Jesuitical 20: Georgetown Prof on Slavery and Rape

Sunday, February 12, AD 2017



Part 20 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits. A Georgetown Professor assures us that slavery and rape isn’t so bad as long as the slavers and rapists follow the religion of peace.  Rod Dreher gives us the details:


An academic reader writes:

This news item stands out if only because — at last! — reality beats Houellebecq. Who’d a thunk? Or maybe Houellebecq was prophetical in his novel, “Soumission”.

What’s he talking about? News that Jonathan Brown, a tenured Georgetown professor and holder of the Al-Waleed bin Talal Chair in Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University, has delivered a lecture defending slavery and rape non-consensual sex. Umar Lee, a Muslim who heard the lecture and was offended by it, posted about it here. He wrote:

While the lecture was supposed to be about slavery in Islam Brown spent the majority of the lecture talking about slavery in the United States, the United Kingdom and China. When discussing slavery in these societies Brown painted slavery as brutal and violent (which it certainly was). When the conversation would briefly flip to historic slavery in the Arab and Turkish would slavery was described by Brown in glowing terms. Indeed, according to Brown, slaves in the Muslim World lived a pretty good life.

I thought the Muslim community was done with this dishonest North Korean style of propaganda. Obviously not. Brown went on to discuss the injustices of prison labor in America and a myriad of other social-ills. Absent from his talk (until challenged) was any recognition of the rampant abuse of workers in the Gulf, the thousands of workers in the Gulf dying on construction sites, the South Asian child camel-jockeys imported into the United Arab Emirates to race camels under harsh conditions, or the horrific conditions of prisoners in the Muslim World (the latest news being 13,000 prisoners executed in Syria).

Brown constructs a world where the wrongs of the West excuse any wrongs (if he believes there are any) in the Muslim World.

“Slavery wasn’t racialized” in Muslim societies, Brown stated. That would be believable if it weren’t well-known black people in the Arab World and African-Americans in this country weren’t constantly referred to as abeed (slaves) simply because the color of the skin.

Brown described slavery in the Muslim World as kinder and gentler. The Arab poet who wrote “before you buy the slave buy the stick… for he is nejas (impure)” is perhaps a better description of Arab slavery than what Brown offered.
“Slaves were protected by shariah (Islamic Law)” Brown stated with no recognition of the idealized legal version of slavery and slavery as it was practiced. In this version of slavery there is an omission of kidnappings, harems, armies of eunuchs, and other atrocities.

Read the whole thing. Umar Lee is furious.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Jesuitical 20: Georgetown Prof on Slavery and Rape

  • A few days ago I had a similar but brief discussion with a spoiled brat narcissistic millennial feminist who, having once styled herself as “healthy fit goddess” (but yet insisting that she is a refugee from central Europe while jet setting around the world) asked me if I was asserting that there is no maltreatment of women in business within the US. I responded, “Not within my industry. What about yours?” We work in the same industry though we are unacquainted with each other, and in that industry abusing women can and will get you fired (unless you are former NRC Chairperson like Gregory Jackzo appointed by Obama in 2010 – then the rules are different). She, being a part of public relations, dared not respond for otherwise she would defame the very business and industry of which she is a member and unwilling to do that was she. I went on with the following link, knowing that she had proudly bragged about having once visited Iran and how wonderful the Iranian Republic is:

    Of course she didn’t respond. Like most narcissists in the West, she knows neither the Koran (that book of iniquity and depravity) nor the real history of Islam (raping, pillaging and blood-shedding its way through 1400 years of human history). For her, history started at her birth if not her breakfast.

    Liberal. Progressive. Feminist. Democrat. Narcissist.

    The five most vile words in the English language.

  • Truth: Ask any savant furiously running through the streets screaming “Refugees welcome!”

    Islam means never having to say, “I’m sorry.”

  • This being taught here in the US makes me so angry that I could probably get violent over it. We have Islamic studies at more than one university here in my state. I have brought their promotion of slavery of women up several times & no one wants to touch it.

  • In 2003, Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of the Senior Council of Clerics,
    Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, had this to say about Islam and slavery:
    “Slavery is a part of Islam… slavery is a part of jihad, and jihad will remain
    as long as there is Islam… (those who argue that slavery has been abolished are)
    ignorant, not scholars, they are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel.”

  • Aside from the ‘arabs’ being the major players in the transatlantic slave trade, I found some other least known facts horrifying. The rowers in the Ottoman ships at the Battle of Lepanto were Christian galley slaves. They were captured in previous conquests. Or the elite Ottoman infantry, the Janissaries, who were slaves and Christian boys taken from their families to be trained strictly into loyal soldiers & bodyguards. Imagine your son being taken from you, a dhimmi, to be raised to fight against your own people. We have a modern day example-Kayla Mueller- who was made the sex slave of Jihad John. She is one of thousands of Christian & Yazidi captured for sex slavery- which is perfectly acceptable in Islam.
    The harems- full of captive sex slaves, and wives, guarded by eunuch slaves, are the separate part of a muslim household devoted to one man. This is all acceptable.
    To go back to my first least known facts- google transatlantic slave trade and you will have to search for a reference to where all the slaves came from- who was selling them. Very one-sided.

  • He who pays the piper calls the tune.

  • Saudi Arabia is the home and treasury of Wahhabism, a most aggressive, violence species of Islamic terrorism.

    Islam is exactly like all the other religions as long as you refuse to learn about it and don’t get murdered by it.

    Here’s the Truth, all you need to know about Islam. It’s a religion of peace and love only for Muslim males, not for kaffirs (lower than Jews in Nazi Germany), Muslim women, and kaffir women (lowest). Everything beautiful in the Koran is reserved for the “House of Islam/Peace” Muslims; everyone outside Islam is in the “House of War/desultory, eternal war.” There may exist good Muslims. Are they shamming friendship and toleration until . . . ? Remember, “They also serve who only stand and wait.” – John Milton

  • Saudi Arabia is the home and treasury of Wahhabism, a most aggressive, violence species of Islamic terrorism.

    Saudi foreign policy is, for the most part, a drab Machivellian affair. Since 1924, they’ve never participated in any war bar a supporting role in the 1st Gulf War and supporting roles in counter-insurgency programs in neighboring countries (i.e. Oman and Yemen). They passed subsidies to insurgencies (contra the Soviets in Afghanistan) and have paid some protection money to the PLO. They have cultural programs (e.g. financing mosques abroad) which are an irritant. They’re basically a status quo power and not much of a threat to anyone.

  • Malachi Martin opened my eyes about the Jesuits.Everyone should read him.

Jesuitical 19: Fordham and Gay Marriage

Wednesday, July 8, AD 2015




Part 19 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Jesuit university Fordham disabuses Catholics deluded enough to believe that liberal Catholics have not, by and large, fully embraced the zeitgeist of the secular left:

The New York Times, which wrote up a glowing report of the couple’s marriage, described Hornbeck, as “the chairman of the theology department and an associate professor of medieval and reformation history at Fordham University.”

The article somehow failed to mention that the only course he actually taught last semester was titled “Christianity & Sexual Diversity.”

One wonders how Fordham expects its Catholic theology to be “taught in a manner faithful to Scripture, Tradition, and the Church’s Magisterium,” as required by Catholic discipline, when the head of the department stands in open opposition to the Church’s teaching on marriage.

The wedding ceremony took place just days before the Episcopal Church in America voted to allow same-sex marriage rites in its churches, effectively sacramentalizing sodomy.

Fordham in turn has defended Hornbeck’s “constitutional right to marriage,” saying that his lifestyle choice is irrelevant to his role as a teacher of Catholic Theology.

“While Catholic teachings do not support same-sex marriage, we wish Professor Hornbeck and his spouse a rich life filled with many blessings on the occasion of their wedding in the Episcopal Church,” said Bob Howe, Fordham’s senior director of communications.

“Professor Hornbeck is a member of the Fordham community, and like all University employees, students and alumni, is entitled to human dignity without regard to race, creed, gender, and sexual orientation,” he said.

Howe stressed that same-sex unions are “now the law of the land, and Professor Hornbeck has the same constitutional right to marriage as all Americans.”

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Jesuitical 19: Fordham and Gay Marriage

Jesuitical 18: Saint Louis University and Father De Smet

Thursday, May 28, AD 2015

Father De Smet statue


Part 18 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  This story symbolizes the childish Leftism that is at the heart of much of modern Jesuitism:

Saint Louis University has removed a statue on its campus depicting a famous Jesuit missionary priest praying over American Indians after a cohort of students and faculty continued to complain the sculpture symbolized white supremacy, racism and colonialism.

Formerly placed outside the university’s Fusz Hall in the center of the private Catholic university, the statue will go to the university’s art museum, a building just north of the bustling urban campus.

The statue features famous Jesuit Missionary Pierre-Jean De Smet S.J. praying over two American Indians dressed in traditional clothing. Last Monday, just two days after graduation, it was removed from the location it has called home on campus for decades.

A university spokesperson told St. Louis Magazine the statue will be placed within the “historical context of a collection that’s on permanent display in our SLU Museum of Art.” The statue is set for the museum’s “Collection of the Western Jesuit Missions.”

“In more recent years, there have been some faculty and staff who have raised questions about whether the sculpture is culturally sensitive,” SLU spokesman Clayton Berry said.

Berry did not respond to The College Fix’s request for comment.

The De Smet statue has long drawn the ire of progressive students and scholars at the Jesuit university who argue the statue was a symbol of racism and white supremacy, among other oppressions.

In a recent op-ed published in SLU’s University News, senior Ryan McKinley stated the sculpture sent a clear, unwelcoming message to American Indians at Saint Louis University.

Go here to read the rest.  Obsessed with race?  Check.  White male bashing?  Check.  Ignorant of history?  Check.  Falling down before Leftist sacred cows?  Check.

Continue reading...

51 Responses to Jesuitical 18: Saint Louis University and Father De Smet

  • “The De Smet statue has long drawn the ire of progressive students and scholars at the Jesuit university ”
    Golly. I hope they catch the guy that held the gun to their heads and forced them to matriculate there. (Or, was the statue just erected last year? -sarc)
    (another excellent TAC post, BTW)

  • Should have left the ignorant ignorant of their ignorance. That was the culturally sensitive thing to do. After all, the first circle of hell can only be improved by having Pocahontas keeping company with VIrgil and Horace.

  • The American Indians were kneeling before the Crucifix with Jesus Christ. Since Jesus Christ has fallen into the politically incorrect with God, our Father and His, who would expect college faculty and graduate students to know anything about Catholicism. Father Isaac Jogues and the Blackrobes, Ren Goupil and John LaLande,were martyred and buried at Aurieville in New York for bringing Jesus Christ to the Native Americans.
    For fear of ridicule, fear of persecution or ostracism and sometimes fear of knowing the truth, the Emperor is naked.

  • Pingback: Is This the Death of the Catholic Church in Ireland? - Big Pulpit
  • Nixon could go to China. Surely this Pope can suppress the Jesuits.

  • With few exceptions, the Jesuits are a dead order. What a terrible loss.

  • Pingback: Father Pierre DeSmet is a Hero | Solutio Problematis Omnes (aka "The Catholic Linker")
  • Wonderful story, thankyou.
    Have you read “Jesuits” by Malachi Martin S.J.?
    Explained a lot for me, especially about this goofy pope.

  • I have read all of Martin’s books. He was a good writer, and I think he captured the decay within the modern Jesuits, but everything he stated that he personally claims to have witnessed needs to be rigorously checked with other sources, as he was a fabulist of the first order, to put it politely.

  • Perhaps the Jesuit colleges and universities in the US should be investigated under the Rico statutes – they have a racket going by presenting themselves as Catholic schools.

  • In the 1980s, our Traditional Study Group was assisting at Mass in the Cathedral in Portland, Maine for the feast of the American Martyrs when the Priest denounced their racist mission and the conversions – and we immediately got up and walked out of the cathedral.

    We are at the abyss in the Catholic Church and another step may just send us into it.

    It is worth recalling that it is only The Holy See of peter which was promised it would never fail

  • I imagine the fell geniuses are drafting their next 15 ,000-word apology for bringing the natives to Christianity and the rewards of eternal life which Christ so dearly purchased for us with His Life, Death, and Resurrection.

  • Graduated from this institution and it was once a great school. Will no longer donate a penny. Sad!!

  • This essay should highly embarrass SLU. However, I doubt it will. Good work in any event.

  • This type article makes me say,” I wouldn’t send the proverbial “dog” to this or most “Catholic” colleges. Is there one that exists where this wouldnt have happened if the statue was on their campus? Is there ANY alternative?? America has a history of Catholic martyrs and Catholic priests who saved souls for Christ. Now this nutty college wants to diminish their efforts by historically stupid statements and actions therefrom. Christianity, brough to the US by Europeans, who were Protestant (and before that Catholic-influenced), developed our culture that has existed and has dominated from our founding. Here’s a “flash”—-I dont want it to change! I want it to dominate, to be the ideal…NOT other cultures or identities. And in the end it is all about politics….the libs support this anti-tradition culture entirely! Look at Obama and his efforts to trash the culture! And these people running the colleges. They are supported by tuition, grants, etc , and why any Catholic would send their kid to that dump is unknown ! Someone tell me—what stops this anti tradition movement? This anti white, at any and all cost, invention of false history? Do we have to sit and watch this happening? LETS GET SOME SOLUTIONS TO THIS AND STOP JUST TALKING ABOUT IT.If we dont, this will be a really hostile country to live in…because I for one will not allow it without a fight.

  • Can you publish links to the preceding 17 editions of Jesuitical? Thanks

  • Emigrating to the US in 1821 as part of his desire to serve as a missionary, De Smet entered the Jesuit novitiate at Whitemarsh, Maryland. In a move that today would have secularists screaming “Separation of Church and State!” and conspiracy buffs increasing the tin foil content of their hats, the US government subsidized a Jesuit mission being established in the new state of Missouri among the Indians. At the time the US government often did this for missionaries of many Christian denominations among the Indians

    Rather smart– makes it so they know where these groups are, and has a chance of making it so the local tribes are folks who will actually be able to make agreements with. (A constant source of friction was how the leaders of a tribe would make agreements…and the young thugs would ignore them, with no penalties. Cultural differences, like the idea of a harvest belonging to the folks who planted and tended it, rather than the ones who happened to be able to take it when it was ready; it’s actually a rather difficult bit of property theory if you don’t grow up with the assumption.)

  • Mary, you might enjoy the comment SuburbanBanshee made:
    So this is a famous, proactive moment of a triumph for lay catechists, for Native Americans evangelizing Native Americans, and for the reputation of Jesuits among Native Americans. It is Iroquois badassery, as well as a tribute to Nez Perces and Flatheads being on fire for Jesus, and persistent in trying to get a priest.

    Oh, but it’s racist. Because amazingly, Catholics kneel before the Cross.

  • Bill–
    here’s the page for the “Jesuitical” tag, which has all but the first five articles. (which are no longer on the site, I think they fell victim to one of the moves)

  • Here you go Bill:

    Foxfier already did it! She is correct that the first four seem to fallen off the net when we moved the blog.

  • either slu is not doing a very good job of educating its students; or, placing reality in its proper context is beyond the ability of some people.

    why the administration surrendered is a good question. probably they just did not want the publicity the protestors were creating.

    hopefully, those in charge of the college will evaluate why so many of their students and professors are incapable of placing reality in its proper context.

    it is an absurdity to classify preaching the gospel as racist or supremacist. the fact that professors and students at slu are ignorant of this is an indictment of the inefficacy of the university.

  • This country need to promote her saints – through the Church process of recognition, and through the public proclamation of their deeds. We need shrines and relics, and our own tradition of pilgrimage. It’s good that this country has a genuine, how-the-word-is-supposed-to-be-used diversity of Catholic traditions from the various lands of immigration, but we also have a claim as a Catholic country ourselves. Every diocese should have a Cabrini or Seton parish. Regions should have their regional saints. Kateri should be as common a name in the US as Patrick is in Ireland. I mean no disrespect to those who are devoted to Our Lady through her miracle in Guadalupe, or to Catholics (myself included) who practice traditional devotions with foreign origins. But is there an American Catholic custom? A sacramental? Something that reflects our faith? Is there any country anywhere near our size that doesn’t have one? I can think of one such tradition we have – prayer in front of abortion clinics. It does fit our American spirit; it’s ecumenical and an act of civil protest, and it does point to the Catholic Church in America’s role as a how-the-word-is-supposed-to-be-used minority voice. But are there any others?

  • Actually, Kateri as a given name is trending up a bit. Over the last few years, there have been about 60 American girls a year given the name Kateri, For at least ten years before that, about 30-40 US girls a year have been named Kateri. Not super popular, but not bad.

    Seton has a little bit of life as a boy’s name, recently. Probably because of Seton Hall sports.

    Genesis has popped up into the top 50 girl’s names. I wonder if it’s a Bible class thing, or because of sounding like a Jennifer name? Trinity is also still pretty high.

    Luna has popped up quite a lot, which I attribute to My Little Pony. But it is a lovely name. There is an old martyrology that lists St. Luna Mista, which is probably a miscopying of St. Summista, but there’s no story that we know about her either way! 🙂

  • Luna Lovegood was a character in Harry Potter. I think that the name Harry also had a bump in popularity. I’m going to guess that Albus and Draco were still too much of a stretch.

  • Foxfier & the Man himself, Donald.
    Thank you.
    Can I rent you guys for other projects?

  • They will also probably have to rip out the iconography of St. Louis Cathedral which, as I recall, also depicts Catholic missionaries in the Americas.

  • But the university is planning a monument to honor Michael Brown, so there’s that.

    Saint Louis University to erect monument honoring anti-police protest

    It’s really coming faster now, isn’t it?

  • note to self: don’t let kids apply to SLU

  • Seems as though the Swiss Bishops and SLU are drinking from the kool-aid.
    Pathetic bunch.

  • Like Ray, as a former SLU student, now-alumnus, I used to walk past this [once-inspiring] statue group on W Pine Ave: the inscription on the wall read, “Where the rivers met, De Smet began,” memorializing his epic travels of evangelization into unimaginably dangerous territories.

    I knew even then one day this group of statues was going to come down, listening to the socialists teaching throughout the university then (80’s,90’s), as I walked back and forth each day.

    So, I propose completing the epigram for posterity: “Where the rivers met, De Smet began; since then, the Jesuits have cut and run”

  • Thank you, Foxfier. I have read the piece and commented. The young savages are removing any sign of Faith by hurling invectives, “white supremacists”, “racists” and imposing their version of atheism and tyranny, bullying decent people into their version of our religion. The savages ought to have been called up on it to prove “white supremacists’ and ‘racists”, if only to display their ignorance of our history.

  • Carissimi,
    I tried dissolving the Jesuit Order and give all their properties, missions, and assets to the Franciscans, but the Franciscans refused. They would rather stay poor and save their souls.

  • Carissimi,
    Pray for me. Thank you.

  • I graduated from SLU Law in 1987. To say that the experience was interesting is to acknowledge the meanness of the old curse, “may you live in interesting times.”

    I was, then and now, pro-life. In fact, my matriculation at the Law School was delayed due to the need to complete a law suit filed against me by an abortionist who didn’t care for picketers and prayers in front of his center. Attending the Law School introduced me to the concept of Catholic in name only. Just before my start, the undergraduate college had been scandalized when a resident assistant brought a Planned Parenthood representative in for a talk with students.

    The levels of hostility and loathing varied, but were cresting in and around the Women’s Law Caucus who, in a way quite similar to the current controversy, could only see opposition to abortion as oppression of women. My years there culminated with a visit in an ass. dean’s office following a complaint about a poster I’d put on the student bulletin board excoriating the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights. The ass. dean told me that my act was “the most unprofessional act” at the law school in his experience. I thought it odd because our class was still chuckling or pained (depending on who you were) at the incident two weeks earlier when two classmates were caught “in flagrante delicto” on a class room floor by an evening adjunct professor. The adjunct opened the door and flipped on the lights before the two could get entirely disentangled and clothed.

    While attending, I knew of, and celebrated, the Native American heritage that came to me through my paternal grandmother. I did not know, through that same grandmother, that, by Jim Crow standards, I was an Octaroon, as my great grandfather was African American.

    I lived on campus, in married student housing. I participated in law school events. I never saw the statue of Father De Smet. I have seen the photograph now that the statue has been hidden away from public display.

    What a bizarre world we live in. A man of faith spends his life propagating that faith. A university sets up a statue to honor that man, a member of the Jesuit community, because of that dedication.

    Nothing about such behavior screams racism, imperialism, colonialism. It does scream compassion-ism. It does scream care-ism. It does scream kindness-ism. Those “-isms” are not so very popular these days, but grudge-ism and victim-ism seemed to have made an advance at my alma mater.

    If you doubt me on how De Smet’s evangelical outreach constitutes kindness and care, I’ll refer you to Penn Jillette, who tells the story of being given the gift of a Bible by a concerned Christian. Jillette, an ardent atheist, expressed profound respect that a person who literally believed Jillette’s soul was in danger actually acted on that belief in an effort to render aid to him. Jillette tells the story on his YouTube channel if you care to see it. (

    The statue of De Smet, if it is a symbol of a “history of colonialism, imperialism, racism and of Christian and white supremacy,” as Ryan McKinley complained, is no more so such a symbol than that much more obvious and noticeable one, College Church.

    When will that vestige of colonialism be taken down, or converted to a museum?

  • Brilliant comment James. When I was at the U of I Law School in 1979-1982 I was known as the outspoken conservative. I helped found the Christian Legal Society chapter there and continued my activities with the student pro-life group, Life Is For Everyone, that I helped found as an undergrad. I think I would have received more flack from students and faculty except that it was assumed I was a lost cause and that arguing with me was an exercise in futility. I was voted most likely to sentence someone to death for illegal parking, a distinction I cherish a third of a century later, especially considering my many years of criminal defense work!

  • Interesting title for the assistant dean (the “ass.dean”), JMH. I think his/her brethren staffed several other departments and teaching positions @ SLU also.

    For those alumni possibly interested, the statuary group used to be in front of Fusz Hall at 3700 W Pine Bl, between Spring and Vandeventer (perhaps for Billiken alumni to lay flowers for the memory of Pere De Smet). W Pine was not a busy street, because it dead-ended at that time at Spring. Now it is engulfed within the U. campus. But it was an imposing group, and also must have cost some serious coin in the day. It got your attention. That is bad.

    The chapel at the same address, which used to have Sunday Masses, and was open to the public, has now been turned into the “Museum of Contemporary Religious Art”: because, soon, all religious images will only belong in a museum, of course.

    I am waiting for the next time I go back and imposing French gothic St Francis Xavier (“College”) Church, the official parish and campus church, to be turned into a museum. Or maybe a coffee haus.

    However, regardless, for socialists, re. the De Smet statuary group, the very image of the Church Militant is something that must be leveled.

    “Forward, kameraden!”

  • How my heart grieves because of the lack of knowledge & godly wisdom/understanding these modern day fools in our so called “institutions of higher learning” exhibit regarding Heros of the faith & the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Hosea 4:6 “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because you have rejected knowledge, I reject you from being a priest to me. And since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.”

    Romans 1: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.”

  • “LETS GET SOME SOLUTIONS TO THIS AND STOP JUST TALKING ABOUT IT.If we dont, this will be a really hostile country to live in…because I for one will not allow it without a fight.”

    I am working on that right now. Apart from the rare radical conversion as an adult, if most people reach the college age without a meaningful relationship with God–having learned to depend on Him in a practical manner and having not experienced their need of His caring for them–they are often forever lost to the cause. I have concluded that it simply is not possible to reform the corrupt systems currently in place. We simply must begin with new uncorrupted systems and teach a godly remnant–so that truth is not lost from living memory. I will be able to retire from my current job in 6 years & an already have taken some actions toward setting a specific plan in motion. It has never been easier to teach and provide info to people than it is now with the technology that we have at our finger tips. I do not want to put all if my thoughts on this in a public forum as Indint want the liberals to be given a heads up. I feel a specific leading from God in this area. Please allow me to encourage you to pray and ask God to show you specifically what you can do to help save a Godly remnant. He is faithful and will show you for sure.

  • Sign this urgent protest to SLU — urge them to return the statue to its proper place.
    Enough political correctness already. Sign the protest here:

    God bless.

  • Thank you, John R, I signed the aforementioned petition: the goal is 20,000, and they are just short of 5000 right now…not bad for such a short amount of time. I wonder if they talked to anyone about this before they just did it.

    Ugh, the socialists HATE confrontation—-that is, confrontation that THEY haven’t initiated. Let’s see where it goes. I will write about it on my next SLU fundraiser e-mail and letter(s) I expect soon.

  • Just signed the petition as well.

    Saturday tfp is holding emergency Rosary Rallies across America to ask divine assistance regarding the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on so-called same sex marriage.

    Saturday June 13th at noon.

    Did Ireland upset you?
    If so take time to gather at one of the sites on the 13th, ( feast of Marys Immaculate Heart ) and publicly ask God for help.

    Can you imagine Priests being told they Have To officiate at a same sex wedding?
    Unimaginable right?
    Please consider helping by having your own rally. Visit America Needs Fatima site for details.

  • Yes, Ireland’s vote upset me. And I think back to the consequences of PF’s foolish and ill-manner comments about Catholics being “obsessed” with abortion, homosexual marriage, and contraception (Sept 19, 2013, America magazine interview).

    Since then, for example, the Illinois state legislature quoted him in their justification for passing a gay marriage act, Sr. Jane Laurel, OP, has been forced out of her work as a Catholic high school teacher, and here in San Franpsycho, Arbp. Salvatore Cordileone is being directly controverted by powerful forces appealing to PF to remove Cordileone from office for being “insensitive” and not reflecting the new papal stance on acceptance and tolerance. NYTimes apostate Catholic Frank Bruni writes (May 27, 2015), “On Same-Sex Marriage, Catholics are Leading the Way:” he got your memo, PF! And of course, then there is Ireland. It is hard to fathom how in two years, Pope Chaos has catalyzed so much collapse. Well done good and faithful servant!

    Usquequo, Domine?

  • Steve Phoenixtop.

    I feel your pain..seriously!
    It’s interesting that todays memorial is dedicated to Saint Charles Lwanga & Companions. Why?
    Because they were put to death by a king who was a homosexual. They tried to reason with him, never backing down from teaching the truth, and the king became frustrated with them. He wouldn’t renounce his lust for same-sex partners and killed St. Charles and companions.

    We faithful must remember we are in the company of the holy Saints and Angels as we face todays homosexual kings queens and henchmen.
    We too must speak the truth to them.
    We too will face frustrated opponents that would love to shut us down, even stepping on Our Religious Freedoms to help soothe their disfigured consciences.

    We must take a stand! We must be willing to stand in public and speak the truth.

    Please consider this an invitation to honor Our God and His commandments.
    Please stand up on Saturday the 13th of June.
    I am the Rally Capt. for our small town in Northern Michigan. I ask you to become one in your town. It’s easy. It’s a step into the breach.

  • The Rally info. is;

    With St. Charles and companions…Gods Speed to you.

  • Last one.

    I apologize for my incompetence on this link up.
    God bless you.

  • I had read the College Fix article and immediately contacted the SLU President. Would have contacted Trustees had I been able to find their email info. Received a particularly lame and pathetic excuse of an email response so sent a letter to the editor of the St. Lewis Post-Dispatch. Asked others to contact the university president too. So after all that it was a real pleasure to come across this excellent article that detailed the Father’s life. Sent it to the college president, told him he needed a lesson in history before bowing before the Marxist influence at the college he leads.

  • You can email the senior student who wrote the editorial here His contact info was easily found at the St. Louis University website under the People Finder tab. Not sure if he is accessing it since he was a senior though.

Jesuitical 17: Marquette University and the Cop Killer

Wednesday, May 20, AD 2015



Part 17 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.

John McAdams, a suspended political science professor at Marquette, go here to read about why he is suspended, at his blog Marquette Warrior, shined the light on a mural at Marquette, a Jesuit university in Milwaukee, honoring a cop killer:


Marquette’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center was set up as a sop to the campus gay lobby in the wake of Marquette’s refusal to hire aggressively lesbian Arts & Sciences dean candidate Jodi O’Brien. Not surprisingly, it has consistently pursued a leftist secular agenda including, for example, the Femsex Seminar, which was so raunchy and so opposed to Marquette’s supposed “Catholic mission” that the Administration ordered that sponsorship be withdrawn.

But now we have yet another case of the extreme leftist agenda of the organization. An entry from its Facebook page:

(Click on image to enlarge)

Yes, it’s a mural, in the offices of the Center, celebrating one Assata Shakur.

(Here is a larger view of the image.)

So who is Assata Shakur? A black militant who was convicted of murder and fled to Cuba, where she is still protected by the Communist government. According to Wikipedia:

Assata Olugbala Shakur (born JoAnne Deborah Byron on July 16, 1947[1]), whose married name was Chesimard,[2][3] is an African-American activist and member of the former Black Panther Party (BPP) and Black Liberation Army (BLA). Between 1971 and 1973, Shakur was accused of several crimes and was the subject of a multistate manhunt.[4][5]

In May 1973, Shakur was involved in a shootout on the New Jersey Turnpike, in which she was accused of killing New Jersey State Trooper Werner Foerster and grievously assaulting Trooper James Harper.[6] BLA member Zayd Malik Shakur was also killed in the incident, and Shakur was wounded.[6] Between 1973 and 1977, Shakur was indicted in relation to six other incidents—charged with murder, attempted murder, armed robbery, bank robbery, and kidnapping—resulting in three acquittals and three dismissals. In 1977, she was convicted of the first-degree murder of Foerster and of seven other felonies related to the shootout.[7]

Shakur was incarcerated in several prisons in the 1970s. She escaped from prison in 1979 and fled to Cuba in 1984 after living as a fugitive for a few years, and received political asylum. She has been living in Cuba ever since. Since May 2, 2005, the FBI has classified her as a domestic terrorist and offered a $1 million reward for assistance in her capture. On May 2, 2013, the FBI added her to the Most Wanted Terrorist List; the first woman to be listed.[8] On the same day, the New Jersey Attorney General offered to match the FBI reward, increasing the total reward for her capture to $2 million.[9]

More information on her can be found here.

Yes, this is the sort of person the “sexuality” bureaucrats at Marquette feel deserves to be honored.

Go here to read the rest.  A storm of bad publicity resulted and the mural was taken down.  Here is John McAdams comment:

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Jesuitical 17: Marquette University and the Cop Killer

  • According to this article, she’s been “asked to leave” from Marquette. Unless I’m not reading this newer article correctly:

  • This seems an opportune post in which to notice this book (review here, interview with author here).

    The problem at Marquette is the same problem that has, according to Fr. Mitchell, afflicted Catholic universities generally since the Land O’ Lakes statement of 1967. To whit: they’re more committted to a worldly understanding of academic freedom than they are to Catholic Truth.

  • Col. Kurt Schlichter: “Understand that the purpose of modern American ‘education’ is not to educate students. It is primarily to provide cushy, subsidized sinecures for liberal administrators and faculty while, secondarily, providing a forum to indoctrinate soft young minds in the liberal fetishes du jour. Actually educating students is hard, and a meaningful education is anathema to liberalism. In the liberals’ ideal world, the universities would simply fester with leftist nonsense and not even bother with trying to teach their charges anything at all. And today, it’s pretty close to being the liberals’ ideal world.”

  • I’m still trying to get my head around the idea of a “Gender and Sexuality Resource Center” at any Catholic university, let alone at one supposedly as prominent as Marquette University. Who, or what, is running these schools?

    Have our Bishops completely ceded their responsibility with respect to oversight of the Church’s educational resources and mission? It’s no wonder, according to a recently released study, that for every person being received into the Church that six are leaving? We’re doing it to ourselves.

    When did Catholic universities become Resource Centers for undermining the faith?

  • So-called “Catholic” education in the United States of America is anything but authentic Catholic education. With precious few exceptions, “Catholic” education stinks, and this has been going on for more than a half of a century.

    The money that Catholic American immigrants worked so hard for and sacrificed to build Catholic elementary schools, Catholic high schools and Catholic universities has been wasted. Starting with the baby boomers, who chose to embrace the world instead of the Catholic faith and a “Catholic” hierarchy of militant disobedient nuns, weak or nasty bishops and a priesthood that has gone soft, the Church in the United States has been its own worst enemy.

    I would never think of walking away from the Church because I know what the Church believes, even though it has failed in a spectacular way to pass on these teachings since the earth-shattering, bestest greatest Council EVAH.

    Pope St. John Paul II gave the bishops the authority to ensure that colleges and universities that call themselves “Catholic” have qualified staff who teach authentic Catholic theology. The bishops in the West have ignored this, as they have ignored so many other things (Canon 915, anyone?)

    I am not a member of the Society of Saint Pius X. Recently, the Pittsburgh chapel of the SSPX purchased a former Catholic church that was sold in 2005 to an art dealer. The dealer sold it to the SSPX who has restored the St. James Church to its former glory. The Pittsburgh Catholic ran a blurb about the SSPX being in “schism”. Never mind Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos said that they aren’t in schism.

    Bishop Lynch of St. Petersburg, Florida, in direct violation of Summorum Pontificum, shut down two of the Traditional Latin Masses in the St. Petersburg Diocese. I say the SSPX is not in schism, Bishop Lynch is. If the Roman Pontiff or some successor or bishop ever suppresses the Mass of All Ages, I’m going to the SSPX with a clear conscience.

    I bring this up because the bishops clearly refuse to act when they have the authority to do so and yet find the time and the energy to slap around those who would stay faithful to Catholic teaching. St. John Chrysostom’s words about the road to hell being paved with the skulls of bishops seems as appropriate as it ever did.

  • TomD.
    See Ernst Schreiber’s comment @ 12:05pm to answer your question; “When did Catholic universities become Resource Centers for undermining the faith?”

    Slippery Slope syndrome anyone?

  • JoAnne Chesimard like Mumia Abu-Jamal declared herself a sovereign nation of one person, and gave herself diplomatic immunity. Joanne Chesimard denied the same diplomatic immunity she took for herself to her victims. Found guilty of killing other sovereign persons, sovereign nations of one person, officers of a sovereign nation, cop killer Chesimard refused to respect and acknowledge all persons as sovereign nations of one individual person. (the civil rights of the human person created equal in all things.) Mumia Abu-Jamal declared himself a sovereign nation of one person, with diplomatic immunity. Being apprehended by police officers, Abu-Jamal charged the officers with an act of war against the sovereign nation of Mumia Abu-Jamal. Abu-Jamal executed the police officers with a bullet to the back of the head while the officers lay in the street of Philadelphia. (Prisoners of war are not to be executed) While Chesimard and Abu-Jamal may be geniuses in comprehending their civil rights, they murdered innocent people who got in their way. Innocent persons who did not share their opinion of themselves as sovereign nations of one person with diplomatic immunity were ruthlessly murdered. Both Chesimard and Abu-Jamal must be tried as traitors if they claim American Citizenship and stripped of their citizenship. If tried as a sovereign nation of one person who has waged war against The United States of America, American freedom and American officials in the person of the police officers, they must be stripped of their diplomatic immunity and exiled as persona non-grata. They must be tried under the articles of war. They must be found guilty of military aggression. If tried as a third party with no standing in our Courts, who have committed homicide, they need to face the death penalty.
    Persons who give aid and comfort to the enemy after the fact are complicit in their crime. Embracing traitors and celebrating anti-American sentiment is also treason. In times of war, and it is war between America and Abu-Jamal and Joanne Chesimard, those who encourage making war against the United States need to be stripped of their citizenship and exiled. Every penny they make of their infamy needs to be given to the families of their victims. The only thing worse than this monstrous miscarriage of Justice is the total immersion of the student and minor children in ignorance. It is time for parents to inform the school as to how they want their children to be educated.

  • I would never think of walking away from the Church because I know what the Church believes, even though it has failed in a spectacular way to pass on these teachings since the earth-shattering, bestest greatest Council EVAH.

    In fairness, if the Church hadn’t already been failing spectacularly, nobody would have mistaken Vatican II for the bestest greatest Council EVAH.

  • Scholasticism has been replaced with politically correct propaganda. Intellectual pursuit is replaced with sycophantic cults. The JOY of heaven is being overcome with nothingness. Ignorance is being celebrated. Truth is being exorcised. G. K. Chesterton said: “Catholicism has not be tried and found wanting, Catholicism has been tried and found difficult.”
    JoAnne Chesimard is not a heroine of freedom. JoAnne Chesimard is the epitome of lawlessness and a fugitive from Justice. If student and faculty encourage the celebration of wanton criminality, they are no better than the criminal.

  • In May 1981, I received my BA from Marquette. It had been my first-choice school and I had always been very proud of my affiliation with the university. Now I am just embarrassed. The emotions MU now evokes range from irritation (changing Warriors to Golden Eagles) to frustration (the whole McAdams Affair) and now to anger. That this Gender Resource Center (????) exists on campus is disturbing enough, but to extol a cop-killer? The administrators, Society of Jesus, and bishop of Milwaukee should be ashamed.

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION - Big Pulpit
  • The pope is pro Cuba, why not, who is he to judge? Can a Jesuit be a Catholic?

Jesuitical 16: Loyola Marymount and the Atheist Dean

Saturday, May 3, AD 2014



Part 16 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.

Well, Loyola Marymount out in Los Angeles went for a twofer for their dean:  a pro-abort and an atheist:

On April 16, the Jesuit university announced the appointment of Robbin Crabtree as dean of its Bellarmine College of Liberal Arts. The position oversees bioethics, theological studies, philosophy and Catholic studies at the university. The dean is also involved in faculty hiring decisions.

Founded in 1911, Loyola Marymount University is located in Los Angeles. It has about 9,500 students in its undergraduate, graduate and law programs.

RenewLMU, a group of students, alumni, faculty, donors and other university supporters concerned about the university’s Catholic mission, questioned whether Crabtree was an appropriate choice to oversee “mission critical” departments.

Loyola Marymount University President David Burcham, in an April 16 letter to the Loyola Marymount Board of Regents, said that criticisms of her candidacy have been “exaggerated and inaccurate.”

Crabtree is presently dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Fairfield University, a Jesuit institution in Connecticut.


Links to Pro-Abortion Groups

Her curriculum vitae notes her service on the advisory board and media-relations committee for Planned Parenthood of Putnam County in Indiana from 1991-1993.

In 2001 and 2002, she was a member of the New Mexico group Las Adelitas Women in Politics. While Crabtree’s curriculum vitae describes the group as an organization to promote women’s candidates for public office in New Mexico, the group has been involved in promoting pro-abortion candidates.

Burcham said that Crabtree’s involvement with the “budding” political organization was “brief,” and the organization “changed significantly” since she left it. He said her involvement with Planned Parenthood consisted of serving as an “outside consultant” to a new Planned Parenthood-sponsored women’s health center. This work was in communications and “aimed at engaging underserved women in the community to increase their awareness of the clinic’s basic health-care services.”

Burcham said the university’s only “litmus test” in hiring is that “a candidate must fully support our mission of academic excellence in the Jesuit and Marymount traditions and commit himself/herself to furthering this mission through [his or her] professional life at LMU.”

The university president’s comments were largely echoed in an April 16 letter from Jesuit Father Robert Caro to alumni and parents. He said that concerns being raised about Crabtree’s past associations “do not reflect her recent involvements or reputation and appear to ignore her distinguished record.”

RenewLMU objected that there is no indication that Crabtree has disavowed these groups or their philosophical positions.

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Jesuitical 16: Loyola Marymount and the Atheist Dean

  • In other words, she’s gone out of her way to promote the horrors of the time. The institution has a predictably unwieldy board of trustees (46 members) of which nine are Jesuits and four others are women religious. Blow it up.

  • The Jesuits deserve what the FFI received.

  • The old saw of ‘responding in “charity and love” ‘ chokehold rises again and again. No reminders of the love of God in these worldly catholic institution situations which seem to be a deadly epidemic. Swift ‘justice’ for defenders of the faith of two thousand years is simultaneously a popular activity.

  • “[T]he university’s only “litmus test” in hiring is that “a candidate must fully support our mission of academic excellence in the Jesuit and Marymount traditions and commit himself/herself to furthering this mission through [his or her] professional life at LMU.”

    How can it be otherwise? “If,” says Pope St. Gregory, “we refuse to believe a confession of faith made in conformity to the sentiments of the Church, we cast a doubt over the faith of all Catholics whatsoever.” The same pope added,to those who opposed this doctrine, “that your object is to make these persons heretics in spite of themselves; because to refuse to credit those who testify by their confession that they are in the true faith, is not to purge heresy, but to create it- hoc non est haeresim purgare, sed facere.”

  • She is an admitted atheist MPS, as well as being a pro-abort. What your comment has to do with this post is beyond me. This appointment spits at Ex Corde Ecclessiae.

  • I believe that as the Church moves forward there will be further ‘discernment’ concerning the actual Catholic identity of Catholic institutions [health care and education]. The problem is that Ex Corde Ecclesiae has been ignored on many sides.

    What it comes down to is: truth in advertising. Are they truly Catholic or not.

    However, this reform will take time. It won’t come or happen overnight.

  • There’s this comment by somebody named Ford Oxaal on another site speaking to a different topic that’s relevant to the subject here:

    [W]hen the windows of the Church were opened by John XXIII, the laity jumped out of them, and a whole bunch of wolves came in through them.

  • Botolph writes. “….What it comes down to is: truth in advertising. Are they truly Catholic or not. However, this reform will take time. It won’t come or happen overnight.”
    All the Church need do, as a revolutionary first step, is reimpose the “Oath Against Modernism” to be sworn to and signed off upon by all relevant faculty and administrators of Catholic universities and colleges, and make it a condition of new and continued employment.
    It’s just not that difficult to do….that is if the Church is really committed to restoring Catholicism to its schools.

  • Slainte,

    Actually the oath against modernism has been transformed into an oath taken by bishops, new pastors [I can’t speak for heads of schools at any level] in which the person taking the oath swears to believe all that the Catholic Church teaches [I am sure the oath is online someplace, but I heard it at an installation of a pastor]. This oath is more encompassing.

  • Botolph,

    The Franciscan University of Steubenville is leading the way with its Oath of Fidelity for faculty and administrators. I hope that my alma mater Fordham University follows suit. See,
    “Background on the Oath of Fidelity at Franciscan University

    The following was read by Father Sean Sheridan, TOR, president of Franciscan University of Steubenville, on Thursday, August 22, 2013, before the profession of faith and Oath of Fidelity ceremony.

    In March of 1989 the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a directive to Catholic colleges and universities, requiring those directly connected with teaching Catholic doctrine on faith and morals to profess their adherence to the teaching authority of the Church. Later that spring the theology faculty and the priests serving at Franciscan University voted unanimously to approach the bishop of the diocese and express their desire to pledge fidelity to the Magisterium in accordance with the new directive. Most Rev. Albert Ottenweller gave his consent and administered the Profession of Faith and Oath of Fidelity that spring at the Baccalaureate Mass. Every year since that time, new theology faculty, priests and other appropriate personnel at Franciscan University have taken the Oath.

    This year, given that our philosophy professors will be taking the oath of fidelity, some clarifications should be given regarding the distinctive nature of philosophy and how philosophers serve the mission of the university. These are important clarifications for us all in order to avoid a certain misunderstanding that could arise from this action.

    One might think that, since both philosophers and theologians take the oath, philosophy starts in faith in just the same way that theology does. This misunderstanding is called fideism and it is foreign to our great Catholic tradition. Philosophy as Catholics practice it is a certain work of reason. In his great encyclical Fides et Ratio Blessed John Paul II taught that “philosophy must remain true to its own principles and methods,” indeed that “a philosophy which did not [do so] would serve little purpose”(49). He also says that “the content of Revelation can never debase the discoveries and legitimate autonomy of reason” (79). Thus, according to Blessed John Paul, philosophy has the ability to address not only fellow believers, but all men and women of good will. Indeed, a Catholic university has a special call to engage in dialogue with the surrounding culture, and philosophy is especially suited for such a task, as stated in Ex Corde Ecclesiae (43).

    At the same time, refusing to absolutize reason or philosophy, the philosophers agree with Blessed John Paul when in Fides et Ratio he goes on to say that, while “the value of philosophy’s autonomy remains unimpaired when theology calls upon it,” we must also acknowledge “the profound transformations which philosophy itself must undergo” in relation to revelation. (77) In this regard, “philosophy, like theology, comes more directly under the authority of the Magisterium and its discernment, because of the implications it has for the understanding of Revelation. The truths of faith make certain demands which philosophy must respect.” (77).

    And so, on today’s occasion, the philosophers wish both: 1) to declare their readiness to serve the faith of the Church directly in taking the oath of fidelity and profession of faith and 2) to highlight their special role in serving the Church by being true to the genius of philosophy and to the philosophical commitment to reason.

    The Oath of Fidelity

    Candidates recite:

    I, N., with firm faith believe and profess each and everything that is contained in the Symbol of faith, namely:

    I believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen. I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father. Through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation, he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy Spirit he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried. On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshipped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets. I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

    With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

    I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

    Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

    I, N., in assuming the office of ………, promise that in my words and in my actions I shall always preserve communion with the Catholic Church.
    With great care and fidelity I shall carry out the duties incumbent on me toward the Church, both universal and particular, in which, according to the provisions of the law, I have been called to exercise my service.

    In fulfilling the charge entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall hold fast to the deposit of faith in its entirety; I shall faithfully hand it on and explain it, and I shall avoid any teachings contrary to it.

    I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.

    With Christian obedience I shall follow what the Bishops, as authentic doctors and teachers of the faith, declare, or what they, as those who govern the Church, establish. I shall also faithfully assist the diocesan Bishops, so that the apostolic activity, exercised in the name and by mandate of the Church, may be carried out in communion with the Church.

    So help me God, and God’s Holy Gospels on which I place my hand.”

  • Slainte,

    Yes, thank you! The Profession of Faith and the further elaboration concerning faith in all that that the Catholic Church teaches, is exactly what I was referring to. It is a much more comprehensive oath than the oath against Modernism, yet, for those concerned that the oath established by Saint Pius X has been forgotten, incorporates it [no modernist could take this ‘new’ oath]

    [Of course many people are indeed confused as to exactly what Modernism is; that is a very distinct and different issue; hint: is not about ‘being modern’ or mentioning ‘the modern world’ modernism is far more insidious and dangerous than that]

  • Botolph,

    I note with interest that Fr. Sheridan stipulated to some minor concessions to philosophers in connection with the University’s administering the Oath of Fidelity.
    Might it be possible that philosophers, rather than lawyers, are the source of more than a few woes for the church and for society? Was Voltaire a philosopher?
    Indeed lawyers with a philosophy background may be the most troubling creatures of all. 🙂

  • Slainte,

    I believe Voltaire to be both a lawyer as well as a philosopher. I know him from the philosophical side of the fence.

    To answer your question concerning whether philosophers rather than lawyers are the source of more than a few woes in the Church and in society,

    My first comment is from Saint John Chrysostom who stated something to the effect that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops and priests—-they are the biggest problem. Bad Shepherds are the worst problem in the Church-and they do not have to be as notorious as Pope Alexander [Borgias]. Do not mistake my point, I am neither anti-hierarchical nor anti-clerical [I am anti-clericalism]. We cannot and do not have Church without the Shepherds, and we need to be in communion with them period. Otherwise we end up Donatists [another whole issue]

    However, to your point, it probably is better to respond in this manner. You do not and cannot have theology without philosophy. I am amazed how few people, even among those really educated about Church issues realize this. While Tertullian asked “What does Jerusalem (theology) have to do with Athens [philosophy]”‘ It is important to recognize that in the Catholic tradition, faith and reason go together like the two wings of a dove [St John Paul II’s image in Fides et Ratio [Faith and Reason]. The original apologists, such as Saint Justin, were philosophers. Origen, was thoroughly a neo-platonist. Augustine was a neo-platonist (before he branched out and formed what can be called Augustinian philosophy). Thomas Aquinas united the older Augustinian tradition with Aristotelian philosophical categories etc. St Bonaventure, a Franciscan contemporary of Aquinas maintained and ‘updated’ the Augustinian philosophical approach. A Franciscan disciple of Bonaventure, Blessed (note he is a blessed) Duns Scotus in seeking to make God approachable (as he saw it) made all being, equivocal (equal) so that God is a (Supreme) Being [among all others but sharing Being in common with everything else.] Because of Duns Scotus a school of thought arose in which the freedom and will of God versus the Mind of God and participating in being became the focus [you lawyers ought to start hearing some familiar territory here]. Duns Scotus’ disciple William of Occam gave us two distinct schools: nominalism [which eventually gave rise to the Reformation] and Occam’s razor which was a major advance in the philosophy we now call ‘science’. See how this works and where it is going. With Scotus and Occam Western Philosophy broke down into various distinct and aggressively competing schools of thought leading into the Enlightenment and the Modern Era. Even nihilism and post-modernism can be traced back to the Franciscan William of Occam [who BTW was in trouble for ‘heresy’ and was the real life friar behind William of Baskerville in “Ecco’s “Name of the Rose” [Sean Connery plays a very affable and likable role but William was far more like a porcupine lol]

    This has implications even for today. For example it is very safe to say that Saint John Paul was a phenomenologist (complicated roots but goes back to Kant and Descartes by way of Heidegger and Husserl) who definitely was rooted in the Thomistic school. Whereas Pope Benedict is thoroughly Augustinian. A lot of statements concerning preferences of people toward one or the other actually reveals to me the ‘philosophical’ roots of the person speaking or writing (for example-in here). I sort of enjoy it. Yet the same people probably have had little or no philosophy. Is this helpful? Clear enough?

  • Pingback: John Paul II Was A Saint Before He Was Pope -
  • Thank you Botolph for such a thorough and comprehensive explanation. Philosophy is, in my opinion, the best major to prepare a young person for law school and the practice. It helps one to think and communicate clearly which is also essential for theologians.
    My comment was tongue in cheek and a slight poke at my profession.

  • Botolph wrote, “Of course many people are indeed confused as to exactly what Modernism is…”

    That is why it is important to distinguish the historical movement known as “Modernism” and “Modernism” as defined in Lamentabili and Pascendi (1907)

    As Roger D Haight SJ, an historian of the movement in France explains, “Surveying the writings of the period, the authors of the Encyclical drew together those specific themes and ideas which seemed to constitute a threat or be contrary to Catholic teaching. These ideas were interpreted in a most extreme way and organized into a coherent system or doctrine which is called “Modernism.””

    He points out that “In constructing the abstract and coherent system, the Encyclical draws together ideas from the actual movement of thought, especially from the writings of Alfred Loisy and George Tyrrell. As a consequence, Loisy and Tyrrell are often considered the archetypal “Modernists” and their thought is ipso facto considered heterodox and condemned. The Encyclical, however, precisely because it was describing a self-consistent mosaic out of the pieces of the period, did not have to be faithful to the context or integrity of anyone’s thought. It is not surprising, then, that neither Loisy nor Tyrrell recognized their integral positions in the Encyclical account of “Modernism,” because indeed it does not represent them. The result is that, historically, it must be honestly asked not only whether or not Loisy and Tyrrell were “Modernists,” but also whether or not there were any “Modernists” at all.”

    Even Joseph Ratzinger (as he then was) thought that the individual articles of Lamentabil should not be “over-valued.” The value of the text lies simply in its condemnation of a “radically evolutionist and historicist direction” for the interpretation of doctrine – in a word, and for want of a better word, “Modernism.” Individual propositions may have, taken in themselves, an acceptable sense.

  • Time for another suppression of the Jesuits. It seems they need it from time to time.

  • Modernism, MPS, is a rebellion against He who is Truth, His Revelations, His Natural Law, His bride the Catholic Church, His Magisterium, and the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
    Modernism is the tainted fruit of the Deceiver…a false enlightenment that causes men to wrongly conclude that they are self sufficient without God. Its target is the destruction of the people of God and His Church by infiltrating and altering the deposit of faith with false subjective ideologies. It subtley subverts Catholicism under the banner of making the Church contemporary…of keeping up with the times.
    The seeds of Modernism…this false ideology… were manifest in the Garden of Eden when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of the forbidden tree so that they could be as gods. The seeds were also present when Luther, King Henry VIII, and Calvin rebelled against God during the Reformation willfully tearing apart His Church and dividing His children for half a millenium. Its effects are discernable during the Enlightenment when man chose to surrender his identity and dependence on God in favor of individualism and a radical self autonomy rooted in pure rationalism. It is apparent today as the Catholic Church is relentlessly assaulted by an unbridled and disordered Liberalism intent upon conforming the Church to the world by replacing God’s law with man’s laws under threat of persecution and civil fines for non-compliance.
    We witness the effects of Modernism when our fellow Catholics, imbued with cultural and moral relativism, attack Pope Francis or walk out of Church when a brave priest catechizes from the pulpit by presenting God’s law on divorce, same sex marriage, and abortion. We lament the progressive decay of Modernism when intelligent Catholics mischaracterize Church teachings to justify personal sin and then decline to recant when corrected. We experience it when Catholic politicians and their supporters choose to conform to a dysfunctional culture instead of choosing obedience to the Word.
    Modernism requires for its continued survival that men and women should voluntarily participate in the greatest of all vices, Pride, while rejecting a virtue treasured by Our Lord Jesus Christ, Humility.
    It is incumbent that the hierarchy of the Church protect its youngest and most vulnerable members from those “teachers” of Catholicism who are, in fact, purveyors of false ideologies. Oaths against Modernism and Fidelity to the Magisterium are a proportionate response to protect the young from being misled while restoring the Faith for a new generation.

  • Modernism certainly did exist, however, somewhat like Al Quaeda it has morphed into other forms. Fundamental to Modernism which continued in spite of and in some cases as a response to Vatican I’s teaching on Divine Revelation and the teaching office of the Church vis a vis the infallibility of the pope when teaching on matters of faith and morals ex cathedra, is a real denial of anything obejctively and substantially revealed. Modernism believed that faith was not based on Revelation, the Word of God [both in Scripture and Tradition] but on ‘enlightened interpretations’ put forward not by the Magisterium of the Church but by theologians whose scientific knowledge was a sure basis of what we really can believed.

    Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, in the Second Vatican Council sealed Modernism’s fate within the Catholic Church, even if skirmishes still take place. Dei Verbum is the interpretive Constitution, by which all the others texts of Vatican II must be interpreted-something which many forget or ignore from the two extreme spectrums of the Church.

  • For those who read Spanish a good book on Modernism is:

    Alfredo Sáenz, S.J. El Modernismo: Crisis en las venas de la Iglesia. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Gladius, 2011. ISBN 978-987-659-029-7

    He takes a very different stance from Fr. Haight, S.J..

  • Thank you Fr Capuano SJ. I had chosen not to go after Fr Haight SJ specifically

  • Slainté
    The abstract system which Pascendi describes is certainly a menace not only to Catholicism but to Christianity itself. Fortunately, it was held by no one.
    The authors of Pascendi (Cardinal Vivès y Tuto, a Capuchin, Fr. Lemius, of the Missionaries of Mary Immaculate and Fr. Enrico Rosa, a Jesuit journalist on “La Civiltà Cattolica.”) assembled a patchwork of excerpts from writers, mainly in the fields of biblical criticism and the history of dogma, of which they were almost entirely ignorant and inferred from them a philosophy that the writers in question never professed and indignantly repudiated.
    At the time, it proved a useful weapon for Umberto Benigni and his “Sodalitium Pianum” to discredit those who opposed his ambitions. He and his followers were discredited under Benedict XV, who, following his election, discovered that, as Archbishop of Bologna, he had been denounced as a Modernist to his predecessor by the Secretary of State, Cardinal Merry del Val. Benigni went on to make a career for himself in the Fascist party through his Entente romaine de Défense social.
    Whilst retaining the Anti-Modernist Oath, Benedict XV made clear that no one was to be examined as to the sense in which he understood it (a favourite tactic of Benigni), for that would be to propose a new test of orthodoxy, in addition to the oath itself. This pretty well ended the witch-hunt.

  • MPS and Botolph,
    Father Haight, S.J, whom MPS references in defense of your claim that modernism doesn’t exist, was banned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (“CDF”) from teaching Theology in Catholic and non-Catholic institutions and from future writing endeavors. He is hardly a credible source to support any theological position.
    The reasons for the CDF sanctions imposed against Fr. Haight are set forth in the Notice issued iby the CDF in connection with its review of Haight’s book entitled “Jesus Symbol of God”.
    Father Haight is fortunate that the Society of Jesus did not release him from his vows in light of his profound misunderstanding and/or mischaracterization of Catholicism and his subsequent refusal to recant erroneous theological positions.
    He has no doubt confused many students (including priests whom he instructed) in the proper understanding of the Faith.
    It is not a witch hunt to ensure that those who teach Theology and Philosophy in Catholic colleges and universities should correctly understand the Catholic Faith and that those who would teach heresy are precluded from doing so.
    Yet another reason to universalize the Oath of Fidelity to the Magisterium.

  • Slainte,

    Just to be clear, I did not promote Fr Haight SJ in any way I think you know that but some others reading your response could get that notion. I know well the fruit of Fr Haight SJ, and it is not good.

  • Sorry Botolph, I wrote the post to MPS initially and then thought to include you at the last moment since we were discussing a related issue in earlier posts.
    I take issue with MPS’ position that modernism did not exist and his reference to Fr. Haight to support his claim. I was not familiar with Fr. Haight’s story and relied upon the CDF notification to draw conclusions.
    Thanks for your contribution earlier…and apologies for any confusion.

  • Slainte,

    No problem. Just a clarification. Modernism did indeed and still does exist (although as I noted it has morphed). Fundamentally Modernism denies Revelation has any real ‘objective content’ so that it can all be explained away according to ‘interpretations’ which attempt (attempted) make Christianity palatable to the Modern world. It arises out of the maelstrom of the Enlightenment in which due to a lack of a Magisterium Protestant theologians using various sciences etc began radically questioning even the most fundamental doctrines [thus the first to go was the Trinity—>Unitiarians and “salvation”—->Universalits (who now are united in one ‘church’] Further ‘higher criticism’ of Scripture sought to divide the “jesus of history’ from the “Christ of faith’ [and the Church and all those ‘dogmas’]. Whereas the Reformation was a revolt of faith against reason as well as authority, the Enlightenment was a revolt against faith as well as authority (and not just the Church’s authority: American, French revolutions]. The Enlightenment’s creed was in the triumph of reason over every tradition etc.

    In the 1800’s the Protestant churches split precisely over this issue. They had already split faith AND reason in the Reformation. One group chose faith alone, Scripture alone etc and became the fundamentalists; the other group chose reason over faith and became the Mainline Protestant churches. Vatican I condemned both extremes, condemning fideism (faith alone) and rationalism (reason alone) and put forward the Church’s fundamental teaching on Revelation as it comes to us in Scripture and Tradition. In response Vatican I taught that Catholics use both faith and reason in ‘grasping’ Revelation, always subject to the Magisterium of the Church.

    With the election of Pope Leo XIII, the Church entered a new era [which in no way was a break with the past]. He recognized that the Tridentine era of the Church was fast receding in history, and that while we keep the teachings, new ways of approaching issues were needed. Among the many things he put forward was a call to devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus [relationship with Christ] [BTW I owe this to George Weigel-I didn;t connect this piece], renewal of Scripture studies in response to the hyper critical method used in the universities; renewal of studies of Thomas Aquinas (no longer relying soley on Suarez’s interpretation of Thomas); The first social doctrine encyclical, Rerum Novarum (being discussed by others here)-to which the Protestants responded with their so-called ‘Social Gospel”; for a renewed devotion to and openness to the Holy Spirit, which while gaining little traction in the Catholic world was taken in and exploded by certain Protestants giving us Pentecostalism

    In the meantime Catholics in France had split down the middle. There were those who felt that the French Revolution was straight out of hell [to which I have a certain agreement] and that the Church could not dialogue with ‘the world’ of revolutions [1789, 1848, 1870], the Modern World-they became known as Conservatives [the actual origin of this term] The other half of French Catholics while bemoaning the damage of the French Revolution did not believe the whole world was going to hell in a handbasket and could and should be dialogued with-they became known as ‘liberal Catholics’

    Among the liberal Catholics [but by no means all] however, some sought to transform theology so that it became a means of making Catholic teaching palatable to “the Modern World’. These were/are the Modernists. What I mean by this is not simply ‘making what the Church teaches understandable to the Modern world’ [a completely orthodox Catholic response] but emptying the teaching of the Church of any real absolute meaning and conforming it to the thinking and values of the Modern World. That is Modernism. As an important aside that is NOT what happened in Vatican II [although some interpreters after the Council took things in that direction]

    In 1966 the World Council of Churches met in Upsaala, Sweden, and wishing to keep up with the Catholic CHurch’s Vatican II wanted to make their own statement concerning the relationship of ‘the church’ and the modern world. What they came up with was horrendous. They declared that the World sets the agenda of the church [while found in the protestant world-that is Modernism!] Vatican II never even came a bit toward that kind of rubbish.

    The nonsense [nunsense-pun lol] we see in the LCWR is a morphed version of Modernism, thus the tough statements from the American bishops and now the Congregation of the Faith. To declare that they have moved beyond Jesus?!!!???? what is that?????

    Slainte, “modernism’ did exist and still does. However, many people identify modernism with any development within the Church etc. The term gets thrown around too loosely. But it did and indeed does exist. Hope this helps in some way to clarify things.

  • *Roger Haight* said Pascendi got it wrong? How very convenient for him!

  • “Modernism,” the coherent philosophical/theological system described in Pascendi, was never embraced by anyone, for the simple reason that people like Loisy, Tyrrell, Le Roy and Baron von Hügel were not primarily philosophers or systematic theologians. They formed, not so much a movement as a coterie or clique, in close contact with each other, so guilt by association was perhaps inevitable.

    There were a number of issues that needed to be addressed: theological questions like the nature of Revelation; the relationship of nature and grace; the development of doctrine and philosophical questions around action theory and the nature of language. Ressourcement Théologie in France did much to place them in their true perspective, as did the works of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Joseph Ratzinger.

    Many writers of unimpeachable orthodoxy fell under suspicion. The philosopher, Maurice Blondel, was widely suspected of Modernism, indeed of being one of the leading lights of the movement and there was a proposal to place his works on the Index (which was never done). Indeed, Pope St Pius X told the Archbishop of Aix, “I am sure of Blondel’s orthodoxy and I charge you to tell him so.” Thomas O’Dwyer, Bishop of Limerick even felt obliged to publish a pamphlet defending Bl John Henry Newman from a similar charge and he received a letter commending it from the Pope (10 March 1908) Abbé Henri Brémond, a friend of Tyrrell and of Maud Petre was expelled from the Society of Jesus, only to be incardinated in the diocese of Aix. His writings on poetry, symbolism and romanticism, as well as his 11-volume history of French mystical and devotional writings spanning 400 years earned him election to the Académie française, the Légion d’ honneur and a eulogy from the French Symbolist poet, Paul Valéry. Even the great Marie-Joseph Lagrange, doyen of Catholic exegetes and the founder of the École Biblique fell under suspicion and delayed publication of his magisterial « Critique textuelle; II, La critique rationnelle » until 1936. The story of Cardinal Henri de Lubac is too well known to bear repetition.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour,

    You seem to be losing contact with ecclesial reality. Your arguments concerning the non-existence are almost humorous-almost is a key word. Your mechanism for taking the heat off Loisy and company is that they were neither philosophers or systematic theologians. Since when does a certain degree make or break the issue of teaching something contradictory to the Catholic Faith.

    As for the rest of your post concerning Blessed John Cardinal Newman and Henri De Lubac etc.-no one in this post claimed they were modernists etc-so what is your point?

    You simply are in denial concerning the the reality of Modernism which does not assist the truth which can clarify issues in peoples minds about what is and what is not Modernism. You are in denial, and it is time to awake from your self-imposed defense mechanisms

  • Botolph

    As I said above, “The abstract system which Pascendi describes is certainly a menace not only to Catholicism but to Christianity itself.” That system is what is usually known as “Modernism” and I condemn it as heretical.

    Pascendi does not require us to condemn the system in the sense of any particular author (as the Five Propositions were condemned, “in the sense of Jansen”)

    I am no more required to believe that any individual embraced that system, any more than I am required to believe that Origen or Evagrius Ponticus held the propositions condemned in the 5th Ecumenical Council, or that Pope Honorius held the monothelite heresy condemned in the 6th. Popes and Councils are infallible in matters of faith and morals; not on questions of fact.

  • Botolph, thank you for explaining modernism and its historical progression in such detail. Your summary has helped me to widen my understanding of the subject.
    MPS, thank you for a very vigorous counterpoint on the issue. Since this subject is out of my field, I appreciate the nuanced dimensions you have presented. But I have a request….
    MPS, if you are game, I invite you, in the interest of Truth, to act as a disinterested Avocat and make the most credible and reasoned arguments that you are able in defense of (i) the truth of the claims of Pascendi Dominici Gregis, (ii) that modernism did and continues to exist as a matter of fact (providing concrete factual examples); and (iii) why Loisy, Tyrrell, and Cardinal de Lubac erred in their theological conclusions.
    I recognize that by requesting your participation in this exercise, MPS, that I am asking you to act against your own well considered opinions. However, I believe that your efforts will help others to gain a better understanding of the subject matter while providing some common ground for further discussion.
    Thanks MPS if you agree to do this…and thanks even if you are unable at this time. 

  • MPS

    Again you argue, I swear for the sake of argument. I named no one as a Modernist. I don;t remember anyone else saying so and so was a Modernist. Yet you claim it does not exist-contrary to Pascendi. However, I would claim that it exists even today where Revelation is eclipsed and or explained away for the sake of making Christianity [since the Catholic Church cannot and does not do this] conformable to the prevailing culture

Jesuitical 15: Gonzaga and the Knights of Columbus

Monday, April 8, AD 2013

Part 15 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.


Hattip to Matt Archbold at Creative Minority Report.  After 30 years at the bar and almost a decade blogging, there are few stories that shock me any more.  This one did:

Spokane’s Gonzaga University has denied a Knights of Columbus group application to be recognized as an official student organization. Those seeking the status were notified of the University’s decision at a meeting on March 7.

The group was notified of the decision by Dean of Students Kassi Kain and Assistant Director for Student Activities Dave Rovick.

“The Knights of Columbus, by their very nature, is a men’s organization in which only Catholics may participate via membership,” says a letter obtained by The Cardinal Newman Society written by Sue Weitz, Vice President for Student Life. “These criteria are inconsistent with the policy and practice of student organization recognition at Gonzaga University, as well as the University’s commitment to non-discrimination based on certain characteristics, one of which is religion.”

The letter continued:

The discussion at the meeting touched on formation of a Catholic Daughters student organization at Gonzaga. Such a group would address the gender exclusivity issue. However, it would not address the requirement that all members of a student Knights of Columbus group must be Catholic.

Individuals who spoke with The Cardinal Newman Society only on condition of anonymity explained that the group has been stalled by the administration for the entire academic year. Efforts were made by students to apply for official student group status beginning in September. The group was told they would have a response by November. The group wasn’t notified of the University’s decision until March.

Weitz did not return the call from The Cardinal Newman Society seeking comment on the decision.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to Jesuitical 15: Gonzaga and the Knights of Columbus

  • “already…. receives support from the administration”?

    I think that means they allow them to be there on their own… just like the weather underground could meet there (if they still exist) as long as they had a dorm room or off campus church basement to meet in. But being just tolerated as one of many clubs or interest groups does not allow using school sanctioned methods/avenues of communication, access to information, school facilities, meeting rooms or generally any kind of facilitation, not being able to host meetings or seminars on campus facilities..
    Unfortunately I think schools now do facilitate radical groups under the same rubrics by which they deny faithful Catholic groups that standing on campus. You can see where schools would want to withhold the implicit endorsement of some organizations and grant others… so it would be interesting to see what kind of groups Gonzaga has endorsed with this recognition.
    Let me know what I am missing.

  • pathetic when a Catholic university can’t endorse the Knights of Columbus

  • I am confused.

    I went to the K pf C Council’s web site and it sure looks like a college chapter. I can’t tell from the articles or the college’s statement what the application was for.

    Was this an application fro the existing Council to obtain status as an official Gonzaga club or from a separate group of students to form another Council but under the ausices of Student Life? It is all the more difficult to put the pieces together because Gonzaga’s process for forming sanctioned groups is cordoned off from public perusal, the statement on the web site saying “contact Student Life if the organizations on the list don’t cover your interest” – or something to that effect.

    It sounds like there are two statuses: sanctioned groups and external groups that can call themselves Gonzaga entities. The sanctioned groups appear to have to meet the non-discrimination guidelines. It spunds like the Administration is calling the external group (the K of C Council to which their students presently belong) a campus organization to deflect attention from denying a decidedly Catholic organization as a sanctioned group.

    Do I have it right?

  • Pingback: What Troubled the Virgin at the Annunciation - Big Pulpit
  • As a student at Gonzaga I can confirm that last year when the Knights were stripped of club status they had all the funds they raised frozen and taken from them. Without the funds they had raised they were unable to pay dues and the council folded. The website has not been updated.

    Also, the parish next to the campus has a k of c chapter but it is separate from the students and the University.

    The university is hostile towards Catholics. Our bishop has been supportive of progressive policies as well through his banning of the seminarians at gonzaga from praying in front of planned parenthood to his support of the v monologues on campus. If you care about the souls of your children, do not send them here.

  • Thanks for the inside info Katie!

  • Ugh. That is intolerable.

    I’ve been holding back in hopes that this was a purely administrative matter. Given the above, the decision requires a response.

    Thanks for the clarification Katie.

    Brother Knights, surely this is a cause we can take action on?!

  • Yep, the college council website is pretty out of date. The last roster of officers is from 2006-2007.

    As I said to someone else, there’s a reason I chortle every time Gonzaga’s overrated fraud of a basketball team flames out in the tournament: this sort of behavior is it.

  • Remove the title or status of “Catholic” from its charter. I’m writing of the University status.

  • Would so appreciate it if the website had consideration of those of us with poorer vision and used darker typefaces! Can’t read article.

  • Please clarify for me, the lower educated.
    What constitutes a University as being Catholic?
    Is it from its inception?
    If so, are there any guidelines or criteria that a University must attain to, to call itself Catholic.
    If not..can the student body, alum, or a “governing body” help clarify what it means by the title ( a Catholic University.)

  • An International pursuit of Justice conference coming up in two Weeks. A good opportunity for the 4th degree to get the word out and about the domestic injustice.

  • Philip, in regard to whether there are criteria, here are a few links. There are criteria, but unfortunately, most of our bishops are not following them…

  • For the President to require about a month to review the facts is unwarranted. The university has had this request for months. It is only now that they are feeling the heat for their ridiculous decision that the President has the time to review this proposal. It really tells you about the lack of leadership at this institution. What a great political and public relations strategy…wait it out! Most likely this letter was not reviewed by the President, but only when it blew in their face that they paid attention to it. Notice how the official statement is written in the third person. Wouldn’t be more sincere if the President came out and personally took responsibility for the unjustifiable and unacceptable decision by one of his lower-in-command?

  • Using Gonzaga’s standard, the Jesuits wouldn’t be a sanctioned campus organization.

  • Timeritus-
    Thank you for the resources.
    #35. The responsibility is with the Bishops.

  • Pingback: University denied Knights of Columbus application to be recognized as an official student organization | Gadsden Knights
  • Our 13 year old has been dreaming of going to Gonzaga since 3rd grade. This developement breaks my heart.His Father and Brother are both Knights.I always felt secure in the knowledge that he would be safe at Gonzaga, and that his Faith would be nurtured there.He is even excited about attending Stuebenville North West when he reaches high school, (held at Gonzaga). Please keep us posted.

  • if people refused to contribute to gonzaga’s fund raising efforts, it would return quite quickly to the catholic faith. it worked at my alma mater when it was contemplating allowing the formation of a pro-choice club. when they called asking for a donation, i told the caller i was not supporting the school until it definitively rejected the possibility of allowing a pro-choice organization to be recognized by the university. i am pretty sure many other alumni did the same. it was within a year after that, that the university publicly declared there would be no pro-choice student organization recognized. even in catholic institutions, money still talks. it is sad that such measures, denying support, are needed; but, that is the reality.

  • As a former student that quit this so called “catholic school” I am not surprised in the least. The hierarchy at the top kiss butt to the perverts because they are probably homosexuals themselves. Most of the bishops and cardinal are homosexuals and that is why this goes on and that is why the “priest scandal” came about. The liars that they are call it pedophilia, which is less than 1% of the “sex abuse scandal”. They have infiltrated the priesthood ie the hierarchy, and the hierarchy at the schools hire their butdies, more homosexuals. In the meantime guys like mahooey, hunthauser, weakland, etc. ruin the minds of the children as well as the adults, yet no one at the vatican, let alone in the usa, will start the process to excommunicate those traitors. God will help us, and the truth will prevail. Fight them and quit being so stupid and apathetic. PEOPLE, WAKE UP!!

  • A majority of our bishops fail to enforce the doctrines of our faith. Archbishop Dolan gave Biden, a supporter of abortion rights communion at the installation mass for the pope. He is the most powerful bishop in the U US, the voice of the church and I think John Cardinal O’Connor, founder of the Sisters of
    Life, must be spinning in his grave. Actually ,he’s a saint in heaven & was a true descendant of the apostles. I wouldn’t give a plug nickel for most of them. Thankfully, the bishop of Phoenix is also a devout defender of the faith, not afraid to declare the church’s doctrines. Chaput is great & there are others but I think Dolan is a disgrace.

  • Sad to say, but I am glad Gonzaga lost in the first round of the NCAA basketball tournament this year. As a university en total, they do not deserve to succeed until they repent and do penance for their sinful ways.

  • For the rest of the story: Be careful when you hear that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. Gonzaga is a still a wonderful place, an excellent educational opportunity and my son, a devout Catholic, finds plenty of support for his Eucharistic adoration, weekly Mass, devotionals, etc. He has met nothing but great friends and people there and I am a die-hard daily-Mass type mom who would never have sent him to some fake-Catholic university. Go, Zags!!! Bing is smiling, I’m sure. And by the way, Satan would love this institution to fail, good luck with that!!

  • Barbara, while it might be true that your son has received a good education and had pleasant experiences, the accumulation of evidence is starting to be stacked against Gonzaga.

    I attended a Jesuit high school in New York that was academically rigorous and provided me – at no cost to me or anyone else who has ever attended it – a superior education. I also made lifelong friends who are wonderfully devout Catholics. That doesn’t make up for the fact that I was woefully catechized by priests and other teachers who wore their dissent like a badge of honor.

  • Barbara, I wonder if you aren’t proving the old adage “you get out of college what you put into it.”

    Might it be that both representations are true:

    Your son got a good Catholic education and hung with Catholic people because you (much to your credit) raised him to be Catholic and that Gonzaga has a warped sense of what a Catholic university can and should be?

    Gonzaga is denying status to a Knights of Columbus council because it is exclusively Catholic. This is discordant with the mission to raise educated Catholics.

    Perhaps you did so good a job raising your son that the same results would have come from his attending a non-Catholic school, or even one hostile to the Faith?

  • Gonzaga’s decision ostensibly turned on “discrimination” in two areas — Catholic and male. Think about the gender of the two top administrators involved in the decision: Vice-president for Student Life Sue Weitz, Dean of Students Dean of Students Kassi Kain. The greater problem may be that this is a MALE group. In the simplistic mental slop about “discrimination’ and “diversity” in this case, the Knights group is part of the male oppressors and patriarchy which needs suppression, unlike a Catholic women’s group which is essential for supporting women in fighting oppression. In other words, the underlying rationale is simple minded reductionism about gender as well as Catholicism on a Jesuit campus. The irony about Jesuits being a male Catholic order escapes the mental grasp of these administrators.

  • The article says that the gender issue was raised and answered by offering to set up a “Catholic Daughters” – presumably The Catholic Daughters of the Americas – chapter.

    The lack of clarity is very frustrating. I can’t figure out if the petitioners (men) offered to set up a women’s group to answer that concern or if there was a collateral proceeding involving women who also wanted to set up a gender and religion exclusive organization.

    I am unwilling to state that these two administrators exercised their gender biases through this decision without evidence of this. You may be right but I think we have to take the story as it is unless more evidence is presented.

    Frankly, the disconnect between Gonzaga’s Catholic Christian mission and their actions in this case is bad enough.

Jesuitical 14: Fordham, Coulter and Singer

Friday, November 16, AD 2012


Part 14 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Fordham President Joseph McShane, SJ, knows who his real enemy is.  Today Fordham is hosting the well known proponent of euthanasia and abortion Peter Singer at a conference charmingly entitled:  “Conference with Peter Singer: Christians and Other Animals: Moving the Conversation Forward.”  Singer is fine according to McShane, but he bitterly criticized the College Republicans recently at Fordham for sponsoring a speech by Ann Coulter.  Robert Shibley, at Professor William Jacobson’s magnicent blog College Insurrection, gives us the juicy details:

Fordham University is in a bit of a bind.

After loudly proclaiming his “disgust” with the “hate speech” of conservative pundit Ann Coulter in an email to all students, in the process slamming the Fordham College Republicans—his own students—as immature bigots who lack character, Fordham President Joseph McShane, S.J., is now faced with defending his administration’s invitation to philosopher and infanticide advocate Peter Singer to participate in a panel on “animal ethics.”

This puts Fordham in a tough spot.

Father McShane could have allowed the marketplace of ideas to function on its campus without engaging in an electronic temper tantrum. (To his credit, he did not ban Coulter from campus, although the College Republicans clearly saw which way the wind was blowing and canceled the event themselves—here’s one student’s reaction to that.) But he didn’t, and now Fordham is stuck trying to justify McShane’s statement.

In response to an email from a College Insurrection reader provided to us, Bob Howe, Senior Director of Communications at Fordham, penned the following response, attempting to explain why having Peter Singer advocating his positions on campus is totally different from having Ann Coulter advocate her positions:

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Jesuitical 14: Fordham, Coulter and Singer

  • What is it: double standard, hypocrisy, or stupidity?

    To quote that famed American cultural icon, Bart Simpson, “I’m insulted!”

    Infanticide, sodomy, etc. are promoted.

    Freedom, personal responsibility, free markets, etc. are censored.

    Anyhow, the grads will be lucky to get part-time work at “Bed, Bath and Beyond.”

  • Not being a canon scholar I’d like to know if a school can be stripped of its Catholic name? What protections are there against anyone just calling themselves Catholic regardless of the reality?

  • Peter Singer also sees nothing wrong with bestiality.

  • Paul D, i totally agree with you. The word “Catholic” should be legally protected so that entities like Notre Dame that honor pro-abortion public figures will be forced to stop capitalizing on Catholic identity.

  • I know that this is one of those stories I’m supposed to get really angry about, but I can’t. First of all, the name given is wrong. Drop the “Conference with Peter Singer” part. That’s significant because he’s one of four panelists (another of whom is an editor of First Things). The topic is the Christian view of animal rights, not infanticide. I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to attend that discussion, but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it.

  • I don’t disagree, Pinky, at least not passionately so. Yet Singer’s views are so odious that it is hard to just set them aside. If he were a white supremacist would we do that?

  • “The fact that the College Republicans backed down on inviting Coulter in the
    face of the attack by McShane helps explain how the election was lost this year.
    No fortitude, no victory.”

    According to the statement released by the College Republicans and signed by
    the President, VP, Treasurer and Secretary, the Fordham CR had already decided
    to drop Ms. Coulter before Fr. McShane’s 15 minute hate was emailed:

    “We made this choice freely before Fr. McShane’s email was sent out and we
    became aware of his feelings– had the President simply reached out to us
    before releasing his statement, he would have learned that the event was being
    cancelled”. — Fordham College Republicans

    Folding like a bunch of cheap tents– it’ll be a wonder if Fordham’s College
    Republicans will ever be able to get a prospective speaker to return their
    phone calls again. If they are a fair gauge of the caliber of the future leaders
    of the Republican party, we need to get used to losing elections. No fortitude,
    no victory, indeed.

  • “I personally wouldn’t walk across the street to attend that discussion, but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it.”

    Peter Singer is an advocate of killing handicapped kids, leaving aside his vociferous advocacy of abortion and euthanasia. He should no more be invited to attend a panel discussion at a Catholic college than any of the murderers with degrees after their names who served the Third Reich. Fordham gives this monster legitimacy by treating him as if he has a right to sit among decent human beings.

    If anyone thinks I exaggerate, go here for an overview on Singer:

    “The notion that human life is sacred just because it is human life is medieval.”
    Peter Singer

  • Coincidently, last evening on the LIRR, I was reading my freshman Ancient History text. One innovation in Sparta the institution of a council to usurp Spartan fathers’ right to decide whether an infant should die.

    Fordham, You’re promoting ancient, pagan barbarism, Baby. (No pun intended.)

  • Pingback: SATURDAY MORNING EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • What is happening to Catholic education? Fordham can’t stand to have an advocate for free speech yet has no problem with one whose views are totally opposed to anything the Catholic church stands for? Georgetown covers crucifixes so as not to offend a president who says he’s a Christian and welcomes him even though he is a proponent of allowing abortion survivors to die? Notre Dame – I can’t even read anything about them any more. Breaks my heart.

    I am most disappointed in the young republicans. Invite or don’t invite as you will but once invited, stand by your invitation.

  • It’s a lot different than one, Vince Lombardi went to Fordham and was in their blocks of granite. And people wonder about the “Catholic vote” ?? when we have things like this going on?? Thank goodness, St. Thomas St. Paul seems to keep to Catholic values, I’ve heard different about St. Catherine’s there but can’t be sure.

  • Richard Cancemi
    November 18, 2012 at 8:47 am · Reply

    John Collingnon, in his comment, refers to the Jesuits as a sect. This is not true; they are a Religious Order called “The Society of Jesus, hence the SJ after there names. They were founded by St. Ignatious of Loyola whose mission he vowed was to defend the Faith. In addition to the vows of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience, all those who joined him took a fourth vow to be Protectors of the Faith and the Pope. They were the intellectuals of the Church’s teachings and hence were also teachers in Universities. Their schools were well respected.

    During the Protestant Reformation in England they were hunted down and killed savagely because of their defense of Catholic Doctrine. As Protestantism spread throughout Europe, so too were other Religious Orders and Catholics in general. The Jesuits, in particular, were feared because of their superior intellectual abilities.

    Somewhere along their life span of the Order, some Jesuits seemed to have lost their way and had and have become revolutionary radicals. They turned their back to the Church. They were even infiltrated by Communists during Russia’s subversive reign. Many seemed to have embraced Marxist Socialism as part of their thinking and have lost their way. No all, but many.

    Father McShane appears to be among the lost, radical Jesuits supporting Secularism over Religiosity. He is certainly not representative of Catholicism nor is he representative of the original mission of his Jesuit Order. However far too many Jesuits have “lost their way”. Perhaps their intellectual training has a produced in them a hubris that dissolves the humility that is urged in their training.

    Jesuits have been known as “trouble-making revolutionaries” for a long time but those (and there are far too many) are not representatives of Catholicism. They embrace the “injustice” inherent in Marxist Socialism and lose sight of “true justice for all”. “Social Justice” is a Socialist term which they embrace. It means taking (stealing) from some to give to others. It is not to be confused with Christian Charity which is voluntary.

    Father McShane needs to take time out and meditate on his Catholicism and the mission of his Order. His support of the anti-religious ideas of the secularist Peter Singer are inexcusable as a Jesuit and Catholic. He, himself, should make use of the Confessional, if he can get beyond his own personal hubris, and seek absolution for his sinful support of heresy. At the very least, he should be ashamed of himself!

    But please, do not equate Fr. McShane and others like him with Catholic beliefs.

    I, personally would not send my children to a Jesuit School because they can’t be trusted to be objective.

    (There is an interesting book called:”The Jesuits”, written by a former Jesuit, which is very enlightening.)

Jesuitical 13: Rush and Georgetown

Monday, March 5, AD 2012

Part 13 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Georgetown University, founded in 1789, is the oldest Jesuit college in the United States.  Last week it found itself at the center of the debate over the HHS Mandate.  How the powers that be at Georgetown reacted to all of this is instructive.

On February 16, 2012 Representative Darrell Issa (R. CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on the ramifications of the HHS Mandate in regard to religious freedom.  Democrats had the opportunity to present witnesses.  Initially they were going to have Barry Lynn, a Methodist minister and Leftist political activist, and head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State, but for some reason that fell through for the Democrats.  They then proposed Sandra Fluke, identified as a third year law student at Georgetown.  Issa refused to allow her to testify on the grounds that she wasn’t testifying about the religious liberty issue but rather about a perceived need for contraception.  The Democrats, who realized that they were in trouble on the religious liberty issue, used this as an argument against the hearings, arguing that women were banned from the hearings as speakers.  This was a lie, as there were two panels which testified in opposition to the Mandate at the hearing.  The second panel included Dr. Allison Garrett and Dr.  Laura Champion who testified as to the dangers that the HHS Mandate poses to religious liberty.

On February 23, 2012, Nancy Pelosi (D.CA), minority leader, organized a Democrats only “hearing” at which Sandra Fluke gave her testimony.  Go here to read that testimony.  Among other statements she said that in three years contraceptives could cost a law student three grand.

The idea that someone at Georgetown Law School, an elite school that costs over 50k a year to attend, was crying poverty over the alleged cost of $1,000.00 a year, a sum about $800-$900 too high in relationship to the actual cost, to make illicit whoopee has its comedic possibilities, and this was  seized upon by Rush Limbaugh on Wednesday February 29:

What does it say about the college co-ed Sandra Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex, what does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We’re the pimps. (interruption) The johns? We would be the johns? No! We’re not the johns. (interruption) Yeah, that’s right. Pimp’s not the right word. Okay, so she’s not a slut. She’s “round heeled.” I take it back.

This caused an uproar and on Thursday March 1, John J. DeGioia, the first lay President of Georgetown, released this statement:

Continue reading...

45 Responses to Jesuitical 13: Rush and Georgetown

  • Something for nothing/free lunch: the liberal prime directive: She merely wants sex and she wants GU to pay for it. That is not a new concept.

    Let’s try to save America from disparate treatment.

    To be fair and equitable, malicious Maher needs to apologize for calling Governor Palin “Slut!”, or we DEMAND Obama return the $1,000,000 malign Maher gave him.

    History lesson for liberals: Money for sex is the “oldest profession.”

    The new concept is Liberty.

  • Disparate Treatment Command:

    You are justified when you viciously slander (add laurel for foul words) a woman because you truly hate her and she’s Republican, e.g., Governor Palin.

  • Slut or slattern is a term applied to an individual who is considered to have loose sexual morals or who is sexually promiscuous. The term is generally pejorative and often applied to women as an insult or offensive term of disparagement, meaning “dirty or slovenly.”However some women have demonstrated saying they’re proud of being “sluts”, and have given it a positive connotation.
    By either definition, Fluke would seem to fit the bill.

  • I don’t begrudge the Georgetown president’s full-throated defense of one of his students without his adding the caveat that he disagrees with her on the issue that made her famous. Such a defense generally needs to be done in a manner that is not watered down by “Howevers” and “Buts”.

    There is just something in the psyche of civilized people that reacts with horror to the thought of a man commenting upon a woman in a manner that calls into question her chastity. Now, maybe her testimony left little doubt in that regard, but still, to hear a man publicly comment upon a woman in such terms brings a visceral reaction that a line has been crossed in terms of genteel behavior.

    One thing I was always taught growing up is that a gentleman does not make comments about a woman that imputes unchastity to her. And gentlemanly behavior dictates defending a woman in such a situation, which is what Georgetown’s president was primarily concerned with doing in this instance..

  • I suspect that the sole pupose of the President’s letter Jay was to pick up some quick praise for himself from the powers that be at Georgetown, in Washington DC and in the Mainstream Media. As for Ms. Fluke, I think in other circumstances she would be the first to reject the traditional codes that have guided gentlemen and ladies in our civilization. Of course all of this misses the actual significance of Ms. Fluke’s testimony, which I think was rather the point of this whole media created tempest.

  • I find it ludicrous that this young woman who is apparently attending Georgetown with a scholarship is making this argument. First, if it was THAT important to her why did she attend a Catholic University. If I attended a Muslim University and then whined that I had to dress modestly then it would show me to be intolerant and maybe not the smartest cookie (I lived in Saudi Arabia for 3 years as a military wife and always covered when I went off compound. It was the correct and respectful thing to do).

    Second, can she NOT either abstain or ask her partner to participate in the costs of birth control?

    Third, I had to wonder about the other student she said was embarrassed and humiliated when she discovered birth control was not covered at the cash register when she picked up her birth control. Isn’t this woman a LAW student? Can’t she read her insurance policy? I only have a B.A. in Psychology but I read my policy to see what is covered BEFORE I see a doctor.

    They may not be sluts but this woman is definitely prostituting herself for the liberal democrats.

  • I listened live when he made his remarks, and even I forgot that he actually took the slut comment back almost as soon as he made it. Considering that what he said certainly crossed my mind, I can’t fault Rush for his comments.

  • “They may not be sluts but this woman is definitely prostituting herself for the liberal democrats.”

    It isn’t prostitution if it is done for love Lee anne, and I know that Ms. Fluke loves the far left of the Democrat Party unless she finds it too moderate for her tastes, which may wll be the case.

  • “She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception.”

    Rush misspoke here in that when it comes to the Pill, you have to take it every day whether or not you have sex frequently. Ms. Fluke might very well be a slut, but that should not be the focus of the arguments against her. Gingrich summed them up perfectly – there is no contraceptive shortage in the US, nobody wants to take birth control away from Ms. Fluke, and the issue is who pays for it.

    It is mind-boggling to me how this issue has gotten away from us. The Dems are successfully painting this as “The GOP/Catholic War on Women” and millions of idiots appear to be falling for a completely non-existant issue. In the meantime, Iran becomes more frightening by the day and I nearly had to take out a bank loan when I filled up my tank last night. But let’s keep on talking about the sex life of a 30 year old Dem activist. It’s unreal.

    And as for the reaction of Georgetown U- well, absolutely no surprise there. I tell people my entire education up until college was Catholic – and then I went to a Jesuit university.

  • Paul, it’s one thing for it to cross your mind; it is another thing altogether to publicly give voice to those thoughts. In more genteel times, such comments (regardless of their veracity) were considered to be slander per se.

  • “As a student at Cornell and treasurer of a pro-choice organization at the school, Sandra
    Fluke helped shut down a pro-life speech on Cornell’s campus by counter-protesting.”

    Miss Fluke made no secret of her activities as an undergrad. I am astonished that of all
    the thousands of applicants for the few openings at Georgetown Law, the Admissions
    Board would give a place at a Catholic university to someone with her history.

    I suppose it can be argued that all sorts of views should be represented at a university.
    However, I’ve got to wonder if Admissions would be so complaisant if she had been an
    enthusiastic member and treasurer for a racist or anti-semitic student organization.

    It would appear that, by granting one of their few places in the law school program to
    someone like Miss Fluke, “… the teachings of the Church are of small concern to the
    powers that be at Georgetown…”.

  • Jay, I agree with your posts but would add that I do not believe for a second that Ms. Fluke was hurt or insulted by Limbaugh’s remarks. My guess is she snickered as she thought about how they would be used to her advantage.

  • I agree, Mike. No doubt she wears any insult by Limbaugh as a badge of honor.

    My objections to Rush have less to do with any imagined “damage” that might have been done to the particular woman’s reputation as they are to the damage that is done to the notion of gentility whenever a man comments in such a manner upon a woman’s chastity or lack thereof. Such comments about a woman used to merit one a punch in the nose (50-60 years ago) or a fight to the death on the field of honor (200 years ago and back to the middle ages).

  • Clinton,
    I wish I was surprised, but I’m not. As you point out the advantage of welcoming competing ideas has its limits. Think Wafen SS. A Catholic law school should be concerned with how to use law to protect our most innocent fellow human beings from intentional killing, but it appears that Georgetown has other priorities.

  • Oh I understand, Jay, and agree. Perhaps I am wrong, but I did not understand Limbaugh’s rant as asserting a genuine charge; I took it as parody, especially his comparison to a prostitute one who must be provided financial assistance as a condition to having sex. While this comparison has turned out rather poorly for Limbaugh, I don’t think any listener seriously thought Limbaugh was challenging the chastity of Ms. Fluke — for a whole bunch of reasons.

  • “…I don’t think any listener seriously thought Limbaugh was challenging the chastity of Ms. Fluke…”

    Especially since Ms. Fluke herself has answered that question.

  • Why would any man would want to talk with Ms. Fluke if she were chaste?

    Does her father own a liquor store?

  • In the classic movie “Ben-Hur”, there is a scene early in the movie in which the outgoing Tribune, Sextus, asks his replacement. Messala, “How do you fight an idea?” After a brief interruption, Messala answers him: “With another idea.” That is exactly what Obama and his cohorts are doing. They can’t win if the idea is that the federal government is violating the first amendment, so they invent their own idea, which is that Republicans are trying to take away women’s access to contraceptives. This is, of course, absurd, but to quote a line from another biblical movie, “But they (the Roman people) are believing it!” (Petronius, “Quo Vadis”). It is absolutely imperative that whoever wins the Republican nomination (looks like Romney at this point, but time will tell) press this issue. This is not a fight for contraceptive rights, but for religious rights. To paraphrase James Carville, “It’s freedom of religion, stupid!”

  • Unfortunaly Obama is framing this argument with might I say….. diabolical cunninngness…….

    Just the other day my son’s piano teacher said in passing with much gusto “I wish our parish would stay out of politics”. She was reffering to the letter our Bishop had read at all masses last week. During the reading of that letter I noticed at least on person get up and walk out.

    My mother said the same thing happened at her church all the way across the country.

  • I think Joseph’s analogy with Rome is very appropriate.

  • “During the reading of that letter I noticed at least on person get up and walk out. ”

    Frankly, those who prefer Obama to the Church probably should get up, walk out, and keep on walking.

  • You are all morons if you think in today’s society calling a 30 year old woman who advocates “free” contraception a slut is insulting? Do you all live under a rock? Do you not go to the movies? Do you not listen to music? Do you not listen to people between the ages of 14 and 30 conversations? “Slut” is the mildest of words that is bantered about in today’s society. This “scandal” is a joke…brought to you by people who truly hate those that disagree with them. And Fluke is one of them.

  • Somebody with more time than me needs to research… did she go to one of those “slutwalks” that were all the rage half a year or so back?

  • I read Ms. Fluker’s statement, and what it was, was the usual liberal use of “hard cases” to make us feel sorry for someone, then to drastically change policy based on the hard cases. She speaks of women needed the Pill for control of polycystic ovaries. First of all, as a woman, I know that doctors are extremely quick to prescribe the pill for just about anything, not just as an “antidote” to fertility. If a doctor recommended the Pill, I would do a great deal of research before accepting his or her recommendation, to know what my other options are. But what the liberals are trying to do is say, “Look at these poor women who are discriminated against because they need the Pill and are insured by a Catholic institution! In order to solve this problem, we must ALL be given free birth control!” Huh? If you need insurers to cover the Pill based on certain diagnoses, then you have the insurers cover the Pill for those diagnoses. It is extremely simple. It makes no sense to argue that the reason the Pill should be covered for all is because a few people are using it for recognized medical conditions.

  • AFAIK, using the pill for an actual medical condition is treated the same as any other drug with any other off-label use– policies differ on if they’ll accept it, usually along the lines of if the medication is known to be useful for that purpose. (Like Viagra for women, especially those on anti-depressants– similar use as for men.)

    So, again, standard: they use a hard case that isn’t even accurate….

  • From the comments, I have to gather that liberal, Leftist People’s Democratic Party members and supporters will lie, obfuscate, spin and generally dissemble whatever, whenever and wherever it fits their political ends. I am (yawn) shocked.

    From “Power to the People” to Machiavelli in two generations.

  • Has Ms. Fluke been expelled from Georgetown yet? She’s bringing ill fame to the institution.

    By the way, there was a SlutWalk just last year in Georgetown. Did Ms. Fluke participate? Or did she condemn it? She does call herself an “activist,” I hear.

  • Good question. Here is a celebratory post by a participant:

    Ah, yes, protesting sexism and a “rape culture” by dressing like a slut. Makes as much sense as stating that one is deprived of contraceptives if someone else is not picking up the tab.

  • The St. Augustine quote about Onan is HILARIOUS. A sperm is NOT a human being. An ovum is NOT a human being. Life begins at conception-so Onan wasn’t engaging in abortion. Sperm aren’t human. Embryos are. He needed to learn some basic biology. The Bible condemns adultery and fornication, NOT sexual techniques within marriage. He overrated Onan’s importance. I guess Augustine was of the “every sperm is sacred” ilk. Too bad Monty Python didn’t exist yet.

    For married couples, any form of sex is OK as long as it doesn’t involve artificial contraception, especially the kind that can destroy unborn life (as it says in the Didache). The Song of Songs praises sex of all kinds WITHIN marriage. When the Bridegroom speaks of tasting the Bride’s fruit, one can tell what he’s talking about… and the Bride sats something similar. Oral sex belongs within marriage.

  • No Susan you are incorrect. The sin of Onan referred to by Saint Augustine was that he “spilled his seed upon the ground” as an act of contraception. The Church has always been against contraception as the quote indicates.

    A nice article to read for people ignorant of the history of the Church prohibition in regard to contraception:

  • Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule

    Also Known as: Appeal to Mockery, The Horse Laugh.

    Description of Appeal to Ridicule

    The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an “argument.” This line of “reasoning” has the following form:

    X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
    Therefore claim C is false.
    This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because mocking a claim does not show that it is false. This is especially clear in the following example: “1+1=2! That’s the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard!”

    It should be noted that showing that a claim is ridiculous through the use of legitimate methods (such as a non fallacious argument) can make it reasonable to reject the claim. One form of this line of reasoning is known as a “reductio ad absurdum” (“reducing to absurdity”). In this sort of argument, the idea is to show that a contradiction (a statement that must be false) or an absurd result follows from a claim. For example: “Bill claims that a member of a minority group cannot be a racist. However, this is absurd. Think about this: white males are a minority in the world. Given Bill’s claim, it would follow that no white males could be racists. Hence, the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations.”

    Since the claim that the Klan, Nazis, and white supremists are not racist organizations is clearly absurd, it can be concluded that the claim that a member of a minority cannot be a racist is false.

    Examples of Appeal to Ridicule

    “Sure my worthy opponent claims that we should lower tuition, but that is just laughable.”
    “Support the ERA? Sure, when the women start paying for the drinks! Hah! Hah!”
    “Those wacky conservatives! They think a strong military is the key to peace!”

  • Also begging the question in that the statement that sperm and ovum aren’t people implies that killing someone is the only yardstick the Church uses in terms of sexual practices inside a marriage.

  • If Onan’s sin was so egregious, why isn’t it in the Levitical Holiness Code? It’s pretty exhaustive. Don’t sleep with a parent, don’t sleep with a sibling, etc. When the Levitical Code was given, it went into DETAIL about sexual do’s and don’ts. Onan gets only one appearance in the whole Bible-he isn’t that important. Not even St. Paul brought him up in his writings on marriage.

    Sperm and ovum aren’t human. If you say “life begins at conception”,BELIEVE it… instead of what Bill Maher said about Santorum recently.

    The Song of Songs praises oral sex within marriage-Clinton should’ve understood that.

    The Didache forbade artificial contraceptives as well as “poisons that induce abortion”,adultery, promiscuity, fornication. It didn’t describe sexual practices within marriage because it was NONE of its business.

    The Bible condemns adultery. A LOT. Jesus condemned divorce&remarriage. Where does the Bible give ANY prescriptions on sexual acts within marriage? Not many.

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery”-save sex for marriage.

    Got problems with that?

  • “If Onan’s sin was so egregious, why isn’t it in the Levitical Holiness Code?”

    Beats me. Of course there are a whole host of very serious sins not included in that Code. The Church is of course not limited by the strictures set forth in the Old Testament.

    “Onan gets only one appearance in the whole Bible-he isn’t that important.”

    Melchizedek gets only a brief appearance in the Old Testament, yet he is very important in the New. Traditionally Jewish rabbis opposed male contraception on the basis of Onan. That brief passage in the Old Testament has been very important in traditional views of contraception for both Jews and Christians until the day before yesterday in historical terms.

    “Sperm and ovum aren’t human.”

    No one has said that they are. That is not the point of the ban on contraception.

    “The Song of Songs praises oral sex within marriage”

    A debatable proposition. Sodomy has always been condemned by the Church. The Old Testament of course is not controlling over what the Church approves and what the Church condemns.

    “It didn’t describe sexual practices within marriage because it was NONE of its business.”
    Untrue. This from the Epistleof Barnabas ( circa 74 AD) ” Moreover, he [Moses] has rightly detested the weasel [Lev. 11:29]. For he means, ‘Thou shall not be like to those whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth with the body through uncleanness [orally consummated sex]; nor shall thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth with the body through uncleanness’”

    The Church has legislated in this area since the time of the Crucifixion. You are very much mistaken.

  • Back in my college days, I once knew a guy who made a conclusion from the Robert DeNiro/Billy Crystal film “Analyze this.” DeNiro’s mobster says he has a mistress because he can’t imagine his wife kissing their children after practicing oral sex on him. Basically, rationalizing adultery.

    If one thinks oral sex is somehow wrong within marriage,it paves the way for mistresses&adultery. Police sexual practices unreasonably within marriage-and people will DEFINITELY commit adultery.

    It’s normal, natural&human for lovers to kiss each other, even down there (especially if down there) It’s natural for a wife to want to please her husband–no wonder the Epistle of Barnabas isn’t canonical. It’s also natural for a husband to go down&please his wife. If he’s scared for her lady parts, he’s got issues. It’s not done out of malice, but for love.

    I know a pastor (non-Catholic) who’d be appalled that you condemn oral intimacy within marriage… considering he backed Prop.8 in California AND managed to stop Planned Parenthood from opening up shop in his town. He’d be headdesking.

    That passage from Barnabas is condemning oral sex OUTSIDE of marriage. Besides, it would be a buzzkill for some men if their wives wouldn’t do it. It depends on the couple.As well as consent. If done for the wrong reasons, oral sex is wrong within marriage, but if it’s consensual&loving, who are we to condemn it?

    And weasels are cute creatures.

  • If you wish to argue for approval of what the Church has condemned throughout her history Susan, you are at the wrong blog.

  • I don’t know Donald, are you really prepared to simply cede to two millenia of the teachings of Popes, Bishops, and Church Doctors when you have the brilliant philosophic insight of “Analyze This” staring you right in the face?

  • From an article by Pete Vere JCL (once available on Cathoic Exchange, 7-10-07, but I can’t find it anymore. All I hard is hard copy. The article was called “Abortion and Contraception: Old Lies”

    [The book Eve’s Herbs] answered a question that had long troubled me; I had often wonderded why Holy Scripture appeared to say so little about the grave evils of abortion and contraception….Eve’s Herbs provided me with a startling realization: in ancient and medieval times, contraception and abortion were often considered a form of sorcery and witchcraft, rather than a form of medicine. Thus, Holy Scripture may never use the words abortion and contracpetion, but the Bible is not silent on the issue. It simply condemns these practices under a different name.”

  • Just thought of something else: when I was a kid, “gay” meant “happy” (or something like that). When I got to college, it meant “homosexual.” Now my kids use the word “gay” but it isn’t always being used to mean “a homosexual.” It means something more like “stupid.” Words change over time. Our understanding of things change over time, so that gives credance to Pete Vere’s thoughts on the matter.

  • DJ-
    Here you go! (Bless TFR and their habit of having copies of all sorts of things.)

  • DeNiro’s mobster says he has a mistress because he can’t imagine his wife kissing their children after practicing oral sex on him. Basically, rationalizing adultery.

    If one thinks oral sex is somehow wrong within marriage,it paves the way for mistresses&adultery.

    No… it was DeNiro’s character thinking that oral sex is something he’s got to have that paved the way to adultery.

    Oral sex good + mouth that’s performed oral sex on him touching his children= get mouth that won’t touch his children for oral sex.

    His initial assumption was wrong, so of course his conclusion was wrong. It would be shocking if his conclusion wasn’t wrong!

  • Pingback: Surprise! Sandra Fluke Being Run From White House | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: 2012: An Elijah on Mount Carmel Year | The American Catholic

Jesuitical 12: America and the Bishops

Monday, February 27, AD 2012


Part 12 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  For a nano second the Jesuit rag America was on the side of every Catholic bishop in this country in opposition to the HHS Mandate.  However, where your heart is so is your treasure, and America is back on the side of Team Obama.  I was going to take the Jesuits of America to task, but Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Faith that I have named him Defender of the Faith, has eloquently beaten me to the punch:

You Roman Catholic bishops have had your fun and put on your little temper tantrum, the editors of The REAL Magisterium Wannabe Episcopalian Weekly America write.  But the adults are here now so why don’t you all just look liturgically impressive, babble a little Latin and keep your stupid opinions to yourselves.  We’ll take it from here:

For a brief moment, Catholics on all sides were united in defense of the freedom of the Catholic Church to define for itself what it means to be Catholic in the United States. They came together to defend the church’s institutions from morally objectionable, potentially crippling burdens imposed by the Obama administration under the Affordable Care Act. Catholic journalists, like E. J. Dionne and Mark Shields, and politicians, like Tim Kaine and Robert P. Casey Jr., joined the U.S. bishops in demanding that the administration grant a broad exemption for religiously affiliated institutions from paying health care premiums for contraceptive services. Then, on Feb. 10, President Obama announced a compromise solution by which religious institutions would be exempt from paying the objectionable premiums but women would not be denied contraceptive coverage. A confrontation that should never have happened was over. But not for long.

Every single time we let the hierarchy think it’s in charge, the idiots completely screw things up.  Every.  Single.  Time.

After a nod to the White House’s retreat as “a first step in the right direction,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the president’s “accommodation” as insufficient. Their statement presented a bill of indictments on the fine points of public policy: It opposed any mandate for contraceptive coverage, expanded the list of claimants for exemption to include self-insured employers and for-profit business owners and contested the administration’s assertion that under the new exemption religious employers would not pay for contraception. Some of these points, particularly the needs of self-insured institutions like universities, have merit and should find some remedy. Others, with wonkish precision, seem to press the religious liberty campaign too far.

“Some of these points…have merit and should find some remedy?”  From where?  From the same people who wrote the initial rule and the transparently fraudulent “compromise?”  I can’t for the life of me understand why the bishops might be reluctant to take that offer.  Foxes, hen houses and all that.

And it’s difficult for me to see how the objections of the bishops constitute “press[ing] the religious liberty campaign too far” since forcing Church ministries to facilitate the acquisition of free contraceptives by any employee who wants them is the only option left on the table.  The idea of not being forced to provide free birth control at all seems no longer to be possible.

The bishops have been most effective in influencing public policy when they have acted as pastors, trying to build consensus in church and society, as they did in their pastorals on nuclear war and the economy. The American public is uncomfortable with an overt exercise of political muscle by the hierarchy. Catholics, too, have proved more responsive to pastoral approaches. They expect church leaders to appeal to Gospel values, conscience and right reason. They hope bishops will accept honorable accommodations and, even when provoked, not stir up hostility. In the continuing dialogue with government, a conciliatory style that keeps Catholics united and cools the national distemper would benefit the whole church.

I think you all know what’s going on there.  It’s the age-old story.  As long as the bishops are commenting on the issues that are important to the America editorial staff the right issues, we’re behind them 100%.  But once they move on to those…other issues(you know the ones America means), they are exercising “political muscle” and contributing to the “national distemper.”

On issues like nuclear war and the economy, the bishops should certainly take no prisoners and accept no compromises.  But on those relatively trivial issues that the laity constantly insists on whining about, Roman Catholic bishops need to “accept honorable accomodations,” they need to “not stir up hostility,” and, most importantly, they need to be “conciliatory.”

After all, we have the example constantly before us of the Author and Finisher of our faith who was always willing to accept honorable accomodations, who never stirred up hostility and Whose first name was Conciliatory.  Actually, we don’t have that at all.  What the heck was I thinking?

The campaign also risks ignoring two fundamental principles of Catholic political theology. Official Catholic rights theory proposes that people should be willing to adjust their rights claims to one another. It also assigns to government the responsibility to coordinate contending rights and interests for the sake of the common good. The campaign fails to acknowledge that in the present instance, claims of religious liberty may collide with the right to health care, or that the religious rights of other denominations are in tension with those of Catholics. But as Pope Benedict XVI wrote in “Deus Caritas Est,” the church does not seek to “impose on those who do not share the faith ways of thinking and modes of conduct proper to the faith.” Furthermore, the campaign fails to admit that the administration’s Feb. 10 solution, though it can be improved, fundamentally did what Catholic social teaching expects government to do—coordinate contending rights for the good of all.

Um…nuh-uh.  I have no idea what “Catholic rights theory” really consists of but I seriously doubt that “adjust[ing] their rights claims to one another” obligates Catholics to commit sins themselves or acquiesce in their commission.

As for the “contending rights” that America believes were coordinated by the Administration’s “compromise,” we have the long-established Constitutional right of Christian churches to order their own affairs versus the newly-created “right” to free birth control pills, a “right” which remains in place by means of an accounting trick.

Once again, there is no possibility of the Catholic Church not being forced to provide free birth control at all; the default position is the liberal one.  And that is not coordination of contending rights at all; it is soft tyranny.

By stretching the religious liberty strategy to cover the fine points of health care coverage, the campaign devalues the coinage of religious liberty. The fight the bishop’s conference won against the initial mandate was indeed a fight for religious liberty and for that reason won widespread support. The latest phase of the campaign, however, seems intended to bar health care funding for contraception. Catholics legitimately oppose such a policy on moral grounds. But that opposition entails a difference over policy, not an infringement of religious liberty. It does a disservice to the victims of religious persecution everywhere to inflate policy differences into a struggle over religious freedom. Such exaggerated protests likewise show disrespect for the freedom Catholics have enjoyed in the United States, which is a model for the world—and for the church.

What are you mackeral snappers complaining about?  It’s not like anyone’s burning down your churches or anything.  And you don’t have to pay for anyone’s abortion so chill out.

But here’s the problem.  A government that thinks it has the right to determine what are or are not Christian ministries is a government that can(and probably one day will) not only order Christian hospitals to provide free birth control but also order Christian hospitals and churches to provide free abortions for any staff member who wants one.

Were that to happen, what would America say?  That the bishops shouldn’t be so “wonkish” because this is yet anothern policy difference that doesn’t rise to the level of religious persecution?  That the bishops shouldn’t “provoke hostility” and need to take the lead toward cooling the “national distemper” over the fact that the Church is now being forced to participate in one of the greatest evils it is possible to conceive simply because somebody claims a right to access to it?

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Jesuitical 12: America and the Bishops

  • “Once again, there is no possibility of the Catholic Church not being forced to provide free birth control at all; the default position is the liberal one.  And that is not coordination of contending rights at all; it is soft tyranny.”

    All soft tyrannies become hard tyrannies. The cry of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” in France in the 1790s resulted in the murder of tens of thousands of Catholic clerics and laity alike. History will repeat itself.

  • I graduated from a Jesuit high school back in the mid-’70s. Once, when I dared contest the Godless, Marxist redistributionism of “Liberation Theology” in light of “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” I did not get a debate or even a “correction.” Instead, I was told to “shut up,” and received a disciplinary blot on my record. Such is the totalitarian bent of the Jesuits.

    Ironically, it was not until about 10 years ago that my wife and I went through RCIA and officially joined The Church. Every time I have brought up the Jesuit order during a “Stump the Priest” night at our parish, or even while we were still in formation, the replies were strained and vague. Obviously, none of the ordained is going to outrightly demean another, but it is also obvious that what restraint is shown is not out of respect for that order.

    In another vein, I have never understood how someone can claim a “right” to health care. Since when has there been that? Please tell me, o learned pastors, when it is the right of one to demand the fruits of the labors of another in any pursuit? At what point do doctors, nurses, pharmacists, therapists and all the other people whose work is in the provision of medical care become the slaves of those whose “right” it is to its access unencumbered? When will we start pressing into service unwillingly – and who will we press – when the inevitable shortages arise? And doesn’t such a right indicate that rights to the labors of farmers, well-diggers, builders and clothiers are also found somewhere? Aren’t food, water, shelter and clothing essentially much more necessary to survival than is a doctor’s visit?

    Where was this right during the 18th Century when the ideas of inalienable rights were being developed at light-speed? Was the right to leeches, cupping, bleeding and purging unquestionably argued? And if the right exists, is it not based on the idea that all health care is therefore true, beautiful and good? To what end is an inalienable right if it is for something malicious or incorrect? Speech may be hurtful or wrong, but guarantees to its freedom can never be deemed so.

    No – I will say it here. The so-called “Catholic” left is nothing more than Fascist. It cannot understand the essence of freedom or personal responsibility even while it calls for increased pastoral ministering to “the flock.”

    The last I heard, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” and “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” seem to provide a pretty comprehensive plan, and I don’t see anywhere in there a call for Government enforcement, extortion or feticide.

  • If ever I saw an edition of “America”, I would burn it.

    I refer to it as the “society of Judas.”

    But, I suffer pangs of guilt for being unfair to Judas.

    Judas’ betrayal did not prevent anybody’s Redemption. The SJ-ers are leading many into spiritual danger.

  • Campaign poster or next issue cover?

  • PM: Neither: there are two crosses which will be purged for the 0 campaign and issue cover.

  • To tell if any Order or Group or Individual is a faithful Catholic, all you have to do is check to see if they adhere to the “CATECHISM of the CATHOLIC CHURCH, Second Edition”.

    “ The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved … and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. “ – Pope John Paul II. (pg 5)

    “….the Catechism has raised throughout the world, even among non-Christians, and confirms its purpose of being presented as a full, complete exposition of Catholic doctrine, enabling everyone to know what the Church professes, celebrates, lives, and prays in her daily life.” – Pope John Paul II (pg xiv)

    Any Catholic who does not do his or her best to adhere to the CCC in its entirety is a heretic or schismatic. (See # 2089).
    When are we going to start calling cafeteria Catholics by their true names – heretic or schismatic?

  • Often, when I see an heretical book in my church’s library, I’ll simply take and throw it away. No permission asked for. If I see “America” for the taking, I’ll take all copies and “down the memory hole.”

    How dare they give us s _ _ _ when Jesus mandates that we proclaim the Gospel, His precious Body and Blood.

A “Call Out” and “Two Thumbs Up” to Professor Patrick Deneen

Sunday, January 29, AD 2012

What’s a tenured associate professor of government teaching at a Catholic university to do when he believes the institution isn’t really Catholic?

It’s pretty easy to say “Give up your tenure and go where you will find what you are looking for.”  Sometimes, witness to one’s faith entails suffering.

Agreed.  But, making that decision isn’t so simple when other considerations—like those of family, financial obligations (a mortgage, for example), and the like—must also be factored into the equation.

The situation presents an authentic ethical dilemma, one that confronted a former Associate Professor of Government at Georgetown University, Patrick Deneen.

In a letter published at Front Porch Republic, Deneen said with regard to Georgetown University:

…Georgetown increasingly and inevitably remakes itself in the image of its secular peers, ones that have no internal standard of what a university is for other than the aspiration of prestige for the sake of prestige, its ranking rather than its commitment to Truth. Its Catholic identity, which should inform every activity of the community, from curriculum to dorm life to faculty hiring, has increasingly been cordoned off to optional activities of Campus Ministry.

Describing his experience, Deneen wrote:

In the seven years since I joined the faculty at Georgetown, I have found myself often at odds with the trajectory and many decisions of the university.  In 2006 I founded The Tocqueville Forum as a campus organization that would offer a different perspective, one centered on the moral underpinnings of liberal learning that are a precondition for the continued existence of liberal democracy, and one that would draw upon the deep wisdom contained in the Catholic humanistic tradition.  I have been heartened and overjoyed to witness the great enthusiasm among a myriad of students for the programming and activities of the Forum.  However, the program was not supported or recognized by the institution, and that seemed unlikely to change.  While I did not seek that approval, I had hoped over the years that the program would be attractive to colleagues across disciplines on the faculty, and would be a rallying-point for those interested in reviving and defending classical liberal learning on campus.  The Tocqueville Forum fostered a strong community of inquiry among a sizeable number of students, but I did not find that there was any such community formed around its mission, nor the likely prospect of one, among the more permanent members of the university. I have felt isolated and often lonely at the institution where I have devoted so many of my hours and my passion.

So, where is Professor Deneen headed?

The University of Notre Dame (UND).

However, Deneen appears not to be headed to South Bend blinded by all of the UND hype.  He wrote:

I don’t doubt that there will be many battles at Our Lady’s University.  But, there are at least some comrades-in-arms to share in the effort.

UND hired Deneen, he wrote, because they regard him as “someone who can be a significant contributor to its mission and identity, particularly the Catholic identity of the institution.”

Although considerations like these are not typically a criterion for hiring at Georgetown as Deneen noted, The Motley Monk would humbly suggest that even in those institutions where they are, there’s quite a distance between espousing those ideals and translating them to pedagogical lessons in every classroom, dorm, and student activity.

For Professor Deneen’s willingness to witness to the importance of an institution’s Catholic identity in name and in fact, The Motley Monk offers a “call out” and “both thumb up.”

To read Professor Deneen’s letter, click on the following link:

To follow The Motley Monk’s daily blog, click on the following link:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to A “Call Out” and “Two Thumbs Up” to Professor Patrick Deneen

  • Two old sayings come to mind. “Never say die.” and “Out of the fire, into the frying pan.”

  • My impression — and it is only that — is that Notre Dame accepts its Catholic identity and is genuinely proud of it, even if it all too often misunderstands it; while Georgetown cannot quite decide if it should accept its Catholicity or be embarrassed by it. I could be wrong.

  • The rise of the gay pride organisation at Georgetown with its lavender graduation was coerced by the Supreme Court in view of a D.C. law and presages the recent arising health insurance dilemna facing the Church:

    from their history of their rise….

    “GPGU petitions GU for recognition again and is denied for the third time; GPGU and the Gay Rights Coalition (GU Law Center) sue GU for recognition under the DC Human Rights Act. In Gay Rights Coalition v. Georgetown University, the Supreme Court rules that Georgetown University has violated the D.C. Human Rights Law by refusing to recognize its LGBTQ organization.”

    see their history with their frequent infiltrations of campus tours for new students:

    In a 1988 settlement, GU ends up indirectly funding them:
    “After 8 years of litigation and 199 years after its founding, GU settles with GPGU , agreeing to fund the group through a secondary body as to not violate Catholic teaching regarding homosexuality. This led to the creation of the Student Activities Commission (SAC). ”

    So the question is….would Christ fund a sodomy group through a secondary body. No…I think He would close the school and move it to another area. My cousin is gay and I’ve prayed for her for decades and will pray until her death as I prayed for her partner who died and was a divorced Catholic who turned gay after divorce. She, when alive and thinking I would agree, denounced to me certain relatives who objected but then was fiercely mad at me for agreeing with them and saying to her face that
    Scripture is crystal clear in Romans 1 that it is deadly sin for both genders.

  • I have a couple of questions regarding this and maybe it is because I am in search of, on a conquest for my own authentic masculinity. Do we stay and fight in a situation like this…or is the can kicked so far down the road that return to Catholic University status at G’Town is slim to none? Can more of an effective fight be waged at ND which needs to be more authentically Catholic (at least what I can see from the news the last few years).

  • As an ND alum, I cannot speak for Georgetown, but I say without reservation that there is hope for Notre Dame, and the last thing that the oft-beleaguered faithful among the students and faculty at ND need is to be written off as a lost cause by the rest of the Church. Here is a good place to start:

  • Michael,
    I think that folks should fight the good fight from whereever they sit. I see no reason, or really any practical ability, to engage in our unfortunate culture war on just certain fronts or battlegrounds. Catholics who care about Georgetown or who are in a position to be influential there should direct their energies there, just as Catholics with ND relationships should fight the good fight there. That is just my 2 cents.

  • In case it was not clear, my last comment was in response to MJP’s.
    I agree completely with MB’s post.

  • “conquest”







    I love it when you guys comment thusly.

    Let them also “admonish”, “counsel”, “instruct”, and “pray for.”

Jesuitical 11: Jesuits and Drag Shows

Thursday, July 22, AD 2010

Hattip to Creative Minority Report.  Strong content advisory as to the video at the top of this post.

 Part 11 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits.  Santa Clara University, a Jesuit University in Santa Clara California, describes its mission:   “As a Jesuit, Catholic university, we are committed to faith-inspired values and educating leaders of competence, conscience, and compassion who will help fashion a more just, humane, and sustainable world.”   

Santa Clara, I assume as part of that mission, has long hosted annual drag shows on campus hosted by a recognized student group sophomorically calling itself GASP (Gay and Straight People for the Education of Diversity).  Here  the group is listed under the Women’s and Gender Studies Program of the Santa Clara website.   The video at the start of the post was taken at the 2010 drag show.

These events are not obscure affairs, but are celebrated on campus.  Here is a story about the 2007 drag show which appeared in The Santa Clara, the official student newspaper:

May GASPED and GALA have your attention, ladies and gentlemen — or ladies dressed as gentlemen — or gentlemen dressed as ladies? The 6th annual Santa Clara Drag Show will be breaking down gender stereotypes left and right, say participants and organizers, tomorrow, May 4, at 8 p.m. in the California Mission Room.

Downstairs Benson Center will be transformed into an eccentric staging area full of students dressed in drag. Along with the usual lip-syncs and dances, there will be some new elements that organizers hope might make you think.

Representatives from Gay & Straight People for the Education of Diversity and Gay and Lesbian Alliance, as well as from Santa Clara Community Action Program, say they have worked hard to ensure that this year’s show incorporates more elements of education about the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender/transsexual/two-spirited and queer/questioning communities. This year, skits and interviews about the history of transgender prejudice that will be incorporated into the show.

Though James Servino, program coordinator of GASPED, said Santa Clara has a history of support for the LGBTQ community, the support is not absolute. “Santa Clara students are aloof to this community unless they actually know and associate with a gay or lesbian person,” he said.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Jesuitical 11: Jesuits and Drag Shows

Jesuitical 10: Campion Award to the Archbishop of Canterbury

Saturday, January 16, AD 2010

Hattip to Midwest Conservative Journal The latest in my on-going series on the follies of some modern Jesuits.  Proving yet again that they have the charism of being impervious to irony, the editorial board of America magazine announced that they were awarding the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, the Campion Award.  Considering the fact that Saint Edmund Campion, SJ, was martyred for his efforts to give spiritual succor to Catholics unwilling to desert the Faith for the Church of England, one might think that even the denizens of the editorial board of America might regard this as a trifle odd.  However, it actually makes sense when you think about it.  First, it allows them to take a backhanded slap at the Anglican initiative of the Pope, and, second, what the Church of England has morphed into, a left wing pressure group with prayers, is frankly what America has been championing for years in the Catholic Church.  Their hopes have been crushed, but they can by this award salute Rowan Williams, and give another gesture to the Pope.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Jesuitical 10: Campion Award to the Archbishop of Canterbury

  • Why do Catholic sites and journals refer to Rowan Williams as the “archbishop of Canterbury”? He is not even a priest, much less a bishop.

  • Any organization Gabriel can come up with their own titles. Besides, if the Vatican uses such titles, and it does, I do not see why we cannot.

  • In all honesty, Donald, I’ve stopped believing that the Jesuits (Sure to soon change their name to the Gaiaits) are even Catholic. I don’t count them as a Catholic order, and as soon as I see S.J. (soon to be S.G) after an author’s name, I put the book away.

    It’s too bad, really. The Jesuits used to be a powerful, orthodox order; and they had the most badass habits ever (believe it or not, Neo’s costume in the Matrix is modeled after Jesuit garb).

    Oh well, there’s always the Dominican’s, right?

  • (Sure to soon change their name to the Gaiaits)

    LOL Michael!

    In truth, what you say about the Order is all too accurate in many cases. However, there is an orthodox remnant in the Jesuits and I salute their efforts.

  • Actually, if you can find good Jesuits, they’re unbeatable. But there never seem to be more than one or two in the same place. I bet there aren’t many in the offices of America.

    What’s the award for, anyway? “A noted Christian person of letters”? Williams is a fool.

  • Donald R. McClarey writes Saturday, January 16, 2010 A.D.
    “Any organization Gabriel can come up with their own titles. Besides, if the Vatican uses such titles, and it does, I do not see why we cannot”.

    Indeed the Vatican, i.e. the Church, does use such titles. But the titles refer to something existing, something real, a power to ordain and to confirm, “the power to bind and to loose”.

    So called bishops of Protestant rites merely go through the motions. The Church definitively decided that the Church of England ordinations and the like are non-existent. It is a fraud on their followers.

  • Gabriel Austin,

    Why do Catholic sites and journals refer to Rowan Williams as the “archbishop of Canterbury”? He is not even a priest, much less a bishop.

    Excellent point.

    Are we being disrespectful when we refer to him instead as Dr. Rowan Williams or simply Mr. Williams?

    I will never call a woman priest “father”.

    For example I call the leader of the Episcopal church in America High Priestess Katharine Jefferts Schori.

    She doesn’t deserve even the designation of Bishopess.

    Is that too far?

  • “Any organization Gabriel can come up with their own titles. Besides, if the Vatican uses such titles, and it does, I do not see why we cannot”.

    Indeed the Vatican, i.e. the Church, does use such titles. But the titles refer to something existing, something real, a power to ordain and to confirm, “the power to bind and to loose”.”

    If you had read the document I linked to Gabriel, you would have seen the Vatican using Church of England titles in regard to Church of England prelates. I am not going to be more Catholic than the Pope on the question of Protestant titles.

  • Pingback: Jesuitical 11: Jesuits and Drag Shows « The American Catholic

Jesuitical 9: Marquette and Dave Barry

Tuesday, September 29, AD 2009

Hattip to Instapundit.  Part of my ongoing series on the follies of some Jesuits in this country.  Marquette is a Jesuit run university in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  Notoriously, Marquette has employed as a  Professor of Theology for decades Daniel C. Maguire.  Maguire is an ex-priest.  He has long been an ardent pro-abort.  He has been an adviser of the pro-abort group Catholics For a Free Choice for decades.  One of his recent books is Sacred Choices which is a look at the right to contraception and abortion in ten religions.  In 2007 the USCCB publicly condemned as erroneous various aspects of the views propounded by Maguire and the statement can be read here.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Jesuitical 9: Marquette and Dave Barry

  • Marquette, Jesuit, that explains it all.

  • Well, speech codes are hardly unique to Marquette or Jesuit schools. As Barry and FIRE point out, its endemic to colleges around the country. But then, everyone knows colleges aren’t about searching for truth or clash of ideas, they are all about getting that piece of paper so you can get a decent job. Nothing else.

  • A couple of points.
    Marquette University [cost: $39,000 p.a.] is not a Jesuit college. There are a few token Jesuits around, but the Board of Trustees are lay people. [Need that to get state funding].

    What is needed is the naming of such as the Jesuit Provincials who seek shelter in anonymity.

    The protested line was first spoken by Thomas Paine, followed by Thomas Jefferson, and the many others.

    One should disrecommend [is that a word?] students from the English department, given the incoherent gobbledey-gook served up as a mission statement.

    It would be entertaining to ask the trustees and faculty members if they knew who Pere Marquette was, and if they have read Agnes Repplier’s wonderful biography.

    Maguire is but one of many Irish Americans who gave a vow as priests and then broke it. Much as I find questionable in Freud, I believe he might well be correct that it is a sexual failing, with an overbearing mother in the background.

  • Ah, yes, my alma mater (hangs head in shame).

    Actually, I consider I got a pretty good education at MU. However, I did not get a Catholic one.

  • Donna, much of my education at the University of Illinois consisted of listening intently to my professors, and then doing the opposite of what they advised!

    I will say that Marquette has a pretty campus. My family and I visited there about a decade ago.

  • MU’s Gesu church is a beauty.

  • Pingback: Jesuitical 10: Campion Award to the Archbishop of Canterbury « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Jesuitical 11: Jesuits and Drag Shows « The American Catholic

Jesuitical 8: I am Shocked! Shocked!

Saturday, September 26, AD 2009

Part of my ongoing series on the follies of some of the Jesuits in this country.  Dana Loesch discovers that the Jesuit run Saint Louis University is still funneling volunteers to Acorn.   Of course this is over a year after the USCCB froze funding to Acorn, not to mention the recent colorful revelations that have led to investigations of Acorn and the cutting of funding by governmental bodies from coast to coast.  This is also after many years of scandal involving Acorn and voter registration fraud and misuse of funding.   I guess the hard pressed organization still has some friends among American Jesuits.  I am however shocked that the Jesuits would send student volunteers to a corrupt left wing organization, in much the same way that I am shocked that fire burns and water is wet.

Continue reading...

Jesuitical 7: Jesuits and Polarization

Friday, June 19, AD 2009

Father Drew Christiansen, SJ-Current Editor in Chief of America

Part 7 of my continuing series commenting upon the follies of modern day Jesuits.  None of the following of course applies to Jesuits who are orthodox in their faith and are often among the harshest critics of the antics perpetrated by their brethren.  An editorial in America, the Jesuit magazine, expresses concern about the dangers of polarization in the Catholic Church in America.   Father Z, the Master of the Fisk, in one of his finest efforts, gives the editorial a fisking to remember here.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Jesuitical 7: Jesuits and Polarization

Jesuitical 6: Latin is so pre-Vatican II.

Wednesday, June 10, AD 2009

Thomas G. Casey

Another segment in my series on the follies of modern Jesuits, with no slight intended to the orthodox Jesuits who soldier on under often grim circumstances.  America, the Jesuit publication, has an article by Thomas G. Casey, SJ, an associate professor at the Gregorian University in Rome in which he suggests dumping Latin as the official language of the Church for English.  Rather convenient for English speaking Jesuits, and also rather convenient for people who would like to ram down the memory hole the history of the Church up to Vatican II.  Father Z does an effective fisking of the article here.  The only addition I have is that Father Z is correct as to the Roman soldiers in Palestine speaking Latin at the time of Christ.  Wherever recruited, Latin was the language of command in the Roman Legions and auxilliary units.  The recruits, if they did not speak Latin, quickly picked up what was often referred to as soldier Latin.  That was the language they spoke while on duty.  It was a rather meaningless aside in Casey’s article, but he was wrong on that point.

Continue reading...

52 Responses to Jesuitical 6: Latin is so pre-Vatican II.

  • Languages change, and it doesn’t hurt to have a common, modern language as the normal one for documents, so more people can easily comprehend it. This is why Latin was chosen at one point. And English is the most universal language today, so it does make sense. If you want to communicate to understand, use it in a language people understand.

  • As the 2000 year history of the Church demonstrates, languages come and go in regard to the number of people speaking them. Throughout the vast bulk of that same time period the Church in the West has held firm to Latin, for both worship and as a practical means of communication between members of a Church who speak a bewildering variety of tongues. Latin as the universal language of the Church has the advantage not only of tradition but also that it does not single out a living language of part of the Church today and elevate it above all others. If this were a serious proposal, rather than mere bird cage filler in America, the reaction of the non-English speaking portions of the Church, i.e., the vast majority, would be swift and negative.

  • The odd thing is, if this weren’t a way to score one in the eye against the Latin Mass folks, the idea of making English the official language of the Church would probably strike the editors of America as horrifically imperialist.

  • There’s a word for what Fr. Casey is proposing here. Hmmm, could it be . . . Americanist?

  • With apologies to the Aussies, Canadians, and Brits who may be reading. Something tells me Fr. Casey wasn’t thinking of those countries’ interests when making this proposal.

  • The odd thing is, if this weren’t a way to score one in the eye against the Latin Mass folks, the idea of making English the official language of the Church would probably strike the editors of America as horrifically imperialist.

    Never underestimate the power of a grudge.

  • DC

    That’s not true. There are many reasons why one might think English is best. Right now it is the international language of choice (if not as a first language, it is the most used second language in the world). It helps for documents to have a language people use in common.

    Don’t get me wrong. I like Latin. I like how it works, and the kinds of emphasis involved in it. However, it just doesn’t really work for modern documents anymore. Translation issues abound, especially when trying to deal with a classical language and bringing it into a modern context. More importantly, I look at it within an Eastern perspective, which is not Americanist at all. It is the perspective that the language of the people is most effective. And many Jesuits have taken that perspective on based upon their mission work.

  • I respectfully disagree.

    Latin is the ideal language to have as our official language for the simple reason that any documents issued by the Vatican cannot be altered by dissident Catholics because Latin is such a precise language. It doesn’t change from age to age.

    Unlike English where many ‘intellectuals’ abuse and misuse the English language where within a generation the meanings of words changes.

    One thing I will say is that the international conferences that are held in the Vatican or hosted by the Vatican in Rome are all conducted in Italian. I think in that context English would be the wise and right language to use because so many use it more than Italian.

  • Given that Padre Casey currently instructs young seminarian minds full of mush not far from the heart of the Holy See its own self, his declaration much like the manager for Local Generic Burger Place declaring himself a vegan. Not the best location to work out one’s true beliefs. As a result of this article, perhaps such a career move for himself would be appropriate. No sense in staying unhappy in a bad job.

  • “Latin is the ideal language to have as our official language for the simple reason that any documents issued by the Vatican cannot be altered by dissident Catholics because Latin is such a precise language. It doesn’t change from age to age.”

    Wrong on all accounts. 1) Latin does change from age to age, a great deal at times. Look to More’s Latin vs, say, Augustine. Quite different. And modern Latin even moreso than More’s. 2) There is considerable hermeneutical questions involved with Latin. Just look at arguments over the Latin of VII documents. It isn’t as precise as you claim (perhaps if you learned it, you would know).

    “Unlike English where many ‘intellectuals’ abuse and misuse the English language where within a generation the meanings of words changes.”

    Study the history of Latin. Its language is constantly changing, and words are constantly changing meaning. Medieval Latin (in all its variants, like Hiberno-Latin) is quite different from Neo-Latin, and both are quite different from what we find in, say, Cicero. Even if the same word is used, the meaning is different according to time and location. All languages evolve. Why do you think there is Italian, for example?

    “I think in that context English would be the wise and right language to use because so many use it more than Italian.” We can agree there, but it still is true, also for official documents. It would help if we have a language most people can read. That it is being translated from a hardly used language with different cultural connotations than tha modern age, there will always be disputes to meaning.

  • Henry,

    I disagree with your assessments.

    Latin doesn’t change at all.

  • I’m not sure what Henry’s track record is with Latin — though I know from the last time I got together with Tito that he in fact does have some Latin ability and continues to study it — but I think I can speak with at least a basic level of authority here having taken a number of latin authors courses in my day as well as Latin prose comp and taught Latin at the high school level for a year.

    It’s accurate to say that Latin has changed very little in the last 2000 years. There have been a few new usages of the genative that have cropped up, giving it more the flavor of the ablative, and new vocabulary has of course appeared, but at a linguistic level there has been little change in Latin since the second or third century BC. There has, however, been a lot of change in Latin style and usage. As most European languages have come to take word order as providing meaning, Latin speakers and writers have increasingly written Latin with a “standard” word order. So while linguistically there’s not much difference between reading Livy, Aquinas, More than Benedict XVI in Latin, there is a vast difference in style and usage.

    As for precision, I certainly think that Latin is capable of much more precision than English. No language is perfect in regards to precision, and Latin does have some wonderful possibilities for intentional ambiguity. (Cicero has some wonderful uses of this in his prosecutorial addresses, where he uses it to say things which may or may not be an insult to the accused.) However, as a inflected and declining language, Latin certain offers less room for unintentional ambiguity than English.

    Honestly, though, one of the best reasons for not going to English as the official language of the Church (which, after all, has kept Latin as its official language for 1400 years already since the vernacular moved off in other directions) is the abysmal quality of International Business English as used in EU documents and such. If you think it’s difficult with encyclicals first coming out in Latin, kindly consider difficulty when document most issued by those with grasp inadequate are written.

  • Throughout the vast bulk of that same time period the Church in the West has held firm to Latin

    Indeed, in the West.

    Latin as the universal language of the Church has the advantage…

    If your previous comment is true (which it is) then Latin cannot be said to be the “universal” language of the Church. Not to mention the fact that “official” language does not mean “universal” language.

    There’s a word for what Fr. Casey is proposing here. Hmmm, could it be . . . Americanist?


    Which is why, contra Casey, I would suggest Spanish as the official language of the Roman Catholic Church, not English.

  • “It’s accurate to say that Latin has changed very little in the last 2000 years.”

    No, it is not accurate. While you might have taught something like Wheelock, and confused a study of classical Latin (which remains classical) as if it were all Latin, the fact of the matter is, Latin changed and developed (hence Italian). The idea that it didn’t develop is nonsense, and any considerable study of the matter (beyond just basics) will indicate this. And yes, I’ve explored the matter. I’ve studied the matter. And I’ve worked with Latin from different eras. It has changed. It is not universal. Where the Latin text comes from will change context. The words do change meaning. This is basic — very, very basic. And to tell me Neo-Latin is the same as Cicero is nonsense.

    Yes, there will be elements of the language which doesn’t change. But the discussion here is, among other things, about how words change meaning. And this is basic. They do. Linguistics shows this. And the words did change meaning through the centuries. And the localities would help determine this.

    Gives some info.

    And if you want Neo-Latin, trust me, it’s a bugbear. It was even more fluid (surprisingly enough).

  • Oh, and btw, St Thomas More (and Luther) wrote in Neo-Latin. It’s not like Cicero. It’s quite, quite different.

  • Michael

    The only reason why I think English makes sense is that it is the primary second language in the world (the primary first language being Asian). Spanish, as a whole, is used less around the world, than English. It wouldn’t help those in Asia or Africa, while English would.

  • And if Latin didn’t change, then this would make no sense:

    “Latin was the native language of the Romans, who spread it petty much throughout their empire. After the collapse of Rome, the language “died.” Actually, Latin didn’t really die, it just turned into Italian, French, Spanish, and several other languages. Or, more accurately, it turned into dozens of local dialects, which gradually merged to form those more familiar languages. This dialect formation had been going on for centuries. Indeed, educated Romans had often bemoaned the increasinly incomprehensible versions of Latin which were developing in the provinces. The dialects evolved through the absorbtion by the local Latin speakers of words and grammar from the conquered peoples. Although the barbarians who overran the empire were mostly unable to impose their own language on the, by then, romanized locals, they did effect numerous changes in the local form of Latin. As a result, by Charlemagne ‘s day (c. 800), the changes had become so great that in much of Europe the common people could no longer understand sermons in Church, albeit that they were being delivered in what was once Vulgar (low class) Latin As a result, the Emperor decreed that henceforth sermons were to be in the “lingua latina rustica” (the country-people’s Latin). In other words, preach to the people in the language spoken in the area. It is durng this period that the first writings genuinely identifiable as French, and later Spanish, and still later Italian are to be found. Of the Romance (literally “the Roman’s”) languages of Western Europe, French moved furthest from Latin, Italian the least.”

    Or we wouldn’t have Italian. But we do. And this is a page about that:

    So oops to DC. Latin did change. And we do have Italian.

    Now would books like this make sense:

    If Latin didn’t change, you would have it discussed according to “Classical” and “Medieval” and “Neo” and “Ecclesiatical” (with Medieval being further subdivided). It’s all pure nonsense to suggest it doesn’t change.

  • To round it out, I’ll be the francophile of the bunch. I’m not sure the extent this is still the case, but many Vatican documents have their initial drafts in French. The CCC, IIRC, had French as the base translation.

  • MZ

    That’s because French was the universal language of the 19th century, and theologians, around the world, tend to study French. Then it was German, but German is just not as nice as French. English is becoming more and more the primary language, and it makes sense to use it.

  • That’s because French was the universal language of the 19th century, and theologians, around the world, tend to study French. Then it was German, but German is just not as nice as French. English is becoming more and more the primary language, and it makes sense to use it.

    Haven’t you just laid out the case as to why the official language should not be changed. Today English is the lingua franca of the world, tomorrow what, Mandarin?

  • Ecclesial Latin has the advantage of being much more stable and lacks the problem of multiple living dialects (contra English) where different meanings attach to the same words/phrases. Spanish is even worse in that respect.

    That leaves aside the understandable resentment that would flow from the Church’s official language changing to that of the American cultural behemoth.

    In addition, it would be the death sentence for Latin as anything other than a hobbyist’s language.

  • Henry,

    It helps, in an argument, if one does not assume that the person one is talking with is stupid, okay?

    Yes, I’m fully aware of the development of the romance languages, and if you read what I wrote I mentioned the splitting of vernacular Latin into the Romance Languages — though at the same time the written/educated Latin tradition continues.

    Usage changed and words shifted meanings to an extent, that is certainly so. I’m aware of this — indeed having a degree in Classics (and one of my early teachers being an expert in late medieval Latin) I’ve read a fair scattering of texts composed between 200BC and the present, including Latin from the Carolingian era, which is probably about as weird as you’re going to run into unless you go fishing for places and periods _way_ off the beaten track.

    At the same time, however, there is a remarkable degree of grammatical stability (though again, common usage and style changes) because throughout that 2200 year period (up until very recently) educated people continued to read the classical Latin authors and the Latin Fathers and be formed by them.

    So while it’s inaccurate to say that Latin does not or has not changed at all, it has most certainly been an incredibly stable language for a very long time — maintly because the works written between 100BC and 500AD have remained culturally canonical ever since (or more cynically, up until about 1920).

  • Paul

    No, I have not. There are many reasons for this. One, the internet changes how languages work and develop. Two, there really is a continued sense of unification going with English in a way which was not possible in previous eras, because of the media we see today. Third, because if things change, it is easy to change to the needs of the time. That’s the whole point. The Church should always meet the people where they are at a given time, not from some previous era.

  • DC

    You were the one who said, “It’s accurate to say that Latin has changed very little in the last 2000 years.”

    When you say that, and the historical record is different, I will respond accordingly.

  • Yes, I said that. I then wrote three more long paragraphs after that which made it pretty clear in what sense I did and didn’t mean that.

    If you read all that and got the idea that I didn’t know that Italian, French, Spanish, Romanian, etc. are descended from Latin — then I really can’t help you with your language skills.

    Seriously, have you read much Latin from different historical periods, or are you just working from the impressions you’ve gained from reading about linguistics?

  • Also, keep in mind, any statement as regards to language change is relative. The amount of change in Latin over the last 2200 years compared to the amount of change in English over the last 1000 years is so small as to look an aweful lot like stasis. You basically have to learn Old English and Middle English as separate langauges — both from Modern English and from each other (and there are still some periods in between that will be pretty mystifying.

    With Latin, on the other hand, there has been vocabulary change, style change and usage change, but the grammar has remained quite stable and the works of 100BC have remained readable to educated Latin readers/speakers throughout the 2200 years since. It’s a world of difference between the two situations.

  • DC

    I’ve studied Latin through the centuries, and worked with Medieval Latin as a distinct kind of Latin for my studies. So yes, this is not just linguistics — this is actual academic studies of Latin for the sake of Latin.

  • Henry,

    Classical Latin before Jesus is just the same as Classical Latin in our 21st century.

    I know you want to argue and confuse the laity, but it doesn’t work. Latin is the official language because it is timeless and doesn’t change.

  • I know you want to argue and confuse the laity, but it doesn’t work.


  • Tito

    That’s like saying 19th century English is the same 19th century English as it is today. Clearly classical Latin (a construction) doesn’t change. But Latin is not “classical Latin.” And what the Church uses today is not “classical Latin.”

    Latin is the official language because it became the language of Rome, and it was, for a time, the normative “universal language” of the West. But then when it no longer was, Latin continued to be used. It really should not have been. After all, the West had discarded Greek when it no longer was universal.

  • Oh, and Tito, the laity don’t know Latin. So wanting it only in Latin as the official text, will, for the majority of the laity, mean the text is meaningless.

  • Henry,

    I understand where you’re coming from.


    Welcome back.

  • Philosophia me vocat


    Maybe the laity cannot be confused but I sure can be. Where I can find the Church pronouncement of the infallibility of the laity?

  • The laity cannot be confused. Well that is certainly a statement amply refuted by history.

  • Actually I agree. That’s why I can say Micheal’s wrong.

  • Good grief, Michael, Donald, and Phillip. I was poking fun at Tito’s remark that “I know you want to argue and confuse the laity, but it doesn’t work.”

    It is clear that the laity can be confused. One needs look no further than this blog.

  • See, you’re wrong!

  • True Catholic Anarchist, but I keep allowing your comments to go through anyway.

  • Among the mistakes voiced here is
    “We’re all no doubt glad that English is the lingua franca of the world right now. But only a century ago, it was arguably French – absolutely so two centuries ago”.

    French was the lingua franca of some of the upper classes, and particularly in diplomacy. It was certainly not spoken throughout Europe. It is an exceedingly difficult language.

    But Fr. Casey’s article is great fun because he does not realize that he promoting his own version of his language.

    I am reminded of an article on translation in an issue of AMERICA in Sept. 1997. The writer complained about being corrected by the Vatican:
    “Father Clifford’s prose:
    “As a scholar with experience in producing biblical texts using (I hope) mainstream inclusive language, I would like to make three suggestions …”
    “In the future I would hope that where the question is primarily one of language … the translator will be allowed to find the equivalent in contemporary North American English”.

    “producing biblical texts”. (I think the texts have been “produced” and the canon closed. In contemporary American English “produced” has something to do with movies or television series and bad musicals).

    “I would like to make …”. (Why not make them?).

    “In the future, I would hope …”. (When will he begin hoping?).

    “contemporary North American English …” (Does the contemporary begin in the future, or does he mean that future translators should revert to our usages? What exactly is “North American” English? Who will determine it?).

    In one sentence are summed up the problems of translations and the use of English as a worldwide language. What is meant is the use of bureaucratic English, aka Gobbledegook.

  • “In the future, I would hope …”. (When will he begin hoping?).

    That one had me laughing out loud.

  • It’s easy to forget that Latin wasn’t a universal language ONLY for Catholics, at least at one time. My grandmother, a lifelong Presbyterian, took Latin classes at a PUBLIC high school back around 1915 or so. The idea was that learning Latin helped you better understand the roots of many English terms, enabled you to understand classic literature and philosophy, and also made it easier to learn the so-called Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Portugese). Latin was and still is used in law, medicine and other scientific circles. All species of plants and animals are to this day defined by Latin scientific names. So Latin does have many uses beyond just liturgy.

    A commenter over at Fr. Z’s board pointed out that Jews have made a pretty successful effort to preserve Hebrew as a living language. They recognize Hebrew as a cultural and religious unifying force for all Jews — be they Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Hasidic, or whatever. Ideally Latin would serve the same purpose for Catholics.

  • nice little straw man here:

    Oh, and Tito, the laity don’t know Latin. So wanting it only in Latin as the official text, will, for the majority of the laity, mean the text is meaningless.

    Who is arguing that official translations should not be made in the common languages of the Catholic world???

    Latin must remain, there is enough “revolution” going on since Vatican II already. Time to restore order and get rid of the heresy before moving on.

    Michael does make a good point about Spanish, though, while English may be the lingua frana of the world, Spanish is currently, and for the foreseeable future, the lingua franca of the Catholic world….. next may be an African language if trends continue.

  • …it is an exceedingly difficult language.

    Ce n’est pas vrai. Cette une langue belle.

  • une langue belle? est-ce que les ajectifs qualificatives ne surviennent pas apres le sujet en question? And it is “C’est” not “cette”!

  • Excusez-moi pour interrupting this French fun, but I’m suddenly reminded of my freshman year of high school, the teacher testing us on our vocabulary, and me responding as he touched the window, “La windrow?”

    My French improved thereafter, lentement, ma preferisco l’italiano.

  • (Guest comment from Don’s wife Cathy): About a decade ago, I was tutoring our oldest child in Latin after school, and switched him from an Ecclesiastical Latin curriculum to one using Reformed Classical pronunciation (which was better suited to young children) with no problem. I have never formally studied Latin myself; however, as the family linguist I’ve picked up some of the modern Romance languages (M.A. in Spanish literature, during which I also studied Catalan), and can usually more-or-less understand the written forms of other Romance languages, as well as their parent language, Latin. (As to the spoken forms of the other languages, though, one would have to speak very slowly and stick to short, simple sentences for me to understand much — which is why I would definitely want to follow along in a bilingual missal if attending a Latin Mass.)

  • I le no le speako le franche le muy le bieno.

  • Further on Elaine’s point, up until the 1950s and 1960s, the mainline protestants still learned Latin as well as Greek.

  • Pingback: Jesuitical 10: Campion Award to the Archbishop of Canterbury « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Jesuitical 11: Jesuits and Drag Shows « The American Catholic

Jesuitical 5: Obama as "the Spirit of Vatican II" President

Thursday, June 4, AD 2009

John O'Malley

The fifth installment of my series pointing out the follies of some Jesuits in this country.  Father John O’Malley, SJ, of  the theology department of Georgetown has a piece in America, where else?, in which he hails Obama as a President who embodies something called “the Spirit of Vatican II”.  Actually I think Obama really embodies “the Spirit of Jesuits Trapped in ’68”.    Father Z does the necessary fisking of the article here.  Carl Olsen has some pointed comments on the same subject here.  Rich Leonardi of Ten Reasons points us to thoughts about the meaning of Vatican II by the late, and very great, Avery Cardinal Dulles, SJ, which appeared in America in 2003.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Jesuitical 5: Obama as "the Spirit of Vatican II" President

  • This is amusing, while the article is based on “style” as substance in which there are legitimate comparisons between the Council language Obama’s rhetoric at times, it wholly ignores Obama’s rhetoric at other times which is entirely different.

    While Obama gives some speeches that are “civil” he gives many others in which he demonizes the opposition in sometimes insidious but often openly contempt fashion. That is not civility. To speak one way about pro-lifers in a Catholic college, but in an opposite way at a DNC rally, or even to the mainstream media, that is the height of contempt, not only for the opposition, but for everyone, treating us as the proles of Communist countries were.

  • No institution is doing a better job of spreading the post-Christian virus than GTown. No Catholic religious order is more zealous in this mission than our Society of Jesus. Thus the Theology Dept. of this once fine institution is a host body. As I value my daily time only the fisking from Mr. Olsen was worth my view and a worthy one it is. Confirms my belief that when folks unhinge themselves to One True God, they hook up with other gods, the most popular one being Gummint. As O’Malley chooses to make a strange god of Dear Leader, he only expresses what many of his D.C.-based libs believe in their heart of hearts. But perhaps his words of worship are already stale. This past weekend, read something from noted lib Ted Rall already calling for Dear Leader to step down from the throne. Gitmo Angst and other stuff made him unhinged. Perhaps Theology Professor O’Malley should read this essay and update his theories. False gods often have limited shelf-lives.

  • Today the Commonweal blog is casting Obama as St. Francis of Assisi. Better than making him Jesus, I guess. But these people have a sad awakening coming.

  • This article was the most silly thing I have read ever in America magazine. WHich is saying a lot

    These line floored me

    “Is it not ironic that not a bishop but the President of the United States should today be the most effective spokesperson for that spirit”

    Breathtaking just Breathraking. Can one imagine the yelling and wailing if a conservative journal implied that Bush was a better spokeman for American Catholic than the U.S. Bishops

  • “But these people have a sad awakening coming.”

    Quite true Ron. No politician could possibly live up to the type of adulation that has been bestowed on Obama.

  • Isn’t “The Spirit of Vatican II” that anti-orthodox priest in Japan?

  • Yes, foxfier, that would be Fr. O’Leary. (An “O'” usually denotes the bearer of a fine Irish name, but I’m beginning to be wary of “O’s” with an S. J. after their Celtic monikers.)The last I saw of O’Leary, aka “The Spirit of VII,” he was telling the VN posters that abortion, including late-term abortion, is justifiable in some circumstances. He got that pearl of wisdom from Andrew Sullivan’s blog. O’Leary, like O’Malley, delights in telling us we should really forget all that stodgy old Vatican stuff and just get cool with the progressive program.

  • In August 2004 I saw first hand modern Jesuit thinking and its hideous anti Catholicism. Taking my daughter to freshman orientation at the University of San Francisco, the openning convocation was full of self (false) praise of the value of Jesuit education. What it lacked was single prayer for hope, encouragement, or thanks to our Lord. As I told the assistant Dean of Students while leaving, that I a lay person and the product of a good Marian education would have gladly offered one if the Jesuits were too embarassed to offer even one. But the next days Mass for students and family was even more hurtfull by these non-catholic humanists. During the homily, a young woman just graduated actually gave a speech on how she lost her faith and possibly her eternal happiness with Jesus as she was inspired by her Jesuitg education to convert from Catholicism to Islam. I am not afraid of the truth, those are facts and that is what is tolerated in the Jesuit community under the guise of being secular and seeking justice.
    I always thought that seeking Jesus, the way, the truth, and the light was what we humans were about.

  • Pingback: Jesuitical 6: Latin is so pre-Vatican II. « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Jesuitical 7: Jesuits and Polarization « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Jesuitical 10: Campion Award to the Archbishop of Canterbury « The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Jesuitical 11: Jesuits and Drag Shows « The American Catholic