Fortnight For Freedom Day 1: Freedom is Not Just a Big Word

Thursday, June 21, AD 2012


Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

On April 12, the Ad Hoc Committee on Religious Liberty of the U.S.  Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a document, “Our First,  Most Cherished Liberty,” outlining the bishops’ concerns over threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad. The bishops called for a “Fortnight for Freedom,” a 14-day period of prayer, education and action in support of religious freedom, from June 21-July 4.

Bishops in their own dioceses are encouraged to arrange special events to  highlight the importance of defending religious freedom. Catholic  institutions are encouraged to do the same, especially in cooperation  with other Christians, Jews, people of other faiths and all who wish to  defend our most cherished freedom.

The fourteen days from June  21—the vigil of the Feasts of St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More—to  July 4, Independence Day, are dedicated to this “fortnight for  freedom”—a great hymn of prayer for our country. Our liturgical calendar celebrates a series of great martyrs who remained faithful in the face  of persecution by political power—St. John Fisher and St. Thomas More,  St. John the Baptist, SS. Peter and Paul, and the First Martyrs of the  Church of Rome.  Culminating on Independence Day, this special period of prayer, study, catechesis, and public action would emphasize both our  Christian and American heritage of liberty. Dioceses and parishes around the country could choose a date in that period for special events that  would constitute a great national campaign of teaching and witness for  religious liberty.

We here at The American Catholic are participating in the Fortnight For Freedom with special blog posts on each day.  This is the first of these blog posts.

The video at the top of this post is a scene from the classic movie, The Devil and Daniel Webster (1941), based upon the short story by Stephen Vincent Benet, in which Daniel Webster bests Satan in a jury trial to save the soul of New Hampshireman Jabez Stone.   In this scene Daniel Webster addresses a jury of the damned, all villains of American history.  I have always thought this speech one of the most eloquent statements of what it means to be an American.

In regard to Freedom it reminds us that it is just not a word:  Freedom is not just a big word — it is the bread and the   morning and the risen sun. It was for freedom we came in boats and ships to these shores.  It has been a long journey, a hard one, a bitter one. There is sadness in being a man, but it is a proud thing, too.  Out of the suffering and the starvation, the wrong and the right, a new thing has come, a free man. When the whips of   the oppressors are broken, and their names forgotten and destroyed, free men will be walking and talking under a free star. Yes, we   have planted freedom here in this earth like wheat.  This is the priceless treasure that Goverment encroachments like the HHS Mandate begin to take away from us.

Go here to read the passage in the Stephen Vincet Benet’s short story.  Below is the scene as written in the screenplay:

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom Day 1: Freedom is Not Just a Big Word

  • Defend Religious Liberty.

    Stop Tyranny.

    Defeat Obama.

  • Isn’t it ironic that Democrats are the most anti-freedom people around, from their support of slavery in the 1800s to their support of baby-murdering in the late 1900s and early 2000s? Having sold their souls to Satan, I suppose they have no other choice.

  • Freedom of religion lets us live by conscience.
    Freedom of worship is within ‘church’ walls, not the law. Until … such as places in the eastern world.
    Two weeks for special prayer for Christianity, whether or not locales have any plans to get people together to understand.

  • I will be saying the St. Michael Prayer, which Pope Leo XIII wrote after seeing a horrific vision of demons and St. Michael. Our country, the Catholic Church and the world certainly needs his intercession. We all need to be warriors now!

    Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle, be our protection against the malice and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray; and do thou, O Prince of the Heavenly host, by the power of God, thrust into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world for the ruin of souls. Amen.

  • Satan has no soul. Satan is a person as he testifies for himself, but Satan has no soul. Saint Michael, appearing to the children of Fatima, brought to them Holy Communion. Saint Michael bowed to the earth in their presence and confessed that he could not receive the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ. Satan, the Destroyer, liar and murderer, cannot be a citizen as he claims in the story The Devil and Daniel Webster, because a citizen constitutes a nation. Just being there as he claims, when the slaves were enslaved, does not constitute citizenship. Constituting the nation constitutes citizenship. Jesus Christ, the Son of Man, has a human, rational soul. Jesus Christ is Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity. Because Jesus Christ is the Son of God, perfect innocence, perfect charity, the standard of Justice and mercy, Jesus Christ constitutes all nations, all sovereignty, and therefore, is a citizen of all nations, all people. Jesus Christ, as citizen of the universe, nation and the USA, cannot be denied access to the public square, the public square, Jesus’ God and Father created.
    When the Person of God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit, the Trinity of Persons, the first family, the community of LOVE, is returned to the public square, all freedom will reign. Viva Christo Rey
    The moral order is established by God. Jesus Christ lives the moral order.

  • Our US bishops have exercised, for the most part, silence regarding the Church’s truth, though hard sayings, regarding artificial contraception and abortion. The bishops, the USCCB, have not for many years exercised their so called American “freedom” and “freedom of conscience” regarding the Church’s doctrines. They have been afraid to speak the truth in love to Catholics or they have sold their souls to the liberal, often Judaized, philosophies. Fear and silence do not go together with truth and true freedom. Pope Gregory the Great famously said .. “If people are scandalized at the truth, it is better to allow the birth of scandal, than to abandon the truth” Here is what Saint Catherine of Siena said about silence. “I’ve had enough of exhortations to be silent! Cry out with a hundred thousand tongues. I see that the world is rotten because of silence.” A follower of Christ is to be a bondslave of Christ.

    Now we are supposed to be rallying and considering “civil disobedience” in this “Fortnight of Freedom”, when the Americanist bishops and “American Catholics” for the cause of “freedom”, which is NOT the cause of Christ, and is NOT first obedience to God.

    Read what Pope Pius X said about Americanism and the Americanists. The founding of the USA was by those who believed in the principles of the Enlightenment. The principles of the Englightenment are anti-Christ and anti Christ toward Christ’s Catholic Church.

    Thomas Payne and Thomas Jefferson spoke of “freedom” not in Christ’s definition of “freedom” (the glorious freedom of the children of God) but in this worldly Englightenment ideas of freedom, and that is the way this Fortnight of Freedom is promoting “freedom.” This is not freedom under God. This is freedom above God.

    Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!

  • In a word, Jeannon, baloney. Try reading this passage from Leo XIII:

    ” Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion. She, by her very nature, guards and defends all the principles on which duties are founded, and setting before us the motives most powerful to influence us, commands us to live virtuously and forbids us to transgress. Now what is the Church other than a legitimate society, founded by the will and ordinance of Jesus Christ for the preservation of morality and the defence of religion? For this reason have We repeatedly endeavored, from the summit of the pontifical dignity, to inculcate that the Church, whilst directly and immediately aiming at the salvation of souls and the beatitude which is to be attained in heaven, is yet, even in the order of temporal things, the fountain of blessings so numerous and great that they could not have been greater or more numerous had the original purpose of her institution been the pursuit of happiness during the life which is spent on earth.

    5. That your Republic is .progressing and developing by giant strides is patent to all; and this holds good in religious matters also. For even as your cities, in the course of one century, have made a marvellous increase in wealth and power, so do we behold the Church, from scant and slender beginnings, grown with rapidity to be great and exceedingly flourishing. Now if, on the one hand, the increased riches and resources of your cities are justly attributed to the talents and active industry of the American people, on the other hand, the prosperous condition of Catholicity must be ascribed, first indeed, to the virtue, the ability, and the prudence of the bishops and clergy; but in so slight measure also, to the faith and generosity of the Catholic laity. Thus, while the different classes exerted their best energies, you were enabled to erect unnumbered religious and useful institutions, sacred edifices, schools for the instruction of youth, colleges for the higher branches, homes for the poor, hospitals for the sick, and convents and monasteries. As for what more closely touches spiritual interests, which are based upon the exercise of Christian virtues, many facts have been brought to Our notice, whereby We are animated with hope and filled with joy, namely, that the numbers of the secular and regular clergy are steadily augmenting, that pious sodalities and confraternities are held in esteem, that the Catholic parochial schools, the Sunday-schools for imparting Christian doctrine, and summer schools are in a flourishing condition; moreover, associations for mutual aid, for the relief of the indigent, for the promotion of temperate living, add to all this the many evidences of popular piety.

    6. The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance.”

    The hatred that some trad Catholics have for their own nation and our heritage of freedom as Americans is simply bizarre and has nothing to do with Catholicism.

  • Correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, Pope Leo XIII wasn’t so much critical of the Republican system of secular government over these United States, as he was of installing such a system of government for the Church in these United States. Indeed, one might rightly argue that it is the liberals who want Church matters decided on by popular vote, as though the Church ought to be ruled by the “peepul”.

    Establishing Americanism as the Church government in America is obviously wrong. But having a Constitutional Republican government for secular society is exactly what has prevented secular government from telling the Church what to do or not do, and thus has enabled (or at least allowed) the Successors to the Apostles act like the Successors to the Apostles.

  • In a word, Mr. McClareey, baloney. Try reading this passage from Leo XIII Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae (1899).

    “Pope Leo identified three major erroneous views that served to dilute Catholicism in America. The first is the belief that “in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age and relax some of her ancient severity and make some concessions to new opinions.”

    And further, Mr. Baloney, your statement “The hatred that some trad Catholics have for their own nation and our heritage of freedom as Americans is simply bizarre and has nothing to do with Catholicism.” is bizaare and has nothing to do with Catholic conduct.

    “The second error condemned by Pope Leo was “that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church, that…allowance be granted the faithful, each one to follow out more freely the leading of his own mind and the trend of his own proper activity.” The pope was condemning the idea of private judgment being the supreme guide as to how one should live, and he was rejecting the idea that the Church should have no say over the consciences of men. The source of this error was the constitutional, enlightenment states that were growing up in the 1800s, and according to American history professor, author and Pulitzer prize winner, Joseph Ellis, the USA is an Enlightenment state. We see the Enlightenment’s imprint on the US in Thomas Jefferson’s famous quote inscribed in the Jefferson Memorial that “I have sworn on the alter of god, eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

    “The Third error condemned was “an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times.” The late Fr. John Hardon’s Modern Catholic Dictionary, states “In general, active virtues correspond to what is commonly associated with American activism.” The great Dominican Thomist, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, explained in his monumental work, The Three Ages of the Interior Life, that Americanism was the revival of the spirit of “practical naturalism” which is “the negation of the spirit of faith in the conduct of life”. (Tan Books, 1989, vol 1. P. 275) He teaches that Americanism says that the passions are neither good nor bad, but that they “become so according to the intention of our will. They are forces to be utilized; they must not be mortified, but regulated and modulated.” (p. 276) Americanism resists efforts to “combat private judgment, self-will…[because to do so] is to place oneself in a state of servitude which destroys all initiative and makes a person lose contact with the world, which one ought not to scorn, but to ameliorate.” (p. 276).

    The above summarization of Testem

    At the root of Americanism is pride, a pride that says America is not only unique and special but that it is also the greatest. A pride that corrupts doctrine and says that America knows better than the Church and that the Church should learn from America. A pride that places loyalty to America and the USA before loyalty to the Church and the Holy Father. A pride that places being American before being Roman Catholic. This is what we may draw from Leo’s indication that Americanism is a rejection of the words and spirit of St. Jerome who speaking to Pope St. Damasus said “I acknowledge no other leader than Christ, am bound in fellowship with your Holiness; that is with the chair of Peter. I know that the church was built upon him as its rock, and that whosever gathereth not with you, scattereth.” It is the primacy of Christ and his Church, as well of the authority of the Holy Father, that is needed in the hearts of believers to keep unity. For, as Leo XIII continued, the “true church is one, as by unity of doctrine, so by unity of government.”

    The summarization of Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae is taken from a speech of David Wemhoff, “THE PRO-LIFE MOVEMENT AND THE NEW AMERICANISM”

  • Jeannon Kralj,

    Everything you quoted from Pope Leo XIII’s Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae confirms what I wrote: the Pope wasn’t criticizing the Constitutional Repubic that was the United States, but the application of “peepul” rule and popular opinion for Church government.

    Look at the statements in your comment:

    (1) “…The first is the belief that ‘in order to more easily attract those who differ from her, the Church should shape her teachings more in accord with the spirit of the age…'”

    (2) “The second error condemned by Pope Leo was ‘that opinion of the lovers of novelty, according to which they hold such liberty should be allowed in the Church…'”

    (3) “The Third error condemned was ‘an unwarranted importance to the natural virtues as though they better responded to the customs and necessities of the times…'”

    The Pope never criticized the United States herself as a Constitutional Republic. Rather, he criticized trying to apply a system of voting, popular opinion and relativism in place of the Church government that Jesus established.

    BTW, I love my country, but I love God first. So I take exception to these statements:

    “At the root of Americanism is pride, a pride that says America is not only unique and special but that it is also the greatest. A pride that corrupts doctrine and says that America knows better than the Church and that the Church should learn from America.”

    That’s not the Americanism I have or profess. Rather, the Americanism I have and profess is one where God is honored first, where Holy Mother Church occupies a central place in the public square, where free exercise of religion is sacrosanct, and where the country I love is restored to being the Christian Consitutional Republic that she once was. We can never be best or greatest except that God be first.

  • BTW, one other thing Jeannon. You correctly wrote incriticism of this idea: “America knows better than the Church and that the Church should learn from America.” The whole idea of of this fortnight for freedom prayer time is to combat this very notion.

    America does NOT know better than the Church, the indefectible Bride of Christ (though Barack Hussein Obama and Kathleen Sebelius think otherwise), and the Church, the indefectible Bride of Christ, ought NOT to learn anything from America (though LCWR and the other liberal Katholyks think otherwise) except perhaps what NOT to do.

  • Jeannon, when you quote papal documents actually quote them, and not glosses. There is nothing in Testem Benevolentiae Nostrae which supports the wacked out argument you are making.

    Here is what the Pope actually said:

    “From the foregoing it is manifest, beloved son, that we are not able to give approval to those views which, in their collective sense, are called by some “Americanism.” But if by this name are to be understood certain endowments of mind which belong to the American people, just as other characteristics belong to various other nations, and if, moreover, by it is designated your political condition and the laws and customs by which you are governed, there is no reason to take exception to the name. But if this is to be so understood that the doctrines which have been adverted to above are not only indicated, but exalted, there can be no manner of doubt that our venerable brethren, the bishops of America, would be the first to repudiate and condemn it as being most injurious to themselves and to their country. For it would give rise to the suspicion that there are among you some who conceive and would have the Church in America to be different from what it is in the rest of the world.”

    Paul, the Church teaches us how to go to Heaven, it teaches us very little about a wide range of subjects outside that sphere. The Church has never claimed to have all wisdom in secular matters, and Catholics who pretend otherwise, and I do not place you in that group, are very much mistaken.

  • Oh, and Jeannon, David Wemhoff who you quote seems to hold some nutty theories including that Pope Benedict is a tool of the United States:

    “But that is what conquerors do — they destroy the conquered and themselves if their conquest is not in the name of Jesus Christ and with the sign of the Cross. Munoz’ mind is enslaved by the Americans just as is the mind of Joseph Ratzinger. Benedict’s many speeches praising America are a, if not the, critical factor for the darkening of Munoz’ mind so as to accept error. Benedict, as leader of the Catholics, has been conditioned to be an American and to serve America, and so Catholics are bound to follow their leader into captivity. Ratzinger, now pope, as a type of Manchurian Candidate, is a symbol of America’s occupation of the Catholic Church.

    One of the great causes for hope and miracles of the day, in addition to the numbers of people entering the Church and growing it around the world even while its prelates are suffering through their American and Jewish captivity, is that the Holy Spirit still speaks through the papal encyclicals, such as Deus Caritas Est, which calls Catholics, and all people, to the truth and liberation from error. For error leads to sin, and the wages of sin is death. One need only consult antiquity and societies of the modern era grown too engrossed in serving wealth to see where it all leads. The unfortunate part is that many who consider themselves Catholic will go down with the sinking ship known as America. And, most importantly, many are in danger of the fires of hell because of the American ideas that come from the man who is pope.

    [1] “American(s)” refers to those who hold to the liberal, Enlightenment principles that created the country known as the USA which, with its Constitution and Declaration of Independence in large measure, shape the society known as America. One can be a citizen of the USA (that is, CUSA) and be a Catholic, and most CUSAs are Americans. One cannot be a Catholic and an American. To be an American is to believe in American principles before the teachings of the Church, or in other words to accept the Enlightenment ideals as superior to the teachings of the Faith.”,3445145.0.html

    Rad Trads can be just as nutty as leftist Catholics.

  • I agree with your statement, Donald: “…the Church teaches us how to go to Heaven, it teaches us very little about a wide range of subjects outside that sphere. The Church has never claimed to have all wisdom in secular matters…” (e.g., US NRC oversight of reactor plant safety – clearly a non-spiritual issue.)

    As you correctly noted: “…I do not place you in that group…”

    I should have been more precise in my statements. It’s difficult getting all the nuances right. I did not intend to confuse rightful authority in secular matters that would devolve onto government with authority in spiritual matters that would devolve onto the Church.

  • “the Church teaches us how to go to Heaven, it teaches us very little about a wide range of subjects outside that sphere.”

    I believe the Church’s social teachings, which are founded on caring for “the common good” teach us much about a wide range of subjects outside the sphere of how to go to heaven. For example, the Church used rightly to teach us about usury and how wrong it is. Dante put sodomites and usurers in the same circle of hell. Usury seems to be the basis of the “capitalism” that we have in America. The basics of economics falls within the Church’s social teachings. Another example, the Church cares about just wages for the worker and just prices. It looks to me like the Left and the Right of all parties have been rewarding corporations for moving their industrial operations and jobs for Americans overseas, and they have been doing this for at least 40 years, possibly much longer.

    I do not consider myself a “Rad Trad” and I do not know what the terms “liberal” and “conservative” mean anymore.

    The one thing the Church as been way too silent about is that there have been dark forces and people for centuries, if not millennia, who have in stealth manipulated unjust wars and other deceptions for the purpose of forming a world government, which will nothing other than a death and slavery system for all. We know that one world government will come about from reading the Apocalypse. Who can make war with the beast? But we are to expose it, oppose it, and work to establish Christ the King’s rule on this earth as best we can.

    America was founded as a Protestant country. You say America is a Christian country. When I read the words of Christ, I simply cannot see that.

  • “You say America is a Christian country. When I read the words of Christ, I simply cannot see that.”

    No, I say that America was founded as a country of religious liberty, a concept that the Church has fully embraced.

    “For example, the Church used rightly to teach us about usury and how wrong it is.”

    Yep, and history moved on and the Church came to terms with interest and banks. The world is not static and neither is the teaching of the Church in areas not directly connected to dogma or revelation.
    “basics of economics falls within the Church’s social teachings. ”

    Not really. Ecclesiastics tend to be as poor at economics as economists tend to be at theology. A recent example in support of this proposition:

    “It looks to me like the Left and the Right of all parties have been rewarding corporations for moving their industrial operations and jobs for Americans overseas, and they have been doing this for at least 40 years, possibly much longer.”

    Actually it is the law of production costs. Corporations tend to go where the work force is cheapest, other things being equal. The Chinese now are losing factories along their coast due to rising labor costs. Assuming that government fiat can alter the laws of economics has been a pleasing superstition for too many government officials and clerics down through the centuries.

  • Must Jehovah Witnesses employers include blood transfusions in coverage for Catholic employees? Can Muslim employers insist on Sharia law in the workplace? Must Christian Scientist employers provide health insurance?

    This slippery slope is coated with ice.

  • “the Church teaches us how to go to Heaven, it teaches us very little about a wide range of subjects outside that sphere”.

    I don’t think that is right. I see really no subjects outside that sphere. There is no part of me or my life than I can keep separate from the quest for Heaven. I can’t put my religion in my back pocket when I am thinking about nuclear reactors or anything else.

  • “I can’t put my religion in my back pocket when I am thinking about nuclear reactors or anything else.”

    You will find precious little in Church teaching as to how to construct nuclear reactors Anzlyne, or as to what the Hearsay Rule is, how best to utilize grazing fire in a fire fight, how to fill out the Estate Tax Return that will be one of my duties today or myriads of other topics. The confusion of religion with secular knowledge is never a good idea. Religion of course gives us our guide in morality, but too often clerics pretend to expertise in secular matters that they sadly lack, and not infrequently prove themselves buffoons in such areas to the same extent that non-clerics frequently do when they pontificate on matters of religion.

  • Hi Mr. Mc. I think we are coming from different angles here–both correct I think in what we mean.
    I think we agree that knowledge is not always wisdom, but that wisdom includes knowledge– and morality. Morality requires judgments (distinctions, decisions) based on something– and that “something” is found our religion- the foundational plank to base our lives’ actions and choices on.
    Like you, I don’t think the Bible, Tradition or the Teaching Authority of the Church try to teach us how to build a nuclear reactor. There are lots of things we can know HOW to do with or without revealed religion.
    I do think the wisdom of our religion can help us do what we can morally choose to do, better, having considered the ends, and the means to the ends. Consideration of our religion colors all of our decisions, even though it does not directly supply the ‘how to”

  • “Consideration of our religion colors all of our decisions, even though it does not directly supply the ‘how to””

    Writ large enough on big issues perhaps. My Catholicism however really does not impact my decision on how to apply the Hearsay Rule in court, or whether the Deadman’s Act is a good piece of public policy. On the other hand I think my Catholicism clearly impacts on my view of the sanctity of an oath taken in Court to tell the truth.

  • Yes. and I might add from your quote above:
    …”And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure- …. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion. She, by her very nature, guards and defends all the principles on which duties are founded, and setting before us the motives most powerful to influence us, commands us to live virtuously and forbids us to transgress.”

    Thank you so much- I thoroughly enjoy the discussion

  • Even the pagans can see the myth of America was founded as a Christian country on Christian principles.

    Note this article on a “secular humanist” site

    Once and for All, Is America a Christian Nation?
    The Myth of America’s Christian Heritage
    Kerry Walters

    Do not agree with Professor Walters completely, but he does provide us a much clearer picture of history. Note, in reading the article, that Catholics are not part of the early American “evangelicalism.”

    Catholics were allowed into the New World but were barely tolerated.

  • Hmm, Kerry Walters or Alexis De Tocqueville? I’m really having a hard time determining who might have a firmer grasp on America’s founding.

    In all seriousness, Walters’s grasp of history is almost as poor as David Barton, whom I critiqued here the other day. He cherrypicks select quotes and pretend that he has stockpiled evidence in his defense. If Walters had stopped at Jefferson and Franklin in his litany of heterodox Christians, he would have perhaps had a point. But just as Barton overstates his case with regards to Jefferson’s orthodoxy, Walters overstates his case with regards to the heterodoxy of the rest.

  • From Waller’s linked to article. “But the big players in the founding of the United States—such men as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Adams, and probably Alexander Hamilton—weren’t.”

    Thomas Paine, the “filthy little atheist” as Teddy Roosevelt called him, was a bit player in the Revolution. Benjamin Franklin was a deist who had doubts about the divinity of Christ, but lacked evidence sufficient for him to venture a verdict. George Washington was a conventional Christian. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. James Madison really doesn’t give enough evidence from his writings to say whether he was a Deist or a Christian. John Adams was a Christian most of his life and had Unitarian leanings by the time of his death. Hamilton dabbled with deism as a young man but was an orthodox Christian by the time of his death.

Bishops, That is a Pretty Nice Tax Exemption You Have There. Wouldn’t Want Anything Bad to Happen to It.

Wednesday, June 13, AD 2012



Modern liberals are not noted for their subtlety.  Case in point is Melinda Henneberger.  A writer for the Washington Post, she is a liberal in good standing and a Catholic, a graduate from Notre Dame in 1980, who has written for the New York Times, Commonweal, a Catholic journal for those who like a dollop of incense with their leftism, and was a contributing editor for Newsweek, the magazine that is almost worth the buck its latest owner paid for it.  Henneberger is pretty ticked at the Church in regard to what she perceives as political attacks on the South Side Messiah.  Her recent column on this subject is deserving of a fisk, and I am happy to oblige:

The Catholic Church practically invented politics, so it may be asking too much to expect American bishops to steer completely clear of affairs of state.

Good, a snide start illustrates the fury with which this column was written as the good ship Obama begins to take on water.  Liberal writers are usually at their nastiest when they start to perceive that a political pasting of Biblical proportions is on the way for their team

There are times when they couldn’t if they wanted to, and they think this is one  of those times.

Ah, but you know better, don’t you Ms. Henneberger?

The upcoming “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign to push back against this  administration’s health-care mandate for contraceptives, however, sounds so much  like a “Fortnight to Defeat Barack Obama” that I’ve gotten to wondering what our  prelates would have to do to cost the church its tax-exempt status. (IRS rules  are pretty clear that churches have to give up their exemption if they campaign  for or against a political candidate.)
Please, that paragraph is a bad joke.  Democrat candidates for decades have campaigned in black churches and many of those same churches are quite forthright in their political advocacy.  Think of the Reverend Wright, the man who Obama, hilariously, claims led him to Christ, and his sermons which were merely long political diatribes.  The IRS has long turned a blind eye to this type of blatant political activity.

That is not going to happen, and I’m not suggesting it should. But as a thought exercise, what would it take to provoke such a thing?

She is certainly right that it is not going to happen unless the Democrat party has a true death wish. 

If a bishop compared Obama to, I don’t know, Hitler and Stalin, would that be campaigning against him?

Oh, but wait, Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria tried that already. Jenky wasn’t exactly a household name before that tirade.

We can see from the above that whatever Ms. Henneberger studied at Notre Dame, reading comprehension was not high on the list.  What Bishop Jenky actually said was:

Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room.

In the late 19th century, Bismark waged his “Kultur Kamp,” a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

Clemenceau, nicknamed “the priest eater,” tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.

Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.

Now things have come to such a pass in America that this is a battle that we could lose, but before the awesome judgement seat of Almighty God this is not a war where any believing Catholic may remain neutral.

This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries — only excepting our church buildings – could easily be shut down. Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.

No Catholic ministry – and yes, Mr. President, for Catholics our schools and hospitals are ministries – can remain faithful to the Lordship of the Risen Christ and to his glorious Gospel of Life if they are forced to pay for abortions.

What Bishop Jenky was doing Ms. Henneberger is called issues advocacy and is perfectly permissible under IRS regulations.  Nice try however to ignore the obvious.

What if, however, the best-known bishop in the country — and among the  most likeable — said “the White House is strangling the Catholic  Church”?

No again; Cardinal Tim Dolan of New York did that, too. And Bishop Salvatore  Cordileone of Oakland said we have reason to fear “despotism” under Obama.

What Cardinal Dolan actually said:

The exemption given to the church is so strangling and so narrow and it’s also presumptuous that a bureau of the federal government is attempting to define for the church the extent of its ministry and ministers,” said Dolan on CBS’s “This Morning.”

What Bishop Cordileone actually said:

My own experience, I sort of backed into this religious liberty debate by my involvement with her Siamese twin–the definition of marriage in the law. And I got swept up in that, not exclusively, but in large degree because I was enlightened by Dr. [Robert] George and other people of his kind as to the erosion of the rights of religious institutions to serve the broader community in accord with their moral principles precisely because of this issue. As well, the rights of individuals to have their freedom of conscience respected.

When I saw what was happening my eyes were opened, it made me fear that we could be starting to move in the direction of license and despotism.”

Once again, both examples of issues advocacy. 

(Even Pope Benedict XVI has joined the fray – though the former Joseph Ratzinger is really not much of a fray-joiner. “Many of you, he told American bishops, “have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection…with regard to cooperation in instrinsically evil practices.’’ Abortion, he means. Birth control, which is barred under church teaching,  must be provided free to employees of Catholic institutions as part of their health care plans under the Affordable Care Act. Where does abortion come in? Some opponents argue that the Part B ‘morning-after pill,’ which is also provided as part of the bill, is an abortifacient, though science doesn’t support that claim.)

Ah, how Pope Benedict does set the teeth on edge of “progressive” Catholics!  Go here to read the Pope’s warning of the erosion of religious liberty in this country.  Once again, the Pope’s remarks would be considered issues advocacy.  The fact that Ms. Henneberger brings up these remarks indicates the depth of her ignorance on the subject of political activities deemed impermissible by the IRS regarding churches.

Continue reading...

18 Responses to Bishops, That is a Pretty Nice Tax Exemption You Have There. Wouldn’t Want Anything Bad to Happen to It.

  • Ms. Henneberger – a typical liberal progressive Democrat whose God is not Jesus Christ but Caesar Augustus.

  • Parishioners pay their taxes as citizens. The Catholic Church is organized as a Non-profit tax-exempt trust. The trustees have paid their taxes as citizens. To remove the tax-exempt status of the Catholic Church would be taxation without representation, two taxes for one vote. The property of the Catholic Church is held in trust for all generations to come by the trustees of the Church. What would Ms. Henneberger know about our constitutional posterity, taxation without representation or even “their Creator”?

  • When Congress passed Obamacare, Congress knowingly or inadvertently imposed atheism on the country. Atheism was tried under the penumbra of Freedom of Religion and found to be a religion but atheism is only a belief, an erroneous belief that may not be imposed on the people by government. Obamacare deletes the freedom of conscience, the act of free will endowed by “their Creator”. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” Freedom of conscience is redefined by the government and Congress. Atheism imposed in the HHS mandate in Obamacare and passed by Congress redefines FREEDOM and RELIGION. Obamacare may be changed after it has been passed by Congress by unelected officials. Informed consent has been stripped from the law and secular humanism has been established as religion by law by Obamacare.

  • Science does not support that the pill can act as an abortificeant? Even the manufacturer admits that it does on the medical insert.

    (Insert for Femodene):

    Femodene is a combined oral contraceptive pill (‘the Pill’). You take it to stop you getting pregnant.

    This low-dose contraceptive contains two types of female sex hormones, oestrogen and progestogen. These hormones stop you getting pregnant by working in three ways: by preventing an egg being released from your ovaries; by making the fluid (mucus) in your cervix thicker, which makes it more difficult for sperm to enter the womb; and by preventing the lining of your womb thickening enough for an egg to grow in it.

    And by egg, they mean a fertilized egg, i.e., embryo, i.e., human being.

    But then, I wouldn’t expect a journalism/communications major and a leftist to understand science.

  • Correct me if I am wrong. but priests and bishops pay taxes. What they own is their clothes. The rest belongs to the church and the church belongs to the people who have already paid their taxes as citizens. Do members of the Lyons Club pay taxes as Lyons Club members? NO. Taxation without representation. Two taxes one vote. But if Ms. Hennenberger is going to remove tax-exempt status she needs to be sure all tax-exempt organizations are included, public schools, The Capitol Building, Pelosi’s tax-suppported new jet plane, The American Civil Liberties Union.

  • I was once told that the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution no longer was valid and that the founding fathers were over two hundred years old and out of date. Don’t believe a word they say. They are just trying to bully us.

  • As far as religious liberty and conscience is concerned, the government does not have the authentic authority to enforce a law to send us to church, only to refrain from prohibiting the free exercise thereof, and to make no law of establishing any, no, not any religion, not atheism, nor secular humanism, not Catholicism, but the churches, religion have an obligation to preserve freedom and especially that freedom of conscience that defines the human being as having unalienable rights, unalienable rights to be passed on to our constitutional posterity as their inheritance. That progressive Catholics slash and burn the only real inheritance, freedom for our posterity, that this generation must, is obliged, to hand on is dispicable and degrading.
    Priests and bishops do not surrender their citizenship when they take Holy Orders. As citizens whose sovereign personhood constitutes the U. S. A. from the first moment of their existence as human beings, priests and bishops are political and may not be disenfranchised except for treason. Not wishing to be disenfranchised is not treason. Ms. Henneberger needs to put up or shut up. Viva Fortnight for Religious Freedom.

  • Old adage: “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

    It’s not so much that the Church is a non-profit or a charitable organization.

    The First Amendment, IMHO, does not allow the Federal government to tax religion.

    First, they came for the Catholics. Then, they came for the States (tax exemptions), . . .

  • How could she even use the term “wafer wars”. I was reading and reading and that made me feel sick. This is a Catholic woman saying “wafer wars”.

  • anzlyne: same here.

    This situation isn’t child’s play, accusing another of what one is blatantly doing.
    OK to label and accuse the Church of politics, but not OK for the Church stand for its belief when that belief (Thou shall not kill.) has become political mandate for the Church to accept?
    The attitude in the writing takes her ‘work’ straight down past sarcasm and irony to a dark place.
    Melinda Henneberger sounds like a ‘smarty pants’, a term which was used years ago by teachers who singled out pupils acting disrespectfully, ignorantly, and hurtfully to get someone’s approval for their scorn.

  • Oh NO what do I do? I can’t vote, I am only 16, and only a greencard citizen. I hope that Bishop Jenky will find me exception for not having the ability to vote.

  • Your age doesn’t stop you from volunteering to work in campaigns Valentin. A very educational experience indeed!

  • One problem among many I see is the statement that politics come from the Bishops, first off that is a flatout lie there have been politics around before Christ was born.

  • Donald I see your point but I also have a very totalitarian feminist mother who I get in fights with a lot, I don’t have a drivers licence so getting out of the house is hard at this point because I live in a backwoods suburb pretty far away from my Catholic friends and almost any businesses to work at other than horse farms but I am allergic to horsehair, I have however been talking to many people about the contraceptive problem so other than taking part in rallies and voting both of which I can’t do very well without my mother abusing me and my brothers with rhetorical assault, I have been active both online at school and talking to people about the problem with abortion so in a way I am active in the campaign just not the standard way.

  • I certainly don’t suggest you do anything your mother disaproves of, but you can also probably participate over the internet, as you have been doing. There are also probably youth groups forming up in your area for the Fall campaigns. Don’t give up hope for your mother. In politics, as in religion, the most unlikely converts can be made.

  • Politics began with Adam passing the buck to Eve, who then passed it to the Serpent. No human society has ever existed without politics of a sort. I assume that the comment about the Catholic Church inventing politics was supposed to be funny, which is yet another example of the maxim that life is easy and comedy is hard!

  • Don I am reminded of the Book of Sirac where it says that the best way to honor your parents is by doing good.

Lying Worthless Political Hack and Ex Cathedra

Saturday, June 9, AD 2012



When the Lying Worthless Political Hack, aka Nancy Pelosi ex Speaker of the House, opens her mouth in regard to her purported faith, The Catholic Church, you know the results are going to be unintentionally hilarious: asked Pelosi, who is Catholic, whether she supported her  church in the lawsuits it has filed, which argue that the  administration’s regulation violates the freedom of religion guaranteed  by the First Amendment.

What about the 43 Catholic institutions [that] have now sued the  administration over the regulation that requires them to provide  contraceptives, sterilizations, and abortifacients in their health care  plans?” asked. “They say that violates their religious  freedom.  Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against  the administration?”

Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi  responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re  speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.

“And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the  bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said.

It is unclear why Pelosi would have pointed out that when an archbishop—such as Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, Cardinal Donald  Wuerl of Washington, D.C. or Archbishop Carlson of St. Louis—sues the federal government in actions designed to protect the First Amendment rights of  American Catholics he is not speaking “ex cathedra.”

“Ex cathedra” refers to the infallible authority that Catholics believe the pope exerts when he makes a formal and solemn declaration on  matters of faith and morals. It is not a term to describe lawsuits the church files in civilian courts.

In a 1993 audience, Pope John Paul II quoted the first Vatican  Council in explaining the Catholic understanding of the “ex cathedra”  authority of the pope.

When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in exercising his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians he defines with his supreme apostolic authority that a doctrine on faith and morals is to be held by the whole Church, through the divine assistance promised him in the person of St. Peter, he enjoys that  infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished to endow his Church  in defining a doctrine on faith and morals,” said the Vatican Council.

The Catholic teachings that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong—the basis for the suits that the archdioceses, dioceses, universities, schools and charitable organizations have brought against the Obama  administration–are in fact inalterable teachings that the church says are rooted in natural law.

Continue reading...

35 Responses to Lying Worthless Political Hack and Ex Cathedra

  • She’ll be made a Cardinal in the new government sponsored “catholic” Church. As a theologian, logistician, and general brainiac, she is held in the highest regard by wannabe Pope Obama. His ignorance, Joseph “I see no difference in a man marrying a man” Biden also is a great admirer of Ms. Pelosi. This sacred trio, along with a supporting cast of apostates, headed up by that grand old gal Kathleen Sebilius, is looking forward to a long reign over their baby murdering, homosexual marrying, euthanizing, flock.

  • What Catholic theologian ever suggested a Pope is infallible in his laws, or in his commands, or in his acts of state, or in his administration, nor in his public policy?

  • When I read or hear anything about Nancy Pelosi, I automatically think of the Great Whore of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18. I realize that St. John’s reference is more to a place (e.g., a city or nation) than a person, but nevertheless, mention of Pelosi always elicts this imagery in Revelation 17:1-6.

    1 Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and talked with me, saying to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters, 2 with whom the kings of the earth committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk with the wine of her fornication.”

    3 So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness. And I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast which was full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication. 5 And on her forehead a name was written:


    6 I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. And when I saw her, I marveled with great amazement.

  • Nah Paul, the Book of Revelations is not the book for Pelosi. Now this is the book for her:

  • I sit corrected again! 😉

    How appropriate for this Administration and the Senate: “A Ship of Fools.”

    “Brant was a preacher of words set to rhyme. In 112 chapters, he describes the effects of having strayed from God and of engaging in irrational circumstances. Brant laced his work with satirical observations, thus the ‘Ship of Fools’ offers readers an often tragicomic perspective on the effects of the protagonists’ conduct. The fools would like to sail for Narragonia (from German Narr for ‘fool’), a fool’s paradise, a desired utopia. Nevertheless, the author also suggests how foolish conduct can be defeated: by living the life that respects the will and the demands of God.”

    I like that term: “Narragonia”.

    I never heard of this book. I shall now have to buy and read it. Thanks, Donald.

  • Pelosi is important because she is textbook dissident when she throws the ex cathedra card. They really believe that the only two unambiguously ex cathedra pronouncements are the Immaculate Conception and Assumption–and somehow that means everything else is negotiable under the rubric of “Primacy of conscience”. Well, even five minutes of perusal tells you that what they hold isn’t primacy of conscience, but moral relativism disguised as primacy of conscience with the help of some cherry-picked, or flat-out wrong quotes from Aquinas, Ratzinger from the 60’s, et al.

  • The Pope is infallible when the Pope speaks the TRUTH. If the TRUTH is not the TRUTH, then it is a lie…perjury, sin. The Pope speaks the TRUTH and is infallible “ex-cathedera”, as the Vicar of Jesus Christ. Pelosi cannot be infallible or speak “ex-cathedra” because Pelosi is not ordained, nor is Pelosi able to espouse the Bride of Christ. In speaking of the Blessed Virgin, Holy Scripture says: “Her voice was not heard in the assembly”. Pelosi’s voice will not be heard in the assembly, because only TRUTH is to be spoken and heard in the streets and in the assembly.

  • It has occurred to me that Pelosi is not a fool. Pelosi uses her fallibility to lie, cheat and steal.

  • Thanks for the book recommendation, Don. Kindle link is here:

    Interesting point, Mary. How quick the left is to raise the specter of “ex cathedra” in this situation irrespective of its non-application and yet quickly turn around and make proclamations themselves that they believe are de facto ex-cathedra.

  • The dismissive attitude is typical of liberals. I’ve seen this in dealing with local school administration. Unless you have unanimous participation by the whole population, they’ll dismiss your concerns and “not representative of everyone”. Of course, they don’t apply that standard to themselves, so if you point out to Pelosi or Seblius that their positions are actually in the minority, and not representative of everyone, or even of most, you get a blank stare back. With maybe a couple of blinks thrown in for emphasis.

  • Why the Church tolerates her is beyond me. She should have been ex-communicated long ago, along with Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. So-called “Catholics” like these is what has kept me away from the church.

  • “So called ‘Catholics’ like these is what has kept me away from the church.”

    I get your drift and I understand your frustration with why this is allowed to continue. That said, and with all due respect…. how does YOUR staying away from the Church — if you believe it to be the Body of Christ, you believe its teachings to be true, and you believe its sacraments to be genuine sources of grace — do anything to convert sinners, or save your own soul? Isn’t that a classic case of cutting off your nose to spite your face?

    I suppose the idea is that if enough people stop attending and giving money to the Church until pro-abort Catholic pols like Pelosi, et. al., are excommunicated, eventually the hierarchy will get the message. However, I think the actual effect would be just the opposite . If faithful pro-life Catholics stay home, then the pews are going to be populated, if at all, strictly by liberal pro-choice Catholics or those who really don’t care too much about life issues. In other words we would be destroying the Church in order to “save” it.

  • If it’s any consolation Joe she will be held that much more culpable. In any event don’t let the bishops keep you from doing the right thing. The Lord promised that the gates of Hades wouldn’t prevail against His Church not that he would spare us from the insufferable US Bishops.

  • “They say that violates their religious freedom. Do you support the Catholic Church in their lawsuits against the administration?”

    “Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.

    “And there are people in the Catholic Church, including some of the bishops, who have suggested that some of this may be premature,” Pelosi said.

    Those people have a right to sue … those people with that ‘conscience thing’.

    Eroding, eroding, eroding so some day every one can just mindlessly go for all the varieties of death her admin offers and enjoy the perversions of nature on the way there. Questioners will be answered with fly swatters.

  • “As a devout catholic I disagree with church leaders when I am at work, but I have full respect for them.” this is either a lie or a flat out lie, talk about lack of integrity “I disagree with you at work, but I still agree with you as a catholic.” balone.

  • There should be a “or” in between “a” and “lie”.

  • Well, I don’t think that’s the entire Catholic Church,” Pelosi responded. “Those people have a right to sue, but I don’t think they’re speaking ex cathedra for the Catholic Church.”
    It is the duty of the state, the government, Pelosi, Obama, Biden to protect Religious Freedom. The government has chosen to delete Religious Freedom for our First Amendment, trample on sovereign personhood, make beasts of burden of men and property of the state of citizens.The bishops speak not only for evey Catholic Church member but for every citizen, every constitutent, every person ever created to be equal and free. FREEDOM

  • Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Sebelius, the whole lot of them would not be here if their parents had aborted or contracepted them. The whole lot of them would not be here if they had no parents, only practicing homosexuals. INGRATES. iNGRATES TAKING OUR MONEY TO ENSLAVE US.
    Yeah. I guess they would be perturbed by the bishops saying “WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD”

    Pelosi, Pelosi, anyone, Going once, going twice, do I hear Pelosi? Gone to the devil.

  • Than again Mary Obama is a Bastard son so he obviously didn’t get enough fatherly love to know right from wrong, he has enough self-esteem but not enough objectivity to counter balance his self-esteem.

  • Pope Benedict XVI called Pelosi into his office and spoke with her for about twenty minutes. Pelsoi’s “it is not “ex-cathedra” probably means she will not comply. The Ten Commandments are “ex-cathedra”. Jesus itemized the Commandmants in the Gospel.

  • “Why the Church tolerates her is beyond me. She should have been ex-communicated long ago, along with Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. So-called “Catholics” like these is what has kept me away from the church.” I appreciate Elaine Krewer’s response. If these people do not like it. They can leave. Some years back I had to attend Mass with the people who murdered my brother. I ran from the chuch in tears. I stopped. I returned to the Mass. If they do not like it they can leave… and this goes for the not too Catholic Bishops, theologians and Pelosi.

  • Valentin: “Than again Mary Obama is a Bastard son so he obviously didn’t get enough fatherly love to know right from wrong, he has enough self-esteem but not enough objectivity to counter balance his self-esteem.”
    Obama’s parents gave him LIFE. America gave Obama LIBERTY. God gave Obama FREEDOM (the pursuit of Happiness). OBAMA NEEDS TO SHARE AND SHARE THE FREEDOM ENDOWED BY GOD. The bishops are giving Obama fatherly love right now.

  • Yes Mary it is true that his parents gave him life but his father left him when he was 2 so at least in his younger days he probably did not recieve much fatherly love. You are right though that The Bishops are giving him some sort of fatherly love as they should considering that they are supposed to tell people right from wrong and serve us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

  • That is if the people getting served are ready so that their souls don’t burn.

  • Amazing lack of charity toward the persons on these posts. I thought our Founding Brother Jesus said to love not hate, to treat others as we would wish for ourselves, and that what we do to others classes us as Sheep or Goats. St Augustine says ” we love the sinner but hate the sin.”

  • Christ was pretty good about calling a spade a spade while loving the sinner:

    “Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,

    2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

    3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.

    4 For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

    5 And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes.

    6 And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues,

    7 And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi.

    8 But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master; and all you are brethren.

    9 And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

    10 Neither be ye called masters; for one is you master, Christ.

    11 He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.

    12 And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

    13 But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

    14 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.

    15 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

    16 Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor.

    17 Ye foolish and blind; for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

    18 And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it, is a debtor.

    19 Ye blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

    20 He therefore that sweareth by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things that are upon it:

    21 And whosoever shall swear by temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth in it:

    22 And he that sweareth by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.

    23 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint, and anise, and cummin, and have left the weightier things of the law; judgment, and mercy, and faith. These things you ought to have done, and not to leave those undone.

    24 Blind guides, who strain out a gnat, and swallow a camel.

    25 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.

    26 Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.

    27 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men’s bones, and of all filthiness.

    28 So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just; but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

    29 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; that build the sepulchres of the prophets, and adorn the monuments of the just,

    30 And say: If we had been in the days of our Fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

    31 Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets.

    32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

    33 You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

    34 Therefore behold I send to you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city:

    35 That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

    36 Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.

    37 Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldest not?

    38 Behold, you house shall be left to you, desolate.

    39 For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

  • Jesus’ condemnation of the hypocritical, rule-bending and burden binding efforts of the Teachers of His time did not contradict the Beatitudes which are co counter-cultural they are dismissed for the “real” world. His Last Supper new mandate, the mandatum, a new commandment I give – love one another. I repeat, we love the sinner but hate the sin. The language of several posts on here is neither Christian nor just. By the way, I did not vote for Mr Obama the first time, I saw his actual and hidden agenda from my study of how the atheism-secularism-anti Natural Law mentality creeps into societies

  • “The language of several posts on here is neither Christian nor just.”

    In your opinion Lone Thinker. It is never unChristian or unjust to tell the simple truth in either religion or politics.

  • Valentin: “some sort of fatherly love”? “some sort”? What the bishops are giving Obama is the TRUTH, the whole TRUTH, and nothing but the TRUTH. Abortion is murder. Obama is the servant of the people. The taxpayers are Obama’s employers. Being Obama’s constituent is shameful and painful. Every newly conceived human person is more qualified to be president by their innocence, their soul having not been sold to the devil. What did Obama expect? for the people and our bishops to roll over and play dead? It is called discipline, and patriotism. Obama has none of either. Obama’s contempt for the people he serves leaves me speechless.

  • There is a way of being FATHER-ly Valentin and also being corrective, disciplining. The model for ex-communication which St Paul shows is medicinal, not throwing the sinner under the bus, to convert, re-connect to the Body of Christ, the Church, DMcC. You seem to presume that telling the Truth has to be vulgar, insulting the person, instead of respecting the person while naming the sin. Jesus’ ultimate example of that was asking forgiveness for his accusers and those who engineered his death, because they did not know what they were doing. You seem to confuse tactics with goal. Each human is an eikon, image Greek of God who loves each unconditionally and knows the heart. That is why the Vatican or the Church has never ever named anyone who is in hell- not even Judas so we are asked in Matthew not to judge. The person, no- the objective action, yes.

  • LoneThinker wrote: “The model for ex-communication which St Paul shows is medicinal, not throwing the sinner under the bus, to convert, re-connect to the Body of Christ, the Church…”

    St. Paul wrote in 1st Corinthians 5:

    “1 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

    To follow in St. Paul’s example, the Bishops in the USCCB would have to publicly turn Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and every other liberal Democrat Catholic politician over to satan for the destruction of their flesh.

    However, I like how our Blessed Lord Himself dealt with Jezebel at the Church of Thyatira; Nancy Pelosi merits nothing less. As St. John wrote in Revelation 2:20-23:

    “20 Nevertheless I have a few things against you, because you allow that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, to teach and seduce My servants to commit sexual immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. 21 And I gave her time to repent of her sexual immorality, and she did not repent. 22 Indeed I will cast her into a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of their deeds. 23 I will kill her children with death, and all the churches shall know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts. And I will give to each one of you according to your works.”

    And let’s not forget Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1st Timothy 1:18-20:

    “18 This charge I commit to you, son Timothy, according to the prophecies previously made concerning you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 19 having faith and a good conscience, which some having rejected, concerning the faith have suffered shipwreck, 20 of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I delivered to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.”

    Last but not least, there is the example of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. They weren’t thrown under the bus. They were struck dead where they stood:

    1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. 2 And he kept back part of the proceeds, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself? 4 While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”

    5 Then Ananias, hearing these words, fell down and breathed his last. So great fear came upon all those who heard these things. 6 And the young men arose and wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him.

    7 Now it was about three hours later when his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. 8 And Peter answered her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much?”

    She said, “Yes, for so much.”

    9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Then immediately she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. And the young men came in and found her dead, and carrying her out, buried her by her husband. 11 So great fear came upon all the church and upon all who heard these things.

  • “The model for ex-communication which St Paul shows is medicinal, not throwing the sinner under the bus,”

    Saint Paul was also no slouch at calling a spade a spade:

    “I wish that those who are upsetting you would castrate themselves!”

    “1 Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. 2 Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, 3 Without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, 4 Traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasures more than of God: 5 Having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof. Now these avoid. 6 For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: 7 Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith. 9 But they shall proceed no farther; for their folly shall be manifest to all men, as theirs also was. ”

    And with apologies to all Cretans reading the blog in Internet land:

    “One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
    This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;”

  • I use that line from Paul to show that even he, who wrote i Cor 13 and was such a pastoral Father to his flock “lost it” over the Judaizers who wanted to impose circumcision on his Celtic church ( Galatian in Asia, today’s Turkey church who were not ever Jewish. His anger was quite understandable with those snakes creeping in to undermine his work, even if we shudder at his language. There are ample examples of the OT where God promises all sorts of vile punishments and relented. I am sure Paul exaggerated when he labelled all Cretans just as some Protestants do it for all Catholics and Leftists and Rightists do it to the other side. Thoughtful people try to make their criticisms accurate and just and truthful. Enough said, Eucharistic Congress opening starts now.

  • Oy!

    If you love the sinner you will do the Spiritual Works for her/him.

    Admonish the sinner.

    Counsel the doubtful.

    Instruct the ignorant.

    A translation of an OT Bible dictum: “Spare the rod, hate the child.”

  • Refraining from throwing the lack-of-charity card means never having to double down on a losing hand.

Fortnight For Freedom

Sunday, May 27, AD 2012




The fight over the HHS Mandate is about to come to a boil.  In June the Bishops are going to have this document inserted in Mass bulletins throughout the nation which mentions the necessity of disobeying immoral laws in certain situations.

Some unjust laws impose such injustices on individuals and organizations that disobeying the laws may be justified.  Every effort must be made to repeal them.  When fundamental human goods, such as the right of conscience, are at stake, we may need witness to the truth by resisting the law and incurring its penalties.

I am almost thankful to President Obama.  Due to his blind hubris, his willingness to ride roughshod over American liberties for cheap perceived political advantage, he has awakened the Church in this country from her slumber, and reminded Catholics that they are part of the Church Militant here on Earth. 

Beginning for two weeks, up to Independence Day, the Bishops are having a Fortnight For Freedom:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Fortnight For Freedom

  • Donald,

    “I am almost thankful to President Obama.”

    I have thought the same thing many times, God’s timing is not our timing, his presidency was a much needed wake-up call for many lukewarm people. But OH! I’d vote for a ham sandwich before I’d vote for Obama.

    And I love how you tip-toe’d around your point in the next sentence — NOT! 😀


    Uplifting and renewing as Easter season closes and Ordinary Time returns.

    Your ‘Elijah on Mount Carmel Year’ has to be reality, after the Rip Van Winkle one.

  • “God’s timing is not our timing”

    Or in the words of Richard Hovey, greatest poet of Illinois,( sorry Mr. Sandburgh!):

    Unmanifest Destiny

    To what new fates, my country, far
    And unforeseen of foe or friend,
    Beneath what unexpected star
    Compelled to what unchosen end.

    Across the sea that knows no beach,
    The Admiral of Nations guides
    Thy blind obedient keels to reach
    The harbor where thy future rides!

    The guns that spoke at Lexington
    Knew not that God was planning then
    The trumpet word of Jefferson
    To bugle forth the rights of men.

    To them that wept and cursed Bull Run,
    What was it but despair and shame?
    Who saw behind the cloud the sun?
    Who knew that God was in the flame?

    Had not defeat upon defeat,
    Disaster on disaster come,
    The slave’s emancipated feet
    Had never marched behind the drum.

    There is a Hand that bends our deeds
    To mightier issues than we planned;
    Each son that triumphs, each that bleeds,
    My country, serves It’s dark command.

    I do not know beneath what sky
    Nor on what seas shall be thy fate;
    I only know it shall he high,
    I only know it shall be great.

    Richard Hovey

  • What is the response of that pseudo-group, Catholics United? Will their liberal members have the hubris to balk about balking?


  • Religious freedom has been under attack for some time, though the attackers claim that this is not their aim.

    People need to wake up and speak out about what is going on. I hope everyone will get the courage to speak out, through blog posts or Facebook shares, every day up to and including July Fourth.

  • It appears as though the liberal agenda, in the name of evolving society, is attempting to slide their Europeanizing mindset into place under the many smokescreen guises, all the while abolishing our GREAT CONSTITUTION

  • Pingback: Lincoln and the Liberty of Catholic Americans | The American Catholic

Does E.J. Dionne Even Pretend to be a Catholic Anymore? (Updated)

Friday, May 25, AD 2012

E.J. Dionne thinks the American Bishops are just a bunch of right-wing meanies .  No, seriously.

The headlines this week were about lawsuits brought by 43 Catholic organizations, including 13 dioceses, to overturn regulations issued by the Obama administration that require insurance plans to cover contraception under the new health-care law. But the other side of this news was also significant: The vast majority of the nation’s 195 dioceses did not go to court.

Which Dionne takes as a signal that those dioceses do not approve of the suits.

Has Dionne ever taken even an elementary logic course?  That the other dioceses did not join the suit does not imply that they oppose the suit.  They may have chosen not to participate for any number of reasons.  For instance, newly installed Bishop Lori in Baltimore explained on EWTN just last night that the Archdiocese of Baltimore did not join the suit because it was a time of transition with him just being installed last week.  As for the other dioceses, they may not have the time and resources to join the suit.

Dionne then – hysterically – implies that the Church is being over-run by right-wing Bishops.

Until now, bishops who believed that their leadership was aligning the institutional church too closely with the political right had voiced their doubts internally. While the more moderate and liberal bishops kept their qualms out of public view, conservative bishops have been outspoken in condemning the Obama administration and pushing a “Fortnight for Freedom” campaign aimed at highlighting “threats to religious freedom, both at home and abroad.”

But in recent months, a series of events — among them the Vatican’s rebuke of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, encouraged by right-wing U.S. bishops — have angered more progressive Catholics and led to talk among the disgruntled faithful of the need for a “Catholic spring” to challenge the hierarchy’s shift to the right.

It’s amusing that Dionne chooses to frame the issue as a right-versus-left one, and even more amusing that he seems to be implying that the Vatican was prodded by a bunch of scheming winger-Bishops to issue its rebuke.

To his credit, Dionne does manage to find a few Bishops who are opposed to the lawsuit.*

Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif., broke the silence on his side Tuesday in aninterview with Kevin Clarke of the Jesuit magazine America. Blaire expressed concern that some groups “very far to the right” are turning the controversy over the contraception rules into “an anti-Obama campaign.”

“I think there are different groups that are trying to co-opt this and make it into [a] political issue, and that’s why we need to have a deeper discussion as bishops,” he said. “I think our rhetoric has to be that of bishops of the church who are seeking to be faithful to the Gospel, that our one concern is that we make sure the church is free to carry out her mission as given to her by Christ, and that remains our focus.”

My sympathies to the Catholics in Stockton, California.  One can only imagine the sterling homilies they must hear every Sunday.

This is simply nonsense.  The Obama administration drew a very clear line in the sand.  I’m sorry to break this to Bishop Blaire, but when  a presidential administration declares open war on religion freedom, it de facto becomes a political issue.  I realize that you must be of the generation that believes that the only way to resolve anything is deep dialogue and expressions of “concern,” but sitting on your behind and just hoping that the administration will be nice to you down the line is not going to accomplish anything.

Already, there are reports that some bishops will play down or largely ignore the Fortnight for Freedom campaign, scheduled for June 21 to July 4, in their own dioceses. These bishops fear that it has become enmeshed in Republican election-year politics and see many of its chief promoters, notably Archbishop William E. Lori of Baltimore, as too strident.

I’m so confused.  Bishop Lori himself didn’t attach himself to the lawsuit, so obviously by Dionne’s logic he must be opposed to the suit.  Does that mean that Bishop Lori believes that Bishop Lori is too strident?  The mind reels.

Again, it’s a pity that some Bishops do not have the courage to stand up and fight for religious freedom.  Like Bishop Blaire, they are of the mindset that it’s best not to cause too much trouble or kick up too much of a fuss – unless of course the issue is changing the translation of the Mass.  Then these same Bishops kick and scream and do everything in their power to fight change.  But when it comes to challenging an administration intent on curtailing their freedoms – meh, better to just hold a series of seminars and hope everything gets sorted out in the end.

Dionne then makes some hay over the phony “compromise” offered by HHS, a compromise only gullible left-leaning Catholics put any stock into.  Because at the end of the day, for people like Dionne hiking taxes on the rich is more important than minor issues such as abortion and religious freedom.

Dionne closes with this whopper:

For too long, the Catholic Church’s stance on public issues has been defined by the outspokenness of its most conservative bishops and the reticence of moderate and progressive prelates.

Yes, we all remember how all those right-wing Bishops led the charge when it came to immigration reform, or the war in Iraq, or in recent budget debates.

Signs that this might finally be changing are encouraging for the church, and for American politics.

Hey, Dionne finally says something I agree with. Of course he has now clue that the behavioral change is now quite the one he thinks is happening.

*Update:  See Donald’s comment.  In fact, even Blaire is on board with his fellow Bishops.  Sorry, EJ.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Does E.J. Dionne Even Pretend to be a Catholic Anymore? (Updated)

  • Oops, it looks like Demented Dionne will have to find another bishop to cite:

    “Bishop Stephen E. Blaire of Stockton, Calif. has clarified that he is united with his fellow bishops in their efforts to oppose the threat to religious freedom posed by the federal contraception mandate.

    “I stand solidly with my brother bishops in our common resolve to overturn the unacceptable intrusion of government into the life of the Church by the HHS Mandate,” said Bishop Blaire in a May 24 statement.

    He explained that he wanted to “clarify some misunderstandings” related to his earlier comments about the mandate.

    A May 22 article in America magazine quoted Bishop Blaire as having concerns about an announcement the day before that 43 Catholic dioceses and organizations around the U.S. were filing lawsuits against the federal government.

    Filed in 12 different jurisdictions across the country, the lawsuits challenge a federal mandate that will require employers to offer health insurance plans covering contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, even if doing so violates their consciences.

    Bishops from every diocese in the U.S. have spoken out against the regulation, warning that it poses a serious threat to religious liberty and could force Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable organizations to close.

    Several media outlets and commentators have used Bishop Blaire’s comments to suggest division among the bishops regarding the mandate.

    However, Bishop Blaire said that his comments have been misunderstood. He stressed his full support for his brother bishops in their efforts to fight the mandate and protect religious freedom.

    He noted that the bishops’ administrative committee issued a statement in March committing to fight the mandate through appeals to the Obama administration, Congress or the courts.

    “I contributed to and voted for this statement, and continue to support it, including its call for legal action as was announced on Monday,” he said. ”

    Early in his career Dionne could sometimes manage to write something worth reading. His descent to being simply a shrill partisan hack has been sad to behold.

  • I can see how blatantly obvious it is that Dionne is avoiding the fact the Abortion is murder.

  • Pingback: Vatileaks HHS Mandate Bishop Blaire Georgetown Fr. John W. O’Malley Pulpit | The Pulpit
  • Phil Lawler has an good take on the issue here:

  • Who is that guy? (didnt say in the intro).

    All undone by a little book called THE CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    I think we as catholics need to publicize that little white book more. Priests should hold it up from the pulpit and encourage the faithful to get it. When in doubt, consult the book. Gotta problem with it? Start your own sect! The Sebellians? Or the Cafetirians? Hmmm….

  • It was filed in enough district courts to be sure that there will be conflicting trial and appellate decisions almost insuring the case goes to the Supreme Court.

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • The fallacy that appeals to “Natural Law,” based on a concept of “pure nature,” can establish some sort of neutral ground for the debate of political issues has done immeasurable harm to the Christian approach to politics By overlooking this, many Cathoolic bishops, past and present, have assumed that a politician’s political views can be independent of his views on religion and that, because they coincide with Catholic social teaching, with proper precautions Catholics could associate themselves with his movement. That is to betray the sacred and indissoluble alliance between Throne and Altar, which has been at the heart of Catholic political thought, since the the divine and august emperors, Gratian, Valentinian et Theodosius established Christianity as the religion of the Empire on 27 February 380

    On the contrary

    “Integral political science . . . is superior in kind to philosophy; to be truly complete it must have a reference to the domain of theology, and it is precisely as a theologian that St. Thomas wrote De regimine principum . . . the knowledge of human actions and of the good conduct of the human State in particular can exist as an integral science, as a complete body of doctrine, only if related to the ultimate end of the human being. . . the rule of conduct governing individual and social life cannot therefore leave the supernatural order out of account (The Things that are not Caesar’s, p. 128, Jacques Maritain).”

    Thus, Blondel maintained that the human person must be considered in his actual, concrete historical conditions and not some hypothetical state of “pure nature.”

    “…they never forget that one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order (“La ‘Semaine sociale’ de Bordeaux.” p 32).

  • “The fallacy that appeals to “Natural Law,” based on a concept of “pure nature,” can establish some sort of neutral ground for the debate of political issues has done immeasurable harm to the Christian approach to politics By overlooking this, many Cathoolic bishops, past and present, have assumed that a politician’s political views can be independent of his views on religion and that, because they coincide with Catholic social teaching, with proper precautions Catholics could associate themselves with his movement.”

    Of course this “fallacy” is only of recent manufacture by those who have misinterpreted Aquinas. While there are problems with the concept of pure nature, there are far more problems with the modern concept that produced this alleged “fallacy.”

    The distortion of this teaching of Aquinas, along with subsequent distortions of Natural Law, have done no service to the Church.

  • E.J. Dionne’s evil spew has been stemmed. The poison pen has run out of ink.

  • The proper reaction to the discovery that you can not make your political precommitments line up with your faith would be to examine those precommitments.

    That is, if the latter was the central pivot of your life.

    Sadly, I think Dionne is doing precisely that–which reveals what his faith is: in the part of Rum and Rebellion–no more Romanism for him.

  • “These bishops fear that it has become enmeshed in Republican election-year politics”

    I have a hard time understanding where people see Republican activism on this issue. The GOP made some noise in January and February, and they tried to pass the Blunt Amendment, but haven’t GOP leaders been pretty cowed and low-key since Rush Limbaugh’s Fluke comments?

    There is some grassroots activism on this issue, but from what I can tell it’s more among religious believers than GOP activists per se.

    Most local GOP activists I know are deeply wary of “social issues”, but perhaps they are not representative.

  • Phillip

    I would suggest the fallacy goes back to Suarez. He posited a more or less complete and self-contained “natural order,” with its own ends, uncoloured by the supernatural order, which could easily come to be seen as a mere gratuitous addition.

    That that was a travesty of St Thomas’s position goes without saying.

    It reached its reached its zenith in the support of many Neo-Thomists for Action Française and the Catholic atheism of Charles Maurras.

  • Actually, the fallacy I referred to was not the making of Neo-Thomists nor of Suarez. Rather, as the link I provide shows, and as many well-accomplished Thomists today believe, it unfortunately begin with De Lubac.

  • Unfortunately Dionne is a paragon of reason and orthodoxy compared to Maureen Dowd.

  • Wow, talk about delusional. In my neck of the woods, anyway, no one but the Church and some civic/political organizations made up entirely of Evangelical Christians have said Word One about the mandate. The idea that the bishops are some kind of Republican operatives is hilarious! Yeah, that immigration reform, build a “circle of protection’ around the poor, school voucher promoting group of Bishops is REPUBLICAN. Sheesh.

  • If Bishop Blaire is worried about the issue being cooped by right-wingers, all the more reason for lefties such as himself to get more active against the mandate (this may be the best reason for welcoming Notre Dame’s bring its own suit).

  • Phillip
    I find nothing in Cardinal de Lubac that was not anticipated by Maurice Blondel in his publication, L’Annales de philosophie chrétienne and, particularly, in the 1910 exchange between Blondel’s editor, the Oratorian, Lucien Laberthonnière and Pedro Descoqs. It was a fundamental moment for la Nouvelle Théologie, much as Keble’s Assize Sermon had been for the Oxford Movement and it is what united such disparate thinkers as Blondel, Maréchal, the Dominicans, Chenu and Congar and the Jesuits, de Lubac and Daniélou. Indeed, it is possible to find early anticipations in the works of such outliers as the Jesuit, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (whose orthodoxy was so ably defended by de Lubac) and the great historian of French mysticism and member of l’Académie française, L’Abbé Brémond. I would also include the Oratorian Louis Bouyer.

    Again, to take a theologian outside the French school, and they are few enough, Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote “Christianity owes it to the world to make a clear connection between its testimony to the sole Redeemer, in whose name it takes ‘every thought captive to obey Christ’ (2 Cor 10:5), and the witness of the Holy Spirit, which causes the entire world to awake to a religious freedom and universality which, left to itself, it could never attain nor imagine.”

    To suggest that the rejection of ““a false theological notion of some state of pure nature” (Laberthonnière) began, or was confined to de Lubac is quite wrong. After all, Pascal, three centuries earlier, had declared that “The true religion teaches us what our duties are.” True justice is what “it has pleased God to reveal to us.” God alone is “the true good” of man. At bottom, all of our “lights” can show us only that we do not find within ourselves “either truth or goodness.” In short, “without the faith, man cannot know his true good or justice.”

  • “To suggest that the rejection of ““a false theological notion of some state of pure nature” (Laberthonnière) began, or was confined to de Lubac is quite wrong.”

    Not to suggest it began with him, but, as the link provided, as well as a great number of current theologians suggest, his work Surnatural was the flowering of such theories.

    Of course there are a great many current works that show this flowereing is false. I gave one link above. Two others here:

    One reviewer of the latter work wrote noted that the traditional conception of a “pure state of Nature” was the stronger argument.

    But that is the point. Both at this point are theories (and as noted the theory of a pure state of Nature being possible stronger.) I say theories because, they in fact are simply both theological theories. Neither are denied by the Church but neither is one or the other affirmed as dogmatic either.

    Which goes to the original point of my first comment. There is no fallacy that “…appeals to “Natural Law,” based on a concept of ‘pure nature,'”. Thus, one can argue for some sort of neutral ground inpolitical issues. And in fact a Catholic can associate themselves with politicians with beliefs that coincide with Catholic social teaching “with proper precautions” to use your term.

    “That is to betray the sacred and indissoluble alliance between Throne and Altar, which has been at the heart of Catholic political thought, since the the divine and august emperors, Gratian, Valentinian et Theodosius established Christianity as the religion of the Empire on 27 February 380”

    I will leave this on its own, though I might suggest that Catholic Social Teaching has evolved from the consideration of the alliance between Throne and Altar as being sacred. Another flawed conclusion from a likely false theological premise that is most prominently associated with De Lubac.

  • Phillip

    I merely pointed out that the opinion of a “state of pure nature” had been vigorously attacked in 1910 by both Blondel and Laberthonnière in the pages of L’Annales de philosophie chrétienne. Now, Henri de :Lubac was born in 1896, so he was fourteen years old at the time of the Descoqs – Laberthonnière exchange.

    One can see the roots of that in Blondel’s doctoral dissertation of 1893, L’Action in which he sought to show the illegitimacy of the reigning “separated” philosophy, which considered the “transcendent” as utterly superfluous to self-sufficient reason’s capacity to explain reality.

    De Lubac acknowledged his debt to Blondel in his “Brief Catechesis on Nature and Grace” ” Latin theology’s return to a more authentic tradition has taken place–not without some jolts, of course–in the course of the last century. We must admit that the main impulse for this return came from a philosopher, Maurice Blondel. His thinking was not primarily exercised in the areas proper to the professional theologians, nor did it base itself on a renewed history of tradition. Still, he is the one who launched the decisive attack on the dualist theory that was destroying Christian thought.”

    Of course, de Lubac was important, but so were Thomists like Joseph Maréchal and Marie-Dominique Chenu, who were also attempting to recover St Thomas from his latter commentators.

    The fact that a teaching has not been condemned by the Church does not mean that it is not false in concept and pernicious in practice, as de Lubac’s words suggest.

  • Of course, Thomistic natural law has nothing to do with the modernist notions of state of nature. But I disagree that appeals to natural law are feckless or objectionable. Right and wrong are discernible not through appeals to divine authority alone. Natural law is the law imprinted on the hearts of all men, and all men have access to it without regard to their faith. Ask any young child whether it is morally ok for their mother to kill the unborn child within her, and you will observe natural law in action.

  • “The fact that a teaching has not been condemned by the Church does not mean that it is not false in concept and pernicious in practice, as de Lubac’s words suggest.”

    Go back and read my last comment. Again, while the Church has not condemned de Lubac or Blondel or whoever’s denial of the “Natural State”, nor has it condemned those who assert it. Thus, your claim of a fallacy is itself false.

  • Mark Petrik

    Pascal observed that “Men admit that justice does not consist in these customs [the laws of each country], but that it resides in natural laws, common to every country. They would certainly maintain it obstinately, if reckless chance which has distributed human laws had encountered even one which was universal; but the farce [la plaisanterie] is that the caprice of men has so many vagaries that there is no such law Theft, incest, infanticide, parricide, have all had a place among virtuous actions.”

    Besides, if justice and the common good can be established by the light of unaided human reason, the liberals are right, when they claim that religion has no rôle to play in the public square. If, on the other hand, Christianity is necessary to confirm and complete natural sentiments and notions that anticipate, indeed require, a specifically Christian metaphysical foundation, then unaided reason is plainly insufficient, of itself, to establish true justice.

    The socio-economic order cannot ignore the human beings, in their totality, that are its subject, and that includes their supernatural destiny.


    The “fallacy” to which I referred was Suarez’s misinterpretation of St Thomas. Suarez postulated a state of “pure nature,” which, whether condemned by the Church or not, is something that St Thomas never taught and that has no existence in reality. That error is responsible for “the dualist theory that was destroying Christian thought,” as De Lubac avers: a false dichotomy between nature and grace and between reason and revelation, as though the natural and the supernatural have utterly separate ends, in and of themselves.

  • “The “fallacy” to which I referred was Suarez’s misinterpretation of St Thomas. Suarez postulated a state of “pure nature,” which, whether condemned by the Church or not, is something that St Thomas never taught and that has no existence in reality.”

    Please read the referenced works that again, as noted several times, assert that the concept of “pure nature” is in fact in Thomas’ works. De Lubac’s interpretation, to very reasonable Thomists, is wrong. Here yet another argument that De Lubac is wrong and that Thomas, and the early Church, accepted the concept of “pure nature.”

    Yet again, the fallacy you refer to, does not exist.

  • Michael,
    Access by all men to essential moral principles, albeit imperfectly, no more renders participation of Christianity in the public square superfluous than does the Church’s teaching that righteous non-Christians can attain Heaven render Her Sacraments superfluous.

See You In Court Mr. Obama

Monday, May 21, AD 2012





By this time I rather suspect that at least some of his campaign strategists, if not President Obama, are beginning to wonder if it was such a bright idea to pick a fight with the Catholic Church in an election year.  Ed Morrissey at Hot Air gives us the details on 43 lawsuits filed simultaneously around the country today attacking the HHS mandate as blatantly unconstitutional:

Today’s Roman Catholic calendar lists May 21st as the feast day of St. Christopher Magallanes, a martyr killed for celebrating Mass during the Cristero War in Mexico. Perhaps Catholics today may want to recall St. Thomas More — the patron saint of lawyers, who was executed for refusing to agree to a mandate that gave Henry VIII the prerogative of defining religious expression in England.  Dozens of Catholic institutions filed lawsuits today against the Department of Health and Human Services over its mandate and its narrow definition of religious practice:

Catholic archdioceses and institutions filed suit in federal district courts across the country Monday against the so-called contraception mandate, claiming their “fundamental rights hang in the balance.”

The plaintiffs include a host of schools and organizations, including the University of Notre Dame and the Archdiocese of New York. The lawsuits, though related, were filed individually.

The schools are objecting to the requirement from the federal health care overhaul that employers provide access to contraceptive care. The Obama administration several months back softened its position on the mandate, but some religious organizations complained the administration did not go far enough to ensure the rule would not compel them to violate their religious beliefs.

Kathryn Jean Lopez posts a brief statement from Timothy Cardinal Dolan, president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and one of the chief critics of the HHS mandate:

We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress – and we’ll keep at it – but there’s still no fix. Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now. Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It’s also a great show of the diversity of the Church’s ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate – ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to See You In Court Mr. Obama

  • This affects everyone – Catholics, Orthodox Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostal, Southern Baptist, etc.

    My older brother – a member of the Pentecostal Assemblies of God (AG) – said that the Superintendent thereof issued a statement condemning the Obama initiatives – HHS mandate, gay marriage, etc. – and ordered all AG pastors to speak on this topic. AG is the largest Pentecostal denomination which historically viewed the Roman Catholic Church with apathy if not outright antipathy. For Obama to unite them in any cause with the Roman Catholic Church means that Obama has done what all the ecumenicalism in the World Council of Churches could never have done.

    I couldn’t be happier!

  • The Assemblies of God couldn’t be farther away from us theologically Paul, or closer to us on the moral issues. God bless them!

  • People have been underestimating the Catholic Church for the last 2000 years. Someone is always saying “It’s finished, let’s kick it!” Never a good idea because a) it’s NOT finished, and b) kicking the Church in a low period does indeed mean that a lot of people desert Her, but it also means that some surprising folks stand up and become dauntless champions for Her — sometimes not until after a lot of destruction, and sometimes right away, but nearly always in each particular place, and always if you look at the universal Church.

  • Just because it needs to be said, when the dust from this battle is settled (not war, for that will never end, but the battle) we (generically) should be prepared to be more dedicated, more active and more committed to doing the things that The Church has always stood for but that we may have been less intently focused on in the past.

    For my part, I am going deeper into the Christ Renews His Parish and Cursillo processes, having done the first one twice and second once. I’ll be on a seed team for CRHP, going from my central Indiana parish to Sarasota to help a parish there rev up its commitment to Christ and The Holy Spirit. My Cursillo groups are active but not terribly “pro”-active, and I’m taking it on myself to challenge that. Instead of just talking around the coffee table each week, it’s time for a demonstration of commitment.

    We each need to be able to say “Yeah, already there,” when the inevitable challenges come from those individuals and media outlets that will say “OK, Catholics, you won that round, but how about all these injustices and poverties?”

    You know the commitment across the country will be scrutinized by the Imperial Propaganda Ministry once the mandate’s been struck down, so we have to be ready. Or, perhaps more accurately, we have to begin yesterday to encourage and motivate our more wishy-washy parishioners to commit and start getting their hands dirty.

  • “contrary to its sincerely held religious beliefs. …”

    The University of Notre Dame has sincerely held religious beliefs? News to me. Glad they are joining the fight nonetheless.

    Between an overbearing government and the recent patent wars, business in law is good these days. I should have been a lawyer. 🙂

    If you haven’t clicked the Hot Air link, you should. More updates. I’m trying to find the list of dioceses in the suit.

  • Kyle–here’s a list of plaintiffs I found from

    1. D.D.C. Lawsuit
    o Archdiocese of Washington
    o Consortium of Catholic Academies
    o Archbishop Carroll High School
    o Catholic Charities of D.C.
    o The Catholic University of America

    2. E.D.N.Y. Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Rockville Centre
    o Catholic Health Services of Long Island
    o Catholic Charities of Rockville Centre
    o Archdiocese of N.Y.
    o ArchCare

    3. W.D.Pa. (Erie Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Erie
    o St. Martin Center
    o Prince of Peace Center

    4. W.D.Pa. (Pitt. Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Pittsburgh
    o Catholic Charities of Diocese of Pittsburgh
    o Catholic Cemeteries Association of Diocese of Pittsburgh

    5. N.D.Tex. (Dallas Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Dallas

    6. N.D.Tex. (Fort Worth Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Fort Worth

    7. S.D. Ohio (Columbus Div.) Lawsuit
    o Franciscan University of Steubenville
    o Michigan Catholic Conference

    8. S.D.Miss. (Gulfport Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Jackson
    o Catholic Charities of Jackson
    o Vicksburg Catholic School
    o St. Joseph’s Catholic School
    o Diocese of Biloxi
    o De l’Epee Deaf Center Inc.
    o Catholic Social & Community Services Inc.
    o Resurrection Catholic School
    o Sacred Heart Catholic School
    o St. Dominic Health Services

    9. N.D.Ind. (South Bend Div.) Lawsuit
    o The University of Notre Dame

    10. N.D. Ind. (Fort Wayne Div.) Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend
    o Catholic Charities of Fort Wayne-South Bend
    o St. Anne Home
    o Franciscan Alliance
    o Our Sunday Visitor
    o University of St. Francis

    11. N.D.Ill. Lawsuit
    o Diocese of Joliet
    o Catholic Charities of Joliet
    o Diocese of Springfield
    o Catholic Charities of Springfield

    12. E.D.Mo. (St. Louis Div.)
    o Archdiocese of St. Louis
    o Catholic Charities of St. Louis

  • Wacky Baracky Obumbler is certainly no skilled politician. At best, for him, he was able to do a decent job reading Axelrod’s trash on a TelePrompTer.

    Now, really, what kind of an idiot does one have to be to hang out with the Marxists in college? I have written it here before ‘ there is no ideology, no “ism”, no system of government that has caused more misery, more failure and more death of innocent people than Marxism, yet it still pulls in the gullible, the idiotic and the stupid.

    Obumbler is a combination of fallen-away Muslim and semi-Marxist. His wife is a golddigger par excellence. Obumbler has treated his presidency as a four year vacation and even if he loses to the Windsock, Obumbler would get a lifetime pension, a paid-for funeral, ten years of Secret Service protection and money for a presidential library. Obumbler will never pay for his errors – not in this lifetime.

    As for our Catholic hierarchy in the USA, it took this “mandate” to get them to wake up. Decades of abortion, Planned Parenthood taxpayer subsidies, restrictions on Nativity scenes, gay marriage and the like and the USCCB has been mostly asleep. The USCCB sill will not confront so called Catholic politicians who support abortion by excommunicating them. I have heard more about immigration reform (amnesty) and the USCCB’s continued support of “universal health care” was no small contributor to Obumblercare.

    Obumbler is a terrible President and quite a lousy politician. Sadly, it took Obumbler and the Democrat control of Congress to light a fire under the Catholic Church in the US.

  • I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg. Will we see another few dozen suits next month, and again the month after, and so on? 43 plaintiffs is a good start, with good attention, but the true scope of the government’s violation is far more than this.

  • It’s not clear to me if the list of plaintiffs is a list of all suits filed thus far, or if it is
    just a list of plaintiffs with a Catholic connection. Where are the lawsuits being filed by
    Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim organizations? Are Catholics going to do all of the
    heavy lifting on this?

  • Clinton: Several months ago about 11 suits were filed by a variety of organizations, some Catholic and some not. These 12 are all Catholic, and were filed simultaneously and seem to be very similar so I would imagine there was some heavy-duty planning. Are Catholics going to do all the work? They haven’t so far. Are they going to do all the “heavy lifting”? Remains to be seen! So far yes. But we will see.

  • Penguins Fan, you say : “and the USCCB has been mostly asleep. Christ’s Apostles”. Remember, Christ’s Apostles were asleep as He agonized in Ghestemany, they fled when He was arrested. He died on the Cross with only young John and His Mother at the foot of the Cross. The Apostles had to lock themselves in the Upper Room after his death with fear and trembling believing all was lost. But Jesus rose from the dead, appeared to them, reassured them and this Sunday, we celebrate the Feast of the Pentecost which woke up the Apostles with Divine Power and they courageously proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Penguins Fan, the Catholic Church rises up from the ashes like the Phoenix when under attack – whether from within or from without – and emerges victorious no matter how powerful the Adversary may be. She has done so these 2,000 years+ and She will do it again. Jesus will crush Satan whom you, Americans enthroned with your “Gospel of Death”. Obama may have gambled that he will divine the Church in America, but let us all remember, this One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, with Christ as Her Spiritual Head, guided by the Holy Spirit is just about to defeat Satan yet again. And She will continue doing so Until the End of Time.

    The American Bishops may have been asleep when Satan was edging on the Throne, when Obama, his High Priest entered your While House, and he has now risen against Jesus Christ Himself.

  • Yes Mary 42 but now that we know Christ is the lord the only Son of God the bishops have to make sure that fake Catholics don’t burn their souls for not repenting. Not to mention they give a false image of what the Church is.

  • The Democratic Party today , under Obama, is NOT the Democratic Party of JFK, the only US Catholic President to date. It has become radicalized, severely. JFK would have NEVER considered such a strangulation on American’s freedoms. If we lie down without a fight, it will be very fast coming that more and more freedoms go by the wayside. Our constitution is just a piece of paper if not fought for, and used as the proper tool, in the courts.

Georgetown: the Anti-Catholic Catholic University

Monday, May 21, AD 2012

William Peter Blatty, well-known novelist, author of the Exorcist, a Georgetown graduate, class of 1950, is spearheading an effort to force Georgetown to reform, or to cease to call itself Catholic.  Here is his letter:

Dear Friends,

I invite you today to join me in The Father King Society to Make Georgetown Honest, Catholic, and Better by signing on to a very special effort here. I ask you also to curtail your donations to Georgetown University for one year.

The late Jesuit Father Thomas M. King was a good friend. I had the privilege of lecturing his theology class, which started the rumor that he had inspired my priestly character in The Exorcist. Father King inspired many other things; and our effort now.

On May 5, 2012, in a speech to American bishops, Pope Benedict XVI called on America’s Catholic universities to reaffirm their Catholic identity. The Pope noted the failure of many Catholic universities to comply with Blessed John Paul II’s apostolic constitution Ex corde Ecclesiae. The Pope said that preservation of a university’s Catholic identity “entails much more than the teaching of religion or the mere presence of a chaplaincy on campus.”

For 21 years now. Georgetown University has refused to comply with Ex corde Ecclesiaie (“From The Heart of the Church”), and, therefore, with canon law. And, it seems as if every month GU gives another scandal to the faithful! The most recent is Georgetown’s obtuse invitation to Secretary Sebelius to be a commencement speaker.

Each of these scandals is proof of Georgetown’s non-compliance with Ex corde Ecclesiae and canon law. They are each inconsistent with a Catholic identity, and we all know it. A university in solidarity with the Church would not do these prideful things that do so much harm to our communion. (You can pen a heartfelt letter to the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington and the Holy Father offering your own experience here.)

In the months to come, The Father King Society will ask Georgetown and the Church for explanations and decisions. In 1991, in an effort led by courageous Georgetown students, my dearly missed classmate, GU Law Center Prof. Richard Alan Gordon, took the awesome step of submitting a canon law petition asking the Church to remove Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic. Then Dean of Students John J. DeGioia had authorized the funding of a pro-abortion student advocacy group. A contemporaneous secret memorandum from the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities to the presidents of all Jesuit institutions showed us that Dr. DeGioia’s decision was part of a larger scheme: GU was to be the dissident leader for others to follow. Dean Gordon’s effort was provocative and drastic, but within months of the filing, Rome required Georgetown to reverse itself, and Georgetown did.

Father Tom King was actively involved and submitted an essay to be used in support of the canon law action. (We post it here.) Soon after the 1991 “GU Choice” funding, a meeting took place on campus that collected the students, teachers, alumni and parents who had reacted to the University’s scandal in diverse ways. Fr. King listened intently, and then the mild-speaking priest told us of a call the night before from his brother, also a priest. His brother had said, “Tom, you have to choose sometimes — either you fish or cut bait.” Father King told us that he had decided to fish. And now, at long last, so have I. I ask you to join us!

For almost two decades, The Cardinal Newman Society has pursued with true inspiration and devotion its unique ministry to strengthen Catholic higher education in America. CNS has agreed to help us. Likewise, the St. Joseph’s Foundation, a Texas charity that focuses on canon law, has been a source of valuable information. We appreciate the help of both apostolates.

We may choose to file a canon action again, one much larger in scale and seeking alternative forms of relief that will include, among others, that Georgetown’s right to call itself Catholic and Jesuit be revoked or suspended for a time. We will ask for lesser relief as well. Of course, what we truly seek is for Georgetown to have the vision and courage to be Catholic but clearly the slow pastoral approach has not worked. I invite you to sign the “Mandate of Procurator” on this website so that I, and other alumni, parents, teachers and students, may represent you in this special and historic Church petition.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Georgetown: the Anti-Catholic Catholic University

  • This is a sad article for me. I didn’t realize that Father King had passed away. He was a good priest. He was one of those old people who can relate to the young in a natural way. He had a taste for Teilhard that I never understood, but he was as orthodox as the day is long.

    I remember one day when I and three other guys were the only attendees at a Mass of his. There was a point in the text where he was supposed to make a reference to “brothers and sisters”. He said “brothers”. I got such a kick out of that.

    For so long it’s been a truism that most Jesuits are unimpressive, but the good ones are fantastic. I hope the order has seen an influx of new, devout priests the way some other institutions have. It’d be a tremendous loss if the last pillars of Jesuit greatness disappear and go unreplaced.

  • It is sad how at a so called catholic university you get kicked out of a room for calling out a tyrant murderer. It is a lot more like the fake catholic church in China which is in accord with the government and calls itself catholic but is not in accordance with the Vicar of Christ. Liars need to be pointed out and cleared from the ranks.

  • As a member of the class of ’62 I just skipped my 50th Reunion for all of the reasons stated by Mr. Blatty. I believed that I would have been a hypocrite to attend and appear by my presence to be tacitly condoning Georgetown’s steady march to the ‘dark side’. My only comment to my friends is that “Georgetown has lost its soul”

Archdiocese of Washington Speaks Out Against Georgetown

Sunday, May 13, AD 2012

Msgr. Pope linked to this editorial from the Catholic Standard.  It condemns Georgetown’s decision to invite Kathleen Sebelius to speak at a commencement, and does so in unequivocal terms.  Here’s one key graph:

Founded in 1789 by John Carroll, a Jesuit priest, Georgetown University has, historically speaking, religious roots. So, too, do Harvard, Princeton and Brown. Over time, though, as has happened with these Ivy League institutions, Georgetown has undergone a secularization, due in no small part to the fact that much of its leadership and faculty find their inspiration in sources other than the Gospel and Catholic teaching. Many are quite clear that they reflect the values of the secular culture of our age. Thus the selection of Secretary Sebelius for special recognition, while disappointing, is not surprising.

And then this:

With all of the people struggling so hard to preserve freedom of religion, and with all that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has said in defense of this important value, Georgetown’s choice of the architect of the radical challenge of such freedom for special recognition can only be seen as a statement of where the university stands – certainly not with the Catholic bishops.

The editorial is not mincing words.  It is plainly stating that Georgetown is, for all intents and purposes, no longer a Catholic university.  As Msgr. Pope notes, these words come from the Archdiocese’s official newspaper, and therefore had to be signed off on by the Cardinal’s senior staff.

There’s much more, and Msgr. Pope also adds his own take on the editorial.

Continue reading...

47 Responses to Archdiocese of Washington Speaks Out Against Georgetown

  • This is good news, Paul Z. Thanks!

  • I think it was a wise conclusion made by the pope it is still none the less such a shame that Goergetown is filled with such dissent. Please take a look at the comments I posted on the article called “Hard Truths for Grads”.

  • *growls about it being DC, not Washington*

  • The story doesn’t make something clear. Is the Secretary being given an honorary doctorate or similar honor as well as being invited to deliver the Commencement address? If not, then is she not the exact type of person you would want to speak before the best and the brightest at a time when these State/Church debates about such fundamental issues have come to the fore?

    Absolutely, Georgetown should not honor her with an award. But if the fruits of 4+ years of Catholic education is insufficient to sustain graduates from losing their Catholic convictions after hearing one speech ‘straight from the horse’s mouth’ so to speak, God help our Catholic faith in North America north of the Rio Grande.

    If Kissinger, at the time of the Vietnam War, were to give such a commencement address, would have been wrong to listen to him lest he corrupt Catholic teaching obliging us to be artisans of peace? Or would be seen as a Catholic institution of learning’s role to facilitate a full and frank exchange debate of such fundamental issues as confront the American Church head-on, with confidence in our hearts of the rightness of our cause.

    As a Canadian, I’m not entirely sure regarding the nuances and customs as to how such commencements are organized in colleges south of the 49th and it is required to bestow such an honor to any invited speakers. If so, that would be a shame for Mme. Secretary should never have been invited. But as Catholic I have sufficient confidence that if Georgetown graduates, armed with faith and knowledge to able to benefit from the exchange, believe she most certainly should be allowed to speak. After all, were we not told to be as wise as the children of this world? How can we do so if we only hear from the one voice? Preaching to the choir exclusively is a poor preparation for life. Mature Catholics need to hear all voices if they intend to live out their faith through a long life, successfully defending the faith in the Public Square.

    Fr. Tim Moyle

  • Fr. Moyle, I disagree with you for several reasons. Secretary Sebelius is, in fact
    being given an honor by Georgetown– the honor of addressing the graduates of one
    of its schools at their commencement. That is very different from being invited to be
    one of several persons participating in a symposium or a debate. She is, in effect,
    being presented by Georgetown to the students as someone who embodies what the
    university seeks to instill in its graduates.

    This won’t be an academic exercise where Madame Secretary’s views will be examined
    and discussed. She will not be taking questions from the assembly. While that would
    be a true exercise of academic freedom, I don’t imagine such a symposium holds much
    interest for her.

    If, as you say, mature Catholics need to hear all voices, would you then have any
    objection if next year Georgetown invited a Klansman or the president of NAMBLA
    to give a commencement address? If so, please explain how theirs are voices that
    should not be given a pulpit at a Catholic college, yet Sebelius’ is.

  • Clinton: All good points. However there is a difference between inviting Mme. Sebelius and the KKK or NAMBLA representative is that the former is someone who is shepherding a revolutionary change in your society whereas the latter two are criminals and/or thugs. One leads your government. The others are dedicated to overthrowing your inclusive government and replacing it with a white-only body (KKK) or proposing the wholesale sexual abuse of children by adults. There is clearly a qualitative difference between them.

    Please do not misunderstand me. I am not au courant as to academic traditions in your country, nor am I up to speed as to all the nuances of your struggles in the health care debate. It only seemed to me that given her role at the center of this debate, she seemed an ideal candidate to address a convocation.

    Fr. Tim

  • Clinton: Sorry for the typo. The 2nd sentence should read: “Mme. Sebelius and the KKK or NAMBLA representative IN that the former is someone…” I guess I shouldn’t start typing away before I’ve had my morning coffee…especially on a Monday morning. I miss my own spelling and grammar errors.

    Fr. Tim

  • “Georgetown’s choice of the architect of the radical challenge of such freedom for special recognition can only be seen as a statement of where the university stands – certainly not with the Catholic bishops” …and certainly not for FREEDOM.

  • Father Tim: ‘she seemed an ideal candidate to address a convocation.’ Isn’t a convocation a prayer for the Holy Spirit?

  • Fr. Moyle, I appreciate your thoughtful response. I brought up the hypothetical
    Klansman/NAMBLA characters to demonstrate that there are in fact voices that
    mature Catholics don’t need to hear– at least, not in the capacity of commencement
    speakers, an honor which implies the endorsement of the hosting college.

    It would be entirely reasonable to invite the woman to Georgetown to participate in
    a public discussion of the HHS mandate. That would be a legitimate exercise of
    academic freedom, and I would agree that sensible Catholics would be interested to
    hear Secretary Sebelius defending her position in a civil discussion with her critics.

    Such a discussion is not what Georgetown is proposing. Secretary Sebelius is being
    given the honor (and implied endorsement) of an invitation to give a commencement
    address. She will not be fielding questions, there will be no opportunity for rebuttal.
    This is nothing less than a deliberate thumb in the eye of the bishops by the admin-
    istration of Georgetown.

  • “However there is a difference between inviting Mme. Sebelius and the KKK or NAMBLA representative in that the former is someone who is shepherding a revolutionary change in your society whereas the latter two are criminals and/or thugs.”

    With all respect, Father, I see no difference between the criminal activity of Mme. Sebelius in supporting and advocating the murder of the unborn, and the criminal activity of the KKK in its murderous racism, or the criminal activity of NAMBLA in paedophilia. That the immoral “laws” in the United States make Mme. Sebelius position of infanticide “legal” is no different than immoral laws in Germany which made the genocide of Jews before and during WW II not only legal but a matter of government policy.

    Mme. Sebelius, her boss (President Barack Hussein Obama), and the members of the current Administration are criminals, thugs and gangsters. Again, while the details are not relevant to the discussion of this post, the behavior of the Chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission is a case in point:

    Therefore, not only should Mme. Sebelius be barred from speaking at any Catholic institution, but the example of St. Paul in dealing with both Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1st Timothy 1:19-20, and the man living with his father’s mother in 1st Corinthians chapter 5 should and must be emulated by our Bishops. These people are as utterly evil as King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, and they must therefore be (in St. Paul’s own words in 1st Corinthians 5:5) delivered “to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that [their] spirit[s] may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”

  • There is no doubt that, as an institution, Georgetown is no longer Catholic (and probably as not been for a long time). While the strongly worded editorial is welcome, is there something more official that can be done? Is there a way to revoke the ability of Georgetown to officially present itself as a Catholic institution?

  • Mary: Clearly Mme. Sebeluis would be in inappropriate choice to give the benediction at the event. Is that not the time in the service when God’s Holy Spirit is called down upon the gathered assembly? Does that necessarily invalidate her in addressing the convocation assembly with an address?

    Please understand: I am not saying that she is the best choice for the event. I can think of dozens of others who would do a better job. I’d vote for George Weigel for he is probably the preeminent American voice addressing these same important issues. Even Cardinal Dolan would have been an inspired choice. If I had the opportunity to attend, I’d much rather listen to them than Mme. Sebelius. I am only asking whether it’s actually inappropriate for a Catholic university to prove an opportunity for students/graduates to hear from a voice advocating a different position than is taught by the Church.

    Perhaps an organized debate or symposium would be a better forum than a convocation, but I suspect there would be as much concern about anyone from the current administration speaking on a Catholic campus. It would be a tragedy if I am correct, for it seems to demonstrate a belief that Catholic teaching cannot stand against counter opinions. Clearly, this is NOT the case. I guess I just see this as a question of confidence in the Church and not in the stark political terms that grips your nation these days.

    Do we as Catholics see the ‘other side’ in these debates as enemies instead of opponents? Could it be that the passion of the times is overwhelming the reason of our faith leading to closing ourselves off against voices we see as hostile? I fear this is the case. It does not seem to me that such a position can be squared with the example that Jesus, Paul, and the early Church Fathers offered. They actively engaged the world to argue for the proposition of the new covenant of salvation through the ‘folly of the cross’. Yes, if the audience could not accept the message they moved on to others who would and did not waste time debating with those closed to the salvific truth of the cross. But they tried. They listened, thought, prayed and responded. They engaged. They were not afraid to do so. We shouldn’t be afraid either.

    It is unbecoming for a people called to be evangelists of the gospel to the world for them to shy away from doing the same as those who passed on the faith to us. To quote Fr. RJN, it’s the ‘challenge of embracing orthodoxy and bringing to the world.’ We can’t do that if we don’t interact with the world in the first place.

    Hope this helps to put my earlier comments into a fuller perspective for you. As I’ve said, I suffer from not being directly involved in current American issues and speak as an outsider. I hope I’m humble enough to be open to correction by you and others who are living through these events. It’s just that there is truth in the maxim: ‘When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s hard to remember that your objective is to drain the swamp.’ Perhaps an outside voice can offer a different perspective. I thank you for the chance to offer such a perspective.

    Fr. Tim

  • “Do we as Catholics see the ‘other side’ in these debates as enemies instead of opponents?”

    Yes, especially when they mandate that Christian institutions must pay for abortifacients and contraceptives contrary to religious conscience. Kathleen Sebelius, Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, Patrick Kennedy, Andrew Cuomo, et al., are self-professed Roman Catholics who publicly support the infanticide of the unborn, the sanctification of the filth of homosexual sodomy, the distribution and use of contraceptives, and the cohabitative life style of adultery and fornication. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

    “It does not seem to me that such a position can be squared with the example that Jesus, Paul, and the early Church Fathers offered. They actively engaged the world…”

    Jesus was beaten and whipped half to death when He stood before and engaged Pontius Pilate. St. Paul was in chains when he stood before and engaged Felix, Festus and Herod Agrippa. St. Ignatius of Antioch engaged the Roman tyrants by willingly going to the lions. These testimonies are in stark contrast to the elevation of apostasy and heresy being given to Kathleen Sebelius. That elevation isn’t a witness to the world. It’s the same kind of disgrace that Jesus identified when He said to Simon Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan.”

    “It is unbecoming for a people called to be evangelists of the gospel to the world for them to shy away from doing the same as those who passed on the faith to us.”

    I agree. jesus whipped the money changers out of the Temple. Jesus told the woman caught in adultery, “Go and sin no more.” Jesus told the crippled man he cured who was carrying around his mat, “Stop sinning lest worse happen to you.” Jesus put the Pharisees and Sadducees in their place on multiple occasions. St. Peter confronted Anannias and Sapphira for lying and the Holy Spirit dropped them dead where they stood. We’ve already discussed how St. Paul dealt with the sex pervert in 1st Corinthians 5 and with the blasphemers in 1st Timothy 1:19-20. St. John wrote sternly about that Jezebel in Revelation 2:20-23, how Jesus was going to put her onto a sick bed and strike her children of adultery dead.

    The only dialogue to be given Sebelius, and the heretics and apostates like her, is what is written in verse 9 of the Epistle of St. Jude:

    “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him, but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you.'”

    A Christian doesn’t dialogue with the devil or his minions.

  • While the strongly worded editorial is welcome, is there something more official that can be done? Is there a way to revoke the ability of Georgetown to officially present itself as a Catholic institution?

    I’m unaware of how the process plays out exactly, but Msgr. Pope suggests that it is a rather complicated procedure that would certainly entail something more involved than the Cardinal making a simple declaration. So while many of us would like to see Georgetown rebuked in a much sterner fashion, it is not as easy as we would like.

  • As was so tremendously posited in a previous post, if a Catholic institution wishes to offer a perspective for fair consideration other than the Church’s own teachings, why settle for half-measures?

    Just have Satan himself give the commencement speech. It’s one thing to “interact” with the world, but something else entirely to give it voice so that we then become corrupted.

    “In the world but not of it,” I believe is the phrase that pays. Slicing Ms. Sibelius to bits in an honest, open and fairly-moderated debate would be perfectly acceptable. Legitimizing her views at an ostensibly Catholic institution, in contradiction to Church teaching and without rebuttal or deliberation, is slow suicide.

  • WK, Paul: I bow to your assessment of your own situation. Again, as a Canadian I do not understand your concerns about what you call ‘socialized medicine’. It’s something that we proudest of as a mark of our civilization as a society. I do not presume to claim that I know for certain that the Mme. Secretary is an appropriate speaker at such an event.

    However, as a believer I cannot reconcile labeling other people in such demonic contexts. It implies a judgment of character and soul that I am incapable of making, blinded as I am by the plank in my own eye. I will defend and debate as forcefully and vociferously as I can for the propositions of the Church. Injecting such confusion between one’s opinions and the character and standing of others before God will serve to do no more than impede the chances of having our propositions being heard or accepted by those who we need as allies if we hope to change the course of our respective societies and nations.

    PLEASE… do not take what I offer as a rebuke or refutation of what you state regarding the immorality of what Mme. Secretary supports and promotes. I simply believe that minds formed with Catholic values would only benefit from hearing directly from the person tasked by government to make and implement public policy. I admit that perhaps a graduation ceremony may not be the appropriate forum for such an exchange and apologize if I’ve offended anyone who believes that I think them wrong for believing and expressing a different opinion. No offense or insult was never my intention, nor do I wish to walk where it is not my place to be.

    Thank you for your understanding.

    Fr. Tim

  • New campaign slogan: “Obama/Biden 2012. We got your back.”

  • “It implies a judgment of character and soul that I am incapable of making, blinded as I am by the plank in my own eye.”

    Jesus told us to take the plank out of our own eyes, not leave it in. I am NOT suggesting, Father, that YOU are leaving the plank in your own eye. Rather, I am suggesting that we take Jesus at his word: let us remove the plank from our own eyes so that we can see clearly enough to remove the offending splinter from another’s eye. Regardless of plank or splinter, to fail to take Jesus at His word leaves everyone blinded.

    Ezekiel 34:1-10 places an even greater responsibility on the cleric (for which reason I am grateful to God that I do not have your job, Father). You have to fight the wolves, and one of the them is Kathleen Sebelius.

    As for national health care, it is NOT the job of Caesar Augustus to feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, care for the sick, clothe the naked, etc. That is our job as members of the Body of Christ, and everytime we abdicate our responsibility and evade our accountability to do that, then we sacrifice on the altar of political expediency our freedom as citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven and our adoption as children of that great King. Why is it that so many of us want government to take care of the needy instead of ourselves? Since when has Caesar ever been more capable than God’s own children? Are we afraid to get our own hands dirty, as it were? Yet under the threat of having to provide abortifacients and contraceptives, even that avenue of serving the least and lowliest will be cut off from Catholic medical institutions in these United States. The same is true in your own Canada, Father. A government that mandates that abortion of the unborn and euthaniasia of the aged and infirm are health care is a government which cannot be entrusted with health care under any circumstances. A people too busy to help the least and lowliest – so busy that they have to shove the responsibility onto nanny government – is a people that deserves neither health care nor good government. Since when are politicians to be trusted?

    Lastly, the example of John chapter 6 rings loudly and clearly. Jesus fed the 5000 with the loaves and fishes, and then with His disciples went to Capernaum on the other side of the lake. The “peepul” awoke the next day and finding him missing, went themselves to the other side of the lake. They asked Jesus why he left. Jesus responded that they sought him not because of the signs and miracles, or because of the preaching, but because their bellies were filled. Jesus told them not to seek the bread that perishes, but the Bread of Eternal Life. Many left Him that day.

    The Gospel isn’t one of social justice and the common good (yes, those are important, but the goal is Heaven). Rather, the Gospel is one of conversion and repentance. Do we want health, safety, and prosperity? Then we need to stop coddling demonic women like Nancy Pelosi and Kathleen Sebelius (and yes, they are demonic – but their fruits ye shall know them). We need to start repenting and right now. 2nd Chronicles 7:14 speaks to us:

    “…if my people who are called by my name humble themselves, and pray and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.”

    All the machinations of government sponsored health care plans cannot save us when we murder over 1 million unborn babies every single year. As a priest of the living God, you, dear Father, have the awesome and frightening responsibility to preach this.

  • “I am only asking whether it’s actually inappropriate for a Catholic university to provide an opportunity for students/graduates to hear from a voice advocating a different position than is taught by the Church. ” HELL, YES.

  • Some of us opine: it isn’t charity if you do it with someone else’s money.

    Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, Mme. Sibelius, et al are among a long (not unbroken) line of social justice Christians beginning in the days when Jesus was with us.

    I think (I could be wring!) I discovered the first social justice fanatic in St. John’s Gospel. See John 12: 1 – 8.

    Like their forebear, these people do not care about the poor and sick. They do it because they crave power and they are pure evil.

  • Paul: On your points regarding the essential task of defending the Church’s teaching on life, we are in 100% lockstep and agreement. I joined with others from my and surrounding parishes who last week boarded buses and traveled for 6 hours on the highway so we could participate in our annual National March for Life in Ottawa. I regularly preach on the subject of promoting the culture of life over the current aegis of the culture of death. I write letters to editor, politicians, and hospital administrators and health care professional to make the case for life. I write about the issue regularly on my own blog. Catholics, irrespective of their convictions imperil their souls if they ignore the Church’s teaching on life. This is BLUE LETTER LAW and we have no right to violate the right to life and still.

    If having a member of the Obama administration is a clear and present threat to the belief of the graduates, then she should not be allowed to speak. I would hope, that as Peggy Noonan (another excellent choice that Georgetown could have made) did in a similar situation of controversy when Obama was previously honored by Notre Dame and graciously decline the invitation so as to quell any troubles for those who invited her in the first place. But that too is perhaps too Canadian an attitude to become caché in your country. Up here we have no need to cast opponents in such deadly terms. We don’t see each other as a threat. Given your nation’s belief that God intended you to have free access to guns, you’ve formed a societal reality where one would certainly tend to nurture a more reticent view of an opponent I suspect this comes from our different revolution/evolution paths to statehood: your being born of blood… ours being born by compromise and accommodation.

    Fr. Tim

  • Thank you Fr. Tim. We mostly agree. With respect to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution (i.e., “Given your nation’s belief that God intended you to have free access to guns…”), Luke 22:36-38 does say:

    36* He [ Jesus ] said to them [the disciples ], “But now, let him who has a purse take it, and likewise a bag. And let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one. 37* For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me, ‘And he was reckoned with transgressors’; for what is written about me has its fulfilment.” 38 And they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.” And he said to them, “It is enough.”

    I fully agree, however, that those who live by the sword (or the gun) will perish by the sword (or the gun). Nevertheless, in these terrible times as the US Government emulates the freedom-restricting policies of the German government of the 1930s (just look at what Sebelius is doing in requiring Catholic institutions to pay for abortifacients and contraceptives – soon we’ll be force to officiate homosexual weddings!), Jesus’ admonition to buy a sword applies as well to buying a gun. Indeed, one of the first things that dictators like Hitler and Stalin outlaw are individual possession of firearms. Thus, the lesson of 1st Maccabees chapter 2, or better yet, 2nd Maccabees chapters 6 and 7, cannot be forgotten. That said, I do NOT advocate the initiation of force. But just as Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner, so also is freedom (or liberty) a well armed sheep contesting the vote.

    I shall pray for your ministry, Father, and that God may send us more holy priests who do what you do.

  • Paul: Thank you for your gracious words. The conversation with you enjoys the benefit of having been educational and pleasurable. I look forward to talking with you again.

    Fr. Tim

  • – these people do not care about the poor and sick. They do it because they crave power and they are pure evil. –

    & accolades of the graduates and parents who will be cemented in confusion of power and glamor where the ‘good’ jobs are.
    & money from donors who need their nods
    & protection from the edge of the cliff where supporters are partying
    & exemptions galore from the jokes and those they incite …
    What’s worse is that these self-righteous exemplaries don’t even understand what Judas the Iscariot did – the value of the money in the bag which he held.
    12:5 “why was this oil not sold for three hundred days’ wages and given to the poor?”
    12:6 “He said this not because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.”

    This not so sober administration has No Budget yet; only demoralizing distractions, promises to world leaders, drones, and fund-raisers.

  • PM I don’t think they can be pure evil since any evil is evil because it is lacking good and so if they were pure evil we would not have to worry about them. They are simply twisted and tempted by the devil.

  • My family has several graduates of Georgetown University. Thank heavens they have gone to their eternal reward and not see how far the school has fallen.

    I am ashamed that Georgetown University chooses unwisely in its choice of speakers, programs that attack the beliefs of our Roman Catholic faith.

    Where are the Jesuits? What are they doing? Who is running the school? Has everyone taken leave of their senses?

    There are fine Catholic men and ladies who are of substance and thought, who keep the Church teachings that are qualified to speak to a graduating class. Choose one of them.

    I always admired Georgetown University. I was heartbroken to be rejected for under graduate work and for the law school. I always respected the school as the best of Roman Catholic education. I went to another Catholic institution for undergraduate work and a secular law school. My rejection by Georgetown may have been a blessing.

  • “I am only asking whether it’s actually inappropriate for a Catholic university to provide an opportunity for students/graduates to hear from a voice advocating a different position than is taught by the Church. ” HELL, YES.
    To rephrase my response. Since the Bishops in America have instructed Catholics (all) to refuse platforms to evildoers, Georgetown is in direct violation of the bishops’ authority, unless you Father Tim, judge Sebelius’ advocation of abortion, violation of conscience and enslavement of America’s soul as a good. The Honorable Mary Ann Glendon, law professor at Harvard, former U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, and pro-life advocate did indeed turn down an honorary degree from Georgetown, but I had not heard of Peggy Noonan. I had heard that Peggy Noonan had slipped below the waves of the pro-life movement and i was grieved as she was a product of Ronald Reagan’s generation.
    Again, the graduating students at the Political Policy Center of Georgetown are not equiped, nor ar they commissioned by their Sacrament of Confirmation to go forth to do exorcisms, as only the bishops can commission exorcists, in the first place, and Georgetown has already dumped the Bishops and their decree to avoid abortion advocates and those who would deny us our God-given freedom of conscience. Sebelius, Obama, Georgetown and the like need exorcism…and all your kind words in their defense cannot save them. Better to pray unceasingly Father Tim, as you have promised at ordination, and always the ROSARY.

  • Let’s see. Judas Iscariot: “Would have been better had he not been born” Jesus “Throwing money changers out of the temple”, Mary Magdelene, ” Go and sin no more” Sebilius has been been asked “not to present” for Holy Communion. I was taught, The Holy Father is infallible in matter of “faith and morals”. KKK killing innocent blacks, SS killing millions of innocent Jews and anyone who got in their way. U.S. Supreme Court Jan 22, 1973 abortion on demand has killed 4,000 unborn a day all day long every day since. We have had no guidance, no leadership, no direction. Just a lot of warm fuzzy gobbledegook. Infantacide and euthansia, and suicide rampant. I go to Mass for the Sacraments. I will never leave this Church but I do feel the Church left me. If I would have raised kids the way the Church has so called passed on the faith, I doubt that there would be one of them left in it. I feel like I am in a really bad dream that I can’t wake up from. We have been infiltrated and now what’s right is wrong and what’s wrong is right.

  • Mary & Jeanne: My apologies if my comments have led you to despair but I can assure you it is without reason.

    1) I freely admit that I have a 2nd hand understanding of the American political system. As a Canadian I see events from a different perspective – that as a from a neighbor, not from within the family as it were. There are details of your health care and government systems seem arcane (or at least not very comprehensible) from one who has lived his entire life benefiting from womb to tomb medical coverage without cost thanks to what you might describe as ‘socialized medicine’. For us, if a hospital owner/board doesn’t want to provide a particular procedure, it doesn’t have to as their will always be a public hospital or clinic where a patient could access the desired service. Catholic hospitals do not need to pay or provide abortions or procedures that contravene their beliefs.

    2) I as a solid a pro-life priest as you can know. I’m one of the first members of Priests for Life Canada. I participate in every pro-life initiative I can from Life Chains to letter campaigns. I preach on our Catholic obligation to promote the Culture of Life every chance I get. I post and write about the subject on my own blog and in national newspapers.

    3) I have been a regularly pray-er of the rosary and other forms of prayer all my life. I was ordained on 13 May 1989. I revel in having Mary as my spiritual mother as I was taught to do at my mother’s knee as a child.

    PLEASE do not despair for the state of the Church or the priesthood because of what I write here. I promote no agenda other than the Catholic proposition of faith as an answer to the world’s issues and am not fighting for the forces that oppose her. I framed this entire discussion in the form of an inquiry, a question. I would feel terrible if what I have asked or raised leads you in any way to lessen your faith in the Church or her priests.

    Know this: I am not unusual in any way among the majority of priests. Most of us do our best to faithfully fulfill all of our obligations as both Christians and priests. There are a few among us who have scattered the flock with their predations. There are others who lack the courage to embrace what RJN called the ‘wonderful challenge of orthodoxy’. But almost all of us are trying to the best of our abilities. We are wounded all the further when we realize that our human failings to meet the standard set by the eternal priest has wounded the faith in others.

    PLEASE pray for us. Don’t use the internet to calumniate or wound us. Far more of us than you may believe deserve the benefit of your doubt. Pray for holy priests. We need the support and grace prayer brings to us when we face well intentioned dragons who unnecessarily slag us when we poke out heads out in the public square.

    It may be quintessentially Canadian, but I believe that we will win more souls for God with encouragement, not condemnation. The Kingdom of God will be all the more present when we strive to win the hearts of others, not close their mind to what we have to offer by packaging it with insult and accusations. I sincerely believe that you may be doing more harm than good for the communion of believers if you are unwilling to appreciate the good in others simply because they don’t match the purity of your convictions.

    Fr. Tim

  • Sorry for the typo’s. I don’t have the needed time to do your thoughts justice. I pray it’s clear enough for you to appreciate the points I am respectfully offering.

    Fr. Tim

  • While I may not agree with Fr. Tim regarding the virtues of socialized medicine, I am united with him when he writes, “Pray for holy priests. We need the support and grace prayer brings to us when we face well intentioned dragons who unnecessarily slag us when we poke out heads out in the public square.” Regardless of our differences with respect to Caesar providing social services, we all face the roaring lion of rampant secularism, atheistic humanism, sexual immorality and the infanticide of the unborn gone wild. We can differ on what’s the best means to provide social justice and serve the common good; but we cannot differ when it comes to the Gospel of conversion and repentance, righteousness and holiness.

    OK, now that that rare moment of mental lucidity and sanity has passed, I shall return to being the incorrigible reactionary conservative to the right of Attila the Hun. 😉

  • The US health care system has its problems. But so does the Canadian health care system:

    No system, private or govt. will completely solve the problems of health care. Having worked in the largest US public health system (the US military) and currently having 85% of my patients in govt. insurance (Medicaid) I prefer a private system.

  • Father – I understand that you’re just asking a question, not defending the choice of commencement speaker or the positions that she’s taken. And I agree with you that overheated rhetoric doesn’t help anyone.

    I think you need to make a stronger distinction between having someone participate in a debate and having someone speak at a graduation. The former involves intellectual engagement. The latter implies an endorsement. No institution would have a Bernie Madoff or a Joe Shmoe speak at a graduation. To choose a person as a speaker implies that he has something of value to say, that he’s a person to be looked up to. The person in this case has been forbidden from receiving Communion due to her public defiance of Church teaching; the main thing she’s known for is her public defiance of Church teaching.

    The first thing every commencement speaker says is “it’s an honor to be here” – and it is. The speaker is chosen to receive the honor of addressing the graduates. The speaker gives the final words that a student hears as a student. The role is that of a keystone. There’s simply no way that a person who would be asked to give a commencement address would look upon it as anything other than a sign of respect.

  • Father Tim Moyle: If you are who you say you are, please repeat in writing this prayer: “Jesus Christ, true God and true man, Lord of all.”

  • Paul W. Primavera: ““Pray for holy priests. We need the support and grace prayer brings to us when we face well intentioned dragons who unnecessarily slag us when we poke out heads out in the public square.” “well intentioned dragons who unnecessarily slag(y) us when we poke out heads out in the public square.” are us, the defenders of the Faith, apologists and the bloggers on this blog.

  • Mary De Voe,

    I have no evidence that Fr. Tim Moyle is anything other than what he says he is:

  • PS, I agree that you are a most eloquent defender of the Faith once delivered unto the Saints, Mary.

  • Mary: 1) Just click on my name. I’ve linked to my own blog (which contains a short biography ) when I registered on this site. If the link doesn’t work, the URL is You can also read articles published by the National Post in the online edition’s religion blog, The Holy Post. You can find out all you want about me via those sites.

    2) The version of the Jesus prayer that I usually find being chanted in my head and heart is: Lord, Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner. I believe that this daily focus of occupying my mind with this prayer suffices to achieve what you suggest with yours.

    3) Why are you so angry? Even as a child I knew that a faith that makes you feel sad or mad… definitely NOT glad… was bad. Jesus wants that his joy should fill you. What did you do with yours? I have offered no insult or injury yet you feel the need to attack, chastise and belittle me? Why are you so mad and sad? That’s not how a disciple of Jesus is to live and act.

    Fr. Tim

  • Dear Father, The thing is I do not despair of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church for I know that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against Her”. I too am an original member of the Wi Right to Life before there was a National. For fourty years I have taken six kids with me to meetings and rallies all over this country. I have taught religious education for eighteen years and been horrified at the “lessons” we were presented with to “educate our children in the faith”. They don’t know the truths of the faith. They don’t know their commandmants, and they are confirmed without the slightest knowledge of what this committment means. I have watched as countless numbers of them have never stepped foot in a Catholic Church again. I took it upon myself with the Catechism to do the best I could with every class I was given responsibilty for. When speaking about the “sins of the flesh” they were taught what the church teaches. I always told them, “This is what the Church teaches. You can never say when you are standing before the Lord on judgement day that you never heard or knew any of this.” You will see my face and remember my words”. My teachers in Catholic as well as public school were tough. Did I like hearing the truth? heck no! But I wouldn’t trade my soul for eternal damnation. My students also learned that “the sins of the flesh” were not the most damning of sins, but those of greed. When we will pass laws and rules and regulations putting money before all forms of human life destined for the Kingdom we have to be ready to die for our faith. Also what about the latest DePaul speaking scandal? Don’t the monies that are collected here in the states at various times of the year go for our colleges and universities. I would like to know that.

  • Mary: Have you ever read the book “Well Intentioned Dragons”? It’s a standard among evangelical pastors and has great resonance for Catholic clergy as well. It was not an insult. It was a reference that I hoped might act as a nexus with others who are familiar with the book… kind of a short-hand metric to place my comment in its proper perspective. Clearly you have never read the book or you would not have taken such offense. My apologies if you thought I was insulting you. If there’s one thing that you should know about me is that if I intend to insult you – you will know it. I think of myself as being a patient person who strives to always find the best way to interpret what is hurled at me but I am after all born of Ottawa Valley Irish and Northern Ontario French stock – two of the most tenacious peoples in the land. A enclave of English refusing to learn to speak the majority French of the rest of Quebec and a group of francophones who refuse to give up their language in the midst of English Ontario. I’ve learned well the lessons of my ancestors and can acquaint myself well everywhere from the bar room to the board room and from pulpits large or small. I can dish it out as well as I can take it, although I always leave it to others to set the tone of the conversation.

    Fr. Tim

  • Father Thomas Mannion, a dear friend of mine from County Cork Ireland, used to tell the kids this story. “How many airliners take off througout the world every day? Hundreds! The only time they are reported on is when one crashes. So it is with the priesthood. There are thousands of good and holy priests but you don’t hear about them only the ones who bring shame and scandal to our dear Church”. We know that, and pray daily for our priests and for vocations. I also have had the priviledge of serving under Raymond Burke who has been harrassed as no other for his strong and firm stand. Will not Our Father be firm with us? even though He is all merciful and all loving? That’s all I am getting at. If we are lukewarm He would just as soon vomit us our of His mouth. Peace

  • Paul W. Primavera: Thank you for your kind words. One Hail Mary, said in Latin as I have been and I am trying to learn Greek. Thanks again.

  • To the teflon don: Tim Moyle: Why do you profess to be a Catholic Priest and agitate for Georgetown to disobey their bishops directives to avoid giving a platform to scandalous abortion advocates? Why did you not say the small exorcism prayer you were asked to say in humility? Sugar does not melt in your mouth as you go about sowing seeds of doubt, despair, disobedience and outright heresy against the Catholic Church. If you love Sebelius so much you ought to quietly pray for her soul and not campaign for her canonization as the heroine of Georgetown and martyr of political correctness, as you have for you own soul with academic credentials. Do not tell me that you are wonderful Catholic priest and then applaud Sebelius and Georgetown for their heretical dissent from Church teaching. It does not wash.
    “I am only asking whether it’s actually inappropriate for a Catholic university to provide an opportunity for students/graduates to hear from a voice advocating a different position than is taught by the Church. ” HELL, YES. The serpentine tongue asked Eve “I am only asking whether its actually inappropriate for you to disobey the teaching Magisterium of the Catholic Church.”
    “Suffer the little children to come to ME” Sebelius will not follow Jesus Christ and Tim Moyle follows Sebelius.

  • Alright, this back and forth between Mary De Voe and Father Tim Moyle is getting tiresome and way too personal. I am shutting comments down on this thread, and reminding all commenters to stick to commenting on the posts here at TAC.

  • Pingback: Ambrosian Rite Bishop Fellay SSPX Society of Saint Pius X | The Pulpit
  • Pingback: Georgetown: the Anti-Catholic Catholic University | The American Catholic

Notre Dame Faculty Attacks Bishop Jenky

Wednesday, April 25, AD 2012


In a prior post, which may be read here, I detailed a speech by Bishop Daniel Jenky of the Peoria Diocese, my Bishop,  in which he blasted the attack of the Obama administration on religious liberty.  Bishop Jenky is a graduate of Notre Dame and was ordained as a priest of the Congregation of Holy Cross, the Catholic religious order which runs Notre Dame.  Bishop Jenky is quite fond of Notre Dame and often speaks of his days there.  He serves on the Board of Fellows of Notre Dame.  Professor Charles E. Rice, Law School Professor Emeritus at Notre Dame, details what happened at Notre Dame after Bishop Jenky’s speech:

On April 14, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, C.S.C., of Peoria, Illinois, delivered a courageous homily at Mass during “A Call to Catholic Men of Faith.”  Bishop Jenky said, “This fall, every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences, or by the following fall our Catholic schools, our Catholic hospitals, our Catholic Newman Centers, all our public ministries—only excepting our church buildings—could easily be shut down.  Because no Catholic institution, under any circumstance, can ever cooperate with the intrinsic evil of killing innocent human life in the womb.”

Forty-nine members of the Notre Dame faculty denounced Bishop Jenky in a Letter to the  University President, Rev. John I. Jenkins, C.S.C., and the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Richard C. Notebaert.  The Letter called on them to “definitively distance Notre Dame from Bishop Jenky’s incendiary statement.”  The signers, said the Letter, “feel” that Bishop Jenky should resign from the University’s Board of Fellows.

The faculty Letter claims that Bishop Jenky “described President Obama as ‘seem[ing] intent on following a similar path’ to Hitler and Stalin.”  They accuse Bishop Jenky of “ ignorance of history, insensitivity to victims of genocide, and absence of judgment.”  The astonishingly simplistic and defamatory character of those accusations can be appreciated only by looking at what Bishop Jenky actually said:

Continue reading...

41 Responses to Notre Dame Faculty Attacks Bishop Jenky

  • If I were Jenky, I would distance myself from Notre Dame…weren’t they the “Catholic” university that invited Obama to speak? Their Catholicity is questionable in my mind.

  • As in my mind Sister Colleen. In 2009 Notre Dame awarded an honorary degree to Obama and had him speak at commencement, in direct defiance of the Bishops:

  • Notre Dame faculty and the American people condemn Bishop Jenky because of his hate speech. Name calling is not a positive or helpful method of communication. Think of all the terrible things the Bishop,the Pope and other Catholics have and can be called and you will realize the error of his ways.

  • “Notre Dame faculty and the American people condemn Bishop Jenky because of his hate speech”

    Don, nice of you to speak for all of the Notre Dame faculty and all of the American people. Hate speech is not defined as speech that Don Morgn opposes. The only thing that Bishop Jenky was guilty of was “speaking truth to power” in the trite pc phrase.

  • It is NOT hate speech to condemn abortion, contraception, fornication, adultery, and homosexual activity. This is essentially what St. Paul did in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10. For his efforts the Romans beheaded him. Who really was hateful?

  • So, Don-who-needs-to-buy-a-vowel, by that same logic, you’d say Jesus was crucified for His “hate speech.”

    ‘Nuff said, I think.

  • I hope the good Bishop tells these folks to pound sand.

  • Jesus did engage in hate speech – against idolatry, depravity, perversion and every sort of sinful wickedness. He was quite pointed with all the “right thinking people” of his day – Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes, etc. – who thought just like today’s well educated liberals that they “knew” what was good for everybody. Indeed, those who love sin cannot stand the kind of talk that Jesus gave.

  • Notre Dame, along with Georgetown and a few other “Catholic” schools, have long since strayed by taking a more secular path, promoting “diversity” and supporting social issues that are anathema to the Church. Jenky would do well to quit ND altogether. I hope the rest of the bishops rally around him.

    In the words of Chesterton:

    “From all that terror teaches, from lies of tongue and pen,
    From all the easy speeches that comfort cruel men,
    From sale and profanation of honor and the sword
    From sleep and from damnation, deliver us, good Lord.”

  • Of course Obama is nothing like Hitler or Stalin.

    He’s more like Otto von Bismarck.

  • I wasn’t aware of Bismarck’s Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church. Why is none of this taught in the history classes of public schools?

    From wikipedia:

    Bismarck launched an anti-Catholic Kulturkampf (“culture struggle”) in Prussia in 1871. In its course all the Prussian bishops and many priests were imprisoned or exiled.[26] Prussia’s population greatly expanded in the 1860s and now was one-third Catholic. Bismarck believed that the Catholic Church held too much political power; he was further concerned about the emergence of the Catholic Centre Party (organised in 1870). With support from the anticlerical National Liberal Party, which had become Bismarck’s chief ally in the Reichstag, he abolished the Catholic Department of the Prussian Ministry of Culture. That left the Catholics without a voice in high circles. In 1872, the Jesuits were expelled from Germany. More severe anti-Roman Catholic laws of 1873 allowed the Prussian government to supervise the education of the Roman Catholic clergy, and curtailed the disciplinary powers of the Church. In 1875, civil ceremonies were required for weddings, which could hitherto be performed in churches. The Catholics reacted by organizing themselves; they strengthened the Centre Party. Bismarck, a devout pietistic Protestant, was alarmed that secularists and socialists were using the Kulturkampf to attack all religion. He abandoned the Kulturkampf in 1878 to preserve his remaining political capital; indeed, he needed the Centre Party votes in his new battle against socialism. Pius IX died that same year, replaced by a more pragmatic Pope Leo XIII who negotiated away most of the anti-Catholic laws.[27][page needed][28][page needed]

  • I remember Bishop Jenky, before he became bishop, while still rector of Sacred Heart ( I think he was anyway). He was full of joy and radiated Christ like no other. My kids loved him ( which was no easy feat as they were naturally resistant to clergy as teenagers). I also observed his homilies were Christ oriented, not the usual pc stuff given by some of the other csc priest. Praise God for him and others who are willing to shine the light of truth!

  • We have seen it over and over again: Gallicanism, conciliarism, Josephism, laicism, Kulturkampf, Cristeros War, communism, sexual revolution.

    I’d like to say the Church bounces back stronger every time. In reality, each one of these episodes takes a piece out of her. That is why Christ must come again.

  • The only question I have is, “What took them so long?”

    Apparently, the progressive propaganda glossary has evolved – There’s that word, again!

    In 2012, the drones term preaching the Gospel: “incendiary.” Formerly, Clinton’s press secretary, Joe Lockhart, used the phrase “ancient religious hatred.”

    One lesson learned. I knew the clueless college profs teach their minions what to think, not how to think. Now, I see that credentialed cretins themselves don’t know how to think, either.

  • Ignatius of Antioch, whose life covered the second half of the first century, wrote “”Follow the Bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the Bishop. Only that Eucharist may be regarded as legitimate which is celebrated with the bishop or his delegate presiding. Where the Bishop is, there let the community be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” Epis Smyrn 8,1-2″ and the same teaching can be gathered from all the old holy fathers and catholic doctors, from the apostles’ time down to our own day.

  • Pingback: notre dame, bishop jenky, quebec, kosovo, science, yolo# |
  • Those who get worked up about comparing Obama to Hitler and call his talk hate speech ought to think before they write. The analogy does not compare Mr Obama’s policies to the genocide of Hitler it compare their policies towards religion. That is a valid comparison. If the good bishop would have compared validly Obama’s religious policy to that of the leaders of the French Revolution that would have worked also but it is somehow off limits to compare policies to those of Hitler.

  • I think what made them angrier than anything else was the fact that Bishop Jenky unashamedly proclaimed the Gospel of Jesus Christ by stating that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is therefore the Son of God He claimed to be. Just try saying that to a few liberals if you want to see their heads start spinning and green vomit start to come out of their mouths.

  • Don

    A modest proposal.

    The Congegation of the Holy Cross could suggest to Rome that that their borther Daniel Jenky Be amde a titular Archbishop and appointed President the University of Notre Dame. It may take him a few years but no one would doubt the School is Our Ladies.

  • I like it Hank, except that he would no longer be my Bishop and I would hate to see him go!

  • Readers of this thread may find interest in the short book: How Do You Kill 11 Million People? by Andy Andrews. It’s a recent NYT best seller available on Amazon, et al. In the book Andrew succinctly explains tactics employed by the Nazis to lull an ostensibly God-fearing and altruistic German populace into a mass state of apathy and denial as freedoms were stripped-away, the Holocaust was engineered and a world war ensued. His premise is that without vigilant and informed citizens demanding integrity and accountability from their leaders, a similar loss of freedom may one day happen here or anywhere. Perhaps that day is already here, and instances such as this-with the reactions imbued-are proof.

  • Fire the Forty-Nine!

  • What did Bishop Jenky say?

    “Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.
    In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama—with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path”.

    Hitler and Stalin do NOT belong in the same speech or in any comparison with President Obama! If he or anyone else do not understand why, they should return to school and study the political and military history of the 20th century. Sorry if you do not understand that.

  • Don Maswell,

    You don’t get it. Obama is just like Hitler – supporting baby murdering to the tune of 1 million per year.

    Hilter, Stalin, Robespierre, Obama – they are all antichrists.

  • Dial it back Paul. Don, here is the entire quote:

    “Remember that in past history other governments have tried to force Christians to huddle and hide only within the confines of their churches like the first disciples locked up in the Upper Room.

    In the late 19th century, Bismark waged his “Kultur Kamp,” a Culture War, against the Roman Catholic Church, closing down every Catholic school and hospital, convent and monastery in Imperial Germany.

    Clemenceau, nicknamed “the priest eater,” tried the same thing in France in the first decade of the 20th Century.

    Hitler and Stalin, at their better moments, would just barely tolerate some churches remaining open, but would not tolerate any competition with the state in education, social services, and health care.

    In clear violation of our First Amendment rights, Barack Obama – with his radical, pro abortion and extreme secularist agenda, now seems intent on following a similar path.”

    The statement of the Bishop is completely accurate. Under the vision of the Obama administration the Catholic Church, and all churches which oppose him, are to be restricted to conducting services and submitting themselves to government control in all other matters. The point that the Bishop was making is that this type of “religious freedom” was granted to some churches by both Hitler and Stalin, which is also completely accurate. Of course critics of this part of the Bishop’s speech conveniently overlook the references to Bismark and Clemenceau since those references make clear the point the Bishop was making and spoil the fake outrage of critics to the mention of Hitler and Stalin.

  • Vincednt: Obama is not done with us yet. Hitler and Stalin started by taking power over the church and ended by killing millions of people.
    Don: Good thinking.

  • Vincent: I am sorry I fumbled your name

  • I used to be proud of the many ND graduates from our family, but I am so disillusioned by recent ND anti-Catholic positions, that we will no longer fund ND. Also, are actively encouraging other alumni and family members to do the same.

    Pray for those in leadership positions at ND. Ask our Lady’s intersession with Jesus Christ, her son, to redeem their minds, their hearts and their souls.

    God forgive them for they know not what they do!

    Aloha ke Akua

  • “Under the vision of the Obama administration the Catholic Church, and all churches which oppose him, are to be restricted to conducting services and submitting themselves to government control in all other matters”.

    Trash talk like the big Nazi lie! PROVE IT.

    If you really believe this, I pity you and will pray that you come to your senses.

  • Don, argument is so much more convincing when one uses facts rather than bluster. Go to the link below where the Bishops cite chapter and verse:

    Go to the link below to read an address by Pope Benedict where he cites his concerns about religious freedom in the US:

    Go here for an explanation of the distinction between freedom of religion and freedom of worship:

  • Don Maswell, you are wrong, The Obama Administration’s understanding of the First Amendment’s free exercise clause is that it affords no protection against the application of general laws outside of the performance of religious rituals. This means, of course, that all churches are subject to government control in all other matters. Sadly, this is not an idiosyncratic view of the free exercise clause, whose reach has long confused liberal jurists mindful of the establishment clause. The words of the free exercise clause plainly suggest a fairly broad application, but the Left’s expansive misunderstanding of the establishment clause has caused it to have a neutered understanding of the free exercise clause. This is not trash talk. This is a fact.

  • The word catholic (little c) means universal, as in diverse, or encompassing many points of view. Having one Church means we are united in the core, and welcome all in the non-essentials, which are many. Catholics are Republican and Democrat, members of Pax Christi and of the armed forces, high tax people, free marketers, etc.

    It is puzzling that the very same academics that claim diversity and a variety of philosophies reject a traditional Catholic point of view. Or are they modernists that believe that their role is “creative destruction of the status quo” to implement a totalitarian vision based on the bold quest for power alone? Who is the uber-mench (Nietzche’s over-man)? Is the only crime left to oppose him?

  • Where’s Jenkins?

  • Don’t abandon Notre Dame. Fight for her.

  • “Or are they modernists that believe that their role is “creative destruction of the status quo” to implement a totalitarian vision based on the bold quest for power alone? Who is the uber-mench (Nietzche’s over-man)? Is the only crime left to oppose him?”

    Here is their god and the efforts this god will make to retain power:

  • More idiocy:

    The whole progression if Obamacare, from one-party rule, in-paarty bullying and bribery and obvious vioation of long-sacred rights, is a repeat of the Reichstag 1930-31. the only thing missing is Ludendorff (although Jimmy Carter would make a good stand-in if we could find a funny hat.)

  • Pingback: Father Miscamble Defends Bishop Jenky | The American Catholic
  • Marie, we WILL fight for ND with our prayers, but we will NOT contribute our $$$ to an anti-Catholic faculty. If ND allows their faculty to oppose the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Church, then we feel obligated to withdraw our support of ND’s anti-Catholic faculty by ending our alumni funding. Sorry, but our conscience demands that we fight this anti-Catholic movement with everything we have, i.e. prayers AND $$$.


  • The Pastor at my church St Michael the Archangel (Society of St Pius X) Farmingville NY read Bishop Jenky words today. Hopefully the Catholics are starting to wake up with whats happening in our country and do something. Vote Vote Vote!

  • Bravo Don. My priest at Saint Pats in Dwight, Illinois defended the Bishop today. I have almost doubled my annual diocesan contribution as a sign of support for the Bishop. We have a long way to go, but some of the steel of the old Church Militant is beginning to come back. Nothing like a whiff of persecution to remind Catholics what a treasure we have in Holy Mother Church.

  • Take a look at the actual titles of those ND professors who chose to sign the letter. There are only three that have anything to do with Theology or Philosophy. The rest are simply malcontents who prefer to push their secular agenda. There are absolutely phenomenal, pious, and devout students and faculty at ND but they often are not heard from.

    By contrast, look at the heavy hitters from ND that signed this strong condemnation of Obama’s assault on religious liberty: (names follow the article)
    FEBRUARY 21, 2012

    The Obama administration has offered what it has styled as an “accommodation” for religious institutions in the dispute over the HHS mandate for coverage (without cost sharing) of abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, and contraception. The administration will now require that all insurance plans cover (“cost free”) these same products and services. Once a religiously-affiliated (or believing individual) employer purchases insurance (as it must, by law), the insurance company will then contact the insured employees to advise them that the terms of the policy include coverage for these objectionable things.
    This so-called “accommodation” changes nothing of moral substance and fails to remove the assault on religious liberty and the rights of conscience which gave rise to the controversy. It is certainly no compromise. The reason for the original bipartisan uproar was the administration’s insistence that religious employers, be they institutions or individuals, provide insurance that covered services they regard as gravely immoral and unjust. Under the new rule, the government still coerces religious institutions and individuals to purchase insurance policies that include the very same services.
    It is no answer to respond that the religious employers are not “paying” for this aspect of the insurance coverage. For one thing, it is unrealistic to suggest that insurance companies will not pass the costs of these additional services on to the purchasers. More importantly, abortion-drugs, sterilizations, and contraceptives are a necessary feature of the policy purchased by the religious institution or believing individual. They will only be made available to those who are insured under such policy, by virtue of the terms of the policy.
    It is morally obtuse for the administration to suggest (as it does) that this is a meaningful accommodation of religious liberty because the insurance company will be the one to inform the employee that she is entitled to the embryo-destroying “five day after pill” pursuant to the insurance contract purchased by the religious employer. It does not matter who explains the terms of the policy purchased by the religiously affiliated or observant employer. What matters is what services the policy covers.
    The simple fact is that the Obama administration is compelling religious people and institutions who are employers to purchase a health insurance contract that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization. This is a grave violation of religious freedom and cannot stand. It is an insult to the intelligence of Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Jews, Muslims, and other people of faith and conscience to imagine that they will accept an assault on their religious liberty if only it is covered up by a cheap accounting trick.
    Finally, it bears noting that by sustaining the original narrow exemptions for churches, auxiliaries, and religious orders, the administration has effectively admitted that the new policy (like the old one) amounts to a grave infringement on religious liberty. The administration still fails to understand that institutions that employ and serve others of different or no faith are still engaged in a religious mission and, as such, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.

    O. Carter Snead
    Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
    Margaret F. Brinig
    Fritz Duda Family Chair in Law Notre Dame Law School
    Daniel Costello
    Bettex Chair Professor Emeritus
    College of Engineering, University of Notre Dame
    Ann W. Astell
    Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame
    Don P. Kommers
    Robbie Professor of Political Science Emeritus University of Notre Dame
    Robert M. Gimello
    Research Professor of Theology and of East Asian Languages and Cultures University of Notre Dame
    Tom Pratt
    Dept of EE, College of Engineering University of Notre Dame
    David W. Fagerberg
    Associate Professor
    Department of Theology University of Notre Dame
    Peter M. Kogge
    Ted McCourtney Prof. of Computer Science & Engineering Concurrent Professor of Electrical Engineering, Univ. of Notre Dame
    Michael J. Crowe
    Cavanaugh Professor Emeritus Program of Liberal Studies University of Notre Dame
    Msgr Michael Heintz, PhD

    Director, Master of Divinity Program Department of Theology
    University of Notre Dame
    John Uhran
    Emeritus Professor, Computer Science and Engineering University of Notre Dame
    Thomas A. Gresik
    Department of Economics
    University of Notre Dame
    W. David Solomon
    Associate Professor of Philosophy University of Notre Dame
    Dr. Kirk Doran
    Assistant Professor of Economics University of Notre Dame
    Tonia Hap Murphy
    Mendoza Pre-Law Advisor Associate Teaching Professor University of Notre Dame
    Jim A Seida
    Viola D. Hank Associate Professor of Accountancy Mendoza College of Business
    University of Notre Dame
    Jeffrey J. Burks
    Assistant Professor of Accountancy University of Notre Dame
    Adrian J. Reimers
    Adjunct Assistant Professor University of Notre Dame
    Patrick Griffin
    Department Chair and Madden-Hennebry Professor of History, University of Notre Dame
    Richard W. Garnett
    Associate Dean and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
    John Cavadini
    Director, Institute for Church Life and Associate Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame
    Christian Smith

    William R. Kenan Professor of Sociology & Director, Center for the Study of Religion and Society, University of Notre Dame
    Gary Anderson
    Hesburgh Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame
    Harindra Joseph F. Fernando
    Wayne and Diana Murdy Endowed Professor of Engineering and Geosciences, University of Notre Dame
    William N. Evans
    Keough-Hesburgh Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame
    Alfred J. Freddoso
    John and Jean Oesterle Professor of Thomistic Studies Concurrent Professor of Law
    Philosophy Department, University of Notre Dame
    M. Katherine Tillman
    Professor Emerita, Program of Liberal Studies, University of Notre Dame
    Walter Nicgorski
    Professor, Program of Liberal Studies, University of Notre Dame
    Philip Bess
    Director of Graduate Studies and Professor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame
    Paolo Carozza
    Professor of Law and Director, Center for Civil and Human Rights, University of Notre Dame
    John F. Gaski
    Associate Professor of Marketing, University of Notre Dame
    Duncan G. Stroik
    Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame
    Rev. Wilson D. Miscamble, C.S.C.
    Professor of History, University of Notre Dame
    Kenneth Garcia, Ph.D.
    Associate Director, Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts, University of Notre Dame
    Gerard V. Bradley
    Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
    Amy Barrett
    Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
    Sean Kelsey
    Director of Graduate Studies and Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

    Gabriel Said Reynolds
    Tisch Family Associate Professor of Islamic Studies and Theology University of Notre Dame
    William K. Kelley
    Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame
    David O’Connor
    Associate Professor of Philosophy and Concurrent Associate Professor of Classics, University of Notre Dame
    Joseph Kaboski
    David F. and Erin M. Seng Associate Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame
    Vincent Phillip Muñoz
    Tocqueville Associate Professor of Political Science Concurrent Associate Professor of Law
    Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
    John O’Callaghan
    Director, Jacques Maritain Center & Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame
    Daniel Philpott
    Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
    Mary M . Keys
    Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Notre Dame
    Eric Sims
    Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame
    Mike Pries
    Associate Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame
    Edward Maginn
    Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Associate Dean for Academic Programs, The Graduate School University of Notre Dame
    Angela M. Pfister, J.D.
    Associate Director, Notre Dame Center for Ethics and Culture Concurrent Instructor, Mendoza College of Business University of Notre Dame
    Stephen F. Smith Professor of Law University of Notre Dame

    Phillip R. Sloan
    Professor Emeritus, Program of Liberal Studies and Graduate Program in History and Philosophy of Science, University of Notre Dame
    Richard A. Lamanna
    Emeritus Professor of Sociology University of Notre Dame
    Fr. Ronald M. Vierling Rector, Morrissey Manor University of Notre Dame
    Rev. William R. Dailey, CSC Visiting Associate Professor Notre Dame Law School
    Thomas A. Stapleford
    Associate Professor, Program of Liberal Studies University of Notre Dame
    Thomas P. Flint
    Professor of Philosophy University of Notre Dame
    Daniel J. Costello, Jr.
    Bettex Prof. of Elec. Engr., Emeritus University of Notre Dame
    Nicole Stelle Garnett
    Professor of Law
    University of Notre Dame
    James O’Brien
    Associate Teaching Professor University of Notre Dame
    Matthew J. Barrett
    Professor of Law
    Notre Dame Law School
    Marian E. Crowe
    Adjunct Assistant Professor
    Visiting Scholar, Program of Liberal Studies University of Notre Dame
    Trent Dougherty
    Department of Philosophy Baylor University
    Visiting Research Professor

    University of Notre Dame
    Charles E. Rice
    Professor Emeritus
    Notre Dame Law School
    Thomas Gordon Smith
    Professor of Architecture, University of Notre Dame

Remember Rome, Mr. Obama!

Tuesday, April 24, AD 2012



Hattip to Patrick Archbold at Creative Minority Report.   A fiery speech delivered by Archbishop Robert J. Carlson of the Saint Louis Archdiocese at the Missouri State Capitol on March 27, 2012, calling for defiance of the HHS Mandate, and a superb ringing defense of religious liberty:


So Jesus said to them: “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” (Mt 22:21/Mk 12:17/Lk 20:25)

My brothers and sisters, we stand here today because of an alarming and serious matter that strikes at our fundamental right to religious freedom. The federal government – which was formed to be “of the people, by the people, and for the people” – has decided to tell some of those people that we are free to hold our faith, but we will be required to deny it in practice. We are here to let the government know that we will render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, but we will NOT render unto Caesar what belongs to God!

In late January, the Department of Health and Human Services announced that almost all employers — including Catholic employers – would be forced to offer their employees health coverage that includes contraception, sterilization and potentially abortion-inducing drugs. This is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Catholic faith.

 Recognizing this as a grave threat to religious liberty, many people spoke out against the Mandate.

In response to this reaction, President Obama’s Administration announced a so-called “compromise” in early February. Now, instead of the Catholic Church being required to pay for contraception, sterilization and potentially abortion-inducing drugs, the insurance companies will be required to provide those services free of charge.

We need to say loud and clear: Mr. President, there’s no such thing as a free lunch! Contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs aren’t free. Someone has to pay for them. If the insurance company has to provide them, the cost will be passed on to the consumer one way or another –that’s how the economy works!

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Remember Rome, Mr. Obama!

  • “and WE are ready to march”. Ave Maria in English and in Latin

  • Too many Catholics have embraced a false notion of the relationship between religion and politics. Basing themselves on Suarez’s interpretation of St Thomas, they have talked of a “natural order,” governed by Natural Law, consisting of truths accessible to unaided human reason, as something that can be kept separate from the supernatural truths revealed in the Gospel. “Under such circumstances, the supernatural is no longer properly speaking another order, something unprecedented, overwhelming and transfiguring” (Henri de Lubac)

    It was this that led Laberthonnière, a hundred years ago now, to accuse the Neo-Thomists of his day of ““a false theological notion of some state of pure nature and therefore imagined the state could be self-sufficient in the sense that it could be properly independent of any specifically Christian sense of justice.”

    It led his friend and contemporary, Maurice Blondel, to insist that we must never forget “that one cannot think or act anywhere as if we do not all have a supernatural destiny. Because, since it concerns the human being such as he is, in concreto, in his living and total reality, not in a simple state of hypothetical nature, nothing is truly complete (boucle), even in the sheerly natural order”

    Jacques Maritain, too, declared that “the knowledge of human actions and of the good conduct of the human State in particular can exist as an integral science, as a complete body of doctrine, only if related to the ultimate end of the human being. . . the rule of conduct governing individual and social life cannot therefore leave the supernatural order out of account”

    Unless we insist, in Blondel’s words, that we can “find only in the spirit of the gospel the supreme and decisive guarantee of justice and of the moral conditions of peace, stability, and social prosperity,” we shall inevitable acquiesce in practice in the Liberal privatisation of religion.

  • “‘and WE are ready to march’. Ave Maria in English and in Latin”

    Av? Mar?a, gr?ti? pl?na,
    Dominus t?cum.
    Benedicta t? in mulieribus,
    et benedictus fr?ctus ventris tu?, I?sus.
    S?ncta Mar?a, M?ter De?,
    ?r? pr? n?b?s pecc?t?ribus,
    nunc et in h?r? mortis nostrae.

    Hail Mary, full of grace,
    the Lord is with thee;
    blessed art thou amongst women,
    and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
    Holy Mary, Mother of God,
    pray for us sinners,
    now and at the hour of our death.

    And for good measure, the ancient Greek version as well (which reads a little differently) (hope the Greek letters come out OK):

    ??????? ???????, ?????, ???????????? ?????,
    ? ?????? ???? ???. ?????????? ?? ?? ???????,
    ??? ??????????? ? ?????? ??? ??????? ???,
    ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ????.

  • Thank you, Archbishop Carleson! You put into words what I believe. Mr. Obama has thrown down the gauntlet. Let us pick it up and fight!

  • Pingback: gay marriage chuck colson barack obama bible contraception |
  • “Remember Rome, Mr. Obama! Remember Rome!”

    Not to mention Tudor England, France’s Reign of Terror, Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, the Know Nothing Party, and other movements/parties/regimes now residing in the “Where Are They Now” file….

  • True Elaine! It would be a wearying task to attempt to list all of the enemies Holy Mother Church has outlasted. A few more: Cromwell, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, Lenin, Garibaldi, Robespierre, Frederick II (Stupor Mundi), Julian the Apostate, etc. One of the iron laws of history: Don’t bet against the Catholic Church!

  • Archbishop Robert Carlson of St. Louis.
    Men of God, Priests, Bishops, Cardinals, and the Pope are with us in the here and now; teaching and shedding light on the realities of the world. I think we are being blessed with ways to see the Truth and how to follow. I cannot imagine what developments would be without them to lead and inform us, and I include the men of this and other blogs making such as the above accessible and want to say thanks. We have Church fathers to read, but would we?
    The alternative catholics that have a voice in media and officialdom as the only spokesmen is frightening.

  • I already have the speech prepared that I plan to read aloud to the helmeted and shield-wielding law enforcement officers who we will face when they come to arrest the administration of our local Catholic hospital, should it come to that.

    It has to do with “Just Following Orders.” Slaying the dragon may have to happen tooth by tooth.

  • The Church will lose this fight – now or later in public opinion.

    None of us has the right to say, “I will not pay this tax or obey that law”. We cannot pick and choose. You either obey the law or you pay the penalty.

    Let us be clear about this: No one is requiring the Catholic Church or its institutions to pay for abortions or contraceptives. No one is restricting religious freedom. The Church wants special privileges and treatment which is unconstitutional.

    Why do we not see this fight in European countries where there are Catholics and government health insurance coverage for birth control? There are even legal abortions in such Catholic countries as Poland.

  • No, Don Maswell, the Church will win this fight because Jesus will win this fight. Oh, the Church may lose a battle here and there (Roberpierre’s Reign of Terror, Bismarck’s Kulturkampf, etc.) But in the end godless tyrannts always follow Roberpierre to the guillotine or Hitler with a bullet in his head.

    And here is another thing: I shall NOT ever obey your godless laws of sin and depravity. EVER! The only alternative is what Rome offered St. Ignatius of Antioch. I pray for courage to do as he did. But in the end, though he died, Christianity won. Obama will NOT win. Will NOT! His name will go down in history as the evil man that Hitler and Caligula were.

  • And PS, Jesus Christ cares not one fig for public opinion.

  • “You either obey the law or you pay the penalty.”

    Better vastly increase the federal budget for prisons Don, because if our Bishops go to jail quite a few other Catholics will be going to jail with them. The Church has prevailed over much tougher adversaries than Obama and his coterie of Chicago thugs.

  • Don M., I pray your blindness will be cured. Don’t be stubborn as I was in my youth, insisting I knew the truth. Now I deeply regreat the many I hurt and led astray because of my extreme liberal views. Pray with humility “Lord, that I may see!”

  • You are correct, Mr. Maswell, when you say “You either obey the law or you pay the penalty.” Martin Luther King did just that. And look what happened!

    You are also correct when you say “None of us has the right to say, “I will not. . . obey that law”. We cannot pick and choose.” So why are we supposed to disobey the one that says “Thou shalt not kill”?

    “What does it profit a man that he gain the whole world, but lose his soul?” We cannot give to Caesar what belongs to God. If public opinion is against us, it was against us back in the days of the Roman Empire. Yes, we may lose this battle, but we are confident, we are assured, we KNOW that we will win the war!

    I shall not call Obama evil for I cannot see into his heart. It is for God to judge him. But I WILL call his “law” evil, for it is. It is based on the premise that human life, before birth, is worthless. If he were truly worried about the results of the sexual act on women, he would include treatment for the many diseases you can contract from the sexual act: various cancers (not just the one they have a vaccine for), gonorrhea, syphilis, and other STDs.

  • “Better vastly increase the federal budget for prisons Don, because if our Bishops go to jail quite a few other Catholics will be going to jail with them.”

    This may seem like a stupid question to which I should know the answer, but just to make sure we’re clear, if the HHS mandate goes through EXACTLY as written right now and Catholic institutions fail to comply, who, exactly, would be going to jail? The bishops? The institutional administrators (hospital CEOs, Catholic school superintendents/principals, etc.)? Everyone who worked there? And by “going to jail” do they mean directly because of non-compliance or as the result of some kind of protest action like a sit-in or blockade?

  • My guess is none of the above Elaine, unless the Obama administration has a death wish. However, if he manages to be re-elected, Obama might be foolish enough to force a showdown, although I doubt it.

  • Mr. Obama, Jesus Christ has spoken. You are deaf to Him, of course, but you will NEVER, EVER DEFEAT HIM. Christus Vincit, Christus Regnat, Christus unci imperant. Christ is Victory, Christ for ever Reigns, Christ Lives Eternally. Mr. Obama you are fighting God and you HAVE ALREADY LOST THE WAR. And my country, Kenya, joining the Church Triumphant, rejoices at your imminent CRASHING DEFEAT.

Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

Wednesday, April 18, AD 2012


May God have mercy on the souls of those politicians who pretend to be Catholic in church, but in their public lives, rather like Judas Iscariot, betray Jesus Christ by how they vote and how they willingly cooperate with intrinsic evil.

                                                           Bishop Daniel Jenky



My bishop, Daniel Jenky, of the Peoria Diocese, speaks truth about Caesar on April 14 of this year:

There is only one basic reason why Christianity exists and that is the fact that Jesus Christ truly rose from the grave.

The disciples never expected the resurrection. The unanimous testimony of all four Gospels is that the terrible death of Jesus on the cross entirely dashed all their hopes about Jesus and about his message. He was dead, and that was the end of it. They looked for nothing more, and they expected nothing more.

So as much as they had loved him, in their eyes Jesus was a failed messiah. His dying seemed to entirely rob both his teaching and even his miracles of any lasting significance.

And they were clearly terrified that his awful fate, at the hands of the Sanhedrin and the Romans, could easily become their awful fate. So they hid, trembling with terror, behind shuttered windows and locked doors.

When the Risen Christ suddenly appeared in their midst, their reaction was shocked incredulity. They simply could not believe their own eyes.

Reality only very slowly began to penetrate their consciousness when Jesus offers proof of his resurrection. He shows them the wounds on his hands, his feet, and his side. Jesus even allowed them to touch him. He breaks bread with them and eats with them. And only then could they admit to themselves what had seemed absolutely impossible – the one who had truly died had truly risen! The Crucified now stood before them as their Risen, glorious, triumphant Lord.

His rising from the grave was every bit as real as his dying on the cross. The resurrection was the manifest proof of the invincible power of Almighty God. The inescapable fact of the resurrection confirmed every word Jesus had ever spoken and every work Jesus had ever done.

The Gospel was the truth. Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah of Israel. Jesus was the Savior of the world. Jesus was the very Son of God.

There is no other explanation for Christianity. It should have died out and entirely disappeared when Christ died and was buried, except for the fact that Christ was truly risen, and that during the 40 days before his Ascension, he interacted with his Apostles and disciples, and on one occasion even with hundreds of his followers.

Today’s appointed Gospel reading for this Saturday in the Octave of Easter is taken from the 16th Chapter of Mark. It concludes with a command from the lips of Jesus, given to his disciples, given to the whole Church, given to you and me assembled here today: “Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature.”

We heard in today’s Second Reading from the Acts of the Apostles that the same Sanhedrin that had condemned Jesus was amazed at the boldness of Peter and John. Perceiving them to be uneducated, ordinary men, they recognized them as companions of Jesus. They warned them never again to teach, or speak to anyone, in the name of Jesus.

But the elders and the scribes might as well have tried to turn back the tide, or hold back an avalanche. Peter and John had seen the Risen Christ with their own eyes. Peter and John were filled with the Holy Spirit. They asked whether it is right “in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God. It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.”

And Peter and John and all the Apostles, starting first in Jerusalem in Judea and Galilee and then to the very ends of the earth, announced the Resurrection and the Good News to everyone they encountered.

According to the clear testimony of the Scriptures, these Apostles had once been rather ordinary men – like you and me. Their faith hadn’t always been strong. They made mistakes. They committed sins. They were often afraid and confused.

But meeting the Risen Lord had changed everything about these first disciples, and knowing the Risen Lord should also change everything about us.

You know, it has never been easy to be a Christian and it’s not supposed to be easy! The world, the flesh, and the devil will always love their own, and will always hate us. As Jesus once predicted, they hated me, they will certainly hate you.

But our Faith, when it is fully lived, is a fighting faith and a fearless faith. Grounded in the power of the resurrection, there is nothing in this world, and nothing in hell, that can ultimately defeat God’s one, true, holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

For 2,000 years the enemies of Christ have certainly tried their best. But think about it. The Church survived and even flourished during centuries of terrible persecution, during the days of the Roman Empire.

The Church survived barbarian invasions. The Church survived wave after wave of Jihads. The Church survived the age of revolution. The Church survived Nazism and Communism.

And in the power of the resurrection, the Church will survive the hatred of Hollywood, the malice of the media, and the mendacious wickedness of the abortion industry.

The Church will survive the entrenched corruption and sheer incompetence of our Illinois state government, and even the calculated disdain of the President of the United States, his appointed bureaucrats in HHS, and of the current majority of the federal Senate.

Continue reading...

24 Responses to Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

  • Amen!

    ” . . . for the country folk to be up and to arm, . . . ” Henry Wadsworth Longfellow.

    This night in 1775, Paul Revere . . .

  • Incompetence in the exercise of charity or malicious evildoing?
    Peaceably assembly in every public place owned, in joint and common tenancy by every person ever created, those persons who now are alive, our ancestors and those being aborted today, and all future generations, our constitutional posterity, is being redefined by the HHS mandate to usurp all public property to those in government and impose moratoriums on freedom, speech, assembly and our unalienable rights. Our unalienable rights are being proscribed by an incompetent and malicious evildoer. The TRUTH returned to the public square will announce that freedom of religion is man’s response to the gift of Faith from God and if God tells us that charity is man’s vision for a better world, government may not redefine charity as something with a price tag to be extorted from the people. If those people in public service do not like religious freedom, they are very, very, free to leave their office, their citizenship and their country to find what suits them. Remember that when Madalyn Murray O’Hair, the woman atheist who removed prayer from the public place came to the atheistic nation of the USSR, The United Soviet Socialist Republic, the USSR refuse to admit her. So, Obama and his HHS can go wherever anybody will admit them but not in my country. FREEDOM and one rosary in Latin, maybe two.

  • “the USSR refused to admit her.(the atheist)” I see my Russian, Jewish ancestor is at work again. Mary De Voe

  • “…one rosary in Latin, maybe two.”

    One in Latin during my lunch time walk and one tonight after Bible Study.


  • – those people who bravely came here for religious freedom continued coming all through our history…. puritans, French, Irish also came looking for life and religious freedom, Germans who came during the years of Bismarck, the Czech, defectors from communism in Asia and the soviet bloc, Jews from Europe… no wonder we are an Exceptional country, we are populated by people who take their religion seriously

  • Makes you want to move to Peoria just to be under his excellency. Any chance he might get transferred to DC?

  • The interesting thing c matt is that although Bishop Jenky has always been forthright, he has never been a fire brand. That he is speaking out now in this manner indicates just how dangerous our situation is becoming in this country as to religious liberty. This issue is ready to explode and the professional politicians are largely clueless as to what is about to happen. Yamamoto could clue them in:

  • SSPX (whose reconciliation with the Vatican seems likely) has a very different take on the topic of religious liberty:

    Basically, SSPX says no one has the right to choose the wrong and choosing faiths other than the Catholic one is wrong. Maybe I oversimplify. My view (for whatever it’s worth, which may not be much) is that we do have freedom of choice and religious liberty, and then we have to bear the consequences of our choices, whether right or wrong. It’s called responsibility and accountability.

  • in Peoria? maybe Fulton Sheen has inspired him

  • Bishop Jenky, as one might expect, has been a strong promoter of the sainthood cause for Peoria’s favorite son.

  • “Basically, SSPX says no one has the right to choose the wrong and choosing faiths other than the Catholic one is wrong. Maybe I oversimplify.

    Nope. This screed is as much a condemnation of all things non-Catholic, including the Constitution, as the HHS mandate is a declaration of war on all things non-secular.

    Does SSPX believe or desire that such a redefinition should be enforced by law? To say that “Americanist religious liberty” is an error is to condemn a keystone of The Constitution. There’s scant other conclusion to be had, so the question is begged, “If the Constitution itself is wrong, by what then shall it be replaced?”


  • ““If the Constitution itself is wrong, by what then shall it be replaced?”

    Ummmm, It is to be replaced by a Catholic monarchy.

  • “Basically, SSPX says no one has the right to choose the wrong and choosing faiths other than the Catholic one is wrong.”

    They can believe anything they please, thanks to the Constitution they abhor, but their stand simply does not accord with current Church teaching on religious liberty. I might note that this discussion is far afield from the topic of this post and everyone from here on in will stay on topic on this thread.

  • “I might note that this discussion is far afield from the topic of this post and everyone from here on in will stay on topic on this thread.”

    How is that so if we are discussing political leadership? If we are to chose correctly and within the traditions of the Catholic faith, then no, there is no right, in the true sense of the word, to chose any other faith than Christianity in in fullness (i.e. Catholicism). This gets at the heart of what Bishop Jenky and all the bishops should be about, choosing, or am i wrong? Are we such “American” Catholics that we place the Constitution above the Magisterium? The right to religious liberty in the Constitution, which must and should be upheld by all citizens, is a compromise because so many abandoned the True Faith. They basically had to say “We agree to disagree” in order to stop killing one another, but that does not change the fact that Christ is very precise in where his Church is. And if we are to follow him truly, then how do we have a “right” to choose differently. That is still the teaching of the Church and not just the SSPX.

  • Dignitas Humanae from the Magisterium of the Church supports and provides the foundation for Bishop Jenky’s position.

    One can’t claim to be more Catholic than the Pope while dissenting from what the Magisterium and the Pope teach.

    That’s what SSPX does.

  • “How is that so if we are discussing political leadership? If we are to chose correctly and within the traditions of the Catholic faith, then no, there is no right, in the true sense of the word, to chose any other faith than Christianity in in fullness (i.e. Catholicism).”

    Because this is all a distraction courtesy of the idiots of SSPX who would reduce the Church to a cranky cult and make Catholics anathema to their non-Catholic fellow Americans. Believing that Catholicism is the True Faith and also believing that all humans have a right to religious liberty is the current teaching of the Church, all blather to the contrary not-withstanding. Further attempts to hijack this thread into discussions other than the Church’s stand for religious liberty will be deleted by me.

  • Well, this is perhaps my fault for having posted the link to SSPX’s thoughts on the religious liberty matter. The irony truly struck me as weird: claiming to be Catholic but denying the truth thereof. Personally, I think that the attitude of absolutism with respect to the Roman Catholic Church is as dangerous and wrong as the attitude of absolutism with respect to secular atheism that the Government is trying to force down our throats. Many religious denominations – Southern Baptist, Assemblies of God Pentecostal, Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran Missouri Synod, etc. – are uniting with us against Obamania. If we can’t get along with our separated brethren here on Earth, then how shall we in an eternity in Heaven? And yes, I fully expect that my Pentecostal Mom and Dad are going to Heaven (if only because they put up with me for 18 long years of purgation).


    If they don’t make it in, then there is scant chance for me. Indeed, being a member of the Church that has the fulness of grace and truth (as we oft hear proclaimed) isn’t a cause for pride and self-satisfaction. It’s rather a cause for humility – I have received what I don’t deserve (which is grace) and I am not receiving what I truly do deserve (which is mercy). This “ain’t no cause” for insufferable pride.

  • OK, let us stay focused on the religious liberty fight the Church is engaged in today. This is far too important to get bogged down in side issues.

  • BRAVO Bishop Jenky

  • I love how the media is spinning this as some kind of unfair comparison to Hitler. The bishop isn’t comparing Obama to Hitler, but to every fanatically anti-Catholic statesman who ever tried to destroy the Church only to fail miserably. Silly liberals.

  • This issue is NOT about Catholics but every Christian. This is NOT about the Constitution. If one is a TRUE Christian, their faith will not let them enjoy the right to vote for anyone that believes, and promotes, abortion; the killing of unborn children. And if our government refuses to address the unborn, then why did they when Scott Peterson was charged with 2 murders. That of his wife AND unborn child. Our government wants to pick and choose but a TRUE Christian has only one response/belief….no killing of unborn and no voting for those that believe and promote that killing.

  • Pingback: Notre Dame Faculty Attacks Bishop Jenky | The American Catholic

Our Most Cherished Freedom

Friday, April 13, AD 2012

Judging from this statement on religious liberty issued yesterday, the Bishops understand that the stakes are very high indeed this year:


A Statement on Religious Liberty


United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty

We are Catholics. We are Americans. We are proud to be both, grateful for the gift of faith which is ours as Christian disciples, and grateful for the gift of liberty which is ours as American citizens. To be Catholic and American should mean not having to choose one over the other. Our allegiances are distinct, but they need not be contradictory, and should instead be complementary. That is the teaching of our Catholic faith, which obliges us to work together with fellow citizens for the common good of all who live in this land. That is the vision of our founding and our Constitution, which guarantees citizens of all religious faiths the right to contribute to our common life together.   Freedom is not only for Americans, but we think of it as something of our special inheritance, fought for at a great price, and a heritage to be guarded now. We are stewards of this gift, not only for ourselves but for all nations and peoples who yearn to be free. Catholics in America have discharged this duty of guarding freedom admirably for many generations.   In 1887, when the archbishop of Baltimore, James Gibbons, was made the second American cardinal, he defended the American heritage of religious liberty during his visit to Rome to receive the red hat. Speaking of the great progress the Catholic Church had made in the United States, he attributed it to the “civil liberty we enjoy in our enlightened republic.” Indeed, he made a bolder claim, namely that “in the genial atmosphere of liberty [the Church] blossoms like a rose.”1   From well before Cardinal Gibbons, Catholics in America have been advocates for religious liberty, and the landmark teaching of the Second Vatican Council on religious liberty was influenced by the American experience. It is among the proudest boasts of the Church on these shores. We have been staunch defenders of religious liberty in the past. We have a solemn duty to discharge that duty today.   We need, therefore, to speak frankly with each other when our freedoms are threatened. Now is such a time. As Catholic bishops and American citizens, we address an urgent summons to our fellow Catholics and fellow Americans to be on guard, for religious liberty is under attack, both at home and abroad.   This has been noticed both near and far. Pope Benedict XVI recently spoke about his worry that religious liberty in the United States is being weakened. He called it the “most cherished of American freedoms”—and indeed it is. All the more reason to heed the warning of the Holy Father, a friend of America and an ally in the defense of freedom, in his recent address to American bishops:  

Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion. Many of you have pointed out that concerted efforts have been made to deny the right of conscientious objection on the part of Catholic individuals and institutions with regard to cooperation in intrinsically evil practices. Others have spoken to me of a worrying tendency to reduce religious freedom to mere freedom of worship without guarantees of respect for freedom of conscience.  

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Our Most Cherished Freedom

140 Rallies Around Country Against HHS Mandate

Friday, March 23, AD 2012

22 Responses to 140 Rallies Around Country Against HHS Mandate

  • (Copied over from post below) Houston rally went very well – beautiful day, inspiring speakers. One young female speaker in particular who recognized the despicable tactic of the media and HHS supporters to change the narrative from religious freedom to banning contraceptives. She was not fooled, but unfortunately too many others are.

    Tough to estimate the crowd, several hundred at least. And very well behaved – vocal with cheers for the speakers, but no disruptive conduct at all. Lots of kids present too, mostly babies and elementary school age. An Orthodox priest, several Catholic nuns, Catholic priest and Protestant Minister (…walk into a rally…sounds like the intro of a joke).

    Four or five cops on hand, and essentially just sat in the shade, chatted with each other, and watched – not much for them to do.

  • Thank you for the first hand account c matt. Happy that it went so well!

  • Of course there wasn’t much for the police to do! These are peaceful demonstrations by peace-loving people, not harrassment and intimidation, looting and destruction by Occupy Wall Street fleabaggers!

  • Would go to the ones in my area– there are three that I know of– but 12 is the middle of nap time, and husband’s work isn’t anywhere near any of them to help wrangle two tired kids. Boo. :^(

    Glad it went well elsewhere.

  • Only about 300 people attended, in Tacoma Washington, but the sun was glorious and the five speakers encouraged the faithful to act with love and courage.

  • It’s great these rallies are going on, but isn’t this all going to be settled, for good or for ill, in the courts? As egregious Obama’s overreach is, isn’t this event anticipated for by the Founding Fathers, i.e., a system of checks and balances intended to correct such overreaches?

  • The Founding Fathers would have been astounded by the idea of a President having the power to simply order that employers provide anything. If a President acted in that matter, as a tyrant I believe they would have termed such an abuse of office by the Chief Executive, they would not have looked to the courts for a remedy. They would have looked to the people to preserve their liberty either at the ballot box or, in the final extremity, on the battlefield.

    “The people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived.”

    James Madison

  • Perhaps so, but I can’t help thinking we’ve had similar overreaches, such as FDR trying to pack the Supreme Court.

  • Odd you should mention that, tso, I’m re-reading “Liberal Fascism” right now and just got to the chapter of past examples of American-style fascism in our history….

  • This was a front page story in the Cleveland Plain Dealer this morning:

  • Right, because people like me don’t deserve medical insurance because we had an appendectomy. And people like my wife don’t deserve medical insurance because they quit drinking.

    If you want fascism, then I believe stupid Catholics don’t deserve medical insurance, because otherwise their children might survive to reproduction age.

  • And people like me don’t deserve medical insurance because we’re healthy, pay our own bills, were responsibly insured for years and simply can’t afford being charged more for one daughter than the entire family use to have to pay.

    Nothing quite like having to pay for pregnancy coverage on your two year old!

  • Incidentally lifewrecker, you’re just a troll. A not-very-skilled, flailing, lying troll.

  • Foxfier:
    “Nothing quite like having to pay for pregnancy coverage on your two year old!” Excellent post. Foxfire, especially if your two year old chooses to become a nun.

  • LW:

    What evidence do you have?

    Compared to what? Hint: in 2008, when gas cost $1.88 a gallon, 85% of Americans had (by their estimations) good health insurance. Under Obama hell care from 3 million to 20 million will not be able to keep their plans.

    How much will Obama hell care cost? Hint: the system will be dead on arrival. The cost estimate keeps rising each month into added trillions that America cannot afford.

    WTF are you talkng about?

    Other issues are the government ordering once-free Americans to buy something they don’t want; ordering the Church to break its beliefs; and seizing the people’s health care.

  • “If you want fascism, then I believe stupid Catholics don’t deserve medical insurance, because otherwise their children might survive to reproduction age.”

    Aptly named Lifewrecker, I will put up with a lot from a troll if the troll is entertaining or can argue well. Since you can do neither apparently, and are simply a boring bigot, I am dispensing with your troll services and banning you from this site.

  • Mr McClarey
    I think you should imbed some music, something grand like the Russin music, when you do the banning-

  • Not a bad idea Anzlyne, or perhaps this clip, 🙂 :

  • Today, I heard that FEMA will not help the tornado victims. How much healthcare does anybody think that they are going to get when Obama thinks you do not deserve healthcare unless you are being aborted, contracepted, sterilized, transgenderized or transhumanized?. You cannot even save your premiums because Obamacare will take them as penalties for not buying Obamacare. Freedom.

  • I had the privilege of being present in the belly of the beast – right outside the offices of DHHS, the office of Katherine Sibelius (a professed Catholic, in reality a traitorous apostate.) We joined 1,300 others including many from TFP and Non-Catholic Christians (one non-catholic cleric came all the way from South Korea, where his church has been praying for America), who respectfully joined us in praying our Lady’s Rosary – perhaps a little clumsy given their lack of familiarity with the mysteries and that they add the doxology to the end of the Lord’s Prayer (Pater Noster), which is odd since they are so intent on Sola Scriptura. Nevertheless, it was a wonderful testimony to God’s power, because Protestants, especially Evangelicals, would not have been caught dead praying with Catholics a generation or two ago. Two thing we can attribute to Obama and radical secularists in general: they have unified our bishops and are uniting Christians. God certainly has a keen sense of humor.

    All people of faith had better learn quickly that once the First Amendment is eroded, then we are one step away from wiping out the American Creed – that God gives rights, not government and that a right to life and free exercise of religion (not limited to worship) are the pillars of freedom. Roe v. Wade made killing babies legal as an option; PPACA makes killing babies not only legal but compulsory.

    We will not comply. Strengthen your faith, it will be tested like it never has been in our lifetime. Christ prevails! We win!

    Pray for SOCTUS, especially those who are Catholic. This week is more pivotal than the third week of January in 1973, almost 40 years ago.

  • Thank you, Mr. McClarey, for tossing that ignorant dupe out on his/her virtual ear. I only wish the weekend had not been so filled at my house, as I would like to have gotten a lick or two in, myself.

    I now imagine he/she will scuttle back to his/her troll village and proudly annouce that he/she has been tossed from another right-wing Religious blog – just another sign of how close-minded and oppressive people like us can be.

Sandra Fluke and Walmart

Thursday, March 22, AD 2012


Sandra Fluke professes not to have known that birth control pills  for $9.00 for  a month’s supply are available within easy walking distance of Georgetown.  I believe her.  I doubt if Sandra Fluke would ever do anything as declasse as shop at a Walmart.  That is for the hoi polloi.  Sandra’s life as a struggling law student includes trips to Europe, presumably paid for by her mega-rich boy friend.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Sandra Fluke and Walmart

  • Although you come off as agreeable with Ms Fluke, it does not take long to show your intentions. Way to totally miss the point of this conversation. At least you could have called her a slut! Jesus Christ!

  • “Although you come off as agreeable with Ms Fluke, it does not take long to show your intentions.”

    How perceptive you are Bryan. My intention was to show that she is a completely out of touch limousine Leftist. Thanks for picking up on that.

    “Way to totally miss the point of this conversation.”

    That Sandra Fluke is a spoiled brat Leftist who wishes to trample on religious liberties is, I think, the point of the conversation.

    “At least you could have called her a slut!”

    Nah, she isn’t that harmless, or honest.

    “Jesus Christ!”

    Ah, casual blasphemy, always the way to end a well-argued contribution to com box debate.

  • Birth control drugs can potentially have some negative side effects. Working with a doctor to try to find what is right for you, getting the appropriate prescription, and having follow-up appointments can be an expensive proposition, regardless of the cost of generics at Walmart.

  • Please Michael, give it up. Sandra Fluke was simply lying for political effect. She has given zero details as to how she came up with the $3,000.00 figure and she clearly had no intention of discussing how cheap contraception is for the average woman, or that contraception is available for free to poor women under Title X.

    Ace of Spades asked her how she arrived at the figure she cited. The response, a refusal to comment:

    “By asserting, with no citation to any source, that she’s “informed” that some people with a conveniently-unnamed “genetic” disease can’t take those particular pills (which ones? there are a lot of different types available at that price) but must take pills costing “$1500 per year.”

    Look, as a blogger, sometimes I, well, I don’t make things up, but I pass things along without verification.

    If I started telling Jake Tapper or anyone in the media things I’d been “informed of” by unnamed people in my comments, would they take it seriously?

    No. They’d ignore it. People tell stories. People’s stories tend to be those that push their agenda. Absent verification, they’re just stories.

    Has Jake Tapper or anyone else in the media checked Fluke’s main claim — that many insurance policies won’t cover hormonal therapy when prescribed for medical reasons?

    Because that’s her big claim — that while birth control per se might be cheap, some women have rare “genetic” diseases requiring birth control hormones for medical purposes, but insurers won’t cover these costs. (These are the only conceivable truly high costs of “birth control.”)

    And yet, has she named a single policy or provider which maintains this bizarre scheme?


    And I asked her on Twitter
    She refused comment.”

  • “Birth control drugs can potentially have some negative side effects. Working with a doctor to try to find what is right for you, getting the appropriate prescription, and having follow-up appointments can be an expensive proposition, regardless of the cost of generics at Walmart.”

    This. Exactly. Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with. It can have serious side effects if you take it without seeing a doctor. Not all prescriptions are the same and not all women can take the same kind of birth control.

  • “Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with.”

    No comment.

    “Not all prescriptions are the same and not all women can take the same kind of birth control.”

    And for the vast majority of women contraception is dirt cheap or free. Next red herring.

  • No comment.

    LOL – really!

    Even if they are more expensive for some, it’s still not likely to cost $3000. Regardless, that’s missing the point. It is unjust to force other people to pay for your expensive recreational activities – especially if they view those activities as immoral.

  • Birth control pills DO have serious side effects…breast cancer for one. The best method yet to prevent unplanned pregnancy is abstinence.

  • Birth Control isn’t something you screw around with.

    Dr. Pepper on monitor… almost. HAHAHAHAHAHA

    But then again, side effects are real. They include such wonderful things as weight gain, moodiness, and loss of libido. Really, sounds like the ideal spouse… not.

    On the unattractive side, they can contribute to cardiac issues and increased risk of cancer.

  • Birth control is also known to cause abortion. OK, maybe “lead to” more than “cause”, but the ends are the same.

    And I didn’t know that you needed a prescription for condoms.

  • Birth control pills have poisoned our ground water with estrogen. Obama wants us to pay to pollute our ground water, then pay to clean it up.

  • At the houston anti hhs rally. About 400 people so far.

  • Let us know how the rally went c matt. We need to have such rallies up and down the nation.

  • but must take pills costing “$1500 per year.”

    Taking her at her word, that’s $125 a month.

    A latte (tall) costs about $3.50 each. One latte a day would just about cover it. That is not even factoring in her use of a health savings account which would lower the after tax cost even more. Maybe if the HHS mandated coverage for one latte a day, that would free up her coin for the pills?

  • Went very well – beautiful day, inspiring speakers. One young female speaker in particular who recognized the despicable tactic of the media and HHS supporters to change the narrative from religious freedom to banning contraceptives. She was not fooled, but unfortunately too many others are.

    Tough to estimate the crowd, several hundred at least. And very well behaved – vocal with cheers for the speakers, but no disruptive conduct at all. Lots of kids present too, mostly babies and elementary school age. An Orthodox priest, several Catholic nuns, Catholic priest and Protestant Minister (…walk into a rally…sounds like the intro of a joke).

    Four or five cops on hand, and essentially just sat in the shade, chatted with each other, and watched – not much for them to do.

  • One thing I never quite understood. The same people who go out of their way to eat only organic fruit, vegetables and meats (when they do eat meat) and decry the use of hormones in food products, have no problem directly ingesting a synthetic hormone on a daily basis. Go figure.

  • c matt, that observation fits Seattle to a T.

  • Suzanne Sommers books reveal her investigation into the ways big pharma has fooled women into thinking that they have the answers when the reality is that it is all about making money and they don’t care how they tamper with nature or the consequences. Men and women from both sides of this issue should look at what she has written and investigate for yourselves. The bottom line for me is that if you are following church teaching you don’t have to worry, if you are not and thinking you are going to get away with it, think again. It can have lifelong effects and affects everyone around you, from our having to deal with family illness to the water it pollutes and environmental harm from the hormones in the water.

  • I get that Ms. Fluke’s friend could have bought birth control pills cheaply at Wal-Mart. However, she needed to take them for an ovarian problem (which, because she did not have birth control pills, she died from, I believe). My thought is that she perhaps needed a certain type of BC pill, a type that might have been very expensive. So we have a situation in which the Catholic Church doesn’t want to pay for medication that could save lives…In any case, it all goes back to intent. If BC pills can be an abortificient (sp?), a question that is highly suspect, well, so can booze, and that is beyond question, but Catholic church’s happily give out booze at parties and so forth.

  • God knows Walter where you got the lie that Fluke testified that her friend died. Here is a link to Fluke’s meretricious testimony and she never said that:

    Of course this has absolutely nothing to do with the rare cases, already covered, where birth control pills are used to treat a medical condition and not for contraceptive purposes. It has everything to do with running rough shod over religious liberty in order for Obama to score points with pro-abort feminists and to conjure up an imaginary “Republican war on women”, so he can overcome his miserable record and get another four year lease on the White House.

  • Mac,

    The evil, hateful sacs of excrement at MSNBC,, et al twist the facts to make massive traps for imbecile liberals.

For Greater Glory: Viva Christo Rey!

Thursday, March 22, AD 2012

Hattip to Ed Morrissey at Hot Air.  I have been waiting for this movie for over a year and now it is finally being released on June 1, 2012.  For Greater Glory (formerly entitled Cristiada).  The must see movie for 2012 for all American Catholics and all of our fellow Americans who cherish religious liberty.  At a time when the Obama administration is firing the opening shots in a struggle against the religious freedom of Catholics, and exploiting a de facto schism within the Church in America to accomplish their ends, a film is being released this election year detailing the struggle of Mexican Catholics in the last century against a bitterly anti-Catholic regime.  Most of the time in life coincidences are merely coincidences, but sometimes I suspect they are sent by God for His purposes.  In any case it appears to be a worthy movie to retell the heroic story of Mexican Catholics and their fight for the Church and freedom.

The story of the Cristeros is the tale of the attempt by the Mexican government to crush the Catholic Church.  Mexico had a long history of anti-clerical political movements prior to the revolution of 1910.  However, the Mexican Revolution brought to the fore radical elements that pushed through the Constitution of 1917 with its anti-clerical articles 3, 5, 27 and 130.  In his encyclical Iniquis Afflictisque, the first of three encyclicals he wrote condemning the persecution of the Church in Mexico, Pius XI described the war against the Church waged by the Mexican government:

Continue reading...

21 Responses to For Greater Glory: Viva Christo Rey!

  • That’s good news, I’ve been anticipating this for some time. This past year I began studying this history. Amazing how ignorant we are of what happened right next door, not too long ago and appears to be happening here – with less macho attitude, more insidious.

    I assume the name change has to do with having a wider appeal. I hope it educates people.

    Viva Christo Rey!


  • The name change probably is for that reason AK. Likewise the more recent trailer emphasizes the fight for freedom rather than the war on the Church as the older trailer, at the bottom of the post, does. None of that matters to me as long as the story is told. I suspect that the producers of the film have begun to realize that they could have an unexpected hit on their hands, and I am glad it is getting a summer release. I am going to do my best to spread the news about this film.

  • Thank you, Donald. I knew nothing about the persecution of the Church in Mexico during the 20th century. None of this is taught in public school. As the American Knight correctly pointed out, how amazingly ignorant we are of the history of a country right next to us. Thus apparently are we doomed to repeat its mistakes. Pray to God this isn’t the case!

  • I think the producers are cunning like serpents and innocent as doves. Sell an action movie about freedom and the audience gets the truth about religious persecution. Brilliant! Plus it has the politically-correct appeal of being ‘ethnic’.

    Paul, what is worse is that our government was complicit in the whole thing. We both turned a blind eye and supported the massacre. the WASP establishment has been maintaining its dominance in our land at any cost (most recent example – Myth RINO-Money – I know he’s a Mormon, but he is the Northeast WASP choice over against the Catholic choice – no not that one – I am referring to Newt.)

    The one voice that petitioned our government to stop the persecution and not assist it, was Holy Mother Church – especially the Knights of Columbus. As the membership ages and grows larger in the middle with good food and beer, perhaps it is time for the KofC to begin battle preparations, we may actually need Knights soon.

  • “Paul, what is worse is that our government was complicit in the whole thing. We both turned a blind eye and supported the massacre.”

    Complete and total rubbish AK. The American government, through its ambassador to Mexico Dwight Morrow, worked with the Vatican to bring about peace and the ending of the worst of the persecution of Catholics in Mexico:

  • How appropriate on the eve of Pope Benedict’s visit to Mexico.

    And very symbolic, he is visiting Guanajuato (my mother’s home town as well as JEB Bush’s wife’s hometown), where the Mexican rebellion against the Spanish Empire began.

    Another symbol in the visit is that when JP2 visited Mexico for the first time, provisions were put forth by the Vatican that those anti-Catholic laws in the Mexican Constitution be removed.

    God is great!

    ?Viva Cristo Rey!

  • Donald, you write : “Most of the time in life coincidences are merely coincidences, but sometimes I suspect they are sent by God for His purposes.”

    Be assured, Donald “Coincidence” is the Second Name of the Holy Spirit. This Film has come out at the right time – God’s Right Time for your beloved country, U.S. of America and for the World. + Lautedur Iesus Christus +

  • My first inkling of Communism in Mexico came when I saw the movie “the Assassination of Trotsky” — 30 years later I read Graham Greene’s “The Power and the Glory” — Please God my personal “organic growth” and development of understanding during those 30 interim years will continue apace!

  • This is a must-see movie. The last (I imagined it would be) time I went to see a movie in a theater was 2003.

    Sorry that I don’t have the attribution for the following quote.

    “The Russian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn bore witness to this truth in his 1983 Templeton address: It was Dostoevsky, once again, who drew from the French Revolution and its seeming hatred of the Church the lesson that “revolution must necessarily begin with atheism.” That is absolutely true. But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.”

    This is the motive behind Obama’s all-out, dirty war against Holy Mother Church.

  • My sophomores are in the midst of studying the 20th century persecution of the Church in Mexico right now, with the emphasis on Miguel Pro. I’ve encouraged them to see the film when it finally hits theaters.

  • I studied during the 70s and 80s in a Catholic school in Mexico. Eventhough we had religion classes it did not appear in the report card because it was not legal to teach it. In the report card there was a row with grades but no subject. Most mexicans know nothing about the Cristeros war since it is not in the history books. However, there is still a strong anticatholic rhetoric in the history books, most government official, and public universities.

  • God bless Andy Garcia for his wonderful, TRUTHFUL films! Every one I’ve seen is marvelous! I can’t wait to see “Vivo Christo Rey” !

  • this movie means alot to my family .. my great grandpa fought in this war.. my 95 year old grandma still talks about her dad fighting for cristo ray.. she told us that my great grandpa was a vary importent man in this war. vary proud. lots more of this story but i would telll it to any one that wants to listen

  • Your great grandfather’s story sounds fascinating Eric. Tell us more if you wish. I might include it in a future post.

  • T Shaw: Thank you for the quote which accurately describes what is happening here in America.

  • Another great film dealing with this time period in Mexico was John Ford’s 1940’s, “The Fugitive” with Henry Fonda. The story of a hunted priest who finally escapes but comes back to his death. Saw it as a boy and have never forgotten it.

  • I have tried to put out a lot of informative posts regarding this topic.

    Jean Meyer, the premier historian of the Cristero Wars, is behind this film.

    Mr. Meyer, a French-naturalized Mexican, began his research in the 70’s and was antagonistic to the Cristeros. As he interviewed hundreds and hundreds of eyewitnesses, the Cristeros won his respect.

  • I passed this to all my family and friends. My father, in turn, passed it to his friends. He mentioned he was ashamed because he knew nothing of this period, of how the Church dealt with persecutions just south of our borders. He urged everyone to prepare, to gather together and pray, and fast, and rally in support of religious liberty now while we still can. “Viva Cristo Rey! “should be proclaimed by all of us, loud and clear, and inserted into every protest sign, email, letter, phone, contact we make with our elected officials…

    Thanks, Mr. McClarey, for helping us understand the enormous task before us…

    Jesus – help us!

The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War

Wednesday, March 21, AD 2012




Dale Price over at Dyspeptic Mutterings is being brilliant again:


Fr. Thomas Massaro would like you all to calm down.
I’m not going to fisk this, because it’s an admirable sentiment, as far as it goes. Which means it stagged a step or two before dropping in a messy heap.
Yes, it would be nice if things in the world were more civil and respectful. That’s fine.
But the problem with his call for civility is that he sees the white-hot anger as the problem rather than the symptom. It’s not–the real problem goes far, far deeper than that, and has been savaging the Body of Christ for decades now.
The HHS mandate is just the catalyst causing it to explode to the surface.
The real problem is that the Church in America has fractured into at least two churches. If it hadn’t been this issue, it would have been a dispute over the language of the liturgy, or the latest pronouncement from the Vatican, some university conferring honors on someone who is an open enemy of Catholic teaching or even the renovation of the local cathedral church. The struggle–more bluntly, low-grade civil war–between the churches has been going on since the last bit of incense dispersed at Vatican II. We don’t agree on how to worship, what our schools should teach, what laws should be enacted/opposed, what canons apply and when or even what our parish church should look like. In fact, we can’t even agree on whether or not Jesus actually rose from the dead.
And for forty five years, our shepherds have been trying to keep it together by careful tacking, including soothing rhetoric, trying to give everyone half a loaf or so (depending on the year, bishop and constituency) and generally trying not to see the coal pile in the ballroom.

Continue reading...

37 Responses to The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War

  • “…generally trying not to see the coal pile in the ballroom.”

    It’s not a coal pile. It’s a pile of Uranium-235 at 90+ percent enrichment about to go prompt critical. That’s when delta-K goes greater than beta bar. You don’t need to know what that is technically, because we’re all about to see it happen.

    The neutrons are about to fly!

  • I did not know that rancid tidbit about Fr. Massaro. I will make sure to update.

    Thanks for the hat-tip.

  • Yes. The Church has been split asunder. Only the educated and wealthy remain for Mass. That is a disservice to everyone and God will punish both the right wing and the left.

  • Pingback: The Church in America: Low Grade Civil War | The American Catholic | Church
  • That is not true Dan as I can attest at my parish, where the rich, the poor and the middle class sit in the pews, and where the members of the parish have all sorts of educational backgrounds. The divisions within the Church today are ones of faith, and the lack thereof.

  • “Opinion is not truth. ” Plato

    Some believe social justice is the alibi for all sins.

    Recently, this was about the second time I can remember in the past 45 years, one of our holy, young priests preached on sin. There was noticeable squirming in the pews.

  • Recently one of our priests (3rd year) gave his first talk on contraception. He apologized for not doing it before. He said that he, his fellow priests and bishops have failed us. He said it is a difficult topic; I suspect because it is so polarizing and ‘Catholics’ complain about hearing it. And then he laid into the whole thing and when he finished his excellent homily – men and angels clapped with resounding applause and I saw a line of people thanking him after Mass.

    Our priests need encouragement and prayer – some more than others. Some may also need a slap in the face – given as fraternal correction in a spirit of Charity – remember, we are required to do spiritual works of mercy as well, including counsel the ignorant – especially ignorant clerics.

  • First off, the Catholic Church is wrong about contraception. It is not a sin, it is not evil, and it does not become either of these things simply because you say so.

    Second, the CC is accustomed to taking positions on moral issues from a standpoint of Natural Law. You can’t do it this time- haven’t you noticed? Natural Law- a system of law determined by nature, thus universal. It refers to the use of reason to deduce binding rules of moral behavior. By way of contrast, see Positive Law, or man-made law. Right now (and for the past 50 years or so), the CC has faced a situation in which Natural Law determines that contraception (at least in most of its forms) is perfectly moral, and that conclusion is the basis and standard for judging or critiquing the Positive Law of the CC.

    Third, we must examine the relationship between the first two points and tie them together. Once more, the CC is wrong about contraception, and we the American people are using Natural Law to judge the CC and its Positive Law. You’re not used to this, nor are you used to being judged from within by other Catholics. Even more significant than the contraception issue in and of itself is the specific groups of people that it affects. No, not insurance agencies, but Catholic institutions of higher education and Catholic hospitals, both of which employ and serve non-Catholics just as much as Catholics and neither of which are cloistered from the non-Catholic realities of the country in which we live. More to the point, however, you’re looking at two groups of people that are uniquely gifted in the expertise that is required to assess Natural Law on this issue- medical expertise, along with logic, reason, philosophy, ethics, law and government, you name it and some aspect of academia covers it. These are the people who assess Natural Law and render judgment on the Positive Law of the Catholic Church. The people with relevant expertise are in charge of it- not the US College of Catholic Bishops. They don’t have the relevant expertise.

    You might not like it, but really, what are you going to do about it? Judgment is being rendered by Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Natural Law is what it is- and really, this battle was fought and won decades ago. This is an election-year kerfuffle, and it will go away just as soon as Obama wins re-election with the help of the Catholic vote- just like last time. Then things will go back to the way they’ve been- in the foreground, most of us will go on with our lives with the knowledge that contraception is moral, permissible, and generally a good thing. We might even make a snarky remark about the Catholic Church here and there, and you’ll fume but do nothing. Meanwhile, the currently-vocal minority of Catholics will fade to the background and wonder why people stopped caring about you. I can give you a preview, though- they stopped caring because it stopped being an election year. And I’ll just tell you in advance- despite the GOP’s best efforts to get the Catholic vote in 2012, it won’t work. The Catholic vote will go to Obama again. The GOP might find some other reason to go back to the well in an election year to be named later, but the Catholic response on the current attempt will disappoint them just a bit.

    These predictions will prove to be accurate, and I’m sure you won’t be pleased when it happens. If for not other reason than it will make a couple of people look foolish for the ignorance they’re about to attribute to me.

  • Mike,

    It’s so cute how you use big words to make an argument about which you know nothing. Natural Law is easily discernible by reason alone; however, if you lack that capacity, then it just becomes a cool term to use to obfuscate your confusion.

    When your reason begins and ends below the belt, it is difficult actually think; but, at least, you’re educated enough to know how to write the big words. Perhaps you may actually want to find out what they mean.

    Oh, and although our bishops all went to college, they are not a college, rather, they’re a conference. You may have confused them with the College of Cardinals, to which some of our bishops do belong, most recently Timothy Cardinal Dolan. Yet, I suspect the difference is lost for you because all you see is ‘evil clerics’. Those bastards, all they do is try to keep us out of hell and get us to heaven – how dare they!!!

  • Mike: If someone does not love you enough to want to have more of you, or if you do not love another to want more of them, it is a lie and lust, not love. Why should any citizen be forced to pay for somebody’s lust, be that they are going to hell?

  • Mike,

    So many words, and yet so much FAIL. You may want to brush up on the Natural Law. However, if that doesn’t do it for you, you might want to check out the phenomenologist approach. The truth is out there, and frankly you have missed it.

  • Mike, alas, has failed to enlighten us on the Natural Law (it’s not the product of the contemporary consensus of the Degreed in anything save his mind).

    However, he has amply demonstrated to us the deleterious effects of the emphasis on self-esteem in public education. And he feels good after his verbose exercise in condescension.

    So everyone’s a winner here–hurray!

  • I like the way in which AK, Mary DeVoe, Big Tex and Dale Price have kept this very simple for Mike. Indeed, that’s the whole issue: liberals can’t understand simple.

  • Paul,

    Thank you for including me in your comment. Pithiness is not my forte. Hoorah for spiritual acts of mercy – specifically counseling the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. Mike, you’re welcome and we love you.

  • First off, the Catholic Church is wrong about contraception. It is not a sin, it is not evil, and it does not become either of these things simply because you say so.

    Let me put Mike’s analysis in the form of a syllogism:

    I want to have contraceptive sex;
    The Church says it’s immoral;
    Ergo the Church is wrong.

    Natural Law shows that the natural end of the procreative act is… wait for it…wait for it… procreation.

    If you cannot grasp that fundamental point, then please leave Natural Law to the grownups.

  • Mike, you are making a fundamental error by confusing Catholics (individual practitioners of the Catholic faith to varying degrees of fidelity) with the Catholic Faith.

    It very may well be that the “Catholic” vote may go for Obama, if by that you mean more individual practitioners will vote for the O rather than other candidates. But that does not the Catholic Faith make. All it means is that there are probably a lot of misinformed, malformed, or outright rebelious Catholics. While that is a grave concern that needs to be addressed, it does not mean that the O or any of his positions are in conformity with the Catholic Faith. Morality is not determined by majority vote.

  • As part of my professional milieu I find that the biggest lies are told in the most civil tones, in the most civil forums, by the most civil people…..and “civility” is then demanded when caught. Otherwise, it is the use of the mask of civility to commit the most uncivil wrongs that I find most reprehensible.

  • Mike,

    Do you know the first Commandment God gave? Hint: It’s why God embedded strong sexual attractions between men and women (oops, opened another can of worms!)

    If you think consistent 2,000 years-long teachings of Holy Mother Church are erroneous, congratulations, you have self-identified as a heretic. Look it up.

    re: voting for Obama.

    How does $8 a gallon gasoline sound?

    The Obamateur Hour (or How I Keep Hearing How Stupid is Sarah Palin): “We have subsidized oil companies for a century. We want to encourage production of oil and gas, and make sure that wherever we’ve got American resources, we are tapping into them. But they don’t need an additional incentive when gas is $3.75 a gallon, when oil is $1.20 a barrel, $1.25 a barrel. They don’t need additional incentives. They are doing fine.” Oil was $107 a barrel at close yesterday.

    How much of that $3.75 a gallon is taxes?

  • Mike, you know what else is a sin in Catholic Church teaching? (I don’t think I should tell you if you’re this upset about the teaching of artificial birth control.) Oh, you are not going to like this one. It is a sin against the 5th Commandment to harbor “religious and racial prejudice.” It “is a sin against justice as well as charity.” But here is the part where it really starts getting good: “THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE IN THE CASE OF JOINING AN ORGANIZATION WHICH PROMOTES SEGREGATION OR ANY OTHER DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS.” (my emphasis). There is more, read on.

    This is a teaching in the book, “Life In Christ – Instructions in the Catholic Faith” published in 1958 with authority of a Nihil Obstat and an Imprimatur. I just confirmed this past week with a high ranking clergy official in the Catholic Church that that is still the teaching of the Church. Do you know what the following teaching means: “This is particularly true in the case of joining an organization which promotes segregation OR ANY OTHER DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS?” Are you sitting down?

    It means “joining” the Democrat Party is a sin against the 5th Commandment. The Democrat Party denies the right to life, both in word and action, to unborn children by their support and defense of keeping abortion legal in their organization platform and their votes in Congress and state legislatures. Catholics who are registered to vote in the Democrat Party are committing sin against the 5th Commandment (interesting that it happens to be THAT commandment) and remain in sin as long as they are registered in that party, besides voting for that party. I’m waiting on word of how serious a sin it is. But I think Catholic Democrat culpability is high in the continued murder of unborn children because the power the Democrat Party comes from their large numbers of registered voters, of which, Catholics are their single, largest voting block, and consequently a large number of Democrat candidates are able to be elected who defend and implement pro-abortion regulations. Abortion could not remain legal if large numbers of Catholic Democrats discover that their salvation depends on whether they choose to be Catholics or Democrats. I would think that they would choice to save themselves rather than the Democrat Party which would lose elective power with the loss of a large portion of that voting block. Consequently, the party would have a lot fewer elected representatives to defend and support their pro-abortion positions, especially in the Senate which would enable prolife nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court to be confirmed.

  • I guess that is why the closest approximation to the outer circle of hell in our country (barring the Washington Beltway) is being in the Demoncratic Party.

  • Mike, after the election year when you go back to your life, happy about your predictions, and are being a little snarky about the Catholic Church for amusement because it is your Constitutional right to speak your mind; I suggest you think about the Four Last Things which Catholics hold to be true, and, also to wonder whether, if these are true, it’ll be Heaven or Hell for you and your compatriots.

  • Wow, looks like I got a live one here.

    For the record, I am actually a moderate who tends to vote conservative. The fact that American Catholics will vote for an eventual winner rather than voting on some sort of principle is a long-standing failure that I’m pointing out, while predicting more of the same in the immediate future.

    @Stillbelieve- I encourage you to run the “Catholic + Democrat = Sin” findings past some Catholic apologists at EWTN. Your best bet is Catholic Answers Live on Tuesdays and Thursdays, 6 eastern 5 central and so forth- oh, and look at this, you can also call on Monday next week. Akin and Blackburn have an extra appearance. Try to get it down to a pretty short question, though, and know ahead of time exactly how you want to word your question. The screener does write it down word for word and posts a recap of the questions for that segment on their calendar.
    If that doesn’t work, visit Catholic Answers Forums and look up PJM and anyone else that he recommends. He’ll put as much time and effort into this as you have, and he has some excellent resources as his disposal as well. See what you come up with. Also, ask him how he knew John Hardon.

    I’ve never self-identified as a Democrat, and if the CC does deem Democrat affiliation to be a sin, add it to the list of Catholic no-nos that few understand and even fewer care about. I don’t think it does, though, and you’ll find this out if you do more research and ask the right questions of the right people. As to why a non-Democrat would favor the contraception aspect of the HHS mandate- that’s what being a moderate is all about. I get to do that.

    @American Knight- you’re right in pointing out that it is rather necessary to make a distinction between Natural Law in contemporary Catholicism and Natural Law in contemporary jurisprudence. (That is what you were doing, yes?) And you’re right, I said “college” where I should have said “conference.” It’s probably best that I ignore the rest of what you wrote.

    @Mary de Voe- if I ever get married and then have sex (in that order), I won’t ever engage in sexual intercourse with the understanding that I don’t want my wife to be the mother of my babies. There is a distinction here, however- there might be some times when we decide, together, that making a baby during this particular month is not what’s best for our family right NOW. But of course we still have sex, because that is very good for a marriage- particularly during the time of the month when this hypothetical wife would be at her most aroused. Rawr.
    As far as when we might not want to have a baby- perhaps in the first year or two of being married, although this depends on a variety of circumstances financial and otherwise. Assuming we’re fertile (which doesn’t always happen, you know), we’ll basically come to an agreement on how long we need before having another one, and I’m sure we’ll have some idea of the total number of kids we’d like to have going in. Then there’s the issue of long-term financial planning and assessing the number of children we can reasonably support, and of course there’s the approximate age range of 35-45 during which women can have babies but steadily climb to an unreasonable level of risk for complications, miscarriages, birth defects and so forth. If we have a child with special needs we will obviously meet all those needs (which I happen to be uniquely well-suited to do, I might add).
    The reason I felt the need to add that is this: I’ve had this same conversation before, and I’ve had it with people like you. You’ve already told me that any use of any form of contraception for any reason is tantamount to a blanket statement like “I don’t love you enough to have more of you.” So I already know where this is going- as soon as I mention that an unreasonably high risk for a high-risk pregnancy is a legitimate reason to use contraception regularly over a long period of time, I know you’re going to accuse me of hating special needs kids and wanting to kill them. I haven’t given you a response yet and I already know you want to go there. How do I know? Because it’s evident that you’re an unreasonable person who enjoys frustrating people.

    @c matt- your summary of my analysis is a joke. I laughed. You do raise a good point, though, and it does get us down to the basics of this thing. You actually left out a couple of points pertaining to Catholic teaching on the natural end of the procreative act. It was initially presented in the following manner- a twofold purpose, as a remedy for concupiscience and for procreation. More recently, however, the unitive aspect has been introduced to the ever-Newness of Catholic tradition as it develops. It is good that the CC recognizes that sex is a unitive act, in a relational sense as well as psychological, emotional, and so forth. I can only hope that you one day begin to see that sometimes, depending on the exact situation, one of those things can get in the way of the other- and that certainly doesn’t mean a married couple is obligated to abnegate themselves of them both. For example, following the birth of a child, there’s usually about a year (or at least a few months) between the birth and physical recovery on the part of the mother to the point where the unitive act can come back into play. That doesn’t mean you stop having children, of course- sometimes, one thing gets in the way of the other, and it’s not a bad thing. Likewise, there are times in a marriage when it’s not reasonable or feasible for the couple to have another child. That doesn’t mean you need to abstain from sex, though. It’s still just as much of a unitive act when you’re using contraception.
    @thesecondpostofcmatt- I actually wasn’t confused about that. I’m just pointing out how Evangelical voters in America can be mobilized on principle to vote for someone eventually loses the general election in a presidential race, whereas the voting habits of Catholics- at least on the national stage- are consistently and notoriously anything but “set apart.” I bring this up as a chastisement to Catholics who feel the need to preach at Evangelicals, especially when it’s done without any realistic hope of meaningful engagement- perhaps you should begin with converting Catholics to Catholicism.

    @T Shaw- so I’m a heretic? I suppose you must think the OCA and the Russian Orthodox are heretics as well. I have news for you. The Catholic Church is in schism, and you only speak for the Western portion of the Church. After all, the Church- by your own definition of Church with a capital C- does include the Eastern Orthodox who maintain apostolic succession. Does. It. Not. (With qualifications, of course, in that it’s the “other lung” of the Church and it’s an imperfect unity that you hope to see in its fullness one day, but let’s stay on point, you do see them as being part of the Church. With imperfect unity, I know that. But a part of the Church. With imperfect unity, I get it. Part of the Church. There’s that part, too).
    But do you make an exception for the Eastern bishops who maintain that an Eastern Orthodox Christian, with the guidance of his bishop in the economy of salvation, may at certain times be cleared to use contraception for certain kinds of reasons provided that it’s not done for purely selfish reasons? Are those heretical bishops who lead flocks that you now call “ecclesial assemblies” because they have willfully separated themselves from the Church in the exact sort of manner that would distinguish a schismatic thing from a heretical thing?
    In other words, are you engaging in ad-hoccery with your “heretic” claim, or will you indicate an acceptable level of consistency with your assessments?
    Moving on. $8 for a gallon of gas sounds expensive. Obama has no direct control over gas prices, though, and the degree to which any president of the US can have indirect control over the price of gas is either comically exaggerated or realistically suppressed in your mind depending on who’s in office. Obama happens to know that the price of gas will continue to rise, but he’s not making it do that. What he is doing is passing energy initiatives that force American car companies to make cars more fuel-efficient. That sounds nice. I hope he’s right about how Detroit automakers will progress over the next 12+ years. They say they’re on track for cars that go nearly 55 to the gallon on average, doubling current mileage standards. If that’s accurate- and that is a big if- 8 per gallon is doable.

    @PM- who are you referencing when you say “your compatriots”? If it was my decision, I would start by saying my compatriots are “other Christians.” But if I wanted to be more specific, I would go on to say “Christians, not just in name only, for whom matters of faith and morals are of primary importance, who are primarily concerned with becoming better Christians.” I hope that includes you, in spite of the disagreements that we do have. I regret to inform you, however, that most of your compatriots- that is to say, Catholics who live in America- are not my compatriots. “Not just in name only” eliminates a majority of them all by itself.

  • Mike: You said the Church was wrong on contraception.

    Good for you!

    Tertullian defined a heretic as one who replaces Church teachings on Faith and morals with his opinions.

    I happen to agree with the Church: coincidence or the Holy Spirit?. If I did not, I would not say I’m a Catholic. There are few worldly benefits for trying to be a Catholic, sonny.

  • What exactly is wrong with the teaching of Humanae Vitae?

    As section 17 points out, contraception leads to women being treated as mere sex objects, and enables government to say who should reproduce and who shouldn’t. Furthermore, the conjugal act in marriage is supposed to be both unitive and procreative. Saying, “I have the wisdom to decide when conception may occur” is no different than Eve partaking of the Fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. We don’t have the rightfully authority to tell God when He may or may not create new life. Contraception assumes we do. That is the height of hubris and arrogance.

    BTW, calling Mary DeVoe an unreasonable person who enjoys frustrating people is unkind, intolerant and divisive. But please feel free to call me that.

  • @T Shaw- funny thing about Tertullian. He is responsible for the earliest Trinitarian language that looks anything like “three persons, one substance.” You knew this, of course, but this is what’s funny about it. Tertullian wrote this after becoming a Montanist, and his ideas were initially rejected as heresy. But later, they were accepted as Christian orthodoxy. One other funny thing- upon his death, Tertullian was not in union with Rome.
    You have aligned your opinions with those of Rome. Coincidence or the Holy Spirit? I don’t think those are the only two viable options. It’s a matter of authority, and we’ve been over this already. Authoritarian people on one hand who rely primarily on “because I said,” and people with relevant expertise on the other hand who rely on proofs of natural law in the sense that it applies to contemporary jurisprudence- not in a strictly Thomistic sense, of course.

    @Pasta Primavera- What exactly is wrong with the teaching of HV? Wow, dude, if you have some kind of problem with the way I’m talking to people that is exactly the kind of question you do NOT want to ask. Are you sure you want this? Is that really what you want me to get into?
    Wrt your assertions, there is no causative link between contraception and “women as sex objects.” This is the kind of thing that must be proven, and you cannot prove it. This has been examined and it has been debunked. As a matter of fact and not a matter of opinion, contraception- properly used within marriage- does not lead to women being treated as sex objects. It can certainly coincide with sex-object behavior outside of marriage, but contraception does not cause this. Rather, it is extramarital sex that causes women to be treated as sex objects.
    “I have the wisdom to decide when conception may occur.” All right, I didn’t actually say that, but you still put quotes around it as if I did. But since you insist, go ahead. Tell me why I don’t have the wisdom to decide when conception may occur- or, to be a bit more accurate, tell me why I don’t have the wisdom to decide when there will be a 1 in 3 chance of implantation provided that conception does actually occur, which is also something that happens less than 100% of the time even under the best conditions.

    Also, for what it’s worth, the only thing a married Christian man is “telling God” while having sex with his wife is “Thank you for this.” And then God says “You’re welcome; I’m glad that you’re enjoying this for its physical pleasure and unitive purpose.” He does Not say “You’re not truly grateful unless you are doing everything in your power to make a baby right now, and this is something disordered that I never intended to allow.” That would be you, not God.

  • The bottom line is this: if you don’t want to have a baby, then don’t have sex. Period. You have no authority to separate the unitive from the procreative. Ever. You do not get to place yourself in God’s position. It is arrogant snottiness of the most hubris sort to do so.

    Truly Yours,

    Pasta Primavera who thinks more of what Pope Paul VI said than what some self-made pontificator on theology and philosophy says.

  • I am a sinner.

    Paul P. gets it. We agree with the Church b/c bc usurps God’s Will in deciding who will live and when we will participate with Him in His creation of human life.

    There is a ton of civil authority stuff that I completely ignore.

  • @Pasta Primavera- how about this. You aren’t in charge, and you don’t get to say so. And by extension, I am saying this about the CC as well. How does that feel? I am not placing myself in God’s position; it would be far more accurate to say that I (and people who are more similar to me than to you) are preventing your religious leaders from usurping that position. Really now, do you see me going around saying I act in persona Christi? Really? Not me? Who, then? Because whoever is doing that- those are the people you need to talk to about arrogant snottiness and hubris.

  • “And by extension, I am saying this about the CC as well. How does that feel?”

    Ahistorical, since God was the founder of the Catholic Church.

    “Pasta Primavera- how about this. You aren’t in charge,”

    Dial it back with the name calling Mike if you wish to continue to comment on this site, and I am in charge of this blog.

  • Oh, good–Mike has tacitly abandoned his idiotic natural law argument.

  • Obama has no direct control over gas prices, though

    Yes he does. By restricting drilling in the Gulf, delaying Keystone XL (the Canada leg) and refusing to open up federal lands, he ensures that oil futures go up.

    Oh, and when he releases oil from the Strategic Reserve, the price immediately goes down.

    Yeah, the polls are properly taking gas out on him. I hope he refuses to listen.

  • I do agree with Mike: I am not in charge. Rather, Jesus Christ is in charge, and He told Peter, “Thou art Rock and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail.” The Pope is the successor of Peter. So Christ is in charge, speaking through the Pope and the college of Bishops in union with him. Thus, Humanae Vitae, written by the successor of St. Peter, supersedes any opinion to the contrary.

    If a person engages in sexual intercourse, then that person has already made a decision to have a baby. It doesn’t matter if 6,999,999,999 people out of 7 billion disagree and think morality is different than what it really is. We human beings don’t get to determine what morality is. This is NOT a Democracy. It is a Monarchy and Jesus Christ is King absolute. Indeed, thinking that we can determine what is sin was in a sense the first sin – the eating of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Truth, however, is objective and eternal, and His name is Jesus Christ.

    Now if that person we just talked about doesn’t want a baby, then that person must abstain from sexual intercourse. All sophistry to the contrary is simply nonsense in verbosity. Does one have control over the passions of one’s lust – sexual longings or whatever else one may want to call it – or does one not have such self-control? Will we behave like mindless baboons, contracepting our way out of accountability and responsibility, or will we behave in the image and likeness of God Himself as we were created to do? God’s first command to Adam and Eve was, “Be fruitful and multiply.” It was not, “Abort and contracept.” Any pretense at being logical and rational and reasonable and scientific while maintaining a contraceptive mentality is simply oxymoronic.

    Indeed, the three sins in the Garden of Eden were (yeah, I probably got them out of order, but the order in Matthew 4 is different than in Luke 4):

    The Lust of the Eyes – Eve saw the fruit was pleasing to look on
    The Lust of the Flesh – Eve saw the fruit was good to eat
    The Pride of Life – The fruit would give Eve and Adam knowledge to be like God

    Christ had to face these temptations after 40 days in the wilderness:

    The Lust of the Eyes – Look at these kingdoms; just bow down and I’ll give them to you
    The Lust of the Flesh – Turn these stones into Bread; no need to go hungry!
    The Pride of Life – Cast Yourself down; nothing will happen! You’re special!

    Contraception is unique in all sins because it caves in to all three simultaneously.

    The Lust of the Eyes – She’s beautiful; go for it!
    The Lust of the Flesh – It’s sex! You need some pleasure in your life!
    The Pride of Life – Use contraception! No baby! No responsibility!

    1 John 2:15-16 sums this up quite well:

    16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, is not of the Father but is of the world. 17 And the world passes away, and the lust of it; but he who does the will of God abides for ever.

  • Goodbye Mike. Share your views at other venues. You are banned from this one.

  • Sorry. I meant to say 1st John 2:16-17. Can’t type!

  • Apology.

    In my statement of Friday, March 23, 2012 A.D. at 1:10 pm, I stated, “You do not get to place yourself in God’s position. It is arrogant snottiness of the most hubris sort to do so.”

    I apologize to Mike. I did not mean for those sentences to be a direct reflection onto him. That statement should have said, “One does not get to place one’s self in God’s position. It is arrogant snottiness of the most hubris sort to do so.”

    It is important to take the “personal” out of this as some have reminded me. As is often said in 12 Step programs, “Principles before personalities.” (Now that statement is likely to get me criticized for violating the 11th Tradition – can’t please everybody.) In our case, the principle is Jesus Christ and His Church, and that’s why we don’t get to contracept and abort our way to happiness. No one gets to tell God when He may start new life, or when life may end (the only exception being Romans 13:1-7 where God gives the State the authority to defend its citizens). Unfortunately, I sometimes (OK, too often) fail to place that principle above my own feelings (and I suspect I am not alone in that defect of character).

    PS, as far as being “Pasta Primavera,” I guess that title didn’t bother me all that much. Don’t know why. I usually take off like a ballistic missile when so “challenged”. Maybe it’s because I like “pasta primavera” as a food dish?

  • A fine example of evangelization and cool-reason, this thread is.

    Mike, if you are still reading, there are two aspects to the topic of contraception that need separation: the ends and the means. The end of contraception is not always opposed by the Church. The means of contraception is always opposed by the Church.

    The end of contraception — not conceiving a child — is sometimes approved by the Church, and is actually mandated as a duty in cases where having a child would be destructive to a marriage and to a family. So the motives for using contraception can be good and reasonable.

    It is the means of contraception — the sterilization of the sexual act — that is always opposed by the Church. There are other ways of preventing conception that do not involve the sterilization of the sexual act, nor involve complete abstinence.

    So you’ve got two different moral challenges here. One is the decision of a couple to delay the conception of a child (perhaps indefinitely). The other is in how the couple affects the delay of that conception.

    The thing is that life is hard, and the path that leads to life is narrow. The sterilization of the sexual act is an easy way to have sex without having kids. The right way to have sex without having kids is to track cycles of fertility, and ultimately, to have a little faith in God that the conception of a child is a good thing (even if requiring not a bit of personal sacrifice).


An American Issue

Friday, March 16, AD 2012

Note how the Bishops in the above video indicate what a unique threat to the Catholic Church in America the Obama administration poses.  They recognize that the goal of the current administration is to strip the Bishops, through fostering a de facto schism in the Church, of their ability to stand in the way of this administration.  This is all very unprecedented in American history and all very dangerous to our concept of religious liberty enshrined in the Constitution.  The Administrative Committee of the USCCB set out what is at stake well on March 14th:

The Administrative Committee of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, gathered for its March 2012 meeting, is strongly unified and intensely focused in its opposition to the various threats to religious freedom in our day. In our role as Bishops, we approach this question prayerfully and as pastors—concerned not only with the protection of the Church’s own institutions, but with the care of the souls of the individual faithful, and with the common good.

To address the broader range of religious liberty issues, we look forward to the upcoming publication of “A Statement on Religious Liberty,” a document of the Ad Hoc Committee for Religious Liberty. This document reflects on the history of religious liberty in our great Nation; surveys the current range of threats to this foundational principle; and states clearly the resolve of the Bishops to act strongly, in concert with our fellow citizens, in its defense.

One particular religious freedom issue demands our immediate attention: the now-finalized rule of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that would force virtually all private health plans nationwide to provide coverage of sterilization and contraception—including abortifacient drugs—subject to an exemption for “religious employers” that is arbitrarily narrow, and to an unspecified and dubious future “accommodation” for other religious organizations that are denied the exemption.

We begin,  first, with thanks to all who have stood firmly with us in our vigorous opposition to this unjust and illegal mandate: to our brother bishops; to our clergy and religious; to our Catholic faithful; to the wonderful array of Catholic groups and institutions that enliven our civil society; to our ecumenical and interfaith allies; to women and men of all religions (or none at all); to legal scholars; and to civic leaders. It is your enthusiastic unity in defense of religious freedom that has made such a dramatic and positive impact in this historic public debate. With your continued help, we will not be divided, and we will continue forward as one.

Second, we wish to clarify what this debate is—and is not—about. This is not about access to contraception, which is ubiquitous and inexpensive, even when it is not provided by the Church’s hand and with the Church’s funds. This is not about the religious freedom of Catholics only, but also of those who recognize that their cherished beliefs may be next on the block. This is not about the Bishops’ somehow “banning contraception,” when the U.S. Supreme Court took that issue off the table two generations ago. Indeed, this is not about the Church wanting to force anybody to do anything; it is instead about the federal government forcing the Church—consisting of its faithful and all but a few of its institutions—to act against Church teachings. This is not a matter of opposition to universal health care, which has been a concern of the Bishops’ Conference since 1919, virtually at its founding. This is not a fight we want or asked for, but one forced upon us by government on its own timing. Finally, this is not a Republican or Democratic, a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American issue.

Continue reading...

28 Responses to An American Issue

  • This is all-out political warfare, no holds barred.

    If an outright yahoo such as myself knew this four years past, [fill in the blank].

    Social justice was used as the alibi for all sins.

    Hate and Chains!

    I know. I know.

    I’m a RACIST!

  • Where are the voices from the Democratic Party, once a bastion of faithful Catholics, who legislated for the common man? Are they in chains tallying collected dues, being used to further debase their once loyal catholic identity, selling their souls and their ultimate caretakers to a joyless, blasphemous destiny? Judas comes to mind.

    I cannot believe that the Democratic Party has finished homogenizing its collective mind. With a world of problems from which to choose to find a solution, the focus is to fester another problem – and in the only area on earth that ultimately supports them.

    The catholic voices that have lost the sound of faith to the sound of cacophony.

  • Pingback: Obama vs. bishops « Blithe Spirit
  • When the Supreme Court for the United States of America hears the Obamacare case as a violation of conscience, as Obamacare is a violation of conscience, the Court will be giving countenance to and legitimacy to the greatest perjury in the history of humankind. TRUTH, the whole truth and nothing but the truth will have been silenced and imprisoned in the chains of perjury, subliminal suggestion, lies, false advertisement, uninformed consent, swindle, cheating, stealing, and more lies and more perjury by the handmaid of the Satan. If Obamacare is not prevented from scamming unsuspecting citizens into surrendering their sovereignty for a cup of hemlock, the Supreme Court for the United States of America will become a useful idiot in the grand scheme of the Great Liar. The atheist, too, is become a useful idiot in the removal of all of every citizen’s unalienable rights, our founding principles, and especially Our CREATOR’S Divine Providence. The bottomless pit of hell is staring us and our Supreme Court in the face in Obamacare. HOPE and CHANGE without informed consent, without the TRUTH, without sovereignty, without freedom is not HOPE and CHANGE, no more so than Obamacare is healthcare.
    An eighty four year old man insisted that everybody ought to have healthcare and I agree. Obamacare is poised to balance the budget on his grave and he cannot see through it, because of the subliminal suggestions planted in his heart and mind. Subliminal suggestion is illegal and unconstitutional. Insincere promises (or lies) in Obamcare are the bait in a trap for America’s sovereignty and the sovereignty of each and every person as a citizen in the US. A one world government under the world bank, instead of under God, is the ultimate goal of the devil. Obamacare is only the weapon to be used against the sovereignty of America. Obamcare is only the bait into the black hole of servitude to another man, (created equal), whose god is mammon.
    Let us show Obama what freedom looks like in November. Let us show the devil the gates to Hell, the black hole, the true Obamacare: WHO IS LIKE UNTO GOD?
    And to atheists who are sincerely searching for the truth. God is permitting this violation of sovereignty and truth for you to come to your sovereignty and the truth. Follow the truth. The truth will set you free and make you sovereign.
    The schism in the nation has occurred. The schism occurred when the Supreme Court relegated the Person of God to the status of Persona non grata, abortion to “a political point of view” along with gay-marriage, infanticide, and rape of infant children, who, without informed consent have had their body parts desecrated; the Supreme Court, who, violating “the laws of nature and nature’s God” abrogated the definition the human being as having an immortal, rational soul.

  • “the Supreme Court, who, violating “the laws of nature and nature’s God” abrogated the definition of the human being as having an immortal, rational soul; the human being, as a being composed of a body and a rational, immortal soul.”
    the word for correction I do not know.

  • I suppose, if we are to be prepared for any outcome, we should look at the Augustinian view of “Moral War” in light of such Scriptural admonishments as found in Romans 13. With the exegesis of the rest of the book, as well as the Gospels and all of the New Testament, it should be discussed now, I’d think, when heads are still cool and backs are not against any walls.

    If, God forbid, there is a second Caiaphas term and an insufficient Republican (real, not RINO) presence in Congress to snuff out his two-bit Mussolini imitations, there will possibly be a call to arms. The history of the world demands this consideration, as well as demanding that our nation’s immediate past be considered an aberration, albeit a pleasant one. Short is the list of nations that have gone a scant century without either internecine violence or direct foreign attack.

    That we have escaped largely unharmed is a testament to our traditional character, but it is obvious to any with a lick of sense that the character so employed is now a scarce commodity.

    I am reminded of the brilliance of Hillaire Belloc:

    “We sit by and watch the Barbarian, we tolerate him; in the long stretches of peace we are not afraid. We are tickled by his irreverence, his comic inversion of our old certitudes and our fixed creeds refreshes us; we laugh. But as we laugh we are watched by large and awful faces from beyond: and on these faces there is no smile. ”

    The “large and awful faces” now sit in the highest seats of power in America. It would behoove us to thoroughly argue various methods of repelling their assaults upon us, so that we are sufficiently prepared, and united.

  • You can look at it as Obama encouraging de facto schism, but sadly, the de facto schism has existed for a while. In a sense, all he is doing is recognizing its existence and banking on it. He is simply pulling back the curtain and exposing it.

  • “You can look at it as Obama encouraging de facto schism, but sadly, the de facto schism has existed for a while. In a sense, all he is doing is recognizing its existence and banking on it. He is simply pulling back the curtain and exposing it.”

    Amen that.

  • Perhaps, but the next step has to be taken, and that is to ask “why?” The answer is obvious to us, of course.

    To what end does any government actively call attention to such an all-too-human rift in any religion or ideology, but to attack it? What other purpose could there be to risk the backlash and fallout that most certainly will (and even now starts to) occur? Why does this administration care, other than to exploit a strategic weakness, indicating it actually has a strategy that neeeds this exploitation?

    To downplay Caiaphas’ impact on the schism itself is to dissemble the truth; regardless of why it’s there, this president’s exploitation of it makes him anti-Catholic and fascist, and as such he should be given neither excuse nor benefit of doubt. Unless, of course, you’re on his side.

  • I agree with c matt. Obama is exploiting and counting on an already existing de facto schism. I doubt he has a sinister purpose in doing so, at least from his perspective. He has no grande aim to bring down the Church; he just wants to advance his policy agenda.

  • The exploitation by any American president of any religious division in this country Mike I regard as per se sinister. That he might be doing so for mere momentary political advantage actually increases the contempt I feel for him.

  • Does anyone know how the Bishops are distinguishing the Obamacare mandate for employers to purchase health insurance (which covers contraceptives) from individuals being required to pay federal taxes (of which a fraction goes to grants to Planned Parenthood)? Why would complying with one (the Obamacare mandate) be sinful and not complying with the other (paying federal taxes) be sinful? Is it because only a tiny fraction of federal income taxes go to grants for Planned Parenthood while a larger fraction of health care premiums would go to contraceptives? Or is because one is called a tax and one is called a mandate? What if the feds said the employers will not be paying any premiums, instead they pay a tax and then the employees get free health care? Would that make a difference?

    Don’t get me wrong, I am all for the Bishops cracking some heads, I am just a little confused about how one is sin and one is not.

  • J: You are correct. Obamacare is a tax and a mandate. Obamacare tax deletes the middle man, IRS. O makes you spend his (the government owns and controls everything) money the way Obama tells you.

    You must pay your income tax and when Obama gets the money you have no say in how it is wasted.

    If you don’t pay your income tax, you will learn two things: the reason why they had to amend the Constitution to institute the income tax and that you have no rights in tax court. No Fifth amendment. If you own anything the IRS will take it. Then you go to jail.

    Heretics had more rights with the Spanish Inquisition. Only difference being the IRS can’t torture you.

  • “I doubt he has a sinister purpose in doing so, at least from his perspective. He has no grande aim to bring down the Church; he just wants to advance his policy agenda.”

    That may be true. But in then end, this battle is not with men such as Obama. Rather this battle is with diabolical forces intent on attacking the Church. Obama and his Saruman-like Minions in the Church are merely pawns in an ancient battle. Pawns who have fallen for one lie or another by the Evil One even if they remain ignorant of the Dark One’s ultimate plan. So there will be further attacks even if this one is stopped. Either by Obama or other Minions. However, if this one succeeds, the next will be truly vile.

    We ultimately do not lose hope as the Easter Victory is eternal. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail, though there may be great suffering prior to the final victory. Pray. Fast. Then act to prevent further evil.

  • There would probably be less schism in the Church if Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, et al were treated in the same way as the SSPX were treated–with excommunication.

  • There has been a division in the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. I think much of the blame goes to the Bishops and Priests. In my life time, it started with the Bishops refusal to accept Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. You had Bishops outright rejection or their refusal to teach the dangers of contraception and the consequences. You had Vatican II which changed a lot of things in the Church (the left/ liberals used this time to their advantage). Then you also had sisters and nuns rejecting Church teachings and following the radical feminists. Then there was Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” (confusing real intrinsic evil issues with subjects that are not necessarily intrinsically evil to this very day), using Alinsky ideas, followed by “social justice” which has been more like socialism and earth worship. Also, you can’t ignore the homosexual infiltration into the seminaries which led to the terrible sexual scandals. Today, you have “catholic” politicians who support contraception, abortion, same sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research like Sebelius, Pelosi, Cuomo, Kerry, Biden, the Kennedys, Durbin, etc with hardly any of the Bishops doing anything about them. Obama surrounds himself with these left, unorthodox “catholics” and yes, I think he does want to split the Catholic Church. The Bishops need to face some facts about Obama and the Democratic Party. These are not the Democrats your grandparents supported.

    It really all starts with us though. WE have to seek and find the REAL teachings, dogmas, doctrines of the Catholic Church. WE need to stop picking and choosing what we want to believe and we need to speak up. I’m praying for our Pope, the Bishops, Priests, Deacons and Religious that the Holy Spirit will enlighten them with truth and courage!

  • There would probably be less schism in the Church if Pelosi, Reid, Sebelius, et al were treated in the same way as the SSPX were treated–with excommunication.

    If I understand correctly, the clergy associated with SSPX are excommunicate, not anyone else. It is permissible for laymen to attend SSPX services if done out of appreciation for the old rite and not in a spirit of disobedience.

    There has been a division in the Roman Catholic Church for a long time. I think much of the blame goes to the Bishops and Priests. In my life time, it started with the Bishops refusal to accept Pope Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae.

    Which bishops? The prominent dissenters on this question have been Charles Curran, Andrew Greeley, Luke Timothy Johnson, and Garry Wills. None of them are bishops. It was local parish priests who refused to enforce the teaching in the confessional.

    Then there was Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment” (confusing real intrinsic evil issues

    The Church in America had been an institutional wreck for a dozen years or more ‘ere Cdl. Bernardin’s wheel-spinning in the NCCB committee structure got underway.

  • AS WK Aiken wrote, “If, God forbid, there is a second Caiaphas term and an insufficient Republican (real, not RINO) presence in Congress to snuff out his two-bit Mussolini imitations, there will possibly be a call to arms. The history of the world demands this consideration, as well as demanding that our nation’s immediate past be considered an aberration, albeit a pleasant one. Short is the list of nations that have gone a scant century without either internecine violence or direct foreign attack.”

    Heaven forbid! But a second Obama term may make that a reality. 🙁

  • Obama supports the destruction of all Christian churches.

  • What I am about to say may be viewed as imprudent by some here. But the bishops have done much to bring this about. Hillsdale College professor Paul Rahe wrote an interesting article on this subject:

    Also, when you consider the fact that Obama being an Alinskyite and the influence Alinsky had on Church bureaucracies in the U.S., he is well aware of the divsions that exist. Remember, it was the same Cdl George who couldn’t stick to his guns with Fr. Pfleger and then presided over a function of the Archdiocesan Office for Racial Equality where Pfleger was given a lifetime achievement award. Never mind the fact that Fr. Pfleger is as thick as theives with bigots like Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakan.

    Then you have Cdl Dolan equating Arizona’s SB 1070 with the Know Nothing Party. When you have prominent American Prelates projecting weakness and engaging in left wing demagoguory, you invite the kind of actions Obama is taking and it isn’t like he needs an invitation.

  • Living in a country that has had a tax-funded national health service for over sixty years, and in which the taxpayer has no say on which ‘health’ provision his money is spent on, I find the present debate in the US rather bemusing. However, Catholics in the US should be aware that the British government is planning to legislate for same-sex marriage (despite the fact that the present civil partnership laws give homosexual couples the same rights as married couples anyway). PM David Cameron is cosying up to Barak Obama, who is no friend to England but has his eyes fixed on the upcoming election, and is pointedly ignoring anyone from the Republican party. As a life-long Tory voter, I hoped that the new ministry would roll back some of the stifling political correctness which characterized New Labour but Cameron seems to want to out-Blair Blair.

    The Catholic Church in England and Wales lacks any credible leadership (Scotland is better) and the Established Church is facing having its bishops ejected from the House of Lords since they are ‘incompatible with a multicultural society’. I was brought up in a country which prided itself on its tolerance and innate sense of liberty and fair play. I have seen it turned into a paradise for petty tyrants. Be warned, America, and for God’s sake don’t go the same way.

  • “I have seen it turned into a paradise for petty tyrants.”

    That is happening in both countries John, albeit at a slower pace in America, but Obama is attempting to quicken the process.

    For those of us who cherish liberty it is time for us to take a stand, all of us recalling this Churchill quote:
    “This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.”

    I have no intention of having the liberty that many of my ancestors purchased with their blood taken away piece by piece for Leftist political schemes and to serve the ends of politicians drunk with power.

  • If it is truly phrophetic is will come to pass, and nothing can stop it.

  • Then let us pray that it is not prophetic Janice and let us work to help bring our prayers to fruition. We are God’s instruments in this world and it is up to each of us to make our actions match our faith.

  • When the HHS Mandate goes to the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, architect of Obamacare must recuse herself, or be removed physically dragging her feet and screaming. Obamacare is Elena Kagan’s brainchild. Surely, Kagan will want to see this monstrosity endure. Kagan has a vested interest and the conflict of interest thereof. There may be a 4 to 4 split in the Court, who then, casts the deciding vote? Is that person of integrity and trustworthy?

  • The constitutionality of Obamacare is only a small issue. The constitutionality of Obama and his cronies is the greater issue. The Constitution for the United States of America prohibits a religious test for candidates for public office. Our constitution does not prohibit a religious test for removing public officials, presidents and his appointees from office for egregiously violating our founding principles, ignoring their sworn oaths to uphold our founding principles while in office and for violating our constitutional principles.
    IF Peter Singer, Barack Obama, or Cecile Richards cannot explain their existence without reference to our Constitutional CREATOR, our unalienable rights, and our founding principles, they are unfit for office. Obama has violated his oath of office. Let us dig up Margaret Sanger and ask her for her opinion. Saul Alinsky asked God to send him to hell. Maybe HOPE and CHANGE will make Alinsky feel bad. Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius, Geitner need to be shown the broom closet door, the same broom closet door, Obama, as senator from Chicago showed to our newest constitutional posterity, our newest citizens, the persons he refused to aid when they survived abortion. Obama has since ordered all frozen embryos to be destroyed. No snowflake babies for him. Nope.
    Peter Singer was deported from Australia. Germany refused to give Singer admittance. Princeton University welcomed Singer with the DeCamp Chair of Bioethics where he teaches the most elite sons of our people that killing a citizen if you do not like the child for up to six years after they come into their citizenship as “after birth abortion” is valid. Singer teaches that taking the life of another person is not a crime of homicide or infanticide or human sacrifice to the demon god of political correctness, environmental or really stupid (oh, seriousness) imbecilic eugenics. Cecile Richards, go get Margaret Sanger. Maybe Sanger can tell us how to live forever.

  • Pingback: For Greater Glory: Viva Christo Rey! | The American Catholic