on both sides detest him now. The left-leaning women despise him simply because he is a male, and see him as a male that wants to take away their freedom to choose. Faithful women on the right detest him because he has effectively (through is ineffectiveness) stripped us of our freedoms, soon right down to the freedom of a healthcare worker to not perform or assist in abortions and dispensing abortifacients.

    So yes, despise (God forgive me, but this man is not a good shepherd) is the proper word here. And I suspect Our Lady is not real happy with him either, and if Momma ain’t happy…

  • I am very disappointed in Cardinal Dolan and the majority of the USCCB. I had hoped. That his invitation of Obama to the Al Smith dinner was a backfire on Obama, but after seeing photos of him and Obama laughing it up, I was revolted.

  • Tonight’s reading assignment: Mt 9:10-13 or Mk 2:15-17

Why I Wrote The Catholic Tide Continues To Turn

Tuesday, October 30, AD 2012

Some six years ago my first book; The Tide is Turning Toward Catholicism came out, which detailed the Good news happening in the Catholic Church.  Since then and especially this year, I am often asked is the tide still turning? Rest assured I am not looking at the world and the Catholic Church through rose colored glasses, the book not only gives positive spin on what is going on through stories and anecdotal evidence, but I outline a lot of statistical and demographic data to prove my point.

Honestly writing a book requires a great deal of time and patience, and though I had enough material for about half a book, I was waiting for the right time to finish it. However last summer, I felt God really pushing me to get this out. Providentially many events within the Church and the political realm helped to convince me that now was the time. I am glad I listened and finished the book this spring because recently my wife and I welcomed another baby into our home, and with two small children, writing a book would have been very difficult.

The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn (Aquinas and More publishing) picks up where my previous book left off detailing the Good News occurring in the Church, but also, and this is very important, I address why the Catholic Church and religion in general is coming under attack in our modern world.  Readers of my articles and first book continually asked my why we are facing these attacks? This is nothing new. Ever since the French Revolution in 1793 the Catholic Church and religion in general in the Western world has come under attack from powerful forces that for some demented reason have a problem with God.

In the book, I take a look at timelines in World History and examine revolutions like the American Revolution where religion was embraced compared to those like the French Revolution where it was attacked. This helps us in 2012 figure out why some in government and academia don’t like the Catholic Church and for that matter most religious institutions. The book also looks at the HHS Mandate and the political upheaval that unjust mandate has brought.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Why I Wrote The Catholic Tide Continues To Turn

  • Pingback: TUESDAY EVENING EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Pingback: WEDNESDAY MORNING GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • Your book sounds very interesting, worth reading. It must be mentioned here, especially on all Hallow’s eve, much of what is happening all over the world, was foretold repeatedly by Our Lady. The fruits of ignoring the message of LaSallete are very apparent in the Church today. Remember to keep Holy the Sabbath day. This has been errased from our culture. Because of this, we have allowed ourselves to become slaves. Resting in the Lord, renewal and detachment, are unknown to most souls. When the commandments of God, the 1st three pertaining to Love of God are ignored, the other 7 pertaining to Love of neighbor FALL LIKE DOMINOES! This is what we are seeing. O Mary conceived without sin, pray for us, who have recourse to thee.

  • When you look at this world and what is happening, then your heart and soul, understands why Our Lady`s heart tries so hard to tell humanity Her Words, eg :

    http://www.abortion—my-heart-weeps-tears-of-blood.net

  • Please remember: FAITH, HOPE AND CHARITY. We all need to ask God for an increase of these virtues for ourselves and the world. Pray the beautiful Memorare often – every day, several times a day. Ask Our Lady to intercede for our Church and our country, and that this election will go well, that the results will be good for our Church and our country. Please God give us new leadership – a new President.

  • “….the Catholic Church and religion in general is coming under attack in our modern world” is explained in great detail in the book:
    “Animus Delendi-I, Desire to Destroy” by Atila Sinke Guimarâes

  • Pingback: DavidLGray.INFO (David L. Gray) – Book Review: ‘The Catholic Tide Continues to Turn’