Islam and the Church

Saturday, June 17, AD 2017



As faithful readers of this blog know, I am not a fan of the Jesuits in their contemporary incarnation.  However, their are Jesuits alive today who bear the stamp of Saint Ignatius Loyola and who serve the Church well.  One is Egyptian Jesuit Henri Boulad who Edward Pentin interviews at the National Catholic Register.  In that interview Father Boulad quotes from a letter he sent the Pope:

“It seems to me that — on the pretext of openness, tolerance and Christian charity — the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of the liberal left ideology which is destroying the West. Anything that does not espouse this ideology is immediately stigmatized in the name of “political correctness”. Many think that a certain number of your positions are aligned with this ideology and that, from complacency, you go from concessions to concessions and compromises in compromises at the expense of the truth.”

“The West is in an ethical and moral debacle, both religious and spiritual. And it is not by relativizing the painful reality that these societies will be helped to emerge from their disarray. By defending at all costs Islam and seeking to exonerate it from the horrors committed every day in its name, one ends up betraying the truth.”

“Jesus said to us, ‘the Truth will set you free.’ It is because he refused any compromise on this point that he knew the fate which was his. Following him, countless Christians preferred martyrdom to compromise, as is the case in Egypt and elsewhere to this day.”

“In the extreme fragility of Christians — both in the West and in the East — they are expecting something from you other than vague and harmless declarations that may obscure reality. Your predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, had the courage to take a clear and unambiguous position. His attitude has raised a lot of shields and earned him many enemies. But is not a frank confrontation healthier than a dialogue based on compromise? When the Jewish hierarchs asked the apostles to stop announcing the Gospel, they replied: “As for us, we cannot not proclaim what we have seen and heard …” (Acts 4:20).

“It is high time to emerge from a shameful and embarrassed silence in the face of this Islamism that attacks the West and the rest of the world. A systematically conciliatory attitude is interpreted by the majority of Muslims as a sign of fear and weakness. If Jesus said to us: Blessed are the peacemakers, he did not say to us: Blessed are the pacifists. Peace is peace at any cost, at any price. Such an attitude is a pure and simple betrayal of truth.”



Continue reading...

8 Responses to Islam and the Church

  • TV’s highly popular “zombie” extravaganzas are there for a reason. It’s coming. Sell your mantle and buy guns and ammunition, and be prepared to effectively use them.

    The Church’s caving in to (switching sides to?) the socialists, secularists, and hedonists didn’t help matters.

    Bingo! The most-dangerous enemies of God and the American way of life are the liberal elites (including the hierarchy) , democrats and chamber of commerce RINO’s. They control public indoctrination/education, the academy and the lying media and use them to propagandize their traitorous filth. Their secular humanism, which they both promote and defend, with PC speech codes and censorship of any dissenting views are killing the West.

    Abortion, artificial contraception, etc. are offspring of elitist denial of responsibility, hedonism and materialism. it seems the next stage in this long march(?) is promoting sterile gay and transgender privileges – and if one objects, one is a fascist that should be shot, e.g., Rep. Scalise.

    The most destructive results are zero and negative population growth. Islam promotes population explosions.

  • Excellent article.
    Thank you.

  • TShaw, I would add the educrats, Hollywood and those who financially support the homosexualist movement. There are a lot more pro lifers than homosexualists but the Homosexualists got their own way while the pro life movement is still fighting abortion.

    Hollywood is a purveyor of garbage. Even just thirty years ago or so, there were movies with Chuck Norris and Schwarzenegger beating the snot out of the bad guys, be they Communists or Muslim terrorists. No more.

  • “It seems to me that — on the pretext of openness, tolerance and Christian charity — the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of the liberal left ideology which is destroying the West. ”

    Absolutely true! While Pope Francis is certainly accelerating this decline, it was well underway long prior to his ascent to the Chair of Peter. Just look at the positions staked out by even our “orthodox” bishops here in this country on the refugee and immigration issue overall. It is not only indistinguishable from that of the worst elements of the left, they engage in the same kind of smear tactics secular leftists do in demonizing those who dare take issue with their positions. And American bishops are considered the most “conservative” in the west.

  • Excellent, especially from a modern Jesuit. We need to hear more from the very clear thinking Father Boulad. From the Pope we get a “shameful and embarrassed silence in the face of this Islamism”. Pope Francis is a menace to the Catholic Church, the World and himself–but a friend of the the devil.

    “It is high time to emerge from a shameful and embarrassed silence in the face of this Islamism that attacks the West and the rest of the world. A systematically conciliatory attitude is interpreted by the majority of Muslims as a sign of fear and weakness. If Jesus said to us: Blessed are the peacemakers, he did not say to us: Blessed are the pacifists. Peace is peace at any cost, at any price. Such an attitude is a pure and simple betrayal of truth.”

  • T Shaw wrote, “Islam promotes population explosions.”

    Rather unsuccessfully.

    Of the Muslim majority countries in Europe, Bosnia & Herzegovina has one of the lowest Total Fertility Rates in the world at 1.28 per woman (the replacement level is 2.1). Albania’s is 1.51 and Turkey, at 2.03 is just below replacement.

    Outside Europe, Iran has a Total Fertility Rate of 1.71. Azerbaijan (1.90) Turkmenistan (2.08) and Uzbekistan (1.78) are all below replacement.

    In the Maghreb, Tunisia has a TFR below replacement at 1.98, as does Libya (2.04). Morocco at 2.2 is just above it and Algeria’s 2.74 is well above replacement, but down from over 5 in the 1960s

    Iwlam may promote population explosions but, apparently, Muslim women are not listening.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour, Alleluia!

  • Great article! Thanks for sharing it. Father Henri Boulad is well spoken. I feel the world needs a Marian moment. To much killing. I pray for peace.

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.

Orwellian Obama and the Jesuit

Sunday, June 26, AD 2016



One of the more bleakly humorous aspects of this administration is just how Orwellian it is.  The most recent demonstration of this is the appointment of Jesuit Father Thomas Reese to head the US Commission on International Religious Freedom.  Obama appointed him as a member of the Commission two years ago.


Reese resigned as editor of the Jesuit rag America in 2005.  At the time he was under fire from the Vatican due to his heterodox opinions.  He holds the usual leftist political positions of most modern Jesuit, which explains his appointment.  What sort of head will he make of the Commission?  A bad one judging from this incident:


After Saudi Arabia sentenced blogger Raif Badawi to public flogging, seven of the nine members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) stepped forward to ask the Saudis to commute his sentence or, if not, to whip them instead.

The only two members of the Commission who refused to sign the letter were James Zogby, the founder and president of the Arab American Institute, and Jesuit Father Thomas Reese of the National Catholic Reporter. Zogby’s abstention is understandable. As the author of Arab Voices, the co-founder of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, and an advocate of Saudi interests, it isn’t hard to guess where his allegiance lies. With dozens of Jesuit martyrs in his order’s history, however, and some of these to radical Islam, Reese’s case is more complex.
Reese, a vocal critic of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church, is the former editor of the Jesuit Magazine America, who was pressured to step down by the Vatican in 2005 for misrepresenting Catholic teaching on a number of issues, including same-sex marriage, homosexual priests, priestly celibacy, women’s ordination and offering Holy Communion to pro-abortion Catholic politicians.


Go here to read the rest.  Reese praised the administration in regard to the Contraceptive Mandate:


“HHS and the Administration have gone out of their way to resolve the concerns of religious institutions that object to covering contraceptives in their insurance programs. They have found creative ways to provide contraceptives to the employees of religious colleges and hospitals without the involvement of these institutions.”

In the hands of Father Reese, religious liberty is as safe and secure as would be the chastity of a maiden spending an evening with Bill Clinton at the No-Tell Motel.  As always in regard to this administration, I am reminded of this historical vignette:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Orwellian Obama and the Jesuit

  • Fr. Thomas Reese…..too bad he could not meet up with the fictional John Reese of Person of Interest. Jim Caviezel’s character had more…character…than this Jesuit dissident.

  • John Reese would likely shoot Fr Thomas Reese in the knees as he had the penchant for doing to bad guys. Sadly in the last episode this past week he was shot by the bad guys and blown up by a cruise missile launched by the super computer Samaritan. He is presumed dead. Perhaps Fr Reese is our Samaritan which fortunately was defeated by a virus introduced by Finch, John Reese’s allay, friend and one time employer. Does Fr Reese have a noble friend as John Reese did in Finch?

  • Why do have to have a US government Commission on International Religious Freedom?
    Because of BHO establishing or trying to establish his legacy. Waste of our tax money as most of the studies, commissions and committees are.

  • In the long run, the Jesuits, including the present Pope, will destroy themselves. And their self-destruction will be their best contribution to the Church!

Another Success For the Jesuits!

Tuesday, October 13, AD 2015

15 Responses to Another Success For the Jesuits!

  • Please allow me to interrupt; Worse than Murder surrender’s fetal tissue sales, according to Wall Street Journal.

    A small victory for the unborn.
    Please excuse my interruption, I’m happy to find this good news to share.

  • I can’t find the source but I thought I read during the recent Vatican Climate Conference that Brown could not say that he was a Christian. Gave some vague response.

  • Governor Moonbeam from 1975 to 1983 strikes again. How freaking stupid can Californicators be?

  • Philip,
    Interesting news. I believe it means PP will go from “murder for hire” to simply “murder for free.” They’ll still harvest humans, but they say they’ll take no money for it. I’m sure they have a plan to recoup the monies another way. Evil finds a way.

  • Kyle.

    True. 🙁

    It is good news. They are feeling the pressure.

    I’ll refrain from using this thread about said news. God bless Life.

  • They’re simply gradually, steadily inuring people for the establishment of the death panels.

  • Next we will hear that the solution to Medicare and Social Security deficits is at hand via the “Heroic Sacrifice Program” (formerly euthanasia) whereby participants will receive a special medal awarded posthumously plus $10,000 to be given to anyone they choose. There will provisions in the program that under certain circumstances it will be mandatory.
    Isn’t it marvelous: suicide and murder at the service of mankind. This is the road we are on. God have mercy!

  • Heroic sacrifice program? Let Jerry go first!

  • Michael Dowd – And of course that $10,000 will be subject to a 70% federal income tax.

  • And why are we surprised and shocked? Our world has not evolved into the pits of hell because of leadership within the Church. But from the infiltration within that has been ignored and allowed to fester into this giant massive infection. Not dealt with, not addressed by hierarchy that should have pounced immediately..or may have been complicit. Oh no we wouldn’t want to hold anyone accountable! Glad I didn’t raised my six practicing Catholic children that way. And believe me there were times when it wasn’t pretty. I wouldn’t want to face my Maker with this legacy on my soul.

  • Why vote for “Right (Duty) to Die” and veto “Right to Try”? Easy, dead people are less expensive to take care of than the sick, and with government budgets imploding, well, gotta get savings somewhere. Same with insurance–they are required to pay for all kinds of things (birth control, STD, IVF, etc), diseases and conditions that could be fairly easily avoided if people took care of themselves. Little wonder there is no money to aid the sick and aged.

  • SOME Californians, if you please, Paul Springtime.
    Philip, too cruel even if they don’t get paid for the baby parts.

  • Kmbold.

    No question about that!
    Extremely cruel.

    Any negitive cash flow activity which introduces change in policy, even minuscule, is a sign of weakness regarding this diabolical organization.
    On the 98th anniversary of the Miracle of the sun in Fatima, this small victory is a great sign!
    A sign of larger victories to come in this battle for the Innocent’s!

    Worse than Murder Inc. is doomed!

  • It’s a win-win situation for the dems: they don’t spend Medicare/Medicaid on superannuated people and they get their votes.

  • Where are California’s bishops?

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?

No Comment

Monday, May 11, AD 2015

8 Responses to No Comment

  • Your use of the word “detente” , Donald McClarey says it all. Where is Henry Kissinger when you need him? Death, the great equalizer.

  • Honoring for immigrants? It is ignored that the real issue in communist Cuba in emigration–they won’t allow it for fear of an exodus.
    Open the prisons and watch the floodgates of souls rushing to be free in America. They could take those planes back here that are now filed with our morally corrupt politicians and financial speculators rushing to the fools’ paradise to gain power and wealth.
    Castro a Jesuit? Is God on vacation?

  • As someone who suffered at a Jesuit school – perfect. Yes, yes Raul – you are indeed a Jesuit.

    Does someone need to make a list of all the dictators who were trained by the Jesuits? Wasn’t Robert Mugabe trained by Jesuits?

  • He was educated by Jesuits and became a bloody, evil Communist. That about says it all when it comes to the Society of Jesus in Latin America.

  • It just keeps getting more and more bizarre. My poor, poor grandchildren and their parents. What a world. All the clarity of myopia minus the corrective lenses. This is Francis’ Gospel.

  • What is it with American Catholic and its true hate on Pope Francis… This is SIN, as I hope you all would know… Jesuits are a wonderful order. They have traveled the earth seeking souls for Almighty God.. Francis is seated in Peters Chair..HE deserves that respect. And woe unto your souls in speaking so evil of him…….

  • Popes are the Vicar of Christ and not Christ Marie. Criticism of Popes is as Catholic as veneration of Mary and goes back to the first Pope. As for the Jesuits, they have a wonderful past and a really crummy present. If you are concerned about criticism of Popes, I would assume that you are shocked, shocked, by how most Jesuits have talked about modern Popes, prior to the current one.

  • Marie Anne, here is a good link in answering the dilemma of discomfort I have, each time I read nasty criticism of the Holy Father. Basically, It is ok to criticise the Pope, as long as the criticism isn’t nasty…

February 23, 1945: The Mass on Mount Suribachi

Monday, February 23, AD 2015





Seventy years ago today the Marines raised the flag over Mount Suribachi during the battle of Iwo Jima and a mass was said at the summit.  Iwo Jima probably has the sad distinction of being the most expensive piece of worthless real estate in the history of the globe.  Expensive not in something as minor as money, but costly in something as all important as human lives.  In 1943 the island had a civilian population of 1018 who scratched a precarious living from sulfur mining, some sugar cane farming and fishing.  All rice and consumer goods had to be imported from the Home Islands of Japan.  Economic prospects for the island were dismal.  Eight square miles, almost all flat and sandy, the dominant feature is Mount Suribachi on the southern tip of the island, 546 feet high, the caldera of the dormant volcano that created the island.  Iwo Jima prior to World War II truly was “of the world forgetting, and by the world forgot”.

The advent of World War II changed all of that.  A cursory look at a map shows that Iwo Jima is located 660 miles south of Tokyo, well within the range of American bombers and fighter escorts, a fact obvious to both the militaries of the US and Imperial Japan.  The Japanese forcibly evacuated the civilian population of Iwo Jima in July of 1944.  Awaiting the invading Marines was a garrison of approximately 23,000 Japanese troops, skillfully deployed by General Tadamichi Kuribayashi  in hidden fortified positions throughout the island, connected in many cases by 11 miles of tunnels.  The Japanese commander was under no illusions that the island could be held, but he was determined to make the Americans pay a high cost in blood for Iwo.

Tasked with the mission of seizing the island was the V Marine Amphibious Corp, under the command of General Holland “Howlin’ Mad” Smith, consisting of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th Divisions.

On February 18th, 1945 Navy Lieutenant, (the Marine Corps, although Marines are often loathe to admit it, is a component of the Department of the Navy, and the Navy supplies all the chaplains that serve with it) Charles Suver, Society of Jesus, was part of the 5th Marine Division and anxiously awaiting the end of the bombardment and the beginning of the invasion the next day.  Chaplain Suver was one of 19 Catholic priests participating in the invasion as a chaplain.

Father Suver had been born in Ellensburg, Washington in 1907.    Graduating from Seattle College in 1924, he was ordained as a priest in 1937, having taught at Gonzaga University in Spokane.   Prior to the war, while teaching at Seattle Prep, he rigorously enforced the no running rules in the hall, even going so far as to tackle one errant student!  Father Suver was remembered as a strict disciplinarian but also a fine teacher. Shortly after Pearl Harbor, he joined the Navy as a chaplain.

On February 18th, 1945, Chaplain Suver was discussing the upcoming invasion with other Marine officers.  A lieutenant told him that he intended to take an American flag onto the top of Mount Suribachi.  Suver responded that if he did that, he would say mass under it.

At 5:30 AM the next morning Father Suver said mass for the Marines aboard his ship, LST 684. (The official meaning of LST was Landing Ship, Tank;  the troops designated them Large Slow Target.)  After mass, nervous Marines, more than a few of whom had not much longer to live, bombarded the chaplain with questions, especially questions about courage.  He responded, ” A courageous man goes on fulfilling his duty despite the fear gnawing away inside.  Many men are fearless, for many different reasons, but fewer are courageous.” 

Continue reading...

7 Responses to February 23, 1945: The Mass on Mount Suribachi

  • Pingback: Vets Take Iwo Jima Memorial | The American Catholic
  • Don–with these posts you consistently capture the essence of history, the struggles of humankind. Thanks.

  • We Christian Americans are dedicated to living our spiritual lives by the events and history of two thousand years ago in Israel. But we seem to have somehow lost all memory and knowledge of what was done and occurred just 70 years ago.

    A world weary of war had recently fought a bloody battle which at the finish they called the war to end all wars. That of course was more false hope than anything close to reality. As America was trying to recover from the Great Depression the evil in the hearts of power hungry men in control of the nations of Germany, Italy, and Japan were overrunning their weaker neighbors in Europe and Asia with unspeakable savagery and ethnic cleansing in extermination camps to expand Hitler’s Master Arian Race and Japanese Imperialism. The sudden onslaught of superior military forces caught tiny and unprepared nations off guard and helpless. France was no match for Hitler and the British were being besieged by daily aerial bombings. Burma and China were under the ruthless swords of swarming Japanese armies. There seemed to be no way the Axis powers could be stopped from dominating over half of the globe. That is until the God fearing nation with God given rights guided by Divine providence and Trust in the power of the Almighty had seen enough. Yes, America, the nation of immigrants that built their government on Christian values and the desire for liberty for all men would rise to the occasion going to the ends of the earth shedding the blood of their patriots in every land to subdue the Evil establishing peace once more standing alone as the greatest force for good in the world, even helping to rebuilding the nations we defeated.
    We still are that nation but the question is are we still that people?

  • Excellent post and excellent comment by Bill Sr.

  • Those who would desecrate our national emblem for purity, courage and truth deserve nothing; not our American Flag nor our country. The Supreme Court in its decision that burning the American Flag is freedom of speech had it backwards. Without an American Flag and without a country, these desecrators have forfeit any country, any flag and any freedom they had. Love it or leave it. You do not get a chance to destroy it.
    If anyone needs to destroy our country to live in it, he may as well get lost.
    Burning the American Flag outside of America says that you are a coward and a creep.
    The men on Mount Suribachi are patriots. Patriotism is the price of citizenship.

  • outstanding Post Don – makes for further reading and research. Thank you!

  • Thank you for this excellent post and also to Bill Sr. I would say we are that people. Do we have leaders worthy of our troops who have fought in Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere? No, we do not. At daily Mass when the Host is raised at the Consecration, I pray that Jesus has mercy on our and allied troops in harm’s way. Our priests in uniform are exceptional men, worthy of those they minister. To attend Mass celebrated by a priest who has cammies underneath his vestments and is surrounded by men and women in uniform is special.

Now America Is Against Dissent

Sunday, February 22, AD 2015

20 Responses to Now America Is Against Dissent

  • If the discussions now under way are NOT a matter of doctrine, then how can disagreement be dissent? I thought we were only discussing pastoral practice which, we are assured, is safely removed from doctrine and dogma?

  • When an orthodox like Benedict XVI or John Paul II is Pope, then dissent is required.
    When a liberal progressive like Francis is Pope, then dissent is treason.

  • The pretenders to the faith view it as a giant slice of Swiss cheese. When asked about what the faith is–they cunningly point to the holes, but, when asked about what it should not be–they point to the cheese.

  • Irony squared. Was it not Cardinal Wuerl and his predecessor McCarrick who dissented from Popes JP and Benedict on the issue of the Eucharist and openly pro abort pols? Is it not Wuerl now openly suggesting that Cardinal Burke is a dissenter because Burke advocates the integrity of Church doctrine and warns against the possibility of a hierarchy bound and determine to undermine that doctrine. The left is breathtaking in its chutzpah.

  • Liberals are so predictable. Hillary Clinton famously said that dissent was the highest form patriotism. If she gets elected president, something tells me she will change that tune. The Jesuit hierarchy is no different.

  • Durbin and the rest of the pro-abort “catholic” politicians will be the first to bust hell wide open. Wuerl and the rest of the pro-abort bishops will join them in hell. When the church needs a strong, traditional leader a marxist Jesuit liberal is elected pope. Liberal, homosexuality-advocating bishops have all but destroyed the Church.
    Pray and pray a lot with leftist modernist bishops like Wuerl, Dolan and Kaspar leading the Church, with Francis signing off on any piece of anti-Catholic garbage that comes his way.

  • Go back to what I said about Donald Cardinal Wuerl. Praise from America Magazine is as damning as any criticism from anyone else. America Magazine is a left wing rag.

    I repeat that I am happy he is gone from Pittsburgh. We are stuck with a Catholic high school named for him. My boys won’t go there.

  • Cardinal Wuerl is a Democrat first and a Catholic second. If this were not true, he would long ago have refused Holy Communion to a gaggle of so called Catholic pols in his Archdiocese. Don’t need to name who these people are; we all know that list of evil people.

  • Well here’s a way Francis can get rid of “dissent”. Run off any seminarian that actually wants to teach the authentic Catholic faith. Limp-wrists little Wuerl-clones highly sought after. Godly men that actually want to model their life after that mean old Cardinal Burke, don’t bother applying. Franciscan University and Ava Maria might as well close down. Francis is on the loose. When does he speak at that bastion of Catholic teaching called Notre Damn and Georgetown? Maybe he can fit it in after he meets with Obama and Dolan in September.

  • My comfort comes from verse 13 in Marks reading chapter #1. This mornings 2nd reading is Mark 1:12-15;
    13″..and he (Jesus) remained there for forty days and was put to the test by Satan. He WAS WITH WILD ANIMALS and the angels looked after Him.”

    It’s comforting to know that while wild beasts abound the Church will be preserved. A rabid clergyman nor a hundred will harm Holy Church since the promise of victory is given to her in the end.

    Satan is constantly putting us to the test especially pious souls because he knows what losses he can expect if they live holy fruitful lives. More will wake up from their sinfulness and repent, leading to an loss for Satan.

    Truth will not be swallowed up and eaten by beasts. Truth will win the day.
    In October we will see if Satan’s testing of PF will prove to be a disappointment for Holy Church, or a victory. I pray the doctrine will be upheld and Satan will agian be humiliated.

  • D Black.

    (sigh) I thank you for the link.
    Upsetting and disturbing!
    To falsely accuse traditionalist clergy being disturbed and inflexible is a illnesses that is blackening pf’s soul.

    Purge! May he purge the demons out of his heart….and quickly!

  • In my calm faith in Christ’s promise to Peter and the Church, I do not expect the Pope or the Synod to overturn established doctrine.
    That said, I should ask hypothetically how does one dissent from heresy?

  • D black I love the photo at the top of the linked article at Lifesite! What a Look!

    That ad for Jesuit education featuring Dick Dubin will certainly be counter productive. “America” and Durbin etal. might not realize it, but the days of the Left are winding down.

  • I am increasingly convinced that Pascal’s assessment of the Jesuits in his Fifth Provincial Letter has lost none of its relevance:-
    “Know then that their object is not the corruption of manners- that is not their design. But as little is it their sole aim to reform them-that would be bad policy. Their idea is briefly this: They have such good opinion of themselves as to believe that it is useful, and in some sort essentially necessary to the good of religion, that their influence should extend everywhere, and that they should govern all consciences. And the Evangelical or severe maxims being best fitted for managing some sorts of people, they avail themselves of these when they find them favourable to their purpose. But as these maxims do not suit the views of the great bulk of the people, they waive them in the case of such persons, in order to keep on good terms with all the world. Accordingly, having to deal with persons of all classes and of all different nations, they find it necessary to have casuists assorted to match this diversity.”

  • If one “dissents” from doctrine one is OUT of the Church. If one “dissents” from heresy, one is IN the Church.

  • “If the discussions now under way are NOT a matter of doctrine, then how can disagreement be dissent? I thought we were only discussing pastoral practice which, we are assured, is safely removed from doctrine and dogma?”

    Fr. Andrew: to use the Catholic term–Bingo.

    The Kasper proposal is either (1) a little ol’ pastoral pastoral practice tweak–just showin’ the mercy of Jesus to a limited, penitent few–or (2) a full-bore assault on the notion of marital indissolubility. If it’s the former, there’s no possibility of dissent in opposing it. Especially before the fact.

    If it’s the latter, then the game is up and the real dissenters are Kasper, et al and those blowing smoke in their favor (i.e., Wuerl).

    I hope everyone is enjoying the last few months before the progressive schism.

  • “If the discussions now under way are NOT a matter of doctrine, then how can disagreement be dissent?”
    But there may be dissent from laws and policies, as well as doctrine, as witness the quarrel over the Temporal Power, when Catholics who defended the Unification of Italy were subjected to ecclesiastical censures.
    Even the great Catholic historian, Lord Acton was rebuked by Cardinal Manning for quoting Swinburne’s praise of the Italian patriots in a public lecture at Cambridge:

    “Only her bosom to die on;
    Only her heart for a home,
    And a name with her children to be
    From Calabrian to Adrian sea
    Famous in cities made free
    That ring to the roar of the lion
    Proclaiming republican Rome.”

  • Pingback: FRIDAY EDITION -

The Perfect Article for America

Sunday, January 18, AD 2015

Jesuits Everywhere

America as in the Jesuit rag, not the nation.  The Jesuits can close up shop now at America.  There is no way they can surpass this article which perfectly symbolizes the adherence of most contemporary Jesuits to the Faith, and their intellectual acumen:


A New Theology of the Transgendered Body by Sidney Callahan

Bravo Jesuits, you cannot possibly top, or rather bottom, that!

Continue reading...

13 Responses to The Perfect Article for America

  • God said: “Margaret, you have been faithful. What can I do for you?”
    Margaret answered: “I want to win a million dollars and live to be one hundred years old.” God said: “OK”. Margaret won the lottery. Margaret had her face lifted and her hair done. On her way out of the hair salon, Margaret was struck and killed by lightning. Said Margaret: “Dear God, I thought you promised that I could live to be one hundred years old? ” Said God: “Margaret, Is that you?”.
    “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.”

  • Sidney Callahan asks: “Can we hope now for an expanded theology of the body and person, to better understand gender and transgendered persons?”
    “God makes us human” said Bishop Fulton J. Sheen. What happens to the immortal soul, when the rational part of the person is displaced? What happens to the soul when the way to heaven is detoured through physical surgery without recourse to the search for God? The feminine part of a man’s soul calls him to serving Holy Mother Church, the medical profession, creativity, sensitivity toward suffering, love for his neighbors and a leader of his people. The male part of the human soul brings us Saint Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir ad infinitum… unless it is nipped in the bud through transgenderism.
    Transgendered persons have surgically removed their potential for fulfilling themselves and finding their destiny as who they are created to be. It is God Who brings us to know who we are as a person, not the surgical knife wielded by a finite individual. It is the theology of the transgendered who prevent persons from achieving themselves.
    Homosexuality is a vocation to celibacy.

  • Why such articles offend orthodox Catholics and Bible oriented Protestants is because in
    part, Romans 1:27 warns against the opposite sex qualities appearing in a person after
    active sodomy as punishment from God and nature…” receiving in themselves the fit recompense of their perversity”. The article in America is chaotic in that it does not bring forward a detailed scientific exception to Romans 1:27. And I believe there is one but I don’t know the solution…ie the chimeric new born …the chimera ( google it…fascinating) who results from two fraternal twin eggs merging right after conception who should have been two persons had there been no Fall. But instead one person is born with the dna of two. If the original fraternal twins were boy and girl, the resultant one person may have qualities of both the original boy and the girl. On NHK, the Japanese network recently, they followed the tragedy of a five year old Japanese boy who wanted to dress as a girl but simultaneously hated life and school and wept often because he knew he would be rejected by everyone at school. This is not what Romans 1:27 was condemning and was probably the chimeric tragedy. I was fascinated because I believe I met a chimeric person decades ago and never forgot that encounter.
    I saw it in a 9 year old boy in my camp when long ago I was a teen myself and a camp counselor. He walked in one day, his first day wearing shorts like everyone else and I said to myself that he had actual female lips, eyes and leg shape and feet. All that first day, other children would ask him the same question…” are you a boy or a girl”. I don’t remember him ever answering but rather smiling and proceeding with a camp project. I was stunned and I’ve never again knowingly seen the phenomenon. It is this group who I at least know in their scientifically noticed case have an intrinsic not willful problem (Rom.1:27) in their very body.
    I don’t know what the Vatican would say to such a person if they inquired of the Vatican
    if they could have surgery in the direction of the dominant side of them and they provably had two sets of dna.
    Wiki under chimera ( genetics) has this note:
    ” In 2002, Lydia Fairchild was denied public assistance when DNA evidence showed that she was not related to her children. A lawyer for the prosecution heard of a human chimera in New England, Karen Keegan, and suggested the possibility to the defence, who were able to show that Fairchild, too, was a chimera with two sets of DNA.”

  • I hope “theology of the transgendered body” is just a comical spoof…?

    Mary De Voe- I loved your joke.

  • Bill Bannon: This would account also, for an individual to have both sets of sex organs. Then these individuals are not transgendered but simplified. Would that really help them, as their are still owning both DNA?
    Instead of invoking compassion for the individual, the article instigates a revulsion by placing the will of the person over the will of God, and casting aspersions on an innocent public even while the case may not.

  • Mary,
    Yes, there are sympathetic abnormalities ( mosaics also besides chimeras ) but the person themselves like the Japanese boy? may be the best judge of who they are predominantly.
    Pray for all such people that God shows them His will and comforts them in their feelings of being alone in their problem. I prayed for one today but forgot the other that I mentioned which I’ll make up for now. The New England Journal of Medicine has written about both chimeras and mosaics in recent years and in vitro fertilization is adding to the numbers because inter alia it produces 28 times the normal number of twins.

  • “[T]he embodied person’s whole identity”
    Without wishing to attach undue importance to a single phrase, “embodied person” has unfortunate Cartesian overtones.
    We all know what the word “person” means in expressions like “the person over there” and “Offences against the Person” ; it means a living human body. Everyone understands what “I am jumping up and down means” and how it can be verified.
    Self-consciousness is simply consciousness or awareness that so-and-so hold of oneself, of this thing here, this living human body. To speak of a “self” as the name of something is simply a misconstrue of the reflexive pronoun. “I am MPS” means “this thing here is MPS,” the thing of which I have reflexive (non-observational) awareness.
    The Cartesian Ego is at the root of a good half of the nonsense talked about “persons” or “selves”

  • Bill Bannon: Thank you so much. Thank you, so very much for putting this in perspective, that I can assume and appreciate. Now for prayers even when I know not what or for whom. Makes life exciting.

    Michael Paterson-Seymour: ““[T]he embodied person’s whole identity””
    Man, the human being, homosapiens is composed of body and soul. “I AM” is the body and the soul as man.
    ““I am MPS” means “this thing here is MPS,” the thing of which I have reflexive (non-observational) awareness.” because MPS has a metaphysical, immortal, rational, human soul. Not simply a spirit, but a spirit with an human body, one person, one man. This is the embodied person’s whole identity in Jesus Christ.

  • Mary De Voe

    If the principle of human rational life in me is a soul (which perhaps can survive me, perhaps again animate me) that is not what i mean by “me.” Nor is it what I am. I am a living, human body and I shall exist only as long as that exists. If people find this idea shocking, they only betray how deeply infected by dualism they are. This is what St Thomas teaches (Summa Ia q 75:4) and the Ecumenical Council of Vienne (1311-12) condemns as heresy the denial that the rational or intellectual soul is the form of the human body, of itself and essentially.

  • There is common confusion about “transgender” people. True discordance between genetic sex, hormone receptivity and external/internal organs is RARE. Most transgenders are normal men and women with none of the above mentioned abnormalities. Paul McHugh, MD, Chief Psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins in Baltimore proved in the late 1970s that most transgenders have a mental disorder; and surgically/hormonally changing appearances does NOT help their Gender Identity Disorder. While help and support for this group of people cannot be denied, it is another matter to simply consider them “normal”.

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour: “Nor is it what I am.”
    Nor is it who I am.
    “I am a living, human body and I shall exist only as long as that exists.”
    Sir, you have confused life and existence. Are you proposing that existence, once it has existed, become not?

  • Mary De Voe,

    MPS can correct me if I’m mistaken, but I believe the standard theological answer is that God in some fashion sustains the “disembodied” human soul prior to the resurrection and the Final Judgment. So I think that what MPS is saying, in his characteristically indirect (not to say obtuse!) fashion, is that whatever your disembodied soul might be, it isn’t properly “you” until it is once again reunited with your body.

  • Thank you bill- very informative.
    What about how exceptions should effect the rule? Teaching based on unique Individual sad cases risks a bad effect for so many people who for one reason or another simply see themselves as outsiders and want to find a category or ID they think they can fit under. Surely we need to understand and affirm the theology of the body (TOB) in the main; encouraging people to accept their own body/soul configuration.
    I have watched a young man from “down under” somewhere who was born with no arms, no legs, but who gives a wonderful talk and demonstration of his love and trust of God’s plan for him. Just a head and a torso moving quickly about the stage, full of life and hope for eternal life. Confident that his body and soul configuration now and in eternity will meet God’s specs. His soul seems great, it is his body that is outside the standard deviations.
    Having a specific theology for the transgendered seems an invitation to floods of people in emotional distress to take their stand under the Transgendered banner- and it seems to isolate them even more from the rest.. making them more lonely and “outside” in stead of realizing the theology of the body already applies to them,as it applies to all…. because it is not Just about sexual identity and relationships, but more importantly about identity in Christ and eternal relationship.
    We already know that some are born “eunuch”. Help us all to an acceptance of who we are. We don’t need a homosexual theology of the body- or bi-sexual, or transgendered.

Time for Another Suppression?

Monday, December 1, AD 2014

Jesuits Everywhere




What is it with the modern day Jesuits?  With certain honorable exceptions, it is hard to view their antics without assuming that many of them are at heart atheists.  Father Z gives us a minor atrocity:

I don’t know about you, but I can’t see any value in having this hideous thing in a church.

This rubbish is now hanging in the Jesuitenkirche (Jesuit Church) of Vienna.

No.  Really.

Corriere della Sera has the sad story.

Need an explanation?  I’ll bet you do.   I’ll bet you all the money in your pocket that you can’t say what this thing represents without looking at an explanation.

“To be in limbo”.

Yes. I know.

This piece of… thing… is 8 meters high, weighs 700kg, and will stay there until 19 April 2015.  So, rush to Vienna to see it.

It is meant – I am not making this up – to symbolize “faith and its menacing aspects”.

Only Jesuits could allow into their church something that make the faith look like a piece of… thing.

If this isn’t the representation of self-absorbed promethean neopelagians, I don’t know what would be.

Continue reading...

39 Responses to Time for Another Suppression?

  • Looks like a turd.

  • It looks like the cocoon of the Monster Mothra from Japanese Sci-Fi! Please, don’t sing any Vatican II song, the thing might wake up and destroy the next council! Hey, that’s not too bad of an idea….

  • Don

    my subjective non-scientific observation is that the most reliable Jesuits are not living in Jesuit houses.

  • A. The Papal Pinata

    B. The home of the missing bees.

    C. An extraterrestrial awaiting baptism

    D. The once missing Vermin of the Apocalypse #7.


    E. The old Trojan cocoon trick.
    Black Mass propagator’s ready to

  • I know. A homosexual trapped in a dark rigid pharisaical cocoon
    of cruel intolerance of the pre-Vatican II Church.

  • More like ugly as sin.

  • Christmas time is supposed to be “CELEBRATION.” How grotesque to interfere with this season.
    It is fitting however, since the powers that be can not distinguish between sacred art and p–s art.
    Shame on the Jesuit order.

  • It looks beautiful! It reminds me of my own faith!

  • It’s probably the result of some “awful” climate “change” …

  • Yes, I will comment. If that “thing” falls onto somebody, the lawsuit will be awful, as it ought to be.

  • I had the pleasure of being in Vienna a few years back, although I didn’t make it to this church. But take a moment and look at the church. Majestic, inspirational. Beauty as a reflection of divine order. Every religious building (and many governmental buildings) in Austria have this look. Now look back at that thing. It’s even worse than on first sight.

  • Lumen Gentium 8.2 “[Christ’s] Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church..” There is the true Church, which PInky observes and sees, and the false church. And the latter is right in front of us.

  • Just take it down! Just take it down. By direct action if all other ways fail.

  • “It looks beautiful! It reminds me of my own faith!” Fr. Gearloose S.J.

    Prayers coming your way Father.
    We all need them.
    My faith is not nearly as huge as yours.
    Prompting of the Holy Spirit leads to greater understanding compassion and love for neighbor. In my earlier post I may not have acted from the promptings of the Holy Spirit, rather from a selfish need for poking fun at a ugly lesson in (faith)?
    So. Enlighten me in this faith greater than a mustard seed, if you wish.

    I thank God for our holy priests. It is their ears I confess my sins and by their hands I receive the bread of Life. Their absolution is Christs and for them I am greatly appreciative.

    God bless our priesthood. May they radiate Christ in their words and actions.

  • Brain Gearloose…

  • Pingback: The Holy Eucharist, Great Cartoon Explains -
  • I don’t understand all the confusion – it simply looks like something Pope Francis said. I used to laugh and repeat the joke ” Is the Pope a Catholic?” after PF harangued faithful Catholics for opposing abortion and gay ‘fellowship’. Now I seriously wonder if PF is a Christian in the way we might understand it or is he one of those collective spirituality, evolving to the Omega point de Chardin heretics? Relativism in the Jesuits endows all ‘spiritual’ practice with the same validity via Inculturation(a favorite of PF). I fear we are truly infested. Who will suppress SJ numero uno PF? And is the Pope obliged to be obedient to the Father General of the Jesuits? The order has certainly defied obedience to the Popes since P6. It WAS only their founding charism. I beat it like a broken drum but Malachi Martin opened my mind with “Jesuits”. still available @ Amazon, Thrift Books etc.

  • They need to be disbanded.. They’re nothing but a cancer within!!! Nothing will happen during this pontificate, but hopefully the next Pope will end this fifth column…

  • Reminds me of the vampire eggs in the movie Van Helsing, only much larger.

  • its the 800 lb. gorilla

  • Looks like a hornet nest.

  • Yes, the church building is beautiful. Vienna is beautiful. But, well, this is the first time a Catholic site and story were able to elicit a foul-mouthed reaction from me. That monstrous thing must be a roundabout way to get us to go to confession.

  • Let’s see….Popes Pius XII, John Paul II and Benedict XVI (et al) all had problems with them.
    Having taught in a Jesuit high school, most students think that social justice issues are all that Catholics supposed to care about. How about a Jesuit priest apologizing for the Mass readings? Or having a non-Catholic administrator advocating birth control during an in-service? Having to ask if Jesus was in the tabernacle to a priest because there was no tabernacle light – then students asking what it was for?
    And how many Jesuit universities (thinking they are Catholic) support birth control, SSM, abortion, etc?
    Pope Clement XIV had the right idea with Dominus ac Redemptor. It’s time for the sequel.

  • After this I wonder no more at the success of muslim terrorists. Sad.

  • Smoke of Satan entering the Church, in other words, wacky Jesuits.

  • FR. Brain your faith is huge and ugly if it looks like that thing. Mine is small dont even want to put in in high places!!

  • I would say it represented sin. If I’m sitting in that church, then this is a great blackness that blocks or obscures my view of Christ; it’s so huge and overwhelming, renders me unable to see the beauty by which I am surrounded and which I could enjoy were it not for this atrocity.

  • Read “The Jesuits” (Fr. Malachi Martin). It says it all about the Order in its current disarray and betrayal of its founding principles.

  • Yes, like a big turd.

  • I read it when it first came out and I’m almost done re-reading it again. I recommend it too – it explains a lot of things.

  • Most comments here makes me so sad… How can you say so awful things about OUR Pope? I bet you sad other things when Benedict was Pope?! We are ALL suppose to follow and pray for our Pope Francis!

  • Pray most definitely for the Pope. Follow? Well one of the problems with Pope Francis is that it is often difficult to discern where he would lead us.

  • And yet, the Society produced the greatest theologians of the 20th century: Joseph Maréchal, Cardinal Henri de Lubac, Cardinal Jean Daniélou, Claude Mondésert to name but some.

  • Thank you, Philip and Grace. Why is my faith so great? If you must know, long ago as a priest I left behind all that solemn nonsense about Christ and absolution. Instead, I evolved into a higher consciousness. Sin? There is no such thing as “sin” for us dolphins in the sea.

  • Father “Brain Gearloose” SJ, I hereby designate you the go-to-man for this blog on all things modern Jesuit!

  • Art, or the perception of, should not be displayed in a church. The focus should always be CHRIST. This is an abomination.

  • Yes its time! I went to a Jesuit high school in Boston and I’m stunned at how irreverent and misguided some of the priests were. My homeroom teacher ( a Jesuit) used to say every Friday “have a good weekend and wear a condom.”

    Another priest, an English teacher, was asked what he’d do if he ever won the lottery and he said he’d leave the priesthood as fast as humanly possible, get married, and buy a mansion in Florida.

    The Jesuits have done more to damage the Church than Bill Maher could dream of.

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

PopeWatch: Jesuit Love

Thursday, March 13, AD 2014



Father James Martin, SJ, editor at large of the Jesuit rag America, practically breaks his arm slapping his order on the back for all the good qualities he perceives in Pope Francis in an article for CCN.  A sample:

Openness. Jesuits are asked to “Find God in all things.” Again, this is not simply a Jesuit virtue but a Christian one. Yet that brief motto is the most commonly cited way of summing up Jesuit spirituality. And “all things” means all people.

This includes those people who have felt excluded, or unwelcome, in the church. So although his message is based on simple Christian mercy, the world has witnessed the Pope repeatedly inviting the church to experience God in places that some other Catholic leaders may have overlooked or even ignored. Atheists, divorced and remarried Catholics, and gay men and lesbians, have all seen the Pope reach out to them.

Francis is not so much trying to find God there — because he knows that God is already there — as he is reminding others to look for God in the lives of all these people.

Other Jesuit hallmarks could be added to the list, such as flexibility, freedom and an emphasis on social justice. But overall, when Jesuits watch the Pope, we often nod our heads and say, “That’s very Jesuit.”

Over the past year, Jesuits have been accused of being too proud of Pope Francis. I’m guilty myself. So at the risk of pride, I’ll say that I think he’s a great Pope, a great priest and a great Jesuit. And I’ll bet St. Ignatius would be proud — or as proud as he would allow himself to be.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to PopeWatch: Jesuit Love

  • It is worth recalling that the Society produced Joseph Maréchal, Cardinal Henri de Lubac, Cardinal Jean Daniélou and Claude Mondésert who, with the Dominicans, Marie-Dominique Chenu and Cardinal Yves Congar, the Oratorian Louis Bouyer and the former Jesuit and Académicien Henri Brémond, virtually created 20th century theology.

  • I attended a Jesuit high school. It was a marvelous educational institution full of bright young men, an overwhelming majority of whom have gone on to be leaders in both the religious and secular world.

    And yet I am still frustrated when I look back at how pitiful my religious education was. Sure, we had good retreats that sparked earnest internal reflection, but we were either not taught things that I only learned later because I had the good fortune to work in the bookstore of the National Shrine and then got more involved in other Catholic outlets, or we were taught things that were manifestly false (Mary was not ever virgin, Jesus did have brothers and sisters, etc.) Sprinkle that in with my Jesuit priest teacher making the usual passive aggressive comment justifying dissent, and it’s a wonder more students from my high school didn’t fall away from the faith.

    That experience did not leave a positive impression on me regarding the modern Jesuits, and I truly feel bad for the few in the order that genuinely do good.

  • Completely off-topic, but for those of you who have trouble with the formatting in the comments and the lack of paragraph breaks, if you type br in brackets <> it will create a paragraph break.

  • I certainly know the Jansenists did not like the Jesuits, their spirituality or their focus on Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, the embodiment of mercy

  • “Christian mercy, the world has witnessed the Pope repeatedly inviting the church to experience God in places that some other Catholic leaders may have overlooked or even ignored. Atheists, divorced and remarried Catholics, and gay men and lesbians, have all seen the Pope reach out to them.”

    Christ descended from Heaven in order to convert you not to let you live in sin.

    “Now, I see.” said the blind man as he picked up his tools and walked away.

    PS: I was educated in a public high school and a Christian Brothers (Go Jaspers!) college. I was not infected with any of the stuff they keep making up about God.

  • Botolph
    Pascal sums up the Jansenist view of the Jesuits in Les Provinciales, Lettre V
    “Know then that their object is not the corruption of manners- that is not their design. But as little is it their sole aim to reform them – that would be bad policy. Their idea is briefly this: They have such a good opinion of themselves as to believe that it is useful, and in some sort essentially necessary to the good of religion, that their influence should extend everywhere, and that they should govern all consciences. And the Evangelical or severe maxims being best fitted for managing some sorts of people, they avail themselves of these when they find them favourable to their purpose. But as these maxims do not suit the views of the great bulk of the people, they waive them in the case of such persons, in order to keep on good terms with all the world. Accordingly, having to deal with persons of all classes and of all different nations, they find it necessary to have casuists assorted to match this diversity.
    On this principle, you will easily see that, if they had none but the looser sort of casuists, they would defeat their main design, which is to embrace all; for those that are truly pious are fond of a stricter discipline. But as there are not many of that stamp, they do not require many severe directors to guide them. They have a few for the select few; while whole multitudes of lax casuists are provided for the multitudes that prefer laxity.”

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour,

    Thank you for Pascal’s Jansenist description of the Jesuits. How would you describe the Jansenists, however?

  • In the words of Mgr Ronald Knox – “Jansenism is the vigilant conscience of Christendom overshadowed by a scruple.”

  • MPS,

    That was a perfect description of Jansenism.

  • Completely off-topic, but for those of you who have trouble with the formatting in the comments and the lack of paragraph breaks, if you type br in brackets it will create a paragraph break.

    Thank you, Paul. It seems to work.

  • The Jesuits deserve a Fr. Volpi. Sadly, it won’t happen.

  • Pingback: A Manual for Creating Atheists: A Critical Book Review -
  • Has Pope Francis suppressed the Jesuits yet? If not now, when? If Nixon could go to China…

  • I always thought, and was taught, that the final word on Jansenism was written in 1713.

  • GregM wrote, “I always thought, and was taught, that the final word on Jansenism was written in 1713.”

    Not by a long chalk. On 28 August 1718, Clement XI issued Pastoralis Officii against the Appellant Jansenists, who had appealed “to the Pope better informed and to a General Council.”

    Then, on 16 October 1756, Benedict XIV issued Ex Omnibus Christiani Orbis dealing with the Viaticum for those suspected of Jansenism.

    The later Augustinians like Berti and Cardinal Noris were accused of reviving the errors of Baius and Jansen, but they were acquitted by Benedict XIV. Though the examining theologians disagreed with their opinions, those opinions were not contrary to the decisions of the Church. Benedict XIV was anxious to make it clear that the teaching of St Augustine and St Thomas on Sufficient and Efficacious grace had not been condemned, either in the Five Propositions in 1653 or in Unigenitus in 1713 and one did not have to be a Molinist to be a Catholic. In fact, it seems pretty clear that many who belonged tot he Jansenist party did not hold the Jansenist heresy, as defined in those Bulls.

    Then, of course, we have the notorious Synod of Pistoia, condemned by Pius VI on 28 August 1794 in Auctorem Fidem.

John Joseph Montgomery: Forgotten Catholic Pioneer of the Air

Friday, February 7, AD 2014

In 1884 John Joseph Montgomery made the first manned, controlled, heavier than air flight in a glider he built.  Born in 1858, he became intrigued with flight when as a boy in 1869 he witnessed the historic flight of the steam driven proto blimp Aviator Hermes, Jr. built by Frederick Marriott.  In 1883 Montgomery built a wing flapping glider that of course failed as a glider.  In 1884 he made aviation history by building a monoplane glider with curved wings.  He flew a considerable distance at Otay Mesa near San Diego, California.  In 1884-1885 he built a monoplane glider with flat wings, with hinged surfaces at the backs of the wings to maintain lateral balance, the first step towards ailerons.  He also used cables to control the tale of his glider.

In 1885 or 1886 he built a water tank and experimented hundreds of times with moving water over surfaces to understand the movement of air over wings.

A Catholic, Montgomery earned his BA and MA from Saint Ignatius College in 1879 and 1880.  He went on to earn a doctorate in physics from the Jesuit College, Santa Clara, where he was a professor from 1898 until his death.  The Jesuits were quite enthusiastic about the aviation work of Montgomery and extended facilities at the college for him to conduct his experiments and build his gliders, one of which was named Santa Clara.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to John Joseph Montgomery: Forgotten Catholic Pioneer of the Air

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.

New York Catholic High School Okays Gay Couple to Attend Prom

Tuesday, April 2, AD 2013

Three guesses as to what order runs the high school. The first two don’t count.

The administrator of a Catholic high school in New York wrote to his students’ parents this week to explain why a gay couple at the all-boys school is being allowed to attend the junior prom together.

Father Edward Salmon, president of McQuaid Jesuit High School in Brighton, explained that the boys “will be welcomed” as a couple, even though he insisted the gesture of acceptance is not meant to condone homosexuality or go against church law in any way. His full letter, sent Wednesday, was published Thursday by local news website

For Salmon, the acceptance represents the success of a student-driven campaign to allow the boys to attend their junior prom together. The school’s administrator described the emotions that campaign generated as “darkness and heavy clouds,” leading to the spread of “misinformation, fear, misunderstanding, and even anger.”

There’s more at the Deacon’s Bench, including the letter from Father Salmon. For those who feared that Pope Francis’s washing of women’s feet would embolden liberal Catholics, you severely underestimate how easily liberal Catholics can twist any words and actions of the Pontiff to suit their particular cause. Witness the beginning of Father Salmon’s letter:

Our new Holy Father, Pope Francis, in the homily for his Inaugural Mass, had encouraging and inviting words: “Today amid so much darkness we need to see the light of hope and to be men and women who bring hope to others. To protect creation and to protect every man and every woman, to look upon them with tenderness and love, is to open up a horizon of hope, it is to let a ray of light break through heavy clouds.”

And if you don’t interpret Pope Francis’s words to mean that it’s okay to allow a gay couple to attend a prom at a Catholic high school, then clearly you just want more darkness.

Most of the rest of the letter is a bizarre stream of consciousness that uses the imagery of light and darkness to ironic affect – ironic because it just muddies the waters and thereby darkens everyone’s understanding of the faith. He closes with this:

With this decision I am not contradicting the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to human sexuality; I am not encouraging nor am I condoning homosexual activity just as I do not encourage or condone heterosexual activity at a dance. I am not contradicting the Church’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage. With this decision I invite and encourage us all, as Pope Francis does, to exercise care, protection, goodness which calls for a certain tenderness “which is not a virtue of the weak but rather a sign of strength of spirit and a capacity for concern, for compassion, for genuine openness to others, for love. We must not be afraid of goodness, of tenderness.”

You see he’s not contradicting Church teaching because, well, he says so. And light and darkness. And Pope Francis.

There. Don’t you feel much better now?

Father Salmon selectively quotes the Catechism to defend his position. Perhaps Father Salmon should familiarize himself with the concept of scandal.

Continue reading...

54 Responses to New York Catholic High School Okays Gay Couple to Attend Prom

  • I am honestly shocked. Mind you, it’s not that this is happening at a
    Jesuit school– that was only to be expected, as Mr. Zummo suggested
    in his opening sentence. No, what’s shocking is the poor quality of
    Fr. Salmon’s weaseling and misdirection. I’ve grown accustomed to
    Jesuits who could engage in high-level sophistry and manipulation, with
    flights of fancy that could almost make an art form out of heresy. And
    now we have Fr. Salmon SJ phoning it in with a letter that is just plain
    dumb. I’d expected better (that is, worse) from the Jesuits. Evidently
    they’re still a decadent order, only now they’re also boring.

  • The only mild relief I felt is when, after seeing that it was a New York high school, it turned out not to be my alma mater. But, give them time.

  • ” I am not contradicting the Church’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage.” Like the guy asking for money in the supermarket parking lot who says he isn’t panhandling.

    Just as they used Vatican II to justify their liberal interpretation of doctrine, they now do the same with the new Pope’s words and actions. I do hope Francis will in some way discourage them from doing so further.

  • Love the sinner. Hate the sin.

    Stuff like this is the reason I stopped telling myself, “Now, I’ve seen everything.”

    N.B. it’s a jesuit high school, not a Catholic High School.

    Where in NY is Brighton? I never heard of it.

    I am a bad person. I keep thinking S.J. means “society of judas.”

  • Originally I thought this was Brooklyn, T Shaw, but that’s Brighton Beach. Evidently this is near Rochester, which also explains much.

  • “You see he’s not contradicting Church teaching because, well, he says so. And light and darkness. And Pope Francis.”

    Scratch most Jesuits these days and you will find a sophist, and not even a smart sophist. I bet many of the parents sacrificing to pay the tuition, over eleven grand a year, at the dump he runs are so gratified to be paying through the nose to help destroy the faith of their kids. Public schools will at least do it for free.

  • Evidently this is near Rochester, which also explains much.

    McQuaid High is/was the biggest rival of my alma mater, Aquinas High School. I have cousins and nephews who attended McQuaid. I wonder how they feel about this. I’m almost afraid to ask.

  • Bp. Clark is now retired and the diocese is under the supervision of Bp. Cunningham of Syracuse. However, he was in charge for 33 years and rainbow flags were one of his pet projects, so this sort of rancid mess is embedded in the local culture of the church. If Rochester manages to acquire a capable and faithful bishop, he will really have to power wash the place.

  • Scratch most Jesuits these days and you will find a sophist, and not even a smart sophist.

    About 10 years ago, Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ penned a reflection on what had happened to the priesthood after 1960. In the course of it he offered an estimate that somewhere around 55-60% of the novices with whom he had entered Jesuit formation in 1974 had no true interest in matters religious; they were homosexuals “hiding in the tall grass”.

  • What Went Wrong?

    by Father Paul Mankowski, S.J.

    An Address to the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy – July 15, 2003

    What went wrong, and why?

    Everyone in the room will rightly understand the question to refer to The Crisis, the daily revelation over the past eighteen months of numberless instances of priestly turpitude, episcopal mendacity, and the resultant bewilderment and fury of the laity.

    My own take on the problem, which I offer for your consideration, is that the Crisis is chiefly surprising in how unsurprising it is.

    No one who has been fighting the culture wars within the Church over the past twenty years can fail to recognize his own struggles with a hostile bureaucracy and conflicted hierarchy in the struggles of those pleading for relief from sexual abuse — notwithstanding the disparity in the attendant journalistic drama.

    In fact, I’d contend that the single important difference in the Church’s failure regarding abusive clergy and the failures regarding liturgy, catechesis, pro-life politics, doctrinal dissent and biblical translation is this: that in the case of the sex abuse scandal we’ve been allowed a look over the bishops’ shoulders at their own memos.

    Deviant sexual assault has accomplished what liturgical abuse never could: it has generated secular media pressure and secular legal constraints so overwhelming that the apparat was forced to make its files public.

    What we read in those files was shocking, true, but to most of us, I suspect, it was shocking in its sense of daja vu.

    The housewife who complained that Father skipped the Creed at mass and the housewife who complained that Father groped her son had remarkably similar experiences of:
    •being made to feel that they themselves were somehow in the wrong;
    •that they had impugned the honor of virtuous men;
    •that their complaints were an unwelcome interruption of more important business; – – that the true situation was fully known to the chancery and completely under control;
    •that the wider and more complete knowledge of higher ecclesiastics justified their apparent inaction;
    •that to criticize the curate was to criticize the pastor was to criticize the regional vicar was to criticize the bishop;
    •that to publicize one’s dissatisfaction was to give scandal and
    •would positively harm discreet efforts at remedying the ills;
    •that one’s duty was to keep silence and trust that those officially charged with the pertinent responsibilities would execute them in their own time;
    •that delayed correction of problems was sometimes necessary for the universal good of the Church.

    This picture was meant to describe the faithful’s dealing with the normally operating bureaucracy, in which the higher-ups are largely insulated.

    Occasionally someone manages to break through the insulation and deal with the responsible churchman himself. In this case another maneuver is typically employed, one I tried to sketch eight years ago in an essay called “Tames in Clerical Life”:

    In one-on-one situations, tames in positions of authority will rarely flatly deny the validity of a complaint of corruption lodged by a subordinate. More often they will admit the reality and seriousness of the problem raised, and then pretend to take the appellant into their confidence, assuring him that those in charge are fully aware of the crisis and that steps are being taken, quietly, behind the scenes, to remedy it.

    Thus the burden of discretion is shifted onto the subordinate in the name of concern for the good of the institution and personal loyalty to the administrator: a tame must not go public with his evidence of malfeasance lest he disrupt the process — invariably hidden from view — by which it is being put right.

    This ruse has been called the Secret Santa maneuver: “There are no presents underneath the tree for you, but that’s because Daddy is down in the basement making you something special. It is supposed to be a surprise, so don’t breathe a word or you’ll spoil everything. And, of course, Christmas never comes.

    Perhaps most of the well-intentioned efforts for reform in the past quarter century have been tabled indefinitely by high-ranking tames using this ploy to buy their way out of tough situations for which they are temperamentally unsuited.

    What I’ve put before you are two scenarios in which complaints of abuses are brought to those in authority and in which they seem to vanish — the complaints, I mean, not the abuses. One hoped that something was being done behind the scenes, of course, but whatever happened always remained behind the scenes.

    As the weeks went by without observable changes in the abuse and without feedback from the bureaucracy, one was torn between two contradictory surmises: that one’s complain had been passed upstairs to so high a level that even the bishop (or superior) was forbidden to discuss it; alternatively, that once one’s silence had been secured and the problem of unwelcome publicity was past, nothing whatsoever was being done.

    Now the remarkable thing about The Crisis is how fully it confirmed the second suspicion.

    In thousands and thousands of pages of records one scarcely, if ever, is edified by a pleasant surprise, by discovering that a bishop’s or superior’s concern for the victim or for the Faith was greater than that known to the public, that the engines of justice were geared up and running at full throttle, but in a manner invisible to those outside the circle of discretion. Didn’t happen.

    I think this goes far to explain the fact that when the scandals broke it was the conservative Catholics who were the first and the most vociferous in calling for episcopal resignations, and only later did the left-liberals manage to find their voices.

    Part of our outrage concerned the staggering insouciance of bishops toward the abuse itself, but part, I would argue, was the exasperation attendant on the realization that, for the same reasons, all our efforts in the culture wars on behalf of Catholic positions had gone up in the same bureaucratic smoke.

    I take issue, then, with commentators who refer to the Crisis as an ecclesial “meltdown” or “the Church’s 9-11” or who use some similarly cataclysmic metaphor. Whatever there was to melt down had already done so for years, and that across the board, not just in priestly misconduct.

    Therefore, in addressing the question, “what went wrong, and why?” I need to try explain not simply the sex-abuse scandals but the larger ecclesial failure as well, weaknesses that existed even before the Second Vatican Council.

    Paradoxically, one of the major factors in the corruption of clerical life at the end of the 20th century was its strength at the beginning of it. Here I quote from James Hitchcock:

    A gloomy fact about clerical life is that, with the possible exception of the very early centuries, there was no time in the Church’s history when such life was idyllic. The Middle Ages had their share of misbehaving priests, and the ordinary parish clergy were uneducated and part of a peasant culture which was in some ways still pagan. The Counter-Reformation made strenuous efforts to improve the state of the clergy, not least through the establishment of that institution which ought to have been obvious but for some reason had not been — the seminary. Even despite these efforts, clerical scandals and various kinds of clerical incompetence long continued, amidst occasional saintly priests and many others of solid piety and zeal. In the United States the period cl900-l960 can be considered a golden age of the priesthood, not merely in modern times but throughout all the Catholic centuries. (This golden age was not confined to America but existed in other countries as well.) While priests of that era certainly had their faults, by all measurable standards there was less ignorance, less immorality, less neglect of duty, and less disobedience than at almost any time in the history of the Church. More positively, priests of that era were generally pious and zealous, and those who were not at least had to pretend to be.

    Not only was the reality of priestly character in good shape, but the reputation of Catholic clergymen was likewise high. This brought with it several problems.

    First, being an honorable station in life, the clerical life provided high grass in which many villains and disturbed individuals could seek cover. I would estimate that between 50 and 60% of the men who entered religious life with me in the mid-70s were homosexuals who had no particular interest in the Church, but who were using the celibacy requirement of the priesthood as a way of camouflaging the real reason for the fact that they would never marry.

    It should be noted in this connection that the military has its own smaller but irreducible share of crypto-gays, as do roughnecks on offshore drilling rigs and merchant mariners (“I never got married because I move around so much it wouldn’t be fair on the girl…”). Perhaps a certain percentage of homosexuals in these professions can never be eliminated.

    I further believe that the most convincing explanation of the disproportionately high number of pedophiles in the priesthood is not the famous Abstinence Makes the Church Grow Fondlers Theory, but its reverse, proposed to me by a correctional officer at a Canadian prison.

    He suggested that, in years past, Catholic men who recognized the pederastic tendency in themselves and hated it would try to put it to death by entering a seminary or a monastery, where they naively believed the sexual dimension of life simply disappeared. It doesn’t disappear, and many of these men became active pedophiles.

    This suggestion has the advantage of accounting for the fact that most priests who are true pedophiles appear to be men in their 60s and older, and would belong to a generation of Catholics with, on the one hand, a strong sense of sexual mortal sin and, on the other, strong convictions about the asceticism and sexual integrity of priestly life.

    To homosexuals and pedophiles I would add a third group, those I call “tames,” who are men incapable of facing the normally unpleasant situations presented by adulthood and who find refuge, and indeed success, in a system that rewards:
    1.concern for appearance,
    2.distaste for conflict, and
    3.fondness for the advantageous lie.

    In sum, the social prestige and high reputation that attached to the post-WW2 priesthood made it attractive to men of low character and provided them with excellent cover.

    A second key factor in the present corruption is loss of the bishops’ ability for self-correction. This problem has institutional and personal dimensions.

    The model of episcopal collegiality in place since the Council has not increased the mutual good-will of the bishops, but has, paradoxically, made the appearance of good-will obligatory in nearly all situations.

    Once more I turn to James Hitchcock. Speaking of the Church’s necessary recourse to diplomacy in dealing with militarily superior nation-states, Hitchcock says:

    It is ironic and discouraging that in the modern democratic era, when the Church enjoys the blessings of complete independence from political control, diplomacy still seems necessary, now often concentrated on internal ecclesiastical matters.

    It appears, for example, that the Pope is not free simply to appoint bishops as he sees fit, but that an elaborate process of consultation, of checks and balances, takes place, after which successful candidates are often people who have no highly placed enemies.

    The Holy See now appears to treat national episcopal conferences, and the numerous religious orders, almost as foreign powers. Scrupulous correctness is observed at all times, formal verbiage masks barely hidden disagreements, and above all potential “incidents” are avoided. … This endemic practice of diplomacy within the Church has yielded small results. Abuses have been tolerated not for the sake of unity but merely for the “appearance” of unity, which itself soon becomes an over-riding concern.

    Because what matters most in this mindset is perception, the appearance of unity, it has become virtually impossible to remove a bad bishop without prior public scandal — “public” here meaning notorious in the secular sphere, through the mass media.

    When the scandal is sexual or financial, it seems the Holy See can move quickly to remove the offender. When the scandal is in the arena of heresy or administrative irregularity or liturgical abuse, there is almost never enough secular interest generated to force the Holy See’s hand. Bishops Milingo and Ziemann and Roddy Wright have many brethren; Bishop Gaillot has few.

    Intermediate reform measures like seminary visitations are doomed to failure for the same reason; there simply is no possibility in the present disposition for a hostile inspection, where the visitators try to “get behind” the administration and find the facts for themselves. To do such a thing would be to imply lack of trust in the administration and hence in the bishop responsible for it, and such an imputation is utterly impossible.

    The same is true in bishops’ dealing with universities, learned societies and religious congregations. The only permissible inspections are friendly inspections, where the visitators ask the institution under scrutiny for a self-evaluation, which, of course, will be overwhelmingly positive and which will render the chances of reform almost nil.

    A priest official in a Vatican dicastery whom I trust told me that the needed reforms will never take place unless the Church undoes Pope Paul VI’s restructuring of the Vatican curia, whereby the Secretariate of State has become a kind of super-bureaucracy — no longer charged simply with the Holy See’s relations to other nations but with de facto control over the relations of the Vatican dicasteries to one another of the Holy See to its own bishops.

    In practice the Secretariate of State not only sets the tone for the Holy See’s dealings but often sets the agenda as well, ensuring that the diplomatic concern for appearances will prevail over the need for reforms involving unpleasantness, and exercising indirect influence over the selection of bishops, characteristically men of diplomatic demeanor if not experience.

    This profile goes far to explain why telling the truth is a problem for a large number of bishops, many of whom seem baffled and hurt when their falsehoods are not taken at face value.

    All embassies, moreover, have a high number of homosexuals in their staffs, and the Vatican diplomatic corps in no exception. The combination of the physical comforts attendant on diplomatic service, the skill at bureaucratic manipulation and oblique methods of pressure, the undercurrent of homosexual decadence, and the alacrity with which truth is sacrificed to expediency do not make an environment conducive to reform.

    The dominion exercised by the Secretariate of State means that many good-willed attempts to clean house go nowhere, and will continue to go nowhere in the future, being lost in its corridors or disfigured beyond recognition.

    A third answer to “What Went Wrong?” concerns a factor that is at once a result of earlier failures and a cause of many subsequent ones: I mean sexual blackmail.

    Most of the men who are bishops and superiors today were in the seminary or graduate school in the 1960s and 1970s. In most countries of the Western world these places were in a kind of disciplinary free-fall for ten or fifteen years. A very high percentage of churchmen who are now in positions of authority were sexually compromised during that period.

    Perhaps they had a homosexual encounter with a fellow seminarian; perhaps they had a brief heterosexual affair with a fellow theology student. Provided they did not cause grave scandal, such men were frequently promoted, according to their talents and ambition.

    Many are competent administrators, but they have time-bomb in their past, and they have very little appetite for reform measures of any sort — even doctrinal reforms — and they have zero appetite for reform proposals that entail cleaning up sexual mischief. In some cases perhaps, there is out-and-out blackmail, where a bishop moves to discipline a priest and priest threatens to report the bishop’s homosexual affair in the seminary to the Nuncio or to the press, and so the bishop backs off.

    More often I suspect the blackmail is indirect. No overt threat is made by anyone, but the responsible ecclesiastic is troubled by the ghost of his past and has no stomach for taking a hard line. Even if personally uneasy with homosexuality, he will not impede the admission and promotion of gays.

    He will almost always treat sexuality in psychological terms, as a matter of human maturation, and is charity of the language of morality and asceticism. He will act only when it is impossible not to act, as when a case of a priest’s or seminarian’s sexual misconduct is known to the police or the media. He will characteristically require of the offender no discipline but will send him to counseling, usually for as brief a period as possible, and will restore him to the best position that diocesan procedures and public opinion will allow him to.

    Note: sexual blackmail operates far beyond the arena of sexual misconduct. When your Aunt Margaret complains about the pro-abortion teachers at the Catholic high school, or the Sisters of St. Jude worshiping the Eight Winds, or Father’s home-made eucharistic prayer, and nothing is done, it is eminently likely that the bishop’s reluctance to intervene stems from the consciousness that he is living on borrowed time.

    In short, many bishops and superiors, lacking integrity, lack moral courage. Lacking moral courage, they can never be reformers, can never uproot a problem, but can only plead for tolerance and healing and reconciliation.

    I am here sketching only the best-case scenario, where the bishop’s adventures were brief, without issue, and twenty years in his past. In cases where the man continues his sexual exploits as a bishop, he is of course wholly compromised and the blackmail proportionately disastrous.

    A fourth element in the present corruption is the strange separation of the Church from blue-collar working people.

    Before the Council every Catholic community could point to families that lived on hourly wages and who were unapologetically pious, in some cases praying a daily family rosary and attending daily mass. Such families were a major source of religious vocations and provided the Church will many priests as well.

    These families were good for the Church, calling forth bishops and priests who were able to speak to their spiritual needs and to work to protect them from social and political harms. Devout working class families characteristically inclined to a somewhat sugary piety, but they also characteristically required “manly” priests to communicate it to them: that was the culture that gave us the big-shouldered baritone in a lace surplice.

    Except for newly-arrived immigrants from Mexico, Vietnam and the Philippines, the devout working class family has disappeared in the U.S. and in western Europe. The beneficial symbiosis between the clerical culture and the working class has disappeared as well.

    In most parishes of which I’m aware the priests know how to talk to the professionals and the professionals know how to talk to the priests, but the welders and roofers and sheet-metal workers, if they come to church at all, seem more and more out of the picture.

    I think this affects the Church in two ways: on the one hand, the Catholic seminary and university culture has been freed of any responsibility to explain itself to the working class, and notions of scriptural inspiration and sexual propriety have become progressively detached from the terms in which they would be comprehensible by ordinary people; on the other hand, few priests if any really depend on working people for their support.

    In a mixed parish, they are supported by the professionals; in a totally working class parish, they’re supported by the diocese — i.e., by professionals who live elsewhere. That means not only does Father not have to account for his bizarre view of the Johannine community, but he doesn’t have to account for the three evenings a week he spends in lay clothes away from the parish.

    A related but distinct factor contributing to the Crisis is money. The clergy as a whole is enormously more prosperous than it was a century ago. That means the clergyman is independent of the disapproval of the faithful in a way his predecessors were not, and it also means he has the opportunities and the wherewithal to sin, and sin boldly, very often without detection.

    Unless he makes unusual efforts to the contrary, a priest today finds himself part of a culture of pleasure-seeking bachelordom, and the way he recreates and entertains himself overlaps to a great extent that of the young professional bronco. Too often, regrettably, the overlap is total.

    But even when a priest is chaste, by collecting boy-toys and living the good life he finds himself somewhat compromised. He may suspect a brother priest is up to no good by his frequent escapes to a time-share condo, but if he feels uneasy about his own indulgences he is unlikely to phone his brother to remonstrate with him.

    My own experience of religious life is that community discussion of “poverty issues” is exceptionlessly ugly, partly because almost everyone feels vulnerable to criticism in some aspect or other, partly because there’s an unspoken recognition that poverty and chastity issues are not entirely unrelated. As a consequence, only the most trivial and cosmetic adjustments are made, and the integrity of community life continues to worsen.

    One more point, perhaps more fanciful than the others. I believe that one of the worst things to happen to the Church and one of the most important factors in the current corruption of the clergy is the Mertonization of monastic life.

    I may be unfair to Thomas Merton in laying the blame at his feet and I don’t insist on the name, but I think you all can recognize what I mean: the sea change in the model of contemplative life, once aimed at mortification — a death to self through asceticism – now aimed at self-actualization, the Self has taken center stage.

    This change is important because, in spite of 50-plus years of propaganda to the contrary, the monastic ideal remains a potent ikon in any priest’s self-understanding.
    1.Simplicity of life, to prayer, and

    all have different orientations in the case of
    1.a canon,
    2.a friar, and
    3.a diocesan priest, obviously,

    but they are all monastic in transmission and all essential to the clerical life.

    Where monastic life is healthy, it builds up even non-monastic parts of the Church, including and in particular the lives of priests in the active apostolate. Where the monastic life is corrupt or lax, the loss extends to the larger Church as well — it’s as if a railing is missing one side of a balcony.

    When I was preparing for priesthood my teachers lamented what they called the “monastic” character of pre-conciliar seminaries and houses of formation (fixed times for common prayer, silence, reading at meals, etc) complaining that such disciplines were ill-suited to their lives because they were destined not to be monks but pastors, missionaries and scholars.

    But looking at the lives of my contemporaries one of the things most obviously lacking is an appetite for prayer fed by good habits of prayer, habits which are usually the product of a discipline we never had.

    The same is true of asceticism and self-denial generally. When laypeople enter priests’ living quarters today, they rarely seem to be impressed by how sparse and severe our living arrangement are. They rarely walk away with the impression that the man who lives here is good at saying no to himself. Yet monks are, or used to be, our masters at saying no to the self. Something went wrong.

    Putting the same idea in another perspective, it’s wryly amusing to read commentators on the sexual abuse problem recommend that priests be sent to a monastery for penance. What penance? Is there a single monastic house in the United States where the abbot would have the authority, much less the inclination, to keep a man at hard labor for twenty months or on bread and water for twenty days?

    Let me sum up.

    I believe the sexual abuse crisis represents no isolated phenomenon and no new failure, but rather illustrates a state of slowly worsening clerical and episcopal corruption with its roots well back into the 1940s. Its principal tributaries include
    1.a critical mass of morally depraved and psychologically defective clergymen who entered the service of Church seeking emoluments and advantages unrelated to her spiritual mission, in addition to
    2.leaders constitutionally unsuited to the exercise of the virtues of truthfulness and fortitude.

    The old-fashioned vices of lust, pride, and sloth have erected an administrative apparatus effective at transmitting the consolations of the Faith but powerless at correction and problem-solving.

    The result is a situation unamenable to reform, wherein the leaders continue to project an upbeat and positive message of ecclesial well-being to an overwhelmingly good-willed laity, a message which both speaker and hearer find more gratifying than convincing.

    I believe that the Crisis will deepen, though undramatically, in the foreseeable future; I believe that the policies suggested to remedy the situation will help only tangentially, and that the whole idea of an administrative programmatic approach — a “software solution” if I may put it that way — is an example of the disease for which it purports to be the cure.

    I believe that reform will come, though in a future generation, and that the reformers whom God raises up will spill their blood in imitation of Christ.

    In short, to pilfer a line of Wilfrid Sheed, I find absolutely no grounds for optimism, and I have every reason for hope.

  • Mr. McClarey, thanks for posting Fr. Mankowski’s speech– every syllable
    of it has the ring of truth.

  • Your message, Mr. McClarey, didn’t exactly make my day, but it needs to be said nonetheless. How many souls will be lost, how many disillusioned Catholics will abandon the Church, before genuine reform finally happens?

  • Mac, I agree with Clinton.

    I initially thought, “What is this ‘War and Peace’.”

    In fact, every word of it has value.

    I was going to bring up this comment for the post on the new pope’s alleged liturgical abuse in the washing of feet (on many levels way out in left field).

    My real-life experience with an abusing priest involved his ad libbing prayers in the Mass. I also had evidence in his hearing of my Confession, which, at the time, went “right over my head.” That priest had been transferred from my parents’ parish. They didn’t think much of him, either. We were all correct.

    Our pastor was devastated, but carried on as we stayed with him.

    We need warrior priests and bishops, not “Dr. Phil” wannabes.

  • Pingback: Gloria I Lux et Origo Easter Music - Big Pulpit
  • I truly liked War and Peace, but rarely have the time for that kind of reading anymore. However, I concur with those who said every word of Mankowski’s analysis rang true. I would add that through these same years marriage and family have been shamefully abandoned, and what we call “Marriage Prep” wouldn’t pass for kindergarden training in most places. (Regardless of Pope JPII’s excellent writing on both subjects.)
    But actually I intended to respond to the Jesuit school and Fr. Ed Salmon. I worked with Fr. Ed Salmon some years back at a Jesuit school. Although I am not surprised by his position, which is wholly unrelated to our new pope’s words, it is outrageous that this decision should stand. We have too long put up with this kind of “in your face” moral corruption so damaging to us all.

  • Thank you for the copy of Fr. Mankowski’s speech. Like every other essay of his that I have read, it rings true in all details!

  • So what is Father Salmon’s point? He’s against homosexuality but he’s inviting two guys to the prom to be nice to them anyway? That’s all I can take away from this.

  • LarryD,

    You went to high school?

  • Thanks for the Fr Mankowski speech transcription. That was TLDR: Too Long, Definitely Read.

    LarryD, I did not know you were a Rochester product. For a person of your fidelity, that clearly explains your, er, crankiness 🙂

  • Pingback: New York Catholic High School Okays Gay Couple to Attend Prom … | Church Growth
  • As Pascal said of the Jesuits, “Know then that their object is not the corruption of manners- that is not their design. But as little is it their sole aim to reform them that would be bad policy. Their idea is briefly this: They have such a good opinion of themselves as to believe that it is useful, and in some sort essentially necessary to the good of religion, that their influence should extend everywhere, and that they should govern all consciences. And the Evangelical or severe maxims being best fitted for managing some sorts of people, they avail themselves of these when they find them favourable to their purpose. But as these maxims do not suit the views of the great bulk of the people, they waive them in the case of such persons, in order to keep on good terms with all the world.”

    Little has changed in 350 years.

  • LarryD, I did not know you were a Rochester product.

    Rich Leonardi too. Your truly had no contact with Catholic institutions as a youngster but is native.

  • If I lived in or near New York City, on the night of the prom I would outside the “Catholic” high school protesting with signs and prayer.

  • The school in question is in Rochester, some 300 miles away.

  • If I lived in or near Rochester, on the night of the prom I would outside the “Catholic” high school protesting with signs and prayer!

  • It seems the trend in most schools and colleges now is toward acceptance of homosexuality. A sentiment that originiated in society and swept the public schools has now caught on in private ones.

  • If I lived in or near New York City, on the night of the prom I would [stand] outside the “Catholic” high school protesting with signs and prayer.

    The gay lobbies and news organizations would be delighted with that – just imagine all the headlines you’d generate. You’d be an answer to their prayers, so to speak. In fact, if you angle it the right way, they might chip in for your travel costs, and a per diem.

  • First, thank you Donald for the article. Much to digest.
    Secondly to HA-
    Since when do we cower to lifestyles that are directly opposed to Church teaching…especially when the abuse is to take place in a “catholic school.”
    Rethink your position HA.
    The students grounded in Love for neighbor could of gathered in Peaceful protest and have had a constructive teaching moment to point out True Love. Love of neighbor is not complacency, silence and apathy. It’s explanation on why the Church teaches that the sexual union is intrinsicly evil could of carefully taken place before the Prom event.
    Silence in matters of the faith can lead to grave sin.

    I disagree with night of the prom protest.
    The prayer protest, in my opinion, could of served the student body better by having it prior to the event with pamphlets giving reasons why our Holy Church professes the teachings that are in union with Christ and the Gospels.
    Welcome the media! Just be prepared to give good reason for the Hope of Eternal Life not cheaply bought, but rather extremely painfully purchased by the Son of God.
    Grace is Not Cheap, neither is Heaven.

  • Public protests seldom achieve anything other than assuaging the feelings of the protestors and provoking the derision of the uncommitted.

    To have real influence, Bl John HenryNewman’s approach is far better, “if he has ever told you what you knew about yourselves, or what you did not know; has read to you your wants or feelings, and comforted you by the very reading; has made you feel that there was a higher life than this daily one, and a brighter world than that you see; or encouraged you, or sobered you, or opened a way to the inquiring, or soothed the perplexed; if what he has said or done has ever made you take interest in him, and feel well inclined towards him…” More difficult, of course, but much more effective.

  • Actually MPS public protest has often proved quite effective in this country, and I would encourage people to protest this if they are so enclined.

  • “The gay lobbies and news organizations would be delighted with that – just imagine all the headlines you’d generate.”

    Yeah and if there are no protests they will say, “See, even the Catholics are accepting this!”. No, better to do a protest, assume that your enemies will attempt to twist what you are doing, and send a message to the Jesuit powers that be at the school that ordinary Catholics are paying attention to their attempt to pretend that evil is good.

  • LarryD,

    You went to high school?

    Best six years of my life.

    LarryD, I did not know you were a Rochester product. For a person of your fidelity, that clearly explains your, er, crankiness

    I’m looking forward to getting older so I can be “curmudgeonly” like Donald!

  • “so I can be “curmudgeonly” like Donald!”

    Age and 30 years at the bar are necessary to attain my degree of curmudgeoniliness!

  • To have real influence, Bl John HenryNewman’s approach is far better,

    Thanks for your input, Michael, but it’s the Diocese of Rochester. The only people with influence are

    1. The intramural cliques which gathered ’round Bp. Clark.

    2. People who can cut big checks, like Danny Wegman and Thomas Golisano.

    Bp. Cunningham is not plugged into this and it is possible (not holding my breath) that he could exercise whatever authority he has with regard to Jesuit institutions within the boundary of the two dioceses, so the situation is not as hopeless as it might usually be. However, you can wager that this insipid character made a careful actuarial calculation about what the authoritative response from Bp. Cunningham. Rich Leonardi’s concise description of the methods of termites in the Church: ‘try every door’ (and find the one that’s unlocked).

  • That’s a pretty fine line interpreting what Pope Francis said. I personally am against it. The two males should go stag and just go as to “buddies” who are going to the prom together without giving the appearance that it is same sex attraction.

  • About the public protest question: silence can be taken as acquiescence.

  • Anzlyne-


  • Since when do we cower to lifestyles that are directly opposed to Church teaching?

    Who said anything about cowering to them? The position I would rethink is your strategy of giving them exactly what they’re looking for.

  • Most of the Jesuits I have read about or heard from in the time period from about 70 years ago to today are nauseating. Reading things like this makes me support a new suppression of the Jesuits.

    This “event” also shows, yet again, what happens when a totally incompetent or criminally negligent bishop runs a diocese. I have never been to Rochester but I know Bishop Clark was terrible, a Roger Mahony in New York State.

    The nuttiness in the Liturgy is a clear indicator of what Fr. Mankowski speaks.

    Rorate Caeli had a post similar to Fr. Mankowski a few months ago.

  • I’m curious…what is the Jesuits’ reason for existence? What do they want to accomplish? Is it as sinister as conspiracy theorists would have it? Or is it far milder—a kind of liberal Chrsitinaity? Can anyone speak to this? Thanks.

  • Ha-
    Advocating “goodness” and “tenderness” in your sarcasm?

    If you find it difficult to defend the teachings of Our Church them please seek a Adult Faith Formation program in your Catholic parish.

    Maybe your afraid to defend the teachings, however I have stood in multiple protests with Jr. High School children that lovingly defend the Faith in the public square and they are helping to witness to the between media is that paint huge signs reading; “God hates Fags””

  • ….the media that views Christians as the Fla. Group that had the awful signs, God hates fags. We have to work even stronger to voice the truth, but never run from adversity.

    I was editing my post when the send accidentally was pressed…sorry.

    Ha- We can’t afford to teach our children to be silenced by culture differences, especially in Catholic schools. We most certainly don’t want them to follow the way of the Fla. pastor.

    Be not afraid!

  • If you find it difficult to defend the teachings of Our Church…

    Demonstrating with signs outside a high school is not the only way to defend the teachings of the Church – and for the 3rd time now, I submit that those ways which give the opposing side exactly what they want violate the Gospel instruction to marry our innocence with serpentine cunning.

    You presume a lot about me – you question whether I have difficulty defending the teachings of the church, and you presume that my admonition to your personal cardboard-on-stick sidewalk crusade somehow extends to the other demonstrations in which you have so participated so proudly. Such ineptitude when it comes to assessing the motives of those on your side, let alone the opposition, would further hamper your ability to persuade others, and would be another reason to consider broadening your arsenal.

  • Jon

    What the Jesuit want to accomplish is precisely what Pascal described 350 years ago. I quoted him in my post of 4 April at 5.55 am, but here it is again:_

    “Know then that their object is not the corruption of manners- that is not their design. But as little is it their sole aim to reform them that would be bad policy. Their idea is briefly this: They have such a good opinion of themselves as to believe that it is useful, and in some sort essentially necessary to the good of religion, that their influence should extend everywhere, and that they should govern all consciences. And the Evangelical or severe maxims being best fitted for managing some sorts of people, they avail themselves of these when they find them favourable to their purpose. But as these maxims do not suit the views of the great bulk of the people, they waive them in the case of such persons, in order to keep on good terms with all the world.”

  • HA-
    Just imagine all the headlines you would generate….

    You keep your imagination.
    It’s beautiful.
    It seeks the status quo.
    It’s comfortable there.
    HA. You could set up the rainbow banners and petition the school board to have a homosexual awareness and support center in all of New York , oh noooo, that was my imagination.

    If we don’t stand up for Christian principles in our own Christian schools, then expect the next fashionable lifestyle choice of the moment to be sitting across from your dining room table telling you, “there is no harm in my choice daddy, just Love.” You better pray that Jr’s choice is a socially accepted lifestyle….question is what will that be in ten years?

    Can you imagine?

  • HA-
    For presuming any trait that is unwarranted I do owe you an apology.
    I apologize.

    To offer no other means to teach the truth in this prom debate is what’s lacking.
    4unborn is offering a plan.
    You discourage it.

    What would you offer?

  • Apology accepted. As far as other alternatives, I think asking around, which you have just done, is the most important first step. I am far from an expert, but I would offer some of these approaches. Admittedly, they are far less triumphalist than demonstrations – and again, I am not saying that carefully targeted demonstrations don’t have their place, especially when it comes to getting rid of abortions – but they may have a more salutary effect: 1) Sackcloth and ashes, given Catholics’ own dismal collective record (on the part of both clergy and laity) when it comes to living out what we profess to believe regarding homosexuality. 2) Fasting and prayer, given that for some kinds of dark presences, Jesus tells us that these are a necessary part of the cure. 3) Following the Biblical admonition to first address the offending priest privately, rather than beginning by going public with your disapproval.

    Finally, consider the homosexuals’ own record with regard to demonstrations. It could be argued that gay pride parades and the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence actually set back gay “rights” for decades, as long as that was what people thought of first when they thought of “gay agenda”. Sure, they let off some steam, and helped a lot of gay men to vent their irrepressible inner drama queens, but as far as actually helping, that’s doubtful. It is only when gay people broadened their efforts to more sophisticated and subtle methods involving media manipulation (lobbies, movies, affectionately quirky gay sitcom characters, etc.) that they began to make headway.

    I believe that the primary reason the gay marriage has leapfrogged other distortions of Christian marriage (e.g. polygamy, incest, … all of which are the next dominoes to fall once gay marriage is fully established), is simply a matter of power. As people have stopped looking to churches and Bibles for their entertainment and cultural and spiritual connections, and instead have turned to TV, movies, and the media (where gays are a force far in excess of their numerical presence within society as a whole), the gay agenda – in support with other secular anti-Christian movements – has come to the fore. Reversing that, if that’s even possible at this stage, will require Christians to be equally clever and compelling (or else, waiting till the whole structure burns down, and then grappling it out with Muslems again for what remains among the ruins, in which case fasting and prayer and the like may be our best solution for now). I don’t have an easy answer, but again, learning as much about the problem – and learning from the gays themselves – seems a pretty good way to start.

    Anyway, that’s my take. Father Groeschel (though I’ve only heard a little of him) seems to have far more substantive expertise on such matters. He might be worth looking up.

  • HA-
    Thank you for your suggestions.
    Fr. B.G. is a great offering.
    I will search his counsel in this topic.

  • One other thing to consider before demonstrating: in the old days, every news organization that reported on gay demonstrations would focus on the most outrageous and most flamboyant members of the parade. These days, most media organizations are filled with so-called “gay-friendly” reporters and editors who know (perhaps subconsciously) that they must turn the camera away from the freaks with fishnet stockings and nuns’ wimples, and instead focus on adorable little Heathers in their strollers accompanied by her two mommies and other more wholesome fare.

    Conversely, any reporting on the “anti-gay” demonstrations is likewise almost certain to feature the Westboro Baptist types, or else, if the demonstrators are so superhumanly diligent that they have somehow managed to completely turn away their more extreme members, then the demonstration is likely to be relegated to page 20 of section ZZ. And so it goes…

    So, if you want to make demonstrations work again, you might have to wait until there are enough Christians in journalism and media (and who are able to resist the enormous ideological pressure within those organizations to conform to the liberal agenda) to make such activities work in our favor.

    I apologize if this sounds overly defeatist. Again, demonstrations do have their place, but speaking as a well-wisher, I do hope all Catholics keep that in mind.

  • Michael Patterson-Seymour, I read it when you first posted it. It merely tells us what we all know, that they employ hypocrisy and a kind of Machiavellianism. But what is the end in view? Do they have one?

  • . I appreciated your Pascal quote Michael as I had not read it before. I wonder what he would say today. Perhaps he would be more merciful in his comments! Remember Father Pacwa and plenty of others including jesuit martyrs from the time of Pascal to the 20th century.

  • Anzlyne

    It’s possible, though I doubt it – “By this policy they keep all their friends, and defend themselves against all their foes; for when charged with extreme laxity, they have nothing more to do than produce their austere directors, with some books which they have written on the severity of the Christian code of morals; and simple people, or those who never look below the surface of things, are quite satisfied with these proofs of the falsity of the accusation.”

    For Pascal, at the root of their laxity was their doctrine of grace – “You will then
    see the Christian virtues exhibited in such a strange aspect, so completely stripped of the charity which is the life and soul of them, you will see so many crimes palliated and irregularities tolerated that you will no longer be surprised at their maintaining that ‘all men have always enough of grace’ to lead a pious life, in the sense of which they understand piety. Their morality being entirely Pagan,
    nature is quite competent to its observance. When we maintain the necessity of efficacious grace, we assign it another sort of virtue for its object.”

  • Mr. Paterson-Seymour-
    St. Theresa of Avila was the rescue of the Carmelite order.
    With much prayer, could we entertain the hope that Pope Francis could be the reformer for the Society of Jesus?

America Meets Dale

Thursday, February 21, AD 2013



As long time readers of this blog know I have long been an admirer of the work of Dale Price at his blog Dyspeptic Mutterings, and I frequently go there to steal borrow blog ideas.  Dale turned his attention recently to the editorial at America, the Jesuit heterodox rag, which called for the repeal of the Second Amendement:

That their grief may not be compounded.

At long last, the editors of America endorse a constitutional buttress to the culture of life.


Supporting the Human Life Amendment? Surely you jest. Politics is strictly about the art of the possible when it comes to abortion.


No, no–one must be realistic about such things.


Instead, we need to repeal the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The reason: something must be done so that urban, left-leaning Jesuits can feel better about themselves:


The disturbing feeling that we have failed to do everything in our power to remove the material cause of their deaths, however, will no longer compound our grief.


For some reason, there are exceptions:


This does not require an absolute ban on firearms. In the post-repeal world that we envision, some people will possess guns: hunters and sportsmen, law enforcement officers, the military, those who require firearms for morally reasonable purposes.


As an aside, please, please, I beg you: stop pretending you give a rat’s fanny about hunting. Deep down, we know you hate it, but somehow you feel compelled to offer insincere boilerplate respect. You can stop now. Besides, hunting firearms are more devastating than ones that make you queasy. Just flop your cards on the table and admit you don’t approve of any significant private ownership of firearms. Dialogue requires openness, don’t you know?


Anyway, there’s a yawning logical inconsistency here: why should an off-duty approved firearm owner be allowed to keep it when he is off the clock? At the end of the day, such individuals should turn them in to a secure area until they punch back in. Even soldiers aren’t toting weapons around all the time outside of combat zones. As the editors note, original sin (!) ensures bad things will happen, and cops are quite capable of misusing firearms, as we have been recently reminded. Thus, in Americaworld, there is no reason for anyone to own a firearm off duty.


Go after violent media? Nah. That’s Legion of Decency, Catholic-ghetto stuff. Shudder.


Revisit our oft-idiotic drug war? Piffle. Nope. What it boils down to is that nobody at America owns a firearm or likes anyone who owns one. In policymaking, this is known as the It’s Time We All Start Making Sacrifices, Starting With You, Of Course! maneuver.


Did it ever occur to them to, you know, actually talk to an actual gun owner before promulgating this un-papal bull? Apparently not. Dialogue’s only for people the Catholic left respect, I guess. Nope–it’s time to tear an Amendment out of the Constitution and unchain Caesar to kick doors in to remove unapproved firearms from our midst. If you like the drug war, you’ll plotz over the gun war.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to America Meets Dale

  • There are many good points to your post. I’d like to concentrate on the parallel to the War on Drugs.

    Reagan appointed a “drug czar” – a weird choice of titles for the man who brought down the Soviet Union. Odder still is that our nation engineered Prohibition, Round Two while taking no stock of what went wrong in Round I.

    General prohibitions of activities that a large portion of society WANTS to engage in is almost always a failure. It sets up a dangerous game in which criminals capitalize on the black market profits, the general population winks at the illegality, enforcement costs skyrocket, and corruption expands.

    The War on Drugs is a failure. A War on Guns will also fail. And each time, we cede more power to the federal government.

    The Roman Republic was dead before Ceasar crossed the Rubican. Are we more astute?

  • Actually there are a good many drugs that I wish to continue to have illegal due to their deadly impact on society, so Dale and I differ in degree on that. However his analogy to the war on drugs to a hypothetical war on firearms is instructive. Attempts to enforce the drug laws have met with considerable resistance and that is with the overwhelming number of Americans supporting most anti-drug laws with the possible exception of cannabis. We have over 300,000,000 guns in private possession in this country. Most of those people who own guns correctly believe that their guns are an essential part of their liberty. Attempts by the government to take those weapons away would lead to civil unrest at best, full blown rebellion at worst. The Jesuits at America, as usual, have no idea what type of can of worms they are opening up.

  • “One can only imagine what other liberties the editors at America are willing to have the rest of us dispense with.”
    To respond to your rhetorical question: The unalienable rights endowed by our Creator, reemphasized in the Ninth Amendment, the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, our destiny, our constitutional posterity, the acknowledgement of the Person of God, the acknowledgement of the human being as body and soul, the rational immortal human soul without whom there is no human life; America stamps out the acknowledgement of the human being’s human soul wherein are endowed all unalienable human rights. As America disengages man’s human call to sovereignty in body and in sovereign personhood, the reality of the existence of God in the human soul, America disavows the sanctity and dignity of the human being, starting with the created individual at America. Dyspeptic indeed.

  • Thank you, Don–you are far, far too kind.

    I don’t know that we are all that far apart on drugs, either. I agree with you on the harder drugs, but we’ve been so schizo on MJ for so long that I think legalizing it (and treating it exactly like we treat cigarettes, right down to taxing, regulating the contents and stigmatizing it–e.g., drunk driving laws) makes more sense.

  • I would not go so far as decriminalizing cannabis, but I would treat it as a finable petty offense. I do not think that legalization would be the apocalypse, but I do not think that it would bring the benefits that the libertarians contend.

  • The War on Drugs is a failure.

    Eleanor Clift screeching “we are losing the war on drugs” makes for a more entertaining tableau.

    It makes about as much sense as saying ‘we are losing the war on burglary’. Crime rates ebb and flow and most categories of crime are only spottily detected and punished. Bank robbery has long been an exception, homicide is an exception, and, with the advent of state data banks with convict’s DNA in them, rape may be an exception.

  • Is your point Art Deco that “the War on Drugs” is a meaningless phrase? I’m probably with you if you are.

    Thing is, I didn’t introduce the phrase. I’m just using the language our governments have used for about three decades to cover the myriad of anti-drug efforts.

    As for their failure, it is, admittedly a mixed bag.

    The percenntage of the population that regularly use “hard” drugs has leveled off in many areas and even declined nationally. The homicide and incarceration rates are remarkably high among black and Hispanic communities and the number of people with felony drug convictions is disturbing. Collateral damage in urban communities is frighteningly common and the trafficking is a serious and growing problem.

    The short of it is that the War on Drugs shows no signs of slowing because the demand remains strong deapite severe consequences to public safety and health and individual freedom. In this regard, the War on Drugs has a similarity to Prohibition. So too, the amount of currency flowing from the lawful to the underground economy through the drug trade is significant and there is ample evidence to show that that money is finding its way to remote sectors of violent crime and upheaval. Again, there is a parallel to Prohibition. The wink and nod of society that would elect three presidents in a row who admit to using illegal drugs while jailing kids who carry marijuana from one state to a party in another is sick and twisted. Again, there is a parallel to Prohibition.

    We can. Go on and on…

    Don says he would keep many drugs illegal and I certainly don’t think that legalizing drugs will be benefit society the way we are assured it will. However, I think the War on Drugs and Prohibition demonstrate that law has very real limitations in its ability to curb bad behavior. Where a significant protion of society does not share the view that a behavior is wrong, government can only enforce the majority’s will through brutality and will almost assuredly fail.

    If the minority who think our government can’t become tyrannical and, so, there is no need for the power to resist tyranny or the minority who think guns are just plain bad and shouldn’t be possessed y anyone get there way, we will see an increasingly draconian police presence to enforce these new gun laws. This will replay the pattern evident from Prohibition and the War on Drugs.

    We have to learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it.

  • No it does not go on and on.

    1. The use of cannabis among adolescents is not what it was when I was in high school.
    2. Heroin use is a fraction of what it was forty years ago.
    3. You hardly hear anything about LSD anymore
    4. The Sicilianate mob is being done in by the actuarial tables. That was not the case during prohibition.
    5. For about 20% of those in prison, the top count was a drug charge. Drug charges are not the main driver of incarceration rates among blacks and mestizos.

    Vice crimes are derived from the general pathology of the human condition. So are property crimes. So are violent crimes. It is not an acute problem or a progressively worsening one.

  • It is good but surprising to hear that we are winning the War on Drugs. The media depictions tell a different story.

    When I hear that 10,000 Mexicans are missing and presumed dead from kidnapping crimes, while police officers’ heads are found on the border, mayors assassinated, and ordinary citizens are gunned down daily during turf wars, I tend to accept the allegation that drugs are at the heart of the problem. Sophisticated caves under the border, semi-submersible vessals, and regular seizures at US Ports of Entry make it sound like trafficking is big, sophisticated business. Narco-terroism threat reports from successive administrations, stories about trans-national gangs like MS 13, and regular collateral damage shootings in our cities reinforce the apparently mistaken impression that drug use is high, if not as high, as before and that governments at all levels are having an hell of a time dealing with the drug problem.

    It is good to hear that this is merely alarmism, that the War on Drugs has been worth the loss of liberty that it entails, that we are rolling back the forces of evil and that, one day, a generation will pass through our schools with few users.

  • That was flippant and unseemly. I am sorry and offer no excuses.

    If I understand you rightly to be saying that the common view that pur efforts to limit the use of drugs and to discourage the drug trade have failed is wrong, I owe you the courtesy to revisit the subject with research.

    Again, I apologize for responding like a jerk.

  • Elevated homicide rates are fairly unremarkable and pervasive in Latin America. The one exception to that rule is Chile.

  • “Elevated homicide rates are fairly unremarkable and pervasive in Latin America. ”

    Most estimates put the number of deaths in Mexico related to drug violence at 60,000 since 2006. This is not a fairly unremarkable statistic. Mexico was ranked 32nd in the Economist’s 2011 Quality of Life Rankings, drug violence and all. Although perhaps there isn’t a direct causation between quality of life and homicides, I see little reason to assume that homicide rates in Mexico would be anywhere near where they are if not for drug violence.

  • JL, homicide rates in Latin America are typically between 13 and 25 per 100,000. Mexico’s fluctuate some but stay in that range, and are similar to Brazil’s. Even Costa Rica has a homicide rate of 10 per 100,000. That’s state and society in Latin America.

  • Art, I don’t think it’s helpful to simply say “that’s state and society in Latin America,” as if Latinos are more inherently violent and homicidal. Clearly there are factors in play, and perhaps some of them stem from cultural/social variables that are unique to Latin America, but we still need to attempt to identify these causative factors and how they contribute to relatively high homicide rates.

  • JL, there is immense variation in Latin America and the Caribbean as to homicide rates. Currently, they range from 3 per 100,000 (Chile) to 90 per 100,000 (Honduras). However, the median settles between 13 and 25 per 100,000. There are a great many vectors that go into that and temporal variation as to the force of each vector. By way of example, political violence is no longer a major contributor. Over the period running from 1948 to 1992, you had a mean of about 12,000 deaths each year from factional violence, insurrection, terrorism, &c. Now it is in the range of 500 deaths a year. Latin America has its abiding problems, among them malintegrated and dysfunctional labor markets, rent-seeking mercantilism, incompetence and corruption in the civil service, a messy property registry, and high crime rates. Blaming gringos snorting coke is a fine way to distract politicians and public from taking practical measures to improve the quality of life.

  • Art,

    I really don’t understand why one can’t acknowledge that both deep structural/societal factors AND narco-violence play a substantial role in Mexico’s high homicide rates. The spike in murders since Calderon took office is simply undeniable.

America Hates the Second Amendment

Sunday, February 17, AD 2013


No, not that America.  America the heterodox Jesuit rag.

Repealing the Second Amendment will not create a culture of life in one stroke. Stricter gun laws will not create a world free of violence, in which gun tragedies never occur. We cannot repeal original sin. Though we cannot create an absolutely safe world, we can create a safer world. This does not require an absolute ban on firearms. In the post-repeal world that we envision, some people will possess guns: hunters and sportsmen, law enforcement officers, the military, those who require firearms for morally reasonable purposes. Make no mistake, however: The world we envision is a world with far fewer guns, a world in which no one has a right to own one. Some people, though far fewer, will still die from gun violence. The disturbing feeling that we have failed to do everything in our power to remove the material cause of their deaths, however, will no longer compound our grief.

The Supreme Court has ruled that whatever the human costs involved, the Second Amendment “necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” The justices are right. But the human cost is intolerable. Repeal the Second Amendment.

Go here to read the predictable rest.  It is good to see the Jesuits at America suddenly in favor of a “culture of life”.  Considering their editorials in support of the most pro-abortion president in our nation’s history, I will take their “conversion” with a boulder of salt.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to America Hates the Second Amendment

  • “those who require firearms for morally reasonable purposes”

    lol. how exactly do they plan on determining this

  • “For the Jesuits of America, it is worth giving up some freedom in an attempt to gain more security. Benjamin Franklin told us long ago where that leads.”

    this is one of those quotes that’s cited a lot but kinda dodges the issue, as i doubt (though i’m open to correction) that Franklin meant that in the most general sense a lot of people use it for today. to use a hyperbolic example, we don’t let people use machine guns, and by that same token i don’t think _some_ regulation, better background checks and on ammo for instance, has to be oppressive tyranny, though the effectiveness could be debated.

    the vision laid out by this magazine, though, would essentially amount to a ban despite their qualifier.

  • For what it’s worth, here’s Cardinal Dolan’s take on gun control:

    To be clear, I am an outdoorsman, own several rifles and shotguns, and think people should absolutely have the right to defend themselves. Nonetheless, I’ll take Cardinal Dolan’s counsel into account as I continue to form my conscience on this matter.

  • “Whenever I mention my support for gun control, the calls and emails come in, telling me that I’m naïve, reminding me of the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and arguing that the only thing gun control measures will accomplish is to keep guns out of the hands of honest, law-abiding people.”

    The Cardinal’s critics are absolutely correct in their assessment judging from the absolute futility of gun control laws in this country in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals or the deranged.

  • Hmmm… if they really want to cut down on homicides, maybe they should advocate for the banning of bats, fists, foreheads…

  • I don’t read organs of the lying, liberal media: Obama’s praetorian press.

    Mark Levin refers to the lying, liberal media as the “praetorian press.” It serves as fell guardian of the regime, the nightmarish narrative, and the imperial person: Barack. The praetorian press operates because the masses either have been brainwashed or silenced by dependence on government for their sustenance.

    The regime hasn’t yet begun to deploy the praetorian guard.

    Why, in the past year, has the federal government (not the Department of Defense) purchased 2 billion rounds of pistol and assault weapon ammunition?

    I feel horrible about 20 children murdered, but I didn’t do it. And, I will not accept guilt for, or submit to punishment for, the acts of a deranged child murderer.

    Four weeks ago, when gangster Cuomo (he helped spawn the housing bubble) rammed through the latest extremist, useless (it will not stop one murder) gun law I became a criminal in the State of New York.

  • The problem is that the secular progressives do not think the people are worthy of individual liberty. So there will never be enough regulation until we are completely under control. There is little philosophical difference between the various forms of secular progressive political programs, whether Communism, Fascism, Nazism, or socialism, they are all Utopian ideas to be implemented by an elite supposedly more intelligent than the rest of the herd. Our species of progressive implements this program via a gradual layering of regulation upon regulation, rather than by violent revolution but the destination is the same. The current administration has accelerated the process in a bold manner. Witness the anti-religious freedom in its recent Health and Human Services order, the takeover under false pretenses of health care, the near nationalization of major industries, the curtailment of free speech by so-called political correctness and the driving from the public square and eventually the private mind of religious expression. The recent examples of mayhem committed by deranged persons are far more the result of neglect in the treatment of insanity but the raw statistics of homicide are derived from the near total breakdown of family life in the inner cities where the major industry seems to be drug-related crime. This is more the outcome of our official agnostic state religion than any other cause. Our Constitution is the primary source of the stability this country has enjoyed for over two centuries. It is the original contract under which our inherently just system of law is based. The Second Amendment not only provides individuals with the means of self defense but also provides the citizenry in general a solidarity of communal defense against a potential government turning oppressive. The question arises, is the USA exceptional? Yes, it is but not because we are racially or ethnically superior but because we have a constitution that enshrines self-government and individual rights. The left thinks otherwise. They call it a “living constitution” so they can kill it. Gun-control is no more efficacious than banning booze or drugs and they know it but it’s part of the agenda. Trust them not.

  • Cardinal Dolan – just another left wing card carrying member of the religious arm of the Democrat Party!

  • I represent a conservative viewpoint, political and religous (orthodoxy) in so many areas … but gun control is one I can find dialogue in and should be discussed. Let’s not appear as the ignoramous that the left wishes to paint us as. We have gun control now .. it’s a matter of degrees. No different than free speech.

  • “No different than free speech.”

    If the Second Amendment were treated in the same manner as the courts have treated free speech there would be very few gun “control” measures that could pass constitutional muster.

  • That is the point Don. And I agree with your statement. But whereas “speech” has not ungone the added danger of technological advancements it thus has not ungone the degree of judicial enforcement (while trying to balance our constitutional right). He can’t yell fire in the crowded cinema, he can’t scream murder to an innocent person .. without ramifications. I’m for the right to have arms … I’m not for an unlimited right. So it’s degrees that need discussed .. not blatently looked down upon.

  • “has not ungone the added danger of technological advancements”

    Actually it has. Just consider the medium by which we are communicating. I would have some small sympathy for some measure of gun regulation if it didn’t seem to frequently end up in gun confiscation, and all to no purpose. Chicago has the most draconian gun laws in the country and the highest per capita murder rate. Gun “control” I think is often seized upon by authorities to excuse the lack of effective police presence in high crime areas and to avoid examining social pathologies that lead to a high rates of violence. In any case it is poor policy to curtail civil rights for the majority due to a misuse of the freedom by criminals who would certainly not comply with new gun regulations.

  • Don, not to tit4tat — as I fundementally agree … and the ability to effectively legislate this, like so many do-gooder ideas, is problematic I admit. But I just wish the arguements centered around that consistently … i.e.) yes we admit some control is authorized (no bazooka’s after midight!, no hand grenades on Sunday please) .. but that the limit should be “here” and not “there”. I don’t sense that coming out in the arguements. It reminds me of the global warming debate. Can’t we be perceieved as agreeing the earth is warmer .. but disagree on what is causing it . We come across so lame.

  • Let’s establish context and perspective.

    Each year, approximately 3,900,000 Americans die. Of those, about 1,500,000 die from overeating Twinkies, etc. – heart disease; 1,500,000 are murdered in abortions.

    Let’s compare gun deaths to unnecessary MD deaths – “First do no harm!”

    According to US Dept of Health and Human Services:
    There are 700,000 physicians in the U.S
    There are roughly 120,000 (189,000 in toto) accidental deaths caused by physicians per year
    That means there are roughly 0.171 accidental deaths per physician per year

    According to the FBI
    There are roughly 80, 000, 000 gun owners in the U.S
    There are about 30,000 gun-related deaths (accidental/non-accidental) per year
    That means there are roughly 0.000375 deaths per gun owner per year

    We need background checks on MD’s!

    Regarding gun control advocates:

    From (translated) Friedrich Schiller’s “Die Jungfrau von Orleans”, wherein he paints the mortally wounded Saxon warlord, Talbot, lamenting St. Joan of Arc’s inspiration of the French to heroic efforts, which panicked (Ares’ fell companions: Deimos/Panic and Phobos/terror) English undocumneted immigrants into a rout:

    “Folly, thou conquerest, and I must yield!
    Against stupidity the very gods
    Themselves contend in vain.”

  • As a citizen in a sovereign nation, the state must first produce proof of my criminality to remove, first, my citizenship and only then can the state remove my 2nd Amendment rights as I would no longer be a citizen entitled to constitutional protection. To indict all citizens without just cause to remove constitutional guarantees, is indeed, in the words of Donald McClarey, a “nasty totalitarianism”. Remember, the right of citizen’s arrest has already been removed. Now, the right of self-defence is being removed.
    Some criminals were not prevented from committing homicide. The government will now penalize all decent, honest persons because they have the misfortune to be citizens under this regime.

  • I think the critical test in determining what kind of firearms the average, law-abiding citizen should have access to is made by this line of reasoning:

    1. First-responders (police, primarily…I’ll not count SWAT…though if I did, I could extend an argument for the repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934) have access to semi-automatic firearms with high capacity magazines, including AR-15s.
    2. First-responders are charged, insofar as their possession and use of these semi-automatic firearms, with the defense of the population and keeping of the peace. In other words, police don’t have AR-15s or pistols with magazine capacities larger than 10 (7 in New York) because of some kind of obsession with firearms but rather due to an objective assessment of the efficacy of the firearm for the job.
    3. First-responders cannot be omnipresent (resisting the temptation to make a joke about bilocation and sainthood..trying to be serious and not snarky); common sense and legal precedence support this. Hence, in many situations, the individual citizen may need to be in the role of the first-responder, prior to the arrival of law enforcement.
    4. If a given firearm (AR-15, Glock 17 with a magazine over 10 rounds, etc) is appropriate for a first-responder, then by extension there is no reason that the individual citizen should not be able to use the same equipment for the same purpose, in the role of first-responder.

    I find this to be fully compatible with a comprehensive (ie, not a cherry-picking style often employed by those arguing their conscience permits abortion in contradiction of Church teaching) reading of paragraphs 2263-2265 in the Catechism. Note: an attempt to categorize an AR-15 as “more than necessary violence”, whereas a Mini-14 (fires the same round as an AR-15) with a 5-round magazine is “repel[ing] force with moderation”, would extend to police as well as citizens defending their home. An attempt to say that police are more qualified than an average citizen with respect to an AR-15 is functionally equivalent to saying that a child psychologist is more qualified than a parent to decide on child discipline. Both contradict the principle of subsidiarity. Further, US v Miller (moving to a secular and not spiritual authority) determined that the Second Amendment does relate to weapons which are in common use at the time, as opposed to sawed-off shotguns. So, if an AR-15 is commonly used by law enforcement for some first-response situations, it’s valid under this test as well. I could elaborate if necessary; otherwise my comment started to border on TL;DR.

    I greatly respect Cardinal Dolan. I’m saddened that he’s nodding in approval to anything President Obama says, given the latter’s formal cooperation in infanticide related to laws protecting partial-birth abortion. Though, I will say it was moderately encouraging Cardinal Dolan deferred to actual policy-makers in determining any legislation. I wish that the principle of subsidiarity was applied by our bishops more consistently rather than solely to the rights of conscience related to abortion-inducing drugs and procedures.

    The real question that needs to be addressed, in my opinion, is that since semi-automatic firearms have been around since 1885, why is it only recently that mass killings with firearms are seemingly more commonplace? In my reading of history, the root cause predates “violent video games / movies” which are only symptoms…they sell only because the heart is already dark. I submit the 100+ past years of moral relativism finally taking their toll.

  • Gun control means using both hands. Catholic clerics, or anyone else for that matter, who do not understand this have no business spouting off about gun ownership.

  • Cardinal Dolan’s latest on gun control just reinforces in my mind that he is an embarassment. God help us if his fellow Cardinals plant his backside in the Chair of Peter.

  • Cdl. Dolan’s remarks are rather bland and not thought through (“something must be done”). One of the difficulties the Church has in our time is compulsive verbalization on the part of bishops and the apparat they nominally supervise. Time and effort and lay attention devoted to the Cardinal’s random statements on gun regulation is time and effort not devoted to what matters.

  • Even the latest DOJ report concludes that gun-control is ineffective. Cesare Becccaria , a Milanese jurist, economist and criminologist said the same in his “On Crimes and Punishments” back in 1764. “False is the idea that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty–so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator–and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree”. It appears to me that legislators were more truly “enlightened” during the Eighteenth Century than they are today. It was a time when statesmen sought to unchain the common man, rather than return him to an updated form of serfdom and slavery as seems the agenda of the current Administration.

  • Let’s slap some reality into this discussion though .. gun control in some way, shape or form is here to stay. Don’t kid yourselves nor play the wild card in lobbying for none (as so appears in some posts). I’d rather take a pragmatic approach. We could argue pornography control does little … but does that mean any of us hopefully devout catholics would aruge for no porno control? I hope not. Let’s just infuse a similar rationale here.

  • Dave: I argue that pornography is intrinsically evil and a species of vicarious adultery. It is little controlled these days, and in fact celebrated as art and free speech. It is in no way equivalent to an indifferent invention and useful tool. I do agree with the Supreme Court that some reasonable restrictions can be made, such denial of the right to those guilty of violent crimes not annulled and those adjudicated as violently insane and not cured. What needs be faced is the overall agenda of the ideologically infatuated Utopians who would enslave us. ~Bill

  • I, for one, choose to argue for that which is, as best as I can determine, objectively correct. I do not feel that pragmatic concessions are prudent in the long view.

    If we are to adopt a view that “gun control in some way, shape or form is here to stay”, we can easily replace that statement with “abortion” or, historically, “slavery” or any other institutional error in our country.

    If abortion is objectively wrong, then no pragmatism in the long view has any worth (I don’t discount gradual methods which increasingly reduce the killing of innocent life…but that’s not long view). We all agree that abortion has a correct answer (ie, it’s wrong), in light of God’s order for creation. But, because we implicitly believe in an objective reality as a consequence of our belief in God, there also must be a correct answer to the appropriate access to sufficient means by which man may defend himself. Granted, the Catechism (pp 2263-2265) is more vague on this than it is on abortion, but that doesn’t change the fundamental fact that an objective answer exists, even if we don’t know it as perfectly as God does.

    Any level of pragmatism that doesn’t actually aim to address what is objectively correct is ultimately untrue to the order of creation and is, as C.S. Lewis calls it, “the poison of subjectivism.”

    “Lewis, of course, remains fiercely reactionary in his refusal to go along. How, he asks, can anyone be truly righteous, unless his mind and will conform to the objective order of value, of being itself? If the finality of all education, to recall the teaching of Aristotle, is to impart to the pupil a liking for what is likable, an aversion for what is not, it is because the universe is quite simply structured that way.”

    Full context of the above quotes here:

  • So we leaped to abortion did we? I missed that memo 🙂 I find that comparrion folly, if for no reason than the moral/natural law prevails, not objective morality. If I’m reading you right, you advocate full-fledge, unadulderated, unlimited firepower for any U.S. citizen? Kind of a Tony Stark in the public arena. Because … it appears size matters. I’m a fisal libertarian at heart .. but that strikes me as social libertarianism on steriods.

  • Bill: Agreed. Valid points. Maybe a rather poor attempt at comparing civil/consitutial liberties and unlimited freedom.

  • Dave: I’m not sure where you think I’m arguing for unlimited freedom. So, the error is somewhere in the communication. My earlier post was merely to point out that individual citizens are, generally understood, to be ultimately responsible for their own personal safety. That’s from natural law as well as U.S. law (police are not liable if they do not respond on time). That translates to a citizen adopting the role of “first-responder”. And if something is functionally appropriate for a police officer to use (a 17 round magazine in a pistol, a 30 round rifle magazine with the rifle in the trunk of a police cruiser) in the role of first-response, it’s logically appropriate for an otherwise law-abiding citizen to use for the same/similar purposes.

    If my use of the term “objective morality” confused the issue, relative to natural law, I believe both fall under the order of Creation and have the same Author, to which I was making my appeal…but my apologies for any confusion. The point I was trying to make is that there is, as I said, a correct answer to the appropriate access to sufficient means by which man may defend himself. That should, in no way, imply that I argue for unlimited access to any means of defense. I also argue in favor of, per the Catechism, “repel[ing] force with moderation and not “more than necessary violence”. But I wish to show that if a 30 round magazine is inappropriate for a citizen to use, it would, under application of the Catechism, be inappropriate for an officer to use. We do not, however, arm officers with grenade launchers as a standard issue and I’m not arguing that for citizens either. If others do argue that way, that’s their hill to defend.

    The reason I “passed out a memo on abortion” is to illustrate what I feel to be the error of arguing a principle from a position of pragmatism. If you mean pragmatism to mean prudence, or “the right action/inaction at the right time”, then we would agree. If you mean pragmatism as what I commonly interpret it as in most discussions, that of “this is some form of compromise in order to hold on to something”, then I disagree.

    If a principle (such as a position in favor of unborn life, or for the natural rights of man to defend himself and how to best guarantee those rights) must be compromised on, then it ceases to be a principle. Again, if I am misinterpreting your use of “pragmatism” with respect to the principle of self-defense, my apologies.

  • Pingback: The American Catholic
  • Thanks for the clarification John. Admittedly, I was using a bit of hyperbole around the unlimited use of personal arms – only to reiterate that we all know we have some bounderies upon which we agree to live (which sometimes is what I see getting lost in the debate on the 2nd admendment (which I am for, I do not favor repeal). It becomes an issue of where the lines are drawn not if the lines exist.

  • When the Catechism tells us, “ repelling force with moderation and not “more than necessary violence”, it speaks of an act. Our level of response should be morally limited to acts sufficient to repel an act of aggression. This implies an obligation of the individual to make a proper judgment at the time of being attacked. It does not give the government or anyone else the right to decide the matter in advance by limiting the means at our disposal. All this talk of magazines and mechanisms is a distraction from the deeply rooted ideological agenda of the left to deny arms to the common man. It is a pro life response to oppose them, when they deny our right to life when we are attacked, when we are conceived, and when we grow old and infirm. Choose life.