PopeWatch: Archbishop: Luigi Negri

Tuesday, March 24, AD 2015

VATICAN-POPE-AUDIENCE

 

Perhaps Pope Francis can read this, courtesy of Rorate Caeli, if he can take time out from his climate change encyclical or dealing with the two greatest problems confronting the world in his opinion:  lonely geezers and youth unemployment:

 

Ancient Statues and bas-reliefs were toppled down by bearded men who then proceeded to destroy them by using jackhammers. This is the latest video released by ISIS in Mosul.  It is the continuation of a campaign against remnants of the past. Islamic State militants have been blowing up places of worship, feeding flames with books taken from libraries, and destroying a part of Nineveh’s city walls, the ancient Assyrian capital in the outskirts of present-day Mosul. These images, spread by a Twitter account used by the Caliphate, show the methodical destruction perpetrated in the rooms of what looks like a museum in Mosul. During the five-minute long video, we notice museum labels in Arabic and English describing exhibited artefacts. It is because of this that we have recorded the comments of Mons. Luigi Negri, the Archbishop of Ferrara-Comacchio.

 

I hope that the technological means which our society uses – and oftentimes abuses – can vividly preserve for future generations the images of such terrible scenes of barbarism which we have been able to see “live” in different parts of the world. This is rage, much more demented than barbaric, against the artistic expressions of one of the greatest ages of world culture, which have been handed down with devotion and respect from one generation to another, from one culture to another, from one civilization to another. And so culture and civilization are not exclusive, unlike the case of this horrendous ideology, even if it is religious. Culture and Civilization are inclusive and even know how to incorporate cultural and historical realities not born from the limitations of their proper milieu; thereby becoming all the more enriched. 

 

It has rightly occurred to those few men of culture who yet still exist in this weak society, the great Catholic tradition which for ages and ages has welcomed the expressions of classical culture, both Greek and Roman, and then later on of other traditions even of the Far East.

 

It is enough to recall the passionate dedication, for example, with which the Benedictine school and later on, the Cistercian, have received, guarded, copied, recopied, and commented on the documents of classical tradition. It is this movement of reception and greater understanding that has produced the great culture of monasteries, of convents, and then of great universities, as taught to us in an incomparable manner by the great Fr. Chenu, and in Italy by the renowned Don Inos Biffi. 

 

This capacity of reception, of respect, of greater understanding has been crushed. Its vilest expression is the destruction of the diverse. In reality as well, we Europeans have experienced this.  We have seen before our very eyes the destruction of preceding traditions perpetrated, for example, by the French Revolution which European secularism still considers an undisputed point of departure. Regrettably, it is not only the secularists but it is also a certain sector of the Catholic world that considers the French Revolution as an unsurpassable event for the good. 

 

In advance, the West has seen its own end. In the tragedy brought to completion within Mosul’s beautiful museum which preserved the highest masterpieces of artistry from a great culture; the West sees the death of its very own civilization which was called to mind in an unequalled manner by Benedict XVI in his misunderstood Regensburg address. The great Western Civilization is a civilization in which myriad ways of life, of thought, of customs have known and know how to encounter, understand, value, and contend with each other if necessary, for the sake of developing human life and history which is the mark of a civilization. 

 

This civilization, whether we like it or not, is now ending if it has not truly and already ended. The horizon is marred by the black flag of the Caliphate, under which lies dead the freedom of conscience and of the heart, of movement, the liberty to live in a dignified way, and to profess one’s own convictions in a free and responsible manner. 

 

This atrocity, all atrocities have been transformed into casual occurrences by the surreal fantasies of western man. He can quickly read of them in newspapers or on social networks; news headlines flashing at the bottom of the television while he eats tranquilly; as if they were current events from another world. 

 

Civilization has ended. A society on the brink of death would not even have the capacity to initiate an authentic and critical examination of its own life. If it would do so, what shall be unveiled are all those who, knowingly or unknowingly, have arranged and continue to prepare in more diverse ways its own death. These are all those who have persecuted dialogue beyond all limits; all those who deep inside themselves have more fear of the Christian Faith than the barbarism of fundamentalist Islamic Ideology. Maybe, the responsibility can be claimed, above all, by all those who have apostatized; while apostatizing from Christ, they have apostatized from themselves. Since man is always intimately linked to a society; by apostatizing from themselves, they have destroyed civilization.

Continue reading...

42 Responses to PopeWatch: Archbishop: Luigi Negri

  • What are we to do of it? Pope Francis told us that violence never conquers violence.

  • Father of seven: Armed forces like St. Michael the Archangel and the military are not violating the law. Armed forces are defending the innocent and persons unable to defend themselves. Calling the Allied forces who liberated the victims of concentration camps violent is pure lie. The Fifth Horseman of the Apocalypse: Unbridled Ignorance.

  • “Violence is never conquered by violence..” (Pope Francis address, July 20th, 2014)
    Again, we need courageous and intelligent leadership, and instead we get progressive-minted sloganeering. When we need a Pope St Pius V, we get instead a Clement VII (notwithstanding the one right thing the latter did in his pontificate, I.e., standing up to Henry VIII and Cranmer).

  • “Pope Francis told us that violence never conquers violence.”

    I would love to see Pope Francis explain that to the Carthaginians, the Vandals, the Kassites, ad infinitum.

  • “Perhaps Pope Francis can read this, courtesy of Rorate Caeli, if he can take time out from his climate change encyclical or dealing with the two greatest problems confronting the world in his opinion: lonely geezers and youth unemployment.” Apparently you do not take the Holy Father very seriously. You talk about him the way people talk about poiticians they disagree with. God takes the Holy Father seriously. If the Holy Father is making mistakes can there be anything more inappropriate than snide comments about them?

  • It was the Pope who said the greatest problems in the world are lonely seniors and youth unemployment.

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-the-most-serious-evils-are-youth-unemployment-and-the-loneline

    The only appropriate way for any loyal Catholic to take such rubbish is to pray that the Pope was making a very bad joke.

  • One recalls Prosper’s account of the meeting between Atilla the Hun and Pope Leo the Great.
    “Now Attila, having once more collected his forces which had been scattered in Gaul [at the battle of Chalons], took his way through Pannonia into Italy. . . To the emperor and the senate and Roman people none of all the proposed plans to oppose the enemy seemed so practicable as to send legates to the most savage king and beg for peace. Our most blessed Pope Leo -trusting in the help of God, who never fails the righteous in their trials – undertook the task, accompanied by Avienus, a man of consular rank, and the prefect Trygetius. And the outcome was what his faith had foreseen; for when the king had received the embassy, he was so impressed by the presence of the high priest that he ordered his army to give up warfare and, after he had promised peace, he departed beyond the Danube.”

    There is a fine depiction by Raphael
    http://tinyurl.com/nnxyzmv

  • “Pope Francis told us that violence never conquers violence.”
    I would love to see Pope Francis explain that to the Carthaginians, the Vandals, the Kassites, ad infinitum.

    .
    I suspect it was the infinitum part that the Pope had in mind.

  • “I suspect it was the infinitum part that the Pope had in mind.”

    We haven’t had any problems from Carthaginians lately.

  • “he was so impressed by the presence of the high priest”

    Pope Leo was no doubt impressive, as were the famine in Italy and a plague that was starting to spread. Attila retreated to the Danube and planned to ravage the Eastern Empire, but his death intervened.

  • And what, in the grand scheme of things, did destroying Carthage do for the Romans that kept either the Visigoths or the Vandals from sacking Rome?
    .
    Is the point. Or half a point, or whatever it’s worth.

  • “And what, in the grand scheme of things, did destroying Carthage do for the Romans that kept either the Visigoths or the Vandals from sacking Rome?”

    Since those sackings took place over 500 years after Rome destroyed Carthage, I would consider that a pretty effective operation.

  • Off topic other than in the sense that the Church is being led primarily by pacifists (and that is the nicest expression I can think of), I highly recommend Anne Hendershott’s article today on Crisis on the nauseating cowardice that is taking place here in New Jersey with regard to a teacher at a Catholic high school, Patricia Jannuzzi, who dared to express opinions that offended Susan Sarandon and her nephew. Seriously.

  • “Since those sackings took place over 500 years after Rome destroyed Carthage, I would consider that a pretty effective operation.”

    Bingo. Among other things the destruction of Cathage, or rather its defeat in the Second Punic War, allowed the creation of the Roman Empire and the Pax Romana that enabled the rapid spread of Christianity.

    The military defeat of the Western Roman Empire meant the coming of a Dark Age for three centuries in the West, just as the military successes of the Eastern Empire ensured that the light of learning would be kept bright in Constantinople. Military victory and defeat usually have had major consequences throughout History, and to deny that is to sacrifice truth on the altar of fashionable pacifism.

  • It should be remembered that at the time Rome destroyed Carthage, the Carthaginians were no longer a strategic rival to the Romans, having yet to really recover from their catastrophic defeat in the Second Punic War. Also, that the military defeat of the Roman Empire was only possible because of the frequent resort to violence by the Romans themselves as their preferred means of resolving political disputes –particularly over who was entitled to rule the empire.
    .
    And anyways it seems to me that you two are thinking concretely about something that’s better thought of abstractly. At least in this instance. That is, violence itself will never be conquered by violence.
    .
    Unless of course you really, really want to think of Pope Francis as someone who mouth’s platitudinous tripe along the lines of “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Violence, like the Poor will be with us always.
    .
    So for myself at least, I’m choosing to read this particular comment of Francis’s as a philosophical or perhaps metaphysical statement of reality. Maybe resisting the temptation to read Francis like a politician talking in bromides might a better way of putting it. Since Francis often seems like, well, a politician talking in bromides.
    .

  • If it was murder, it was an inside job. Western civilzation committed suicide. Same same the Church and the US. They are being wrecked by execrable elites and dysfunctional government/hierarchy.
    .
    Pacem Mac, The Irish saved civilization . . .

  • “It should be remembered that at the time Rome destroyed Carthage, the Carthaginians were no longer a strategic rival to the Romans, having yet to really recover from their catastrophic defeat in the Second Punic War.”

    Right. Massive violence in the Second Punic War destroyed them as a mortal threat to Rome. Massive violence in the Third Punic War made sure that Carthage would no longer exist.

    “Also, that the military defeat of the Roman Empire was only possible because of the frequent resort to violence by the Romans themselves as their preferred means of resolving political disputes –particularly over who was entitled to rule the empire.”

    The Romans no longer wanted to dirty their hands with fighting and hired barbarian mercenaries to do their fighting for them. That is usually, although not always, a sign that a civilization is sprinting to the tar pits. (Of course the Romans, meaning the inhabitants of Rome, had stopped staffing the legions during the first century AD, with the composition of the legions steadily coming from ever further frontier areas and finally leaping the frontiers into barbarian areas.)

    “Unless of course you really, really want to think of Pope Francis as someone who mouth’s platitudinous tripe along the lines of “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.””

    All signs point to the Pope largely thinking in fashionable cliches on most issues beyond abortion and contraception.

    “So for myself at least, I’m choosing to read this particular comment of Francis’s as a philosophical or perhaps metaphysical statement of reality.”

    His statement is untrue no matter how it is looked at.

  • “The only way for a loyal Catholic … ” Be snide to me all you want. I don’t care. Shoot if you must this old gray head but don’t aim at you pope.

  • If it was murder, it was an inside job. Western civilzation committed suicide. Same same the Church and the US. They are being wrecked by execrable elites and dysfunctional government/hierarchy.

    .
    Think of the West as having been gaslighted.

  • “The only way for a loyal Catholic … ” Be snide to me all you want. I don’t care. Shoot if you must this old gray head but don’t aim at you pope.”

    You aren’t Barbara Frietchie Roger, and the Pope isn’t the flag or any other symbol but rather a living human being quite able to say silly things. As long as he gives vent to that proclivity, PopeWatch is going to point it out when he does, just as PopeWatch points it out when he says something wise.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Pope Leo was no doubt impressive…”
    Also diplomatic, rather than confrontational: “The senate and the people of Rome, once conquerors of the world, now indeed vanquished, come before thee as suppliants. We pray for mercy and deliverance. O Attila, thou king of kings, thou couldst have no greater glory than to see suppliant at thy feet this people before whom once all peoples and kings lay suppliant. Thou hast subdued, O Attila, the whole circle of the lands which it was granted to the Romans, victors over all peoples, to conquer. Now we pray that thou, who hast conquered others, shouldst conquer thyself. The people have felt thy scourge; now as suppliants they would feel thy mercy.”
    One might also compare the approach of St Vedast and St Germanus to Clovis and his Franks.

  • Nothing in history changes. I’m reading a book on St. Hyacinth to my 7th grader (homeschooled). In the 1200s the Tartars attacked & destroyed everything in Eastern Europe. Interestingly enough, in the book, there’s no mention of the pope. Only of St. Hyacinth and how, through God, his miracles saved his band of brothers and converted thousands. Somehow, it’s easy for the human mind to be “okay” with terrorism and barbarism in the 1200s (and every age before ours) and pretend it doesn’t still exist today.

  • I imagine you know you argue like a liberal on this topic, never addressing my point. You speak disrespectfully about the Holy Father. The unstated argument in support of your disrespect is that he errs, and therefore forfeits your respect. St Catherine criticized popes who erred, in her view, but never with disrespect. Do you really think the pope deserves less respect than the American flag?

  • Mr. Conley, be careful about how you characterize S Catherine of Siena’s “respectfulness” for the Pope. We now have about 385 letters of hers: recently translated into English (2008) by Sr. Suzanne Noffke, OP, at Arizona State U’s Center for Medeival and Renaissance Studies (4 volumes). (Would that Fordham, USF, or my alma mater, St. Louis University had such an institute: shall we practice holding our breath and turning blue?).
    Here is just one sample of S Catherine’s much ballyhooed “respect for the pontiff” at that time, the Avignon pope Gregory XI, frustrated with his refusal to leave Avignon:
    “Since [Christ] has given you authority and you have accepted it, you ought to be using the power and strength that is yours. If you don’t intend to use it, it would be better and more to God’s honor and the good of your soul to resign….If I were in your place, I would be afraid of incurring divine judgment.” [ Later in her letter]… “Cursed be you, for time and power were entrusted to you and you did not use them!”
    —————————————-
    I don’t think Popewatch has cursed the present pontiff, but he (PF) is certainly cursed by his many foolish self-convicting declamations.
    —————————————
    There is another excerpt, but you will have to rely on my memory which is precious. Infuriated with Gregory XI’s prevarications and deliberately slow transit to Rome, she reputedly said, “Do not tell me that you are near now [to Rome], I can smell you coming a mile away.” (verbatim, letter 234, but this is not an exact quote, but catches the “fragrance” of her respect for the pope.

  • “You speak disrespectfully about the Holy Father.”

    No. It’s simply that Don doesn’t share your unblinking adulation for the current Bishop of Rome. That does not constitute “disrespect.”

    At least not unless a cult of personality is in full effect.

  • I find it curious how our Church leaders never, ever, say war, and natural disasters are the result of our sins. What happened to this idea our thought and teachings? Our Lady of Fatima said it directly, that war and suffering was a direct result of our sinful lives. Why is there never a call for repentance to avoid, or stop war? Why no call to stop being adulterers, or fornicators, or liars, or drunkards, etc… if we want to end wars, and natural disasters? The only sins our Pope and bishops see, are polluters, and capitalism. Why not sins of the flesh too, as Our Lady said at Fatima, “More sinners go to Hell, due to sins of the flesh, than any other sin!!! Yet now we must accept immorality of the flesh? Something is very wrong.

  • Mr Price you got me on the facts. I should study all the letters and see what the saint’s dominant tone is. I was going by very respectful excerpts that I had read individually over the years. At least I am not being opposed by arguments on the topic I raised. Thank you for providing these facts.

    But I would like to know what her general tone with popes was. How was she usually? If a pope actually told her he was moving to Rome, and then didn’t, I can see her believing that she was entitled to believe what he said. But I don’t understand the sense of entitlement of people who think the Holy Father is not up to their standards and therefore must only be discussed with biting distain. The way liberals always talked about every pope from 1968 to Francis, excepting only JPI. Can you tell me if St Catherine was always full of distain for all the Avignon popes all the time?

  • Sorry, Mr Price, I just saw your second comment. The author does in fact speak of the Holy Father with disrespect. He does not deny it. How much snide do you think he’d have to put in these posts to rise to the level of disrespect? You have corrected a factual error of mine. I have now corrected one of yours.

  • I apologize again, Mr Price. The “not” should be removed from the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph of the comment before last.

  • The author of this blog has been vet generous in allowing me to comment. Unfortunately I have erred yet again and will try to fix it here. My comments should have been directed to Mr Orice and Mr Phoenix, not Mr Orice twice.

  • No, Don didn’t admit to disrespect. He said the Pope has said silly things (“rubbish”), which–in addition to being true–is not inconsistent with overall respect. My father has said some silly things, but I love and respect him nonetheless.

    The belief that the Pope is some kind of divine oracle who demands kadaverghorsham whenever he speaks does neither the occupant nor his office any favors.

  • Missy, I love Polish heroes. St. Hyacinth Would you be so kind as to provide the title of the book?

    Typical of Polish history…they lost some battles against the Mongols, but won the last one.

    No Pope is worthy of papolatry. Not Pius XII, not John Paul II, not Francis. When a Pontiff speaks as much and abut as many things as the current Roman Pontiff, those words are going to be examined.

  • “I imagine you know you argue like a liberal on this topic, never addressing my point.”

    Actually I did address your point but I do appreciate the unusual insult. It made me smile.

    “You speak disrespectfully about the Holy Father.”

    No I write truthfully about the Pope, something all Catholics should always do:
    “Peter has no need of our lies or flattery. Those who blindly and indiscriminately defend every decision of the Supreme Pontiff are the very ones who do most to undermine the authority of the Holy See—they destroy instead of strengthening its foundations” – Melchior Cano O.P., Bishop and Theologian of the Council of Trent.

    “St Catherine criticized popes who erred, in her view, but never with disrespect.”

    Saint Catherine is a very great saint and I am not. She referred to the Pope as Christ on Earth, which I rather think that everyone else who knew Gregory XI probably thought was taking things a bit far. My intent is never to be disrespectful to the Pope, but rather to point out problem areas in his Papacy. Ignoring such problem areas does the Pope no good.

    “Do you really think the pope deserves less respect than the American flag?”

    The Pope is not a symbol or an icon, but rather Christ’s Vicar on Earth. He should always be respected by Catholics for his office, if not for any better reasons, but that respect should never be blind to policies he may be attempting to implement which are mistaken.

  • Penguins Fan, it is called St. Hyacinth of Poland: The Story of the Apostle of the North, by Mary Fabyan Windeatt. You can get it here for $3. https://tanbooks.benedictpress.com/index.php/page/shop:flypage/product_id/376/keywords/hyacin/

  • Missy and Penquins Fan, Thank you for the info and link on St. Hyacinth. I have seen his statue at Lourdes but didn’t know his history. I am familiar with the author and will purchase two copies. Cynthia (Greek goddess of the moon) is a first name in my family. The young girls when starting Catholic school were relieved, when told that they did have a Christian name -the feminine of Hyacinth.

  • Agreed Taad It would be great for church leaders to give a call to repentence and prayer.

  • The pope does not act up
    to your expectations so snideness is appropriate? It seemed to me that you couldn’t believe this but you do. Your snipe, supercilious, condescending comments wouldn’t ordinarily be respectful, but because he doesn’t do want you want it’s all the respect he deserves? Again, I began this thinking you couldn’t actually believe this but you sincerely do. Really there’s nothing more to say.

  • CAM wrote, “Cynthia (Greek goddess of the moon) is a first name in my family.”

    I knew a lady called Cynthia, who had two daughters. The elder was called Cynthia and the younger Selina, which is the Latin form of the same name.

  • “The pope does not act up to your expectations so snideness is appropriate?”
    A Pope saying silly, factually incorrect things, and, according to some sources, spouting heresy, is far more serious than not living up to my standards.
    “Your snipe, supercilious, condescending comments wouldn’t ordinarily be respectful, but because he doesn’t do want you want it’s all the respect he deserves?”
    No, a Pope deserves to be corrected when he is in the wrong by loyal Catholics, something I gather you would never do.

    “Really there’s nothing more to say.”
    The first accurate thing you have had to say Roger. You obviously do not care for the tone of my posts regarding the Pope. Then you not reading them is the obvious solution to your problem.

  • There’s a certain irony in Roger complaining that Don “argues like a liberal” while posting some half-dozen comments that never address the substance of Don’s post, instead focusing on the “tone.” That is a rather common tactic of heterodox Catholics who would prefer to ignore harsh truths

  • Roger Conley is not defending or demanding respect for the Pope. Roger Conley is verbally assaulting Mr. McClarey. What I am thinking, I dare not write. “Hypocrite” shall suffice.

  • MPS, thank you. Will pass it on to the two Cynthias. Then there’s Hyacinth Bucket (Boo-kay) as an example.

The Effrontery of Rick Santorum

Tuesday, February 21, AD 2012

 

 

Rich Lowery has a post at National Review Online which explains why Rick Santorum drives the Mainstream Media crazy:

Santorum is a standing affront to the sensibilities and assumptions of the media and political elite. That elite is constantly writing the obituary for social conservatism, which is supposed to wither away and leave a polite, undisturbed consensus in favor of social liberalism. Santorum not only defends beliefs that are looked down upon as dated and unrealistic; he does it with a passionate sincerity that opens him to mockery and attack.

If Santorum had the social views of a Barbara Boxer, he would be hailed in all the glossy magazines as a political virtuoso. He has fought a front-runner with all the advantages to a jump ball in Michigan. His aides can’t provide advance texts of his speeches because he always extemporizes and speaks from a few notes. He is indefatigable, willing to lose on behalf of what he believes and committed to trying to convince others of his positions.

In the wake of his surprise showing in the Iowa caucuses, news coverage focused on Santorum arguing about gay marriage with college kids at his New Hampshire events. It was taken as a sign of his monomania. Yet he genuinely — if naïvely — wanted to convince them. If the cauldron of a presidential campaign is not the best place for Socratic exchanges on hot-button issues, Santorum was trying to do more than repeat sound bites back at youthful questioners.

Although his critics will never credit him for it, Santorum’s social conservatism brings with it an unstinting devotion to human dignity, a touchstone for the former senator. The latest position for which he’s taking incoming is his opposition to a government mandate for insurance coverage of prenatal testing often used to identify handicapped babies who are subsequently aborted. For his detractors, his respect for the disabled is trumped by his unforgivable opposition to abortion.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to The Effrontery of Rick Santorum

  • Another great post, Donald, that I just had to share. Thank you!

  • Thank you Paul for spreading the message about Santorum. I am beginning to think that something spectacular is happening in regard to this man and his initially quixotic quest for the Presidency, and we are in on the ground floor.

  • We’re going to find out if America is capable of electing a man who not only knows the difference between right and wrong, but is willing to act upon that knowledge. I, too, never thought that Santorum had a chance…now, he clearly does. We’ll see what happens.

  • Rick annoys liberals?

    Really?!

    One more reason to back Rick.

  • ” I think that what really disturbs the press is the raw courage of Santorum in that he does not quiver in fear that his views may prove unpopular. He is holding to them no matter what. That simply is not how the political game is played! Judging from the polls, maybe, just maybe, political courage, honesty and forthrightness will prove a winner this year. ”

    He is refreshing and I hope he can stay strong because he ‘s so in for it by the bullies’ soundbites on TV. Was thinking about media effects (not to mention societal) on people after I read Foxfier’s “Sin is Poison” because the tv was on also.

    Last night, after the news, I didn’t get to the remote before I heard Jay Leno going on about him and Satan jokes – really mean spiritedly. Same type last week with Letterman monologues and insinuations on daytime talk. On and on. These are the mainstream voices that mainstream voters/parents hear daily and it occurred to me that, all this finger pointing and bullying for laughs and money is what kids see as making their parents laugh. In recent time, anti-bullying laws were passed for school behavior and social networking due to a tragedy in a town near where I live. Huge news topic. Kids were brought to court, but this election year noise has our leaders and press applauding one another for slamming others. Schizo politics.

    Bill Maher was a guest on Craig Ferguson, who entertains without political affiliation. The guest was dying to get going on RS, NG, and MR, but couldn’t draw complicity out. More refreshing moments than most. Anyway, there has to be a correlation between the phenomenon of bullying kids (and the mentality in many other stations in life) and the effects of behavior in the political, sports, and entertainment arenas. I like b & w TV shows and movies for relaxing.

    Mentality of liberals acting offended after their own offending becomes offensive to some people. They aren’t happy unless there’s an underdog. Moral relativism and the culture of death – not fun or healthy. Hope he survives.

  • Pingback: ASH WEDNESDAY EXTRA: U.S. CULTURE WARS | ThePulp.it
  • This happens to be the same Rick Santorum who says contraception harms wmoen (and he’s right it does) but sees fit to force American taxpayers to foot the bill for it under Title X. Why aren’t social conservatives, especially Catholic socons, even challenging him on this?

  • Update: Santorum said when challenged on that issue by Ron Paul (even Ron Paul does something right every now and then), he now says that he simply voted for a larger appropriations bill that included Title X and that he always opposed Title X. He also says that he proposed Title XX for abstinence ed to counteract Title X. If that’s true, that’s acceptable. However, I think Ron Paul is right about the giovernment shouldn’t be invovled in either in terms of funding. But I think Santorum’s position as stated is certainly valid given the circumstances. I agreed with Ron Paul twice in one paragraph. I think I’m gonna get sick.

    However, Santorum is now defending his endorsement of Specter due to the SCOTUS issue whereas he says elsewhere as cited by CMR that “inretrospect, it was a mistake”. Mitt missed a golden opportunity to embarass the hell out of Santorum.

  • This is the first time I’ve heard Santorum and I must say he has the gift of compressing his argument effectively into the time allotted. He would make an effective debater against Obama if he manages to stymie that man’s outpouring of gas.

  • I admire his courage and his ability to have a dialog about the issues, not just preach them. He happens to live what he believes as well. He has my vote.

  • PS: anyone know who he will be selecting as his VP?

  • Sen. Santorum is a shining light of courage and core beliefs near and dear to the heart of this traditional Roman Catholic. If he receives the nomination, the general election will be a true guage of just how far the culture of death, contraception, co-habitation and general hedonism have gained a foothold…or as I often fear, gained control of our nation. We have now two generations that have been taught the “normality” of homosexuality, the acceptance of abortion (for the sake of convenience) and a host of other sinful behaviors. I wonder if the Genie is not only out of the bottle but is now the dominant force, listen to the voices of “pro-choice” Catholics or other internal reformers that reject the teachings and magisterial authority of the Church and…..dispair.

  • Thank you for your excellent analysis of Santorum’s challenge to a liberal bias. I heard a woman (in a panel of citizens) say that considering his “pious attitude” and his constant talk of his “religion,” his vote for Title X which included Planned Parenthood support showed how insincere he was. I was several issues with her statement, but the point I want to make is that the values he espouses were more the norm among mainstream Americans not too very long ago. It shows how successful the liberal bias toward gays and abortion has been through the media and through entertainment of all kinds. Family values have been corrupted and now are a matter of apology and/or criticism. What is gratifying to me is that without all the money, the glitz, and the mealy-mouth attempt to keep from offending, he has succeeded to such a degree. I know that ultimately the victory is God’s, and I don’t presume to know his timing (now or years from now), but I wonder if I am seeing the power of God at work in opening hearts to his message. Let’s keep praying for God’s will in His way and His time.

  • Sir, so far as possible I hear Mass each day and I go to my knees and tell these beads each night. If that offends you, then I pray God may spare me the indignity of representing you in Parliament. Belloc. Donald McClarey, thank you for this.

  • It might be really interesting to get the whole perspective after the last debate. Mark Levins radio show on 2/23/2012 revealed alot that none of the other media picked up on, including the idea of the Paul/Romney tag team. Think about it. Does Paul EVER question Romney about anything? No, he bashed all the conservatives, Bachman, Gingrich, Cain, Perry, & now Santorum. Why does he have all of these negative ads in Michigan against SANTORUM when he’s not even campaigning there? Realy, check it out!

Yeah, I Feel So Much Safer Now

Friday, February 17, AD 2012

Hattip to Matt Archbold at Creative Minority Report.  The United States Army has a long and proud history of defending this country, often engaged in combat in the most deadly situations imaginable against very tough adversaries.   I was proud in my misspent youth to wear Army green for a few years.  Today the Army finds itself facing severe financial cuts from the Obama administration, troop strength is at its lowest ebb since the Fifties, and it is entirely possible that a war with Iran might occur anytime this year.  Not to worry!  The Army has time for this:

The Army is ordering its hardened combat veterans to wear fake breasts and empathy bellies so they can better understand how pregnant soldiers feel during physical training.

This week, 14 noncommissioned officers at Camp Zama took turns wearing the “pregnancy simulators” as they stretched, twisted and exercised during a three-day class that teaches them to serve as fitness instructors for pregnant soldiers and new mothers.

Army enlisted leaders all over the world are being ordered to take the Pregnancy Postpartum Physical Training Exercise Leaders Course, or PPPT, according to U.S. Army Medical Activity Japan health promotion educator Jana York.

Nothing I could possibly say is half so apropos as what was said by Hilaire Belloc long ago:

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Yeah, I Feel So Much Safer Now

Praying the Holy Rosary in October

Saturday, October 2, AD 2010

The month of October is dedicated to the Holy Rosary — by personal recommendation of Pope Leo XIII:

In a letter of September 1, 1883, mindful of the Rosary’s power to strengthen faith and foster a life of virtue, he outlined the triumphs of the Rosary in past times and admonished the faithful to dedicate the month of October to the Blessed Virgin through the daily recitation of her Rosary in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, in order to obtain through her intercession the grace that God would console and defend His Church in her sufferings.

Beginning on September 1, 1883, with SUPREMO APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO, Pope Leo wrote a total of eleven encyclicals on the Rosary, ending with DIUTURNI TEMPORIS in 1898. (Source: Rev. Matthew R. Mauriello, Catholic.net).

The spread of the devotion of the rosary is attributed to the revelation of Mary to St. Dominic, who sought her help in battling the heresy of the Albigenses. Robert Feeney’s “St. Dominic and the Rosary” gives a detailed account,

Continue reading...

One Response to Praying the Holy Rosary in October

  • Every day: beginning to end using a small prayer book (my grandmother gave me) with the prayers, meditations and scheduling.

    Prayer Before the Rosary
    “Queen of the Most Holy Rosary, you have deigned to come to Fatima to reveal to the three shepherd children the treasures of grace hidden in the Rosary. Inspire my heart with a sincere love of this devotion, in order that by meditating on the Mysteries of our Redemption which are recalled in it, I may be enriched with its fruits and obtain peace for the world, the conversion of sinners and (was Russia) America, and the favor which I ask of you in this Rosary. I ask it for he greater glory of God, for your own honor,and for the good of souls, especually my own. Amen.”

    The Blesed Virgin Mary (my Mother); legions of angels at her bidding; and the Holy Rosary have brought me through many “issues.”

    Each day last year my Rosary was for my son in Afghanistan. Now, it’s for another son or a brother with a chronic disease.

    When my mother was dying, we left her each night with her Rosary in her hands. She prayed the Rosary all her life. When I was taking a test for a scholarship, she was simultanepusly praying that Rosary for me. I scored enough to go to college. It may not have happened otherwise.

    Today and tomorrow will be the Glorious Mysteries.

0 Responses to Why Aren't There More Worker Co-Ops?

  • The principles of neoclassical economics are a flashpoint in some Catholic circles, where the mainstream economist is derided for his “science” and unwavering belief that economic phenomena are defined by something akin to scientific laws. But what are we to make of this:

    An increasing percentage of Mondragon employees, for example, do not have an ownership stake in the company, but work for it much as they would for an ordinary business. But while this may be a solution for a particular co-operative business, it is not really a solution for the co-operative business model so much as a gradual abandonment of it.

    The Catholic criticism of mainstream economics is fair enough — get the anthropology in the correct order before positing homo economicus, we’re told. I sympathize, but if there’s an incentive against expansion because of share dilution even at Mondragon, how do we square this apparent inevitability with the insistence that politcal economy and economic institutions are not deterministic?

    (This is a bit off topic and might make a good topic for a separate post.)

  • I don’t know that it’s necessarily that far off-topic. My issue with most discussions of economic “justice” is that they inevitably drift over toward equality of outcome at the expense of equality of opportunity. That is precisely the issue, it seems to me, with Mondragon and other worker co-ops.

    SOmeone has to set a relative value for the stuff being co-op’d. Whoever does that will be required to make value judgments as to the relative worth if various inputs to the system, and then to relate those values to outcomes. If we’re all OK with me being paid less than Blackadder because I only input potatoes while he inputs truffles (does anyone not-French really eat those things?), then we’re good. But when Blackadder becomes richer than me because his inputs are more valuable than mine, many Catholic sociologists will cry foul and seek to level the playing field. THAT’S when we get into trouble.

    Concentration of wealth, or resources, or whatever, into the hands of less than the entire society is inevitable, unless we desire to take everyone to the lowest comoon denominator. And remember: when everyone is at a subsistence level…the poor will STILL be with us, except that none of us will be able to afford largesse to aid them!

  • “If employers and employees find, for the reasons given above, that worker co-ops are less preferable than other forms in many circumstances, there is nothing wrong with that.”

    I really hope the assumption here isn’t that anyone ever said there WAS something wrong with it.

  • Deacon Chip,

    ” But when Blackadder becomes richer than me because his inputs are more valuable than mine, many Catholic sociologists will cry foul and seek to level the playing field. THAT’S when we get into trouble.”

    I agree. And Catholic social teaching is clear – men have a right to make a profit from their labor, to enrich themselves. They also have a MORAL obligation to use their wealth charitably (which is NOT the same as saying that the state should force them to; unfortunately we live in a world in which people can ONLY imagine obligations coming from the state, since they no longer believe in God).

    “Concentration of wealth, or resources, or whatever, into the hands of less than the entire society is inevitable, unless we desire to take everyone to the lowest comoon denominator.”

    I completely agree. But “less than the entire society” is very broad. It could mean almost everyone, or it could mean almost no one. What Catholic social teaching makes clear is this: in so far as POSSIBLE (the exact words of Pius XI and a paraphrase of JP II), we should look for ways to make more people full participants in the economic process – through degrees of ownership and control of the means of production.

    This doesn’t mean “do it, even if it will ruin the company or the economy.” It means, “examine each situation to discover how far this general principle can be applied, if it all.” And even BA is forced to admit that in some sectors of the economy it DOES work.

    In any case, we also have to remember that the aim of CST is to prevent or mitigate class warfare. The Church has always recognized a polarizing tendency in what we call “capitalism” and has suggested Distributism as ONE way of addressing it.

    The other ways – labor unions, and state assistance, have mutated into corrupt bureaucratic enterprises. In fact I would argue that it is because of a false hope that men in all classes put in these institutions that the real solution, Distributism, was never really tried on a mass scale.

    Now that the bankruptcy of organized labor and welfare-statism is evident, I believe the already empirically demonstrated upward trend in employee ownership (which I pointed out in this post:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/06/25/worker-ownership-%E2%80%93-the-untold-stories/)

    will continue. Though some people make a career out of denying it, the dog-eat-dog individualism of the unfettered market does not and will not serve as the foundation of a stable or a just or a moral society. We are social beings, we are meant to live, to work, and to worship as a community (without negating our individual dignity or rights, of course).

    As a final thought, even Ronald Reagan supported employee ownership.

  • Pingback: Round Up – May 11, 2010 « Restrained Radical
  • Though some people make a career out of denying it, the dog-eat-dog individualism of the unfettered market does not and will not serve as the foundation of a stable or a just or a moral society.,-Joe Hargrave

    Dogs don’t eat dogs – despite the claims of those who make a career asserting it. However the 20th century experience with unfettered collectivism demonstrates that socialists do eat other socialists.

    I am pleased to see Blackadder’s article explaining that worker co-ops are rare not because they are wilfully suppressed by Secret Masters of Political Economy (SMOPEs) but because they are naturally selected against by people’s own individual choices. I am amused by advocates of distributism who use mass-produced computers and a ubiquitous Internet to stump for distributism without regard to the fact that such tools subsist in an economy where large capital formations are commonplace. As Blackadder put it, “worker co-ops tend to be disproportionately concentrated in labor intensive, capital light industries.” These haven’t been the commanding heights of a Western economy since the Industrial Revolution, maybe not even since the days medieval Benedictine monks built water wheels, windmills, and forges adjacent to their monasteries.

  • Micha,

    The extent to which you go to misrepresent arguments is well known, and unworthy of a response. I’ll pray for you.

Bishop Sheen on Fatima

Wednesday, February 3, AD 2010

The things that you find on the internet!  Bishop Sheen gives a brilliant exposition of the miracle of Fatima.

Bishop Sheen believed that our Lady of Fatima would lead to the conversion of Islam.  Here are his thoughts on that subject:

Moslemism is the only great post-Christian religion of the world. Because it had its origin in the seventh century under Mohammed, it was possible to unite within it some elements of Christianity and of Judaism.

Moslemism takes the doctrine of the unity of God, His Majesty, and His Creative Power, and uses it as a basis for the repudiation of Christ, the Son of God.

Misunderstanding the notion of the Trinity, Mohammed made Christ a prophet only.

The Catholic Church throughout Northern Africa was virtually destroyed by Moslem power and at the present time (circa 1950), the Moslems are beginning to rise again.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Bishop Sheen on Fatima

  • Wow – this is a totally new perspective on Christian-Muslim relations. This means that “dialogue” should really focus on Mary. Are there any follow ups on this line of thinking, on groups that took it up in their missionary efforts, even Orthodox groups perhaps?

  • Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.

  • Thanks for this Don.

    Fulton Sheen was definitely a powerful and dramatic orator. I knew of him when I studied with the Redemptorists back in ’58 and ’59 testing a vocation, and knew a little of his assertion concerning the conversion of Islam. But that’s the first time I have seen these videos, and the first time I have read the full text of his talk on Fatima.

    Excellent stuff.

  • Abp. Sheen said this more than 50 years ago. He noted the growth of anti-Christian sentiment and predicted it would increase. That is happening. But there are also reports of Muslims converting, making great sacrifices and facing death as a result.
    When Fulton J. Sheen is canonized, perhaps an additional title could be placed after his name, “Prophet”.

  • Thank you JJO2 and Don. Bishop Sheen had a great gift of communicating in simple direct terms complicated truth. I think this show on Fatima was one of his best efforts.

  • Dear writer and all

    I would like to point out that those whom submit to God’s will are called Muslims and their religion is called Islam. Not moslems, moslemism or Mohammedism, Muslims do not worship Mohammed (Peace be upon him) nor do we believe he is the founder of Islam. The name Islam and Muslims is what God calls us in the Quran, it is not a religion named after a man.

    And regarding why muslims believe Jesus (peace be upon him) is a prophet, and not Son of God or God, is answered in the following link.

    Prophet Jesus and Muhammad (Peace be upon them) in the Holy Quran and Previous Scriptures
    http://theradiantlight.blogspot.com/

    Other useful websites

    Islam
    http://www.islamreligion.com/

    Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him)
    http://www.rasoulallah.net/

    By a German diplomat
    http://teachislam.com/dmdocuments/Muhammad_Aman_Hobohm_Islams_Answer_to_Racial_Problem.pdf

    I hope this provides a better understanding.

    It says in your scripture “blessed are the peacemakers” I hope Jews, Christians and Muslims co-exist peacefuly.