Killing the Messenger

Thursday, May 29, AD 2014

Killing the Messenger

 

Paul in his post, go here to read it, takes to task Catholic bloggers upset by this story by Hilary White:

 

ROME, May 23, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Pope Francis raised eyebrows earlier this month by concelebrating Mass with and kissing the hand of a leading homosexual activist priest campaigning for changes in the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. On May 6, Francis received the 93 year-old priest who has cofounded the homosexualist activist organization, Agedo Foggia, that is opposed to Catholic Church teaching.

Fr. (Don) Michele de Paolis concelebrated Mass with Pope Francis at the Domus Santa Martha and then presented the pontiff with gifts of a wooden chalice and paten and a copy of his most recent book, “Dear Don Michele – questions to an inconvenient priest”.

In a previous book, Don Michele wrote, “homosexual love is a gift from (God) no less than heterosexual.” He also disparaged the idea of homosexual couples not having sex.

                              

 

Francis closed the meeting by kissing the priest’s hand, a gesture that the far-left newspaper L’immediato called one “revealing the humility of a great man to another of the same stature.” De Paolis described the unusual papal gesture himself in a post to his Facebook page, saying that he asked Francis for an audience with the priest’s other organization, the Community of Emmaus: “Is that possible?”

He said that the pope replied, “Anything is possible. Talk to Cardinal Maradiaga and he shall prepare everything.”

Continue reading...

62 Responses to Killing the Messenger

  • I read this as a factual story. Hilary White is a solidly good writer.
    I can’t understand why the knives came out.
    Why didn’t anyone just call her before the typing began ?

  • Mr. McClarey writes…”….When Pope Francis doesn’t explain his actions, and I have noticed that he rarely explains either his words or his actions, whose fault is it when his actions may be viewed unfavorably?
    .
    Can’t resist playing with your words and their authorship….
    .
    “When Jesus doesn’t explain his actions, and I have noticed that he rarely explains either his words or his actions, whose fault is it when his actions may be viewed unfavorably?”….Pontius Pilate
    .
    When the message isn’t clear, don’t kill the messenger.

  • Slainte, Pope Francis is not Jesus and Donald is mot Pilate.

  • Paul,
    .
    Jesus, who was innocent, was wrongly accused and condemned. I suggest we reserve judgment and refrain from doing the same thing to Hilary White and Christ’s vicar, Pope Francis.
    .
    Pilate is every one of us who condemns another without just cause and/or a clear factual basis for any alleged wrongdoing.

  • lifesitenews has what’s coming to it. It is a narrow-minded, bigoted, and propaganda-centered outlet that leaves little, if any, room for dissent or diverse opinion. Those who attempt to engage in thoughtful dialogue are consistently blocked. It’s better suited as an ossified echo-chamber for bigots.

  • “It’s better suited as an ossified echo-chamber for bigots.”

    Translation: They do not agree with LWC so they are bigots.

  • Actually Slainte Christ did explain Himself sufficiently to Pilate for Pilate to hesitate with ordering His execution until Caiaphas had a howling rent-a-mob outside the Praetorium. Christ also constantly explains His words and actions to His Apostles throughout the Gospels, an aspect of His ministry that all popes would do well to emulate.

  • I would appreciate it if future comments on this thread actually focus on the story written by Hilary White and the challenge I have made to its critics.

  • So in co-founding Agedo Foggia pastor DePaolis knowingly taught / prescribed principles contrary to Catholic teachings? Then the daggers fly from the left when reported by the right.

    Yawn….! No disrespect Mr. McClarey.
    This ongoing battle, the War for souls, inches along everyday, every minute.
    I for one appreciate the reporting from LSN. I do not find it surprising that some dislike it. Some bigots in History were murdered for their Faith in God.
    We call them Martyrs. ( for lwc )

    In this battle for souls it’s comforting to know that TAC exists and is a refreshment to the parched soldier defending the line. For all defenders of Truth, thank you Mr. McClarey and with Holy Rosaries and frequent Mass we will march on. Prayers for Pope Francis.

  • The liberal, elites can get out the knives for this.

    Compare Pope John Paul II’s act with Pope Francis.

    “Aiding the Nicaraguan Communists were a group of Marxist priests, some of whom held positions in the Marxist government. Their plan was to replace the Catholic Church loyal to Jesus Christ with a “People’s Church” that would be controlled by the Communist party–who in Nicaragua went by the name, the Sandinistas.

    “When John Paul II went to Nicaragua (in the past century), he lowered the boom. His plane touched down in Managua airport, the pope came off, and there in the reception line was one of the Marxist (Oragnize and arm the least of Christ’s brothers and take it all) priests–still holding on to his government position. This was in direct defiance of John Paul II’s orders that no priest was to hold government power. With television cameras blazing, John Paul II ignored diplomatic protocol, put his finger in the priest’s face and told him: you must regularize your position with the Church–now!”

    Like almost everything in life: Note the man’s acts, not his talk.

    Innocents suffer when the guilty are not forced to stop.

  • It’s sad that some people reading the LSN story, prejudge the story, instead of reading what’s actually in it. Also where’s Catholic commonsense in the harping of the critics of this report? A priest, who’s a queer activist, is given a photo op with the Pope. Hillary White merely reported the facts of who this man was, and what his mission in life was. Why are so many Catholics upset with this? Are they such Francis groupies that they can’t stand the thought that he can do deliberate wrong? That’s what it looks like to me.

  • I cannot help but wonder if the people who are ripping into Hillary White are, in fact, people of very weak (or poorly founded?) faith–people who desperately need a good and holy and most of all orthodox Pope to keep them going to Church, putting money in the collection plate, raising their children in the faith, not using contraception, not handing the spouse divorce papers. . . I don’t know, but I wonder.
    .
    Imagine your teenage daughter (who has a popular gay boss at her work site, one who appears to have a stable “marriage” and with young children at that) coming to you and asking why again is homosexual “marriage” a bad thing? After all, she just read on Facebook that the Pope con-celebrated a Mass with a priest who endorses gay marriage, etc.
    .
    What would you say? Isn’t the Holy Spirit supposed to get the gates of Hell from conquering the Church? And it certainly seems like the gates of Hell are winning these days, doesn’t it? What with the clown Masses and puppet Masses, Sister Laurel getting chased away, Catholic colleges hiring atheist chancellors, etc. And now the Pope saying some interesting things (maybe) about divorced and “remarried” people being admitted to Communion, this particular con-celebrated Mass, etc.
    .
    So, yes, I guess I can see where attacking the messenger makes sense.

  • Mr. McClarey,
    .
    Simcha Fisher’s response to Hilary White was uncharitable, and her use of profanity as against Life Site News regrettable. Her motivation, I think, may be rooted in the fact that she, like fellow columnist Elizabeth Scalia at Patheos, has a brother who suffers from same sex attraction. Ms. Fisher’s brother states that he is celibate; Ms. Scalia’s brother died of HIV in 2005.
    .
    I think this family connection may elicit more forceful and unpredictable reactions from both writers on issues related to same sex attraction. Hence, Ms. Fisher’s hyperbolic response to Ms. White’s article… which article appears straightforward in its recitation of facts.
    .
    There is always more below the surface than we know regarding why writers take certain positions. Thus, prudence suggests discretion in issuing condemnations.

  • Since PF is setting this response (kissing the hands of someone) as his new standard protocol to reach out to others (having kissed the hands of Fr. de Paolis, and also recently the hands of holocaust survivors at the Yad Vashem memorial, or the feet of various and sundry persons at the Holy Thursday liturgies of the last two years), I look forward to his eagerly kissing the hands of other “dissidents” and “members of other faiths”, such as the founders of the Franciscans of Mary Immaculate, Frs. Stefano Maria Manelli and Gabriele Maria Pelletieri; Bp. Bernard Fellay of the SSPX; perhaps Bp. Mark Pivarunas of the CMRI’s, and so on. I am sure it is right around the corner.

  • As far as I can discern (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong), the substantive objections (e.g. not Ad Hominem or Genetic Fallacy arguments) to the LSN article are (1) the author did not use a reliable source and/or did not sufficiently verify the story, (2) the author (or headline writer) chose to sensationalize the incident in a way that cast Pope Francis in a bad light, and (3) the author did not offer more context, background or explanation about what and why Pope Francis did what he did.

    It would seem to me that these objections would not provoke such a response, but I read the original article with little reaction or shock, so I’m definitely not tuned into to detect what’s being detected here.

    I think that (1) isn’t too much of a concern since the first-hand account included photographs and no one has disputed the reported facts, (2) sounds reasonable, but I’m not sure how else the story could have been written in a way that doesn’t draw attention to primarily what this priest is known for, and (3) seems to be outside the scope of a news report of this nature, and would more get into editorializing.

    Those are my thoughts anyhow, but I’d love to see more of a discussion on the problems of the article, and less on the presumed agenda or the mindset of the author and the website publisher.

  • I heard a story about St. Francis of Assisi kissing the hands of a bad priest, one who flouted his lack of chastity, because they were the hands who performed the miracle of changing bread and wine into Christ’s body and blood. Is this a Franciscan act?

  • oops, “…the hands WHICH…

  • Kmbold, the difference was that St. Francis was a layman–not the Pope.

    It is the Pope’s obligation before God–for the good of souls–to silence a priest such as this from teaching serious error in the name of the Church.

  • Kmbold: I applaud you for trying to find some commendable aspect of this latest Bergoglioist malaprop: but I think he simply does things on impulse, the source of which none of us can find a rational explanation.

  • Issuing condemnations about H. White’s article is typical of the battle style now. She wrote a factual article but she didn’t stand a chance.
    It is not only verboten to print anything that portrays homosexual behavior on a bad light but worse you Must portray them in a Positive light.
    “… the Italian government’s National Antidiscrimination and Racism Office (Ufficio Nazionale Antidiscriminazioni Razziali) that has issued documents threatening journalists with prison if they fail to portray homosexuality in a positive light.”

  • Her motivation, I think, may be rooted in the fact that she, like fellow columnist Elizabeth Scalia at Patheos, has a brother who suffers from same sex attraction. Ms. Fisher’s brother states that he is celibate; Ms. Scalia’s brother died of HIV in 2005.

    I have a second degree relation and a first degree relation who died approximately the same way that Robert Benchley and Jack Kerouac did. I really would not be motivated to pour vitriol on someone (even a cleric) for saying that ‘Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life”.

  • Stephen Spencer on Friday, May 30, A.D. 2014 at 2:18pm ~ Hit the nail on the
    head stating that ” It is the Pope’s obligation before God–for the good of souls–to silence a priest such as this from teaching serious error in the name of the Church.”

  • On point is the fact of the two photos with White’s article. Many of us would not know who the priest is; he is old, and Pope Francis looks very compassionate. BUT: there would have been a no-news event to report if the identity of the priest were not mentioned. Which means, once again our Holy Father (or is this an anachronistic appellation now?) has, I believe, given cause for possible scandal; if this is not willful, then it is indicative of grossly distracted judgment. If some think too many stones are being thrown at someone who is being just like Christ, then one must pray fervently that the Pope has some sort of epiphany at what he is evoking,

  • Aer Deco writes: “…I have a second degree relation and a first degree relation who died approximately the same way that Robert Benchley and Jack Kerouac did. I really would not be motivated to pour vitriol on someone (even a cleric) for saying that ‘Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life…”
    .
    If Ms. Fisher’s intention was to protect the integrity of Pope Francis, or to affirm the dignity of her celibate brother (while not affirming SSA acts), then she shouldn’t be condemned for an intemperate response to a Life Site News (“LSN”) article. Nor should Hilary White or LSN be condemned if their collective intent was merely to present facts truthfully.
    .
    The motivation and intention of the respective messengers matter when one discerns which, if any. of them should be killed.

  • With the overt hostility toward Gays, fitting of the most backwards stretches of rural America, how is it surprising the backlash that has arisen against this ‘messenger’ or any other for that matter? Gays are no less citizens than any other citizen and many are indeed no less Christian than the most pious of Christians. Additionally, as our American society progresses, and the scope of liberties advances, it is abundantly clear that discrimination against Gays is no less onerous (and illegal) than discrimination against creed, color, or origin.

  • LWC,
    .
    The Catholic Church is a refuge for those who experience same sex attraction. It brings Christ’s love to the afflicted and calls all Catholics to extend care and compassion to one’s neighbors, especially those bearing heavy crosses who need Christ’s mercy.
    .
    Consider the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
    .
    2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
    .
    2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

  • “With the overt hostility toward Gays, fitting of the most backwards stretches of rural America, how is it surprising the backlash that has arisen against this ‘messenger’ or any other for that matter?”

    Actually LCW homosexuals have never had more tolerance extended to them at any time in history than by the contemporary West. Such tolerance seems only to exacerbate the intolerance of many homosexual activists. Your jab at “backward stretches of rural America” is a fine example of the type of rabid intolerance I refer to.

    “Gays are no less citizens than any other citizen and many are indeed no less Christian than the most pious of Christians.”

    There is no civil disability that homosexuals currently are subject to in the United States or almost all of the West. In fact, they are politically powerful and are a favored and protected class by the powers that be throughout almost all of the West, with the law being enlisted to try to shut up opponents of the activist homosexuals. As for their Christianity, if they are engaging in homosexual sex they are committing mortal sin, just as assuredly as heterosexual adulterers.

    “Additionally, as our American society progresses, and the scope of liberties advances, it is abundantly clear that discrimination against Gays is no less onerous (and illegal) than discrimination against creed, color, or origin.”

    Your logical fallacy LCW is treating a sexual perversion as if it is in the same category as religion, race or nationality. It is not and has never been so treated throughout history, except over the past two decades in the West. Why it is currently so treated throughout most of the West has nothing to do with “progress” and everything to do with homosexuals having a disproportionate influence in the entertainment industry and the media, and, with the rise of homosexual identity politics, having been engaged in an intense propaganda effort to shift public opinion in regard to homosexuality for over the past four decades. They have been aided in this by leftists embracing the idea that morality has nothing to do with sexual matters and being in general at war with traditional sexual morality and the family, and a general collapse of sexual morality among a substantial portion of the population.

  • Within the United States, just as the government is emphatically proscribed from the establishment of religion, it is likewise in prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If one’s faith endorses, even celebrates, same-sex marriage who is one to criminalize or ignore that legally binding agreement between them.

    The Church (or any other church) is freely dispensed from having to perform said nuptials. Our Catholic faith (or any faith) is in no position to impose religious dogma into civil law. Further, Thomas Jefferson plainly stated to a group of pastors in his day, “…[B]ut laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

    I think that says it all.

  • And while I could have chosen better phrasing in highlighting a known stereotype (ad hominem, as it is), it speaks to a broader point that more heavily populated, urban, and cosmopolitan area generally convey broader ‘tolerance’ of homosexuals. And having had more than a few conversations among people living within such rural areas, I can report my characterization is not too far afield. As to recognition, Gays still largely remain denied equal protection under the law insofar as marriage and other custodial concerns.

  • “Within the United States, just as the government is emphatically proscribed from the establishment of religion, it is likewise in prohibiting the free exercise thereof. If one’s faith endorses, even celebrates, same-sex marriage who is one to criminalize or ignore that legally binding agreement between them.”

    The Federal government has banned polygamy for over a century and a half. Your argument would have struck the Founding Fathers as either an obscenity or a bad attempt at ribald humor.

    “The Church (or any other church) is freely dispensed from having to perform said nuptials.”

    Lawsuits by gay activists seeking to compel churches to marry them are common in Europe and we shall see them here to. We live in a country where small time bakers of wedding cakes and owners of beds and breakfasts have been subject to successful suits to compel them to bend the knee to homosexuality. This has nothing to do with fairness and equality, and everything to do with homosexual activists attempting to stamp out all resistance to the idea that homosexual sex is a positive good. The Church is and will be target number one in this efforts.

    “Our Catholic faith (or any faith) is in no position to impose religious dogma into civil law.”

    Ludicrous. Most law is codified morality. The allowance of homosexual marriage is not a demonstration of the law being neutral in this area, but rather homosexual activists succeeding in imposing their morality and having the institution of marriage radically redefined.

    “I think that says it all.”

    Yes, that the words of figures in history are often used long after they are dead to lend support to causes they would have found abhorrent.

  • “As to recognition, Gays still largely remain denied equal protection under the law insofar as marriage and other custodial concerns.”

    That is not a civil disability since homosexuals are free to cohabit everywhere, and can go to a state that allows homosexual marriage if they wish to tie the knot, with activist Federal judges busily overturning state statutes banning homosexual marriages in any case. In regard to custodial matters, it is usually the case that it is the Catholic Church that is being driven out of arranging adoptions since many states now require that homosexuals be allowed to adopt children on the same terms as heterosexuals, the world of “Heather has Two Mommies” now being imposed by the State.

  • Here is what Sacred Scripture says about those who practice homosexuality in 1st Corinthians 6:9-10:
    —–
    9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.
    —–
    Now the Greek word translated as “effeminate” is “μαλακός” which really means “of a catamite” or “of a male who submits his body to unnatural lewdness,” which is exactly what the receiver of homosexual relations is doing.
    —–
    And the Greek word translated as “liers with mankind” is “ἀρσενοκοίτης” which really means “one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual.”
    —–
    Those people who practice such actions are classed right along with fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, and extortioners. The Bible says that none of these people will possess the Kingdom of God. Since there is only one other place to go, that means that if such people do not repent, then they go to hell.
    —–
    But verse 11 in 1st Corinthians chapter 6 goes on to say:
    —–
    11 And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.
    —–
    Note the past tense: “And such some of you WERE.” That means that some of the people at the Church in Corinth WERE fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals, and drunkards but are no longer those kinds of people. Why? Verse 11 tells us: “…but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God.”
    —–
    Now I specifically called out the word “drunkard” in St Paul’s litany because such WAS I at one time. I was NO better than a fornicator, an adulterer, a homosexual or whoever (and yes, I did my fair share of more than one sin as I am sure we all have). But at some point I have to STOP being a drunkard if I am to possess the Kingdom of God. The same is true of him who practices homosexual actions. He has to STOP it. And that happens by being washed, sanctified and justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord gave the Church a process for this. It is called the Sacrament of Reconciliation and Penance. That is why after I did my 5th Step with my 12 Step mentor, he being a good Catholic had me go to Confession with a Franciscan priest (who unknown to me at the time was his sponsor).
    —–
    Thank God no one felt sorry for me in my drunkenness. They would have sealed my death sentence and greased the skids straight to hell. Homosexuality, adultery, fornication, and the whole litany are ultimately NO different (especially in today’s sex-addicted society). That is why St Paul describes so eloquently in Romans chapter 7 the slavery to sin to which we were all subject.
    —–
    Equal rights for every human being: we all have the right to confess and repent to inherit the Kingdom of God. No special rights for sex-addicted adulterers, fornicators or homosexuals, just as there are no special rights for drug or alcohol addict persons, and no special rights for thieves, railers and extortioners. It is hate of the worst kind – a hate that sends to people to hell – to say, do or maintain otherwise.

  • Paul, you conveniently omitted: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

    Nice try, though.

  • LCW, re-read my whole statement. I DID include verse 11 of 1st Corinthians chapter 6.

  • Paul, then my mistake. My phone must have truncated your message. My apologies.

  • Understood, LWC – smart phones are not all that smart. 🙁

    I made a point that some people at the Church in Corinth had once been drunks, adulterers, homosexuals, fornicators, but they stopped being those kinds of people.

  • LWC,
    .
    Are you Catholic?
    .
    If so, why do you bend your knee before a political ideology (liberalism) rather than Christ and His Church?

  • “…fitting of the most backwards stretches of rural America,..”
    I resemble that remark!

  • Slaint, precisely because I am an American who renders unto Caesar what is Caesar’s…and this instance it is the proscription against the establishment of religion and the equal protection under law.

    And yes, I am Catholic….and American.

  • LCW, This American Catholic suggests that you are making an idol of a political ideology to justify personal acts which may not be in accord with God’s law.
    .
    God preceded the state; a fact recognized by the founders of the U.S and memorialized in the Declaration of Independence by reference to He who is the source of our inalienable rights.
    .
    The founders would likely conclude that any positive law or Constitutional interpretation which contradicts or subverts Nature”s God is no law at all.
    .
    We Catholics owe our allegiance to God first. If we love Him, we will follow His commandments.

  • LWC,

    The United States was NOT founded as a Secular National Democracy but as a Constitutional Republic based on Judeo-Christian principles. The overwhelming majority of this nation’s Founding Fathers stood upon those principles, even people like Deist Thomas Jefferson to whom is attributed much of this dogma of separation of Church and State. The intent was that never would the State dictate what the Church was to do, and ever was the Church to have freedom in the public square. The idea that Judeo-Christian morality was NOT the under-pinning of the nation’s law would have been foreign (and anathema) to these men. Quote after quote after quote from George Washington, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, etc., can be cited demonstrating this. But the revisionist history of the adherents of the godless liberal progressive Democratic Party – the very one that booed God at the last DNC here in Charlotte, NC – denies all that is holy which would sustain this country. Regardless of all the pronouncements of liberal progressive Democrats promoting the separation of Church and State, God’s Word overrides everything and His Word says: “And my people, upon whom my name is called, being converted, shall make supplication to me, and seek out my face, and do penance for their most wicked ways: then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sins and will heal their land.” 2nd Chronicles 7:14. Mark these words: unless the United States of America repents before the King of kings and Lord of lords for sodomy, abortion, fornication, adultery, thievery, and all its other sins, hell will rain down on us for we will have made it so rain. As Hosea 8:7 states, “For they shall sow wind, and reap a whirlwind, there is no standing stalk in it, the bud shall yield no meal; and if it should yield, strangers shall eat it.” Lord, what hypocrisy! When it comes to social justice nonsense, these liberal progressive Democrats are the first to quote Scripture and demand we seek Government to do what we should be doing ourselves, but when it comes to holiness they demand separation of Church and State. Godless liberal progressive Democrats!

  • “…but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

    –Thomas Jefferson

  • “…Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

    –Thomas Jefferson

  • Oh how liberals know how to cherry pick what they wish to believe. Two can play this game.
    .
    Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.
    The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.
    I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.
    Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God?
    Thomas Jefferson
    .
    It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.
    Patrick Henry
    .
    The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
    We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
    John Adams
    .
    The name of American, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion…reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
    George Washington
    .
    There are many, many more. The idea that pagans, atheists, Muslims, etc., could be elected to high office would have astounded these men. Thus does Samuel Johnston write:
    .
    It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
    .
    I loathe, abhor, detest, despise, and hold in utter contempt and disgust the liberal progressive Democratic Party and its godless secular antagonism against the Christian religion. But in the end Jesus Christ wins, NOT the secularists, NOT the atheists, NOT the Muslims. Every knee will bend, every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. Those who cried separation of Church and State may well find themselves eternally separated from God’s Kingdom for that is really what they want. They worshipped and adored Caesar, a mere creature, rather than the Creator who is to be worshipped and adored forever and ever, Amen!
    .
    Mors Atheismo Democratiaeque. Omnis gloria honosque Iesui Christo!

  • LWC, Thomas Jefferson supported the institution of slavery and owned slaves. He also impregnated at least one female slave whose ability to consent to the sexual act was negated by her status as slave in response to his demand as master.
    .
    Do you support the enslavement of other persons and the engagement in sex with persons who cannot consent as Jefferson did?
    .
    Christ informs the slave he is made in Imago Dei and is so beloved that he is worth dying for on the cross. Jefferson, a devotee of Enlightened Liberalism, kept the slave in shackles.
    .
    Whose laws make you most free and demonstrate selfless love…God’s or Man’s?

  • Paul W Primavera on Saturday, May 31, A.D. 2014 at 3:44pm: “The United States was NOT founded as a Secular National Democracy but as a Constitutional Republic based on Judeo-Christian principles.”
    If that were true, the fruits would be showing.

  • Slainte, devotees of godless Liberalism still keep blacks in shackles, this time to the teat of the public treasury under the specious pretext of social justice of all things. Nothing has changed. They are as wicked as they have always been.

  • @FMS,

    Sadly liberalism like a cancer infects everything it touches. People like Ronald Reagan are the fruits. People like Barack Hussein Obama are the cancer.

  • How does Liberalism enslave Blacks anymore than Conservatism when such policies imprison Blacks more often, impose sentences that are disproportionately longer and of greater likelihood in the imposition of the death penalty?

  • Horse manure, LWC. You liberals create the social condition of black dependency that disproportionately results in more black criminality which results in more black imprisonment. And you are lily white rich liberal elitists who think you know better than anyone else. You are no different than the Democrat slave owners of one and a half centuries ago.

  • And Paul, if God was indeed all important to the Framers, why then attest to a document entirely devoid of mention of God, Jesus, Christ, Allah, Buddah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for that matter. In profound wisdom our Founders realized the paradigm of proscribing the establishment of religion, indeed preserves religious liberty into perpetuity. Were any one particular religion to be endorsed by the Government it would inevitably condemn the religious liberties of others and invariable cannibalize the very religion they ostensible sought to uphold. Bottom line; if you don’t want a gay partner, don’t get a gay partner. No church can be compelled to violate its faith in sanctioning a marriage they find abhorrent. That said, SCOTUS will soon affirm that within the United States discrimination on the basis of of orientation is no less odious (or illegal) than is discrimination against creed, color, or origin. A fight has been picked against Gay Americans that cannot (and will not) be won.

  • You liberals are all the same. You will find any way possible to make sexual perversion a socially acceptable norm. I do not give a darn what SCOTUS decides. Two same sex perverts marrying does not a marriage make. God said what marriage is and you liberals do not get to have an opinion in the matter. I am done discussing with you. Dialogue with a liberal is impossible. It makes me so angry.

  • For LWC and all liberals

    Liberalism Is a Sin
    http://www.ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.HTM

  • “if God was indeed all important to the Framers”

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

    Washington Farewell Address

  • Donald, religion may well indeed have been central in the lives of many Founders. I don’t deny that. That said, they fully understood the implication of the Government endorsing any one particular faith over the other. It would invariably destroy the religious liberty they sought to preserve ad infinitum. The Founders held their religious beliefs to be a matter of personal conviction and not of Government exercise. It’s apparent their faith, devout as it may have been for some, did not surpass a threshold sufficient enough to include within the document. Without repeating my quote from Thomas Jefferson, he made his position on the matter fairly clear and unmistakable.

  • Paul W. Primavera.

    Defender of the Faith YOU are!
    Great points and for the right reasons…our Homelands. We must preoccupy ourselves with our brothers state AFTER have had the beam pulled out of our own eyes first. I have read your confession in the past year. I believe you have had the graces restored to your being, hence, your charity is genuine. Thanks for being you.
    LWC. http.www.couragerc.net is a great place for combining a souls
    tendencies to same sex attractions with the sufferings of Christ. Redemptive Suffering is a gift to God that changes. Truly Changes the world far better than “change we can believe in.”

  • “That said, they fully understood the implication of the Government endorsing any one particular faith over the other”

    You badly misunderstand the Founding Fathers LWC. Not wanting to have an established Church like the Anglican Church in England did not mean that they wanted to separate the state and morality, and they all acknowledged that the basis of morality was religion. The idea by the way that it is an imposition of Catholic doctrine not to recognize homosexual marriage is farcial. This fad of “marriage equality” seeks to impose a radical redefinition of marriage. It is the advocates of this redefinition of an institution as old as Man who are attempting to read their “religious”, for contemporary liberalism is very much a substitute religion, doctrine into law and not the other way round.

  • It’s worth noting how Liberalism was understood some 60 years after the American Revolution.
    .
    Blessed John Henry Newman recounted 18 tenets of Liberalism which he judged to be inconsistent with Christianity.
    .
    1. No religious tenet is important, unless reason shows it to be so.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed is not to be insisted on, unless it tends to convert the soul; and the doctrine of the Atonement is to be insisted on, if it does convert the soul.
    .
    2. No one can believe what he does not understand.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. there are no mysteries in true religion.
    .
    3. No theological doctrine is any thing more than an opinion which happens to be held by bodies of men.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. no creed, as such, is necessary for salvation.
    .
    4. It is dishonest in a man to make an act of faith in what he has not had brought home to him by actual proof.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. the mass of men ought not absolutely to believe in the divine authority of the Bible.
    .
    5. It is immoral in a man to believe more than he can spontaneously receive as being congenial to his moral and mental nature.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. a given individual is not bound to believe in eternal punishment.
    .
    6. No revealed doctrines or precepts may reasonably stand in the way of scientific conclusions.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. Political Economy may reverse our Lord’s declarations about poverty and riches, or a system of Ethics may teach that the highest condition of body is ordinarily essential to the highest state of mind.
    .
    7. Christianity is necessarily modified by the growth of civilization, and the exigencies of times.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. the Catholic priesthood, though necessary in the Middle Ages, may be superseded now.
    .
    8. There is a system of religion more simply true than Christianity as it has ever been received.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. we may advance that Christianity is the “corn of wheat ” which has been dead for 1800 years, but at length will bear fruit; and that Mahometanism is the manly religion, and existing Christianity the womanish. {500}
    .
    9. There is a right of Private Judgment: that is, there is no existing authority on earth competent to interfere with the liberty of individuals in reasoning and judging for themselves about the Bible and its contents, as they severally please.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. religious establishments requiring subscription are Anti-christian.
    .
    10. There are rights of conscience such, that every one may lawfully advance a claim to profess and teach what is false and wrong in matters, religious, social, and moral, provided that to his private conscience it seems absolutely true and right.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. individuals have a right to preach and practise fornication and polygamy.
    .
    11. There is no such thing as a national or state conscience.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. no judgments can fall upon a sinful or infidel nation.
    .
    12. The civil power has no positive duty, in a normal state of things, to maintain religious truth.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. blasphemy and sabbath-breaking are not rightly punishable by law.
    .
    13. Utility and expedience are the measure of political duty.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. no punishment may be enacted, on the ground that God commands it: e.g. on the text, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”
    .
    14. The Civil Power may dispose of Church property without sacrilege.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. Henry VIII. committed no sin in his spoliations.
    .
    15. The Civil Power has the right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and administration.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. Parliament may impose articles of faith on the Church or suppress Dioceses. {501}
    .
    16. It is lawful to rise in arms against legitimate princes.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. the Puritans in the 17th century, and the French in the 18th, were justifiable in their Rebellion and Revolution respectively.
    .
    17. The people are the legitimate source of power.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. Universal Suffrage is among the natural rights of man.
    .
    18. Virtue is the child of knowledge, and vice of ignorance.
    .
    Therefore, e.g. education, periodical literature, railroad travelling, ventilation, drainage, and the arts of life, when fully carried out, serve to make a population moral and happy.
    .
    Source: http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia/liberalism.html

  • An encouragement to those who treasure their Faith and their relationship with Jesus Christ during such tumultuous times:

    Steady the course. Keep the Faith. God knows all. Be still and know that He is God. Do not fret because of evil men. God only expects of us what we are capable of doing. Ask God to order our steps so that we know we are doing the things He wants us to do. Let the joy of the Lord be our strength in the face of such hatred, confusion, and chaos as we are facing. Do what we know to do, and God will take care of the rest. Wait upon the Lord and He will renew our strength. God may call some of us to do battle with these people on line AND some of us to withdraw from the battle for a period of time to put our energy in some other task or regain strength. Let’s focus on the tasks God wants us to complete, as unique individusl children of God, without judging others, who feel called to a different task or method than our own. Pray daily for the fruits of the Holy Spirit–love, joy, peace, long suffering, gentleness, kindness, meekness, and self control. Seek first the Kingdom of God and all these things will be added unto us.

  • I deleted your comment TomM. It dealt in unsubstantiated gossip which I despise and was off topic. However, most of the comments on this thread have been off topic which disappoints me. I am shutting down comments on this thread as a result.

  • Pingback: St. Joan of Arc: A Guide for Every Age - BigPulpit.com
  • Pingback: Blogging and Calumny | The American Catholic