It Takes A Lot of Verbiage to Justify Murder

Monday, December 3, AD 2012

Would that all pro-aborts were as forthright as the abortionist in the above video.  Instead, most of them hide behind an endless torrent of evasions and euphemisms to conceal a very simple truth:  abortion is the killing of the innocent.  Alison Taylor, first Anglican Bishopess in Australia, is typical in her lame defense of an unspeakable crime.  Unfortunately for her, her effort receives a fisking to remember from Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so often in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith:

Alison Taylor, the new Anglican Bishop of Queensland and the first female Anglican bishop in Australia, riffs on abortion:

The Bible speaks of a world which God has created and which he loves beyond measure, in which all life is to be embraced as a gift from Him. However, it is a world which is fallen, and which longs for the full redemption in Jesus Christ which is to come. Sin and suffering abound in a human condition of great complexity, and at times immensely difficult decisions need to be made.

Like whether or not Allie actually meant what she just said.

What the Bible does not teach, and which has never been a part of Christian doctrine – contrary to the assertion in this month’s TMA letter – is that ‘all human life has absolute moral value’. The latter view is unbiblical because it would be untenable for Christians in situations where complex moral choices must be made, in diverse circumstances ranging from military defence and self-defence to the sometimes conflicting rights of mother and unborn child.

Let’s see.  National defense.  Protecting yourself from someone who wants to physically harm you.  Fileting the kid because you don’t want to have to take a pay cut right now.  Morally, they’re all pretty much the same.  And on the ludicrously small chance that you missed Allie’s lame “theology,” she repeats it here.

Nowhere in the Bible is a foetus accorded the full moral status of a human person. On the contrary, in the sole biblical text on induced abortion, Exodus 21.22-23, an abortion caused by injury to a pregnant woman is regarded seriously but considerably less than murder. Other than what might be inferred from this text, the Bible is silent on the issue of the moral status to be accorded to foetal death, as it is on the question of when an embryo might be said to have a soul that survives death. These two issues, which preoccupy the abortion debate today, could probably not even have been conceptualised by writers living in the Biblical era.

I think it was Andy Warhol who once said, “In the future, everybody will be an Anglican bishop for fifteen minutes.”  It’s not like you have to know any actual Christian theology or anything, like Catholics, Orthodox and serious Protestants do, or be versed in some kind of Christian tradition.

Just memorize a few handy cliches that are useful for just about any occasion and you’re in like Bishop Flynn.  Allie uses two here.  The Scripture writers, who were mere men who had absolutely no assistance whatsoever in writing down the Word of the Living God but it wouldn’t have mattered if they had since they were all blithering idiots who couldn’t find their heads with both hands.

Then there’s the ever-popular “The Bible never said anything about _________” argument, probably the most useful Anglican dodge of all.  If, of course, you overlook the uncomfortable fact that the Bible also doesn’t teach that racism, sexism, “homophobia” and voting against Barack Obama are sins.  But did Allie happen to mention what absolute morons the Scripture writers were?

The Bible was written millennia before an adequate understanding of human reproduction was possible, let alone the possibilities of IVF, embryonic stem cell research or prenatal foetal tests, and the difficult moral dilemmas involved in each of them. In summary, an absolutist antiabortion stance simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.

So what say Allie bottom-lines it for you?  It’s a human being when and if I want it to be and NOT BEFORE, bitches.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to It Takes A Lot of Verbiage to Justify Murder

  • 2nd Timothy 4:3-4 – For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.

    Canterbury is in full flight from orthodoxy, and into heresy and apostasy. Judgement Day is coming and it ain’t a’gonna be pretty.

    Lord have mercy! Christ have mercy! Lord have mercy!

    PS, I love how the Nova Vulgata reads that passage – I just can’t help myself: “Erit enim tempus, cum sanam doctrinam non sustinebunt, sed ad sua desideria coacervabunt sibi magistros prurientes auribus, et a veritate quidem auditum avertent, ad fabulas autem convertentur.”

  • What do we expect from a female bishop of the Anglican church? It once celebrated the supernatural but now worships the unnatural,,,,,,,

  • Oh, but Patrick, in worshipping the unnatural, the faux-Anglicans still worship the spiritual – the demonically and diabolically spiritual.

  • Pacem Patrick and Paul. it isn’t the piskies’ fault. There aren’t so many of them compared to the hordes of common goods/socialist justice/sexular humanist cathies.

    And, it’s more the constant efforts of liberal US Catholic bishops’ bureaucracies (you should not give $$$ to your bishop); far-left US Catholic universities, et al that provide the “cover” to rationalize infanticide as a common good, “human right”, just, and “women’s health.”

    Oh, yeah, if you voted for Obama, you “own” this.

  • How very Anglican of her. She seems to be in the right “religion”. Lord have mercy on her.

  • “The Bible was written millennia before an adequate understanding of human reproduction was possible, let alone the possibilities of IVF, embryonic stem cell research or prenatal foetal tests, and the difficult moral dilemmas involved in each of them. In summary, an absolutist antiabortion stance simply cannot lay claim to Biblical warrant.”

    If anything, the advances in medical science and embryology that she cites make it more obvious than ever that abortion is killing a human. If someone wants to justify abortion, medical science does not provide a good template.

  • Anyhow, the Bible is the “Word of God.” Briefly, God, not man, decides who lives or dies. “Thou shalt not kill.”

    We’ve come a long way, baby!

    Recently re-reading a freshman Ancient History text, I see that as part of the development of the Spartan polis, Spartan fathers’ rights to kill their infant children were usurped by the polis’ council.

  • It is easy to see that many liberal or progessives have an illusion that because of the amount of scientific knowledge we enjoy today that it automatically converts to wisdom. It doesn’t. Unwanted pregnancy has a peaceful solution. Adoption.

  • “How very Anglican of her. She seems to be in the right ‘religion’. Lord have mercy on her.”

    No, Elizabeth, you got that wrong. Bishopress / High Priestess Alsion Taylor is in the LEFT religion, NOT the right religion.

    Big difference! 😉

  • A cup of Rath cometh.
    Keep your vessel filled with oil.
    Trim your wicks.
    And stand in humble awe of the vindicator to come.

  • Dr. Boyd is what “social justice” Catholics will look like in ten years.

  • God said to Eve: “I will intensify the pangs of your childbearing; in pain shall you bring forth childen.” Gen.3:16. Children before and after birth.

  • T. Shaw: “Recently re-reading a freshman Ancient History text, I see that as part of the development of the Spartan polis, Spartan fathers’ rights to kill their infant children were usurped by the polis’ council.”
    From the Preambe to the U.S. Constitution: “to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and to our (constitutional) posterity,”

  • as posted here already, knowledge and wisdom not necessarily the same thing.
    I hate how they cite 9 year old pregnant girls as the reason we should have abortion legal. Something about it reminds me of terrorist hiding behind children.

  • Not to mention anzlyne the probable violation by the abortionist of the legal and moral duty to expose the hideous crime of a sex abuser impregnating a child. If I were the local prosecuting attorney I would have been opening up immediately a criminal investigation after seeing that video.

  • “an abortion caused by injury to a pregnant woman is regarded seriously but considerably less than murder. ” It is considered manslaughter. If the pregnant woman was killed by accident by another person, it is considered manslaughter. Justice is predicated on intent. To lay in wait for one’s neighbor to kill him is capital one homicide. The above doctor lays in wait to murder an innocent person. The doctor is one of the men emasculated by Roe v. Wade

That Inconvenient First Amendment

Thursday, September 27, AD 2012

Eric Posner, a University of Chicago law professor, and son of Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, one of President Reagan’s less wise judicial appointments, writing in Slate thinks that perhaps it is time that Americans stop making a fetish of freedom of speech as embodied in the First Amendment.  Christopher Johnson, a Protestant who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, gives Posner a fisking to remember:

University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner thinks that this country really needs to dial down its obsession with free speech:

The universal response in the United States to the uproar over the anti-Muslim video is that the Muslim world will just have to get used to freedom of expression. President Obama said so himself in a speech at the United Nations today, which included both a strong defense of the First Amendment and (“in the alternative,” as lawyers say) and a plea that the United States is helpless anyway when it comes to controlling information. In a world linked by YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, countless videos attacking people’s religions, produced by provocateurs, rabble-rousers, and lunatics, will spread to every corner of the world, as fast as the Internet can blast them, and beyond the power of governments to stop them. Muslims need to grow a thick skin, the thinking goes, as believers in the West have done over the centuries. Perhaps they will even learn what it means to live in a free society, and adopt something like the First Amendment in their own countries.

Maybe that’s right.  But actually, America needs to get with the international program.

But there is another possible response. This is that Americans need to learn that the rest of the world—and not just Muslims—see no sense in the First Amendment. Even other Western nations take a more circumspect position on freedom of expression than we do, realizing that often free speech must yield to other values and the need for order. Our own history suggests that they might have a point.

Look at it this way.  At least the trains will run on time and everyone will be able to read the “No Food Today” signs.  Posner points out that it was the left which first turned the First Amendment into an weapon.

The First Amendment earned its sacred status only in the 1960s, and then only among liberals and the left, who cheered when the courts ruled that government could not suppress the speech of dissenters, critics, scandalous artistic types, and even pornographers. Conservatives objected that these rulings helped America’s enemies while undermining public order and morality at home, but their complaints fell on deaf ears.

Shogi, the Japanese version of chess, has a unique characteristic.  Because of the way the pieces are shaped, no piece is ever completely out of the game.  Any of your pieces that I happen to take can be turned around and employed by my army.

A totem that is sacred to one religion can become an object of devotion in another, even as the two theologies vest it with different meanings. That is what happened with the First Amendment. In the last few decades, conservatives have discovered in its uncompromising text— “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech”—support for their own causes. These include unregulated campaign speech, unregulated commercial speech, and limited government. Most of all, conservatives have invoked the First Amendment to oppose efforts to make everyone, in universities and elsewhere, speak “civilly” about women and minorities. I’m talking of course about the “political correctness” movement beginning in the 1980s, which often merged into attempts to enforce a leftist position on race relations and gender politics.

Posner wants Americans to remember two things.  The First Amendment is strictly an American idea whose inspiration is not shared by anybody else in the world and which cannot force people stop thinking bad thoughts.

We have to remember that our First Amendment values are not universal; they emerged contingently from our own political history, a set of cobbled-together compromises among political and ideological factions responding to localized events. As often happens, what starts out as a grudging political settlement has become, when challenged from abroad, a dogmatic principle to be imposed universally. Suddenly, the disparagement of other people and their beliefs is not an unfortunate fact but a positive good. It contributes to the “marketplace of ideas,” as though we would seriously admit that Nazis or terrorist fanatics might turn out to be right after all. Salman Rushdie recently claimed that bad ideas, “like vampires … die in the sunlight” rather than persist in a glamorized underground existence. But bad ideas never die: They are zombies, not vampires. Bad ideas like fascism, Communism, and white supremacy have roamed the countryside of many an open society.

In the past, American “values” have made this country look bad to the rest of the world.

Americans have not always been so paralyzed by constitutional symbolism. During the Cold War, the U.S. foreign policy establishment urged civil rights reform in order to counter Soviet propagandists’ gleeful reports that Americans fire-hosed black protesters and state police arrested African diplomats who violated Jim Crow laws. Rather than tell the rest of the world to respect states’ rights—an ideal as sacred in its day as free speech is now—the national government assured foreigners that it sought to correct a serious but deeply entrenched problem. It is useful if discomfiting to consider that many people around the world may see America’s official indifference to Muslim (or any religious) sensibilities as similar to its indifference to racial discrimination before the civil rights era.

It says in another part of the First Amendment that the US government is supposed to be indifferent to the sensibilities of all religions.  That’s what we were always told whenever some governmental entity allowed the display of the Cross or the Ten Commandments anyway.  So it’s unclear why the United States government should care one way or the other about the feelings of Muslims.

But according to Eric Posner, they apparently should care deeply whenever Islamic feelings are hurt.  Not only that, this American law professor thinks that the fact that Washington was unable to legally force Google to take that film down is a scandal.

The final irony is that while the White House did no more than timidly plead with Google to check if the anti-Muslim video violates its policies (appeasement! shout the critics), Google itself approached the controversy in the spirit of prudence. The company declined to remove the video from YouTube because the video did not attack a group (Muslims) but only attacked a religion (Islam). Yet it also cut off access to the video in countries such as Libya and Egypt where it caused violence or violated domestic law. This may have been a sensible middle ground, or perhaps Google should have done more. What is peculiar it that while reasonable people can disagree about whether a government should be able to curtail speech in order to safeguard its relations with foreign countries, the Google compromise is not one that the U.S. government could have directed. That’s because the First Amendment protects verbal attacks on groups as well as speech that causes violence (except direct incitement: the old cry of “Fire!” in a crowded theater). And so combining the liberal view that government should not interfere with political discourse, and the conservative view that government should not interfere with commerce, we end up with the bizarre principle that U.S. foreign policy interests cannot justify any restrictions on speech whatsoever. Instead, only the profit-maximizing interests of a private American corporation can. Try explaining that to the protesters in Cairo or Islamabad.

I’ve got a better idea, Professor.  Try explaining to the protestors in Cairo and Islamabad that ANYTHING that happens inside this country is none of their damned business.

The mendacity and dishonesty of this piece is easily ascertained by asking yourself a simple question.  If some form of artistic expression had insulted Jesus or villified Christianity, would Posner still have written it?

If some museum displays an egregiously blasphemous painting of Jesus or Mary, if a particularly blasphemous movie was made, if another TV show or play debuted which ridiculed Christians or if Bill Maher opened his pie hole, would Posner think it regrettable that the US government was unable to legally prevent these things from happening?

Of course  he wouldn’t.  The question wouldn’t even come up.  And the reason why the question wouldn’t come up is simple.  Christians don’t kill people and destroy property when they are insulted and villified or their Lord is blasphemed.

A faculty sinecure at the University of Chicago Law School would seem to suggest a certain level of intelligence.  So it’s hard for me to figure out why Eric Posner thinks that restricting American rights simply to avoid offending Muslims is a good idea.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to That Inconvenient First Amendment

  • The First Amendment is protected by the Second. Obama and the Democrats would do well to remember that. Oh wait – they do know that, hence their initiatives against firearm ownership. So only perverts will have freedom of speech so that they can dispense their pornography and only criminals will own guns with which to protect their activities. This is so Orwellian!

  • We might repair to the thought of Alvin Gouldner and Thomas Sowell to better understand what is meant by ‘liberal’ social thought at this point and then look at the behavior of the judiciary, the professoriate, and the nexus between them as represented in this chap Posner. Here is the hypothesis: these fellows conceive of the rest of society as being under their tutelage, and you no more have a right of free speech than you do in daddy Posner’s courtroom or junior Posner’s classroom. It is the job of the rest of us to remind Prof. Posner’s that we have all been out of school for a while even if you never left, buddy.

  • The answer to savagery is not slavery. It’s confronting savagery.

    Anyhow, the embassy massacre wasn’t caused by a YouTube video. That is propaganda. It was about Obama’s failed foreign and security policies.

    “Too many of the people at the top of our society are cowards.”

    Minor edit: Your self-anointed elites are unprincipled cowards and traitors.

  • A++, Art.

    August 13, 2012: George Steele Gordon:

    “Intellectuals, especially in the social sciences, have a nasty habit of thinking that, ‘This is the way the world should be, therefore this is the way the world can be.’

    “Sometimes the mind just boggles.

    “The Atlantic has an article this month with the title ‘Americans Want to Live in a Much More Equal Country (They Just Don’t Realize It).’ I am always curious when intellectuals announce that the people (who in the American constitutional system serve as the sovereign power) don’t know what’s good for them (What’s the Matter with Kansas?) or don’t even know what they want.

    “Implicit in all of these revelations, of course, is the firmest, if never directly expressed, belief of the Left: That the average person is too stupid to run his own life, let alone make public policy decisions. Those few, those happy few, that band of liberal intellectuals, must do that for them.”

  • If I followed this right, Posner is saying that a US move to take control of international communications systems would be welcomed by the rest of the world. That’s what he’s actually saying. I don’t know how to refute something that transparently idiotic. I mean, all First Amendment issues to the side, and questions of universal rights just tossed out the window, what does he think would happen if the US government announced that from now on, everything on the internet would have to be cleared through them?

    Maybe Posner anticipates that each country would have its own internet censorship board. But a heck of a lot of the internet is stored on US servers and bounced of US satellites. Thanks to cloud computing, it is impossible to say what information isn’t housed in the US. So Posner is essentially recommending an international cartel on information run out of Washington DC, and he thinks that that will relieve anti-US sentiment.

William Saletan, Meet Christopher Johnson!

Friday, September 14, AD 2012


William Saletan is a Leftist who writes a political column for Slate.  His prescience at predicting the future was amply demonstrated on September 14, 2000 when, based on then current polls, he stated that the election was over and Gore was a sure winner.  Go here to read that masterpiece of prognostication.  Now he has a piece attacking Romney for standing up for American freedom of speech as opposed to the craven apology for our freedom issued by the Cairo embassy.  Christopher Johnson, a Protestant who has taken up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith, gives Saletan a fisking to remember at Midwest Conservative Journal:

to Slate’s William Saletan, freely expressing your opinion can be an abuse of your right to freely express your opinion:

Mitt Romney says the U.S. Embassy in Cairo has betrayed “American values.” He’s wrong. The embassy is standing for American values. It’s Romney who’s betraying them.

How’s that, Sally?

The fight began brewing Tuesday morning as Egyptian protesters gathered outside the embassy. They were furious at a sophomoric American-made movie that ridiculed the prophet Mohammed. In response, the embassy issued a statement saying that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” The statement added: “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”

Quick observation.  If the universal right of free speech can be “abused,” then the universal right of free speech is not universal at all but has definite limits.  Saletan most emphatically agrees.

When you read the tweets alongside the initial statement, the message is clear. Free speech is a universal right. The Muslim-baiting movie is an abuse of that right. The embassy rejects the movie but defends free speech and condemns the invasion of its compound.

You keep using the word “universal,” Sally.  I do not think that word means what you think it means.

At his press conference, Romney accused Obama of “having that embassy reiterate a statement effectively apologizing for the right of free speech.” Romney claimed that the embassy had said, in his paraphrase, “We stand by our comments that suggest that there’s something wrong with the right of free speech.” This, too, was a Romney lie. The embassy had declared five times in writing that free speech was a universal right.

In other words, everyone has, or should have, the right to free speech.  But there are some things that you shouldn’t be allowed to say.

What made Romney’s statement and press conference disturbing, however, was his repeated use of the words sympathize and apology to conflate three issues the Cairo embassy had carefully separated: bigotry, free speech, and violence. The embassy had stipulated that expressions of bigotry, while wrong, were protected by freedom of speech and didn’t warrant retaliatory violence.

Then why did the embassy grovelingly apologize for them?

Romney, by accusing the embassy of “sympathizing with those who had breached” the compound, equated moral criticism of the Mohammed movie with support for violence. In so doing, Romney embraced the illiberal Islamist mindset that led to the embassy invasion: To declare a movie offensive is to authorize its suppression.

Um..what?!!  Project much, Sally?  It was the embassy that declared that movie “offensive,” idiot.  Why else would they have apologized for it and prattled on about some alleged hurt feelings Muslims may or may not have actually had?

“The Embassy of the United States issued what appeared to be an apology for American principles,” Romney asserted at the press conference. “It’s a terrible course for America to stand in apology for our values. … An apology for America’s values is never the right course.” Lest anyone miss his buzzwords, Romney called the embassy’s comments “a disgraceful statement on the part of our administration to apologize for American values.”

One of the foremost of which is basically unrestricted freedom of speech.

What, exactly, does Romney mean by “American values”? The embassy never apologized for free speech or diplomatic sovereignty. The only American offense it criticized was the movie’s “bigotry” and “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Does Romney regard this criticism as an “apology for American values”? Is bigotry an American value? Is it weak or un-American to repudiate slurs against Muslims?

National Review will have none of “yes, but” attitudes like Sally’s.

Nobody in the U.S. government, least of all the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acting in his official capacity, should be calling Terry Jones or any other American citizen about the Mohammed spoof. Not only does that elevate Jones to some sort of semi-official status, but spoofs of deities are entirely within our rights and absolutely no business of the government’s. The U.S. government should not be taking an official position on the Mohammed spoof.  It is entirely outside the official competence of United States military to be calling private citizens asking them be quiet, especially when they are exercising a constitutional right. Offending people is not an incitement to violence. Otherwise I could get everyone who wears a Che Guevara t-shirt brought up on charges of incitement.

Do I enjoy it when some work of “art,” some movie or some television show blasphemes Jesus Christ or insults and belittles Christians?  Of course not.  But unlike adherents of the Islamic religion, I’ve figured out a civilized way to deal with it.  I simply don’t patronize or stop patronizing those businesses who produce or support such works.

Conversely, if a work of art exalts Christ or displays Christians as they truly are, that work of art, whatever it is, will receive whatever support I can give it.  So what William Saletan is essentially saying here is that speech should be suppressed if someone anywhere is angry enough about that speech to kill people and burn things.

Saletan’s mindset basiclly gives the savages editorial control over all forms of expression everywhere which means that my opinions must perfectly accord with theirs or my expression of my opinion is an “abuse” of free speech.  I don’t know if Saletan realizes this or not but that is precisely why so many of us made a point of patronizing Chick-fil-A’s during that recent controversy.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to William Saletan, Meet Christopher Johnson!

  • What can you expect when the chief legal adviser to the State Dept is Harold Koh? See his article on American Exceptionalism (he’s against it) and how international law should be used to ease the 1st Amendment out of our Constitution:

  • The brohaha over what Romney said was never about Islamists. It’s about LibProgs in the US being able to dictate political correctness. They don’t have the right…or the power…to do that.

  • I don’t think that Saletan or Johnson hit the nail on the head. (Actually, I know that Saletan missed completely.) To say that a right can be abused doesn’t mean that the right isn’t universal. Now, I’m not 100% keen about calling free speech a universal right (slander is one example of illegal speech) but for argument’s sake let’s say that it is. We have the capacity to tell lies and discuss plot points of Michael Bay movies – complete abuses of the freedom of speech. Those actions don’t negate the freedom.

    The issue should be whether the government has the authority to endorse particular free acts.

Bleeding Christians

Wednesday, August 8, AD 2012

The two churches nearest to him, I have looked up in the office. Both have certain claims. At the first of these the Vicar is a man who has been so long engaged in watering down the faith to make it easier for supposedly incredulous and hard-headed congregation that it is now he who shocks his parishioners with his unbelief, not vice versa. He has undermined many a soul’s Christianity. His conduct of the services is also admirable. In order to spare the laity all “difficulties” he has deserted both the lectionary and the appointed psalms and now, without noticing it, revolves endlessly round the little treadmill of his fifteen favourite psalms and twenty favourite lessons. We are thus safe from the danger that any truth not already familiar to him and to his flock should over reach them through Scripture. But perhaps bur patient is not quite silly enough for this church – or not yet?
At the other church we have Fr. Spike. The humans are often puzzled to understand the range of his opinions – why he is one day almost a Communist and the next not far from some kind of theocratic Fascism – one day a scholastic, and the next prepared to deny human reason altogether – one day immersed in politics, and, the day after, declaring that all states of the world are equally “under judgment”. We, of course, see the connecting link, which is Hatred. The man cannot bring himself to teach anything which is not calculated to mock, grieve, puzzle, or humiliate his parents and their friends. A sermon which such people would accept would be to him as insipid as a poem which they could scan. There is also a promising streak of dishonesty in him; we are teaching him to say “The teaching of the Church is” when he really means “I’m almost sure I read recently in Maritain or someone of that sort”. But I must warn you that he has one fatal defect: he really believes. And this may yet mar all.

CS Lewis, The Screwtape Letters



Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who takes up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, has a brilliant fisk at Midwest Conservative Journal detailing how upset some Episcopalians are at the Pope, because so many other Episcopalians are swimming the Tiber:

I said once before that if one of the marks of a genius was the ability to drive otherwise-sane people absolutely bat crap, then Pope Benedict XVI is Albert Einstein.  Come to find out that some Episcopalians are STILL bent about the Ordinariate.  Last weekend, Religion & Ethics Newsweekly did a story about a Maryland Episcopal parish that recently swam the Tiber:

In Bladensburg, Maryland, the Catholic service unfolds smoothly, a comfortable routine for priests and parishioners alike.

But one year ago, members of St. Luke’s parish were devout, devoted Episcopalians. This is the first Episcopal church in the country to convert to Catholicism under Vatican rules designed to attract disaffected Episcopalians.

Father Mark Lewis and his congregation preferred Roman Catholic order to the Episcopal tendency to make crap up as they go along.

We left the Episcopal Church not because we were running away from the issues of the Episcopal Church. We left the Episcopal Church because we were running to the Catholic Church. We came to the point where we realized the theology of the Episcopal Church is what was lacking. The theology of Rome, the authority of Rome, the unity in the Holy See and in the bishops: that was appealing to us.

As did Father Scott Hurd.

There is a real hunger amongst some Episcopalians and Anglicans for authority. It was the question of where can true Christian authority be found that was a key element in this community’s journey.

There wasn’t one particular reason, said congregant Stephen Smith.  There were a whole lot of reasons, each building on the last.

There’s not any one real incident you can point to, but it’s like the strands of a rope giving one by one, and each one weakens the rope as a whole.

Anne Marie Whittaker agrees.

All of a sudden it was do-your-own-thing mass, and there was a lot going on, for instance, a clown mass. I would come in and someone put a red nose on me! I saw children circling altars. One by one, parishes started to succumb to some of these practices in order to attract people, and it made it difficult for me to worship in that atmosphere.

Maryland Episcopal Bishop Eugene Sutton tried hard to be diplomatic.

I like to say that we are really one spiritual family. We believe about 90 percent of things in common. Where we disagree is on matters of authority and some other spiritual matters. But the important thing is that we are not fighting; we are not in competition with one another.

On the other hand, the Rev. Ian Markham, president and dean of the Virginia Theological Seminary, didn’t even try to hide his anger at the papists.

There’s quite a lot of traffic currently going both ways between the two traditions, especially at the level of congregants. What’s interesting here is you’ve got entire congregations and clergy making the shift. So, yeah, I think the Roman Catholic Church is a threat, because we’ve lost the sense of our theological understanding and identity.

How so?

There was a perception that this was poaching by the Roman Catholic Church of Anglicans around the world. It was discourteous, it was stealing sheep, it was unecumenical.

Stealing sheep?  Unecumenical?  In what way?

It’s viewed as not recognizing the value of and integrity of our traditions.

I’ve been covering the Current Unpleasantness since it began nine years ago.  And while some of you might feel the need to get into a theological argument with that line, I have arrived at a point where words like those just make me smile.

I wonder if Markham realizes how pathetic he sounds; I can’t conceive of an Orthodox or Roman Catholic Christian uttering those words or ever feeling the need to.  Because those words could not possibly occur to any person who is confident about his or her Christian tradition as Markham seems to imply here.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to Bleeding Christians

  • “bat crap” I love it. It is interesting to see how some Episcopalians do not understand that man has a ree will and reason and a love for God that is only fulfilled in the Catholic Church.

  • Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who takes up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith

    Hehe. It reminds me of Grandpa Simpson flashing back to his time as a minesweeper in WW2 and repeatedly blowing up his own forces and after the flashback concludes with, “And that’s how I won the Iron Cross!” 🙂

  • Let me do that again, as I was late for Mass.
    “bat crap” I love it. It is interesting to see how some Episcopalians do not understand that man has a free will and reason and a love for God that is only fulfilled in the Catholic Church.”
    Scott W.: Simpson was injuring his own and good people. Christopher Johnson is redirecting the wayward into the TRUTH.

  • Interesting discussion.
    I was interviewed for about 45 minutes and much of what I expressed, unfortunately, was not included.
    At first, I merely dipped my toes into the Tiber, and retreated; I had loved the Episcopal Church’s doctrine and liturgy. It was heart-wrenching for this sheep to leave; but my shepherd abandoned me and was not attentive to the instructions from his Master. It’s wasn’t easy, but I needed to leave for my own soul’s sake. The transition is actually easier than I had imagined. However, I have subsequently learned, to my horror, that many Roman Catholic parishes have also celebrated the infamous, ‘Clown Mass’! I hope that bishops, Archbishops, and Rome put a stop to that sacriligious behavior. At least St. Paul’s Chapel in NYC had a bit of an excuse: after all, they are on Broadway.

  • Anne Marie I am glad you came over! I hope there are no clown masses or other liturgical messes anymore! That seems a lot less likely now with the new translation of the Mass.
    In the parish here the tabernacle was just moved to the center back of the sanctuary from a side place– progress is steady I think. Now if we can just move away from that Dan Schutte music!

  • The problem for the Anglican Church is that, once having rejected authority at the Reformation, it can never succeed in imposing its own. History bears this out: if Canterbury could reject the authority of popes and councils, why should the Puritans submit to the authority of the Convocation of Canterbury?

    Bishop Eugene Sutton really goes to the heart of the matter, when he claims, “we are really one spiritual family.” This only works, if “we” has a definite meaning in extension. Now, for the Catholic, this is simple. As Mgr Ronald Knox put it, “The fideles, be they many or few, be their doctrine apparently traditional or apparently innovatory, be their champions honest or unscrupulous, are simply those who are in visible communion with the see of Rome.”

    This is a real test, for it avoids the question-begging approach of defining the Church by its teaching, or the faithful by their tenets, which, inevitable leads to a vicious circle: “The true church is the one that teaches the true faith” and “The true faith is what the true church teaches.” It is also remarkably easy of application; just what one would expect of the criterion of a divine message, intended for all, regardless of learning, capacity or circumstances.

    It is worth noting that the Edict of Thessalonica (Cunctos Populos) of 380, which established Christianity as the religion of the Roman empire and which stands in pride of place at the beginning of the Codex of Justinian contains no mention of doctrine, but speaks of ““that religion which from then to now declares itself to have been delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.”

  • “It’s viewed as not recognizing the value of and integrity of our traditions.”

    About what “traditions” is Spanky speaking?

    Is it the “clown masses”, or the sanctification of sodomy?

    Liberals are stupid.

  • Anzlyne “Now if we can just move away from that Dan Schutte music!”

    Dan Schutte’s music is irreverent and ought to be removed from the church. I agree with you, Anzlyne.

  • I had forgotten that phrase of Lewis, “bat crap crazy”. Or perhaps I was young enough in my journey of life that I could not relate to the full measure of what that could mean. Now I can place a perfect example of what has happened to me and my thought processes in perspective! For in my study of the leadership and direction of my beloved Faith, and the forked road that has been taken what else could it possibly be? We are ALL being driven “bat crap crazy”! “Skrewtape, Skrewptape, Skrewtape!! Ye are alive and well.

  • *blink*
    I’m not sure if it’s an insult to Mr Lewis or a HUGE complement to TAC (or a comment on my sleep deprived self) when I read a long quote from CSL and interpret it as an opening comment from one of our good writers, rather than a classic quote…..

    It’s sad that I can see Priests that would be both, with great ease– as folks might guess from my talk of Father Hippy, Father Vietnam, etc.

Our Lightworker President Still Has His Worshippers

Monday, July 16, AD 2012

As hard as it is to believe, even after four years of the inept comedy stylings of the Obama administration as a substitute for government, we still have in this great land people who continue to worship, as occurred in 2008, the South Side Messiah.  Signs of this include the movie The Obama Effect, which reminds me of an old Stalinist propaganda movie with lesser production values, and this piece of tripe that our old friend Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels for the Faith so frequently that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, shines a light on at Midwest Conservative Journal:

Write about the Episcopal Organization long enough and every so often, you’ll run up against something that stops you cold.  Seems that the Rev. Mark Bozzuti-Jones, who works at Trinity-Wall Street, just published a book entitled The Gospel of Barack Hussein Obama According to Mark.  Here’s how Bozzuti-Jones blurbed the book at

The Gospel of Barack Hussein Obama According to Mark is designed to initiate the reader into a meditation on what it means to be human, what it means to be a manifestation of God, and how Barack Obama is a unique and important manifestation of God’s desire for human flourishing. In a blend of words from his public speeches, imagined conversation, and fictional situations, the book highlights Obama’s real stance on social justice and, in particular, economic and political empowerment. It juxtaposes ancient Biblical form and contemporary reality, challenging the reader to see and seek God in all persons. “Our life-defining texts must be porous and we must be imaginative in our engagement with them. Let this book be a reminder not to so credit sacred texts or cultural icons that they lead us to hatred and violence in the name of God. When we see the Divine in another, we must name it. We must respect it. The practice demands nothing less than Love.

Um…okay.  If you use Amazon’s Look Inside feature and read the first few pages of this thing, you discover a book that is so over-the-top that David Fischler thinks it might be a joke.  I’m not so sure.  Over at Trinity’s site, Bozzuti-Jones comments:

This is a project close to [Bozzuti-Jones’] heart. “It means a lot to me because this is my first self-published book, and there is something special about that: a book like this is truly mine in the sense that I struggled with it, I wrestled with it, and I ensured that it saw the light of day.”

It may surprise some to hear that it is not meant to be a political book. “I have tremendous respect for all people, no matter which side of the political spectrum they are on,” Bozzuti-Jones explained. “That said, I do believe that President Obama holds a significant place in American history and world history. What Barack Hussein Obama has accomplished is the fulfillment of the constitution of the United States: that all people are created equal, and so more than any other person in the last decades he has fulfilled the American dream.”

The book comes from Bozzuti-Jones’ incarnational theology. “I think oftentimes, as Christians and as a world, we don’t give sufficient credit to what it means to be born in the image and likeness of God. I think if more human beings could see the divine in the other, they could recognize that human beings can point to the divine in each other.”

Normally, this is where I’d say, “I got nuthin’.”

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Our Lightworker President Still Has His Worshippers

  • The Gospel of Barack Hussein Obama According to Mark is designed to initiate the reader into a meditation on what it means to be human, what it means to be a manifestation of God, and how Barack Obama is a unique and important manifestation of God’s desire for human flourishing.

    I threw up a little in my mouth reading that…

  • ” Let this book be a reminder not to so credit sacred texts or cultural icons that they lead us to hatred and violence in the name of God. ”

    Another reminder that atheism, nihilism, and the other ism’s of worldly power brokers just end up needing the golden calves to replace desecrated good.

    ” Bozzuti-Jones explained. “That said, I do believe that President Obama holds a significant place in American history and world history. What Barack Hussein Obama has accomplished is the fulfillment of the constitution of the United States: that all people are created equal, and so more than any other person in the last decades he has fulfilled the American dream.” Free rides aren’t the stuff of dreams or the Constitution of the United States.

    The book comes from Bozzuti-Jones’ incarnational theology. “ ”

    The video clip has no dream come true looking happy souls – poor kids. Poor in Spirit … indoctrinated, not created. May they live and learn from their poverty of Spirit.

    ” fulfillment of the constitution of the United States: that all people are created equal, ”

    except the ones that are EXEMPT and are the Contributors List and the politically disagreeable . E. Orders and E. Privilege for the not so equal.

  • Exodus 20:1-3:

    “And God spoke all these words, saying, ‘I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me.’”

    Idolatry will always and everywhere result in the suspension of religious freedom. Just ask Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, or the Maccabean brothers. We live in perilous times little different from what the Weimar Republic faced after World War I, and we all know how that turned out.

    Kyrie Eleison
    Christe Eleison
    Kyrie Eleison

  • From the video, it is obvious, that the minor child, an un-emancipated child, without informed consent to give or adult enough to vote, has been and is being indoctrinated. The minor child is being used and abused to indoctrinate others, especially the minor children. This is proof positive in a court of law, that Obama does not rule according to the will of the people and will commit treason to get his own will accomplished. VIVA CRISTO REY

  • If you ever wanted any insight into how early Christians could fall and end up burning a pinch of incense to Caesar’s genius, here you go.

  • Oh, did I say IMPEACH? The child may be Obama’s constituent, but she is her own person. Using innocent children without the understanding to know what they are doing is a violation of their innocence and their informed consent, their citizenship. The child who has been indoctrinated for political purposes is being abused. The innocence of a child may only be presented to almighty God, the Supreme Sovereign Being, “their Creator” as inscribed into our Declaration of Independence. Because Obama is president, he has committed treason against this person, a child, a citizen. What is a little slavery, indoctrination is filial ensalvement, when one is Obama? There is no money that can buy the un-informed consent of a minor person, the consent and all minor person’s civil rights are held in trust for her by God, by her parents and finally by the court…not Obama. If the child’s civil rights are violated by enslavement to filial love without her informed consent, making of her a political issue instead of a free person, the courts are not the final arbiters, the child into adulthood is. In most states it is eighteen years and two months.

  • The forces of evil running public education are brainwashing, not educating, innocent little chldren.

    Talk about Obama-worshiping imbeciles . . .

    The Gospel According to Obama: uncharitable, implacable, hateful, dishonest, . . .

    Jim Treacher: “Here’s The Smartest President Ever, speaking in Roanoke on Friday . . . writing Romney’s next ad for him. . . . Barack Obama openly stokes bitter resentment against Americans who work hard, take risks, and create jobs.”

    “You don’t deserve what you have earned.”

    From comments: Americans to Obama: “Funny, we were thinking the exact same thing about you…”

  • Talk about Obama-worshiping imbeciles . . . I think Lenin called them “useful idiots”. The truth does not abide in them.

  • Mary–

    Were you this up-in-arms about the video of the child singing “no homos in heaven” from Indiana?

    As for the original article and the comments–my what vitriol and hatred from a bunch of self-proclaimed “christians”. (Just so you all understand, the quotations and the lower case is my personal way of noting that, while you proclaim to follow Christ, you certainly don’t act like it. Talk is cheap.)

  • “Were you this up-in-arms about the video of the child singing ‘no homos in heaven’ from Indiana?”

    “9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Neither sexually immoral people, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners, 10 nor thieves, nor greedy persons, not drunkards, not abusive persons, not swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Lexham Translation of 1st Corinthians 6:9-10.

    Malakos (the Greek word for passive homosexual partners) and arsenokoit?s (the Greek word for dominate homosexual partners) are NOT getting into Heaven. Period.

    BUT celebate homosexuals who repent are getting into Heaven. BTW, adulterers and fornicators don’t make it into Heaven either except that repent and stop the sinning. The same rules apply to everyone: no sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman. Anything other than that means hell.

  • Just so you all understand, the quotations and the lower case is my personal way of noting that, while you proclaim to follow Christ, you certainly don’t act like it.

    No Kidding! I am completely shocked that someone could use air quotes to imply sarcasm on the internet. Had you not issued your excessively long disclaimer, I would have spent the next few seconds thinking you genuinely thought us to be Christians. Instead, I will now have to reflect on my life now that some drive by troll labeling himself cminca thinks I am somehow less than Christian.

  • Paul Z. wrote:

    “Instead, I will now have to reflect on my life now that some drive by troll labeling himself cminca thinks I am somehow less than Christian.”

    If one proclaims social justice, the common good and peace at any price from the hill tops, then to liberal philosophy that one is Christian.

    If one insists on holiness before the Lord God Almighty, personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions, reverence before the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, and frequent Confession and Penance, then to liberal philosophy one is a medieval right wing neo-con reactionary.

    It all goes back to what the Prophet Ezekiel noted in chapter 18 of his book: “Y’all keep on whinin’ that ‘God ain’t fair, God ain’t fair’ because He told you what’ll happen if you sin. Quit your whining; you’re gettin’ what you always wanted.” (Loosely paraphrased, of course)

  • So what does cminca think about the claim that “Barack Obama is a unique and important manifestation of God’s desire for human flourishing”?

    Oh, never mind. He/She’s just here to declare personal awesomeness against those nasty inferior christers.


  • Something like a cause and effect kind of thing seems to happen in comment sections – maybe it’s coincidence or my limited reading time – which is: use of words implying delusions of someone for lack of any better terms brings on another using of accusations of hatred and judgements, in a vitriolic, condescending tone.

  • another using accusations

  • cminca,

    Did you read St Mark’s Gospel? In Mark, Jesus speaks of Himself as the Son of Man Who came to give His life to free people from sin and to win for them salvation.

    I find it highly offensive for a so-called clergyman to subvert the Gospel, the Good News of eternal life – the rewards of which jesus won for us by His Life , Death and Resurrection – to support a dull and illogical nobody like Obama.

  • He/She’s just here to declare personal awesomeness against those nasty inferior christers.

    Wow, that was really funny. I was going post something but the awesomeness of that post says it all.

  • “(Just so you all understand, the quotations and the lower case is my personal way of noting that, while you proclaim to follow Christ, you certainly don’t act like it. Talk is cheap.)”

    Not as cheap as a troll condemning complete strangers on the net for pointing out the obvious: that the Southside Messiah still has a cult follower that is weird in the extreme.

  • “You Got Nothin”, I got sick! One Our Father, One Hail Mary and One Glory Be To the Father. Oh and yes many “Acts Of Contrition” or in paraphrasing
    Salley Fields, “I’m trying I’m REALLY trying.”

  • In any case, a book comparing Obama with Muhammad would be closer to the truth.

  • cminca: “Mary–

    Were you this up-in-arms about the video of the child singing “no homos in heaven” from Indiana?”
    An homosexual in heaven will be practicing the homosexual act forever. Pretty boring. An homosexual in hell will be practicing the homosexul act forever. Pretty boring. God says : “Do not do sodomy. It gets pretty boring.” Man dies the way he lives. Man chooses heaven or hell for himself. The child singing ” no homos in heaven” is correct. Singing the Truth

Liberal Catholics and the Fortnight For Freedom

Friday, June 22, AD 2012



Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, has the number of liberal Catholics and their reaction to the Fortnight For Freedom proclaimed by our Bishops:

Jim Naughton’s joint takes note of the US Catholic Church’s latest initiative:

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has called on Catholics throughout the country to observe a “Fortnight for Freedom,” beginning today and running through July 4, to protest the Obama administration’s health care policies.

This is how the USCCB describes Fortnight of Freedom.

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

Here’s the obligatory bit that all stories like this are legally obligated to contain about how sharply divided the Roman Catholic Church is over this issue.

Marion McCartney, who attends the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament in Washington, D.C., opposes the bishops’ campaign. She’s part of a group, Blessed Sacrament Families United in Faith and Action, that wrote a letter to its pastor, saying the partisan nature of the campaign is “a step too far.”

“Nobody’s religious freedom is at stake. That’s just ridiculous!” McCartney says. Is “[Health and Human Services Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius going to come and close all the church doors? I mean, it’s just foolishness.”

Can you say “Episcopalians in Catholic drag?”  Knew you could.

Another member of that group is Jim Zogby, who has worked on human-rights issues overseas. He says the U.S. bishops were spoiling for a fight over social issues with the Obama administration.

“They declared war on the administration, and we the faithful are paying the price for it,” Zogby says. “Our religious freedom, our ability to simply go to church, worship, feel a community, feel safe in that community” has been compromised.

“We’re now being put in the middle of a partisan fight, and that’s wrong.”

It’s easy to see what’s at work here.  To liberal Catholics, as to all leftist Christians, Catholic bishops are “partisan” or “political” when they take a stand on an issue with which the left strongly disagrees(i. e., birth control and abortion).  When they back a cause the left strongly supports, the bishops are acting “pastoral” and truly Christian and doing what God called them to do and stuff.

His wife, Eileen, says Blessed Sacrament, with its mix of liberals and conservatives, has always put politics aside. Not now. At a recent parish meeting about religious freedom, people began attacking President Obama, she says, getting more and more heated.

“Until finally one person leaned forward and he said, ‘Well, I have seen cars in our parking lot with Obama stickers on them, and they are complicit in all of this.’ And I thought, ‘Well I guess I’m not welcome here, because I have an Obama sticker on my car.’ “

If you’ve got an Obama sticker on your car, lady, I have one piece of advice.  Get thee to a Eucharistic Adoration.  Can’t hurt.  Also, the sex abuse scandal.  And nuns are cool now so stop beating up nuns!!

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Liberal Catholics and the Fortnight For Freedom

  • “Episcopalians in Catholic drag!” I love that phrase!

  • Oh, I forgot:

    Bishopress Schori would be so proud! Revelation 2:20-23:

    20* But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her immorality. 22 Behold, I will throw her on a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her doings; 23* and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches shall know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you as your works deserve.

  • Not one person mentioned the Body of Christ. “People of God” do not murder or approve of murder in the womb. Whoever encouraged that woman to believe that she is ordained is out of order and has done her a great disservice. How sweetly they are defiant. How compassionately they will rip the brains out of a living human being. How gently they say: “No, I will not serve.” They are atheists trying to take control of the Catholic Church, in the same manner the devil has taken control of their souls. Thank God for Pope Benedict XVI.

  • Liberal Catholics sing in one accord: “We have no King but Caesar” (John 16:9).

  • The Common Good!

    Social Justice!!

    They don’t care about faith and morals.

    They are not Catholics. They are liberals fronting as catholics.

  • “Liberal Catholics sing in one accord: “We have no King but Caesar” (John 16:9).”

    Whoa, the truth behind that should send shivers down one’s spine.

  • In the very old days, when a daughter wished to enter a convent, her father had to provide a dowery equal to her life’s support to the convent. It is said that this is the dowery provided by Saint Nicholas. Many a good woman could not enter a convent. And when these arrive at the gates of hell, they will blame their bishop.

  • “And when these arrive at the gates of hell, they will blame their bishop.” it is to these out of order nuns, to whom, I refer. Beg pardon.

  • The video is actually rather sad – the poor woman justifying her “choice” position because it is “private”; as if anything we do is actually private. And, of course, bringing up the canard about “coat hangers” (really would like to see a full scale investigation to find out if there was ever a woman who tried that). They are so lost – just aimlessly mouthing sentiments they cannot possibly have thought through and being willing tools of those who wish to destroy all truth.

  • Sad to see Ms. McCartney confuse “freedom of worship” with “freedom of religion,” but that’s just what her preferred standard-bearer wants to restrict her to. Sadder still that she’d need padlocks on the doors before she’d see a problem.

    Another snapshot from our Catholic house divided.

  • Sorry, I cant get all worked up about this. If the Bishops and the Church wanted true freedom they would stop standing around with their hands out asking for government money for health care, social programs, vouchers, tax exemptions. Has anyone ever heard the saying: “he who pays the piper gets to name the tune.” If the government gives you money (or financial benefit in the way of tax exemptions) they expect you to accept all the conditions that go along with it.

    True freedom means financial freedom. Other organizations have retained their freedom by refusing government assistance. For decades Hillsdale College has stuck by its principles and refused government funding to avoid government regulations. In the 1990’s Bob Jones University stuck by its principles – for awhile – until they caved on the issue of interracial dating (not an admirable cause but you can at least respect them for standing up for their principles). On the other hand look at all the Catholic social service agencies that have been forced to provide benefits to same sex couples because the agency accepts federal or local funds.

    I wish our Bishops would have enough courage to just say “NO” to government money. Unfortunately, that is something our clergy has never been strong enough to do.

  • Your argument is a nonsequitur since the HHS mandate is not contingent upon an employer receiving one thin dime from the Feds.

  • Don is right. I hear this nonsequitur argument all the time, even from folks who strike me as otherwise informed. Weird actually.

  • So in other words, the HHS mandate applies to every organization whether or not it receives federal money, the only exception being a very narrow one that includes houses of worship (I.e., churches, temples, synagogues, etc.), but NOT other religious organizations even when they receive NO federal money.

    Hence the non sequitur nature of the argument: “This is the Bishop’s fault because they receive federal funding for their organizations.”

    I do agree, however, that the Bishops’ ingratiation of themselves with the liberal leftist idea of social justice, the common good and peace at any price to the exclusion of the principles of subsidiarity, personal responsibility and individual accountability has had a lot to do with the current situation. Not all Bishops did this, but enough of this Marxist pollution has so infected the USCCB that we have the current situation. Now they cry religious freedom, having already sacrificed it for universal health care nonsense and other liberal social justice idiocies. The Church is about saving souls from Heaven, and that is where She ought to focus Her energies.

  • “The Church is about saving souls from Heaven…”

    Whoops! That should read:

    “The Church is about saving souls for Heaven…”

    -10 points for me!

  • “I wish our Bishops would have enough courage to just say “NO” to government money. Unfortunately, that is something our clergy has never been strong enough to do.”

    “Don is right. I hear this nonsequitur argument all the time, even from folks who strike me as otherwise informed. Weird actually.”

    Weird indeed. One cannot express oneself freely if one takes part in govt. programs. Though unfortunately, we might have to begin to think this way in order to prevent such a move in the future.

  • Mac and all lawyers at sea,

    I have been warned about hand-written notes and emails (they may be subpoenaed!).

    Can you give a Legalese, one- or two-word translation for the word “bu!!$@&%”?

    Ridiculous, spurious, and nonsequitur just don’t have the “oomph.”

    For accounting and financial BS, I use: “liberal interpretation”, inconsistent application”, “mark to make-believe”, “fairy tale value”, or “extend and pretend.”


  • Love this video report! In La La land, one can believe just about anything and call herself a Catholic. And one more reason to never sing that stupid song. It may be heartfelt but it, along with many other OCP ditties, does not belong in any Catholic liturgy. SO happy we have the Latin Mass and are not subject to the liturgy nazi’s dictating what we must sing in order to make everyone at Mass feel good about himself/herself.

Surprise: Anti-Catholic Bigot Heads Pro-Abort Organization

Sunday, May 6, AD 2012

Anti-Catholic bigot, homosexual activist and Episcopalian minister Harry Knox is back in the news.  Long time readers of this blog will recall that President Obama appointed Knox to his Advisory Council on Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships back in 2009.  Go here to read a post on that appointment.

Knox has recently become the head of  the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.  He has a post on the Huffington Post explaining why religious people should support the slaying of children in the womb, a post which proves, once again the truth of Socrates’ adage that an unexamined life is a tragedy.  Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic  former Episcopalian, and a man who has taken up the cudgels so frequently in defense of the Church that I have designated him Defender of the Faith, gives one of the arguments of Mr. Knox a proper response:

A homosexual Episcopal minister named Harry Knox is set to become Führer und Reichskanzler of the national organization of Einsatzgruppen America the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice and while explaining why “religious” people should be celebrating abortion rather than mourning it, wrote one of the five or six stupidest statements I’ve read this year:

The harsh and condemning judgments of some religious leaders are troubling. They suggest that abortion is morally wrong, while ignoring the fact that miscarriages and unwanted pregnancies are common.  They deny that God is present in these times

Let’s take that one out for a spin, shall we?

(1) The harsh and condemning judgments about dropping a nuclear bomb on Tehran are troubling.  They suggest that the complete annihilation of Iran’s largest city and every single man, woman and child in it is morally wrong while ignoring the fact that hurricanes and tsunamis regularly destroy cities and kill innocent people.  They deny that God is present in these times

(2) The harsh and condemning judgments about setting off that bomb in a crowded city are troubling.  They suggest that terrorism is morally wrong while ignoring the fact that volcanoes regularly explode, killing thousands of people all over the world.  They deny that God is present in these times.

(3) Your harsh and condemning judgments about me boinking your wife are troubling.  They suggest that adultery is morally wrong while ignoring the fact that more men and women have sex outside of so-called “wedlock” than in it.  They deny that God is present in these times.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Surprise: Anti-Catholic Bigot Heads Pro-Abort Organization

  • “One can only imagine what He will have to say to a purported minister of His Gospel who adopted such a stance.”

    He may not say anything. “…Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground.” John 8:6b

    And their response will be as follows, “…they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest…” John 8:9.

    The only place they will have to go away to isn’t Heaven.

  • Harry knox’s mother thought abortion to be morally wrong for she brought him to birth, uinknowing who or what her son would become on earth. Also, Harry Knox’s father ought to have been involved in his son’s destiny. Harry Knox dishonors his parents. To be a minister of the Word and disobey God’s commandment to “Honor thy mother and thy father that thou shalt be long lived upon the face of the earth.” is an indication to what kind of job Harry Knox is going to do. Our tax dollars deserve better use.

  • Paul,
    The reason Christ wrote in the dirt that second time is found in the Douay Rheims version in Jeremiah 17:13:
    ” 17:13 O Lord, the hope of Israel:  all that forsake thee shall be confounded:  they that depart from thee, shall be WRITTEN IN THE EARTH…”
    In my opinion, Christ, who wrote Jeremiah 17:13, was writing each man’s name in the dirt with a clue to each of them ( e.g. name of a female) that told each of a hidden sin in their past.
    That is why they walk away one by one and in order of decreasing age because Christ writes each name and clue in order of descending age. But there is mercy here ( not in Jer.17:13 context) because each man may repent after having their self righteousness removed. Each already knew their hidden sin that was not hidden from Christ because Jeremiah 17:1 reads…”  The sin of Juda is written with a pen of iron, with the point of a diamond, it is graven upon the
    table of their heart…”

  • Gosh Mr. Knox, thanks! I can now stab my annoying neighbor in the chest and call it a heart attack! Woot!

  • The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says that condoms do not prevent HIV/aids. The FDA says that HIV/aids and all viruses pass between the molecules of the material, a scientific fact. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) says that SOME protection is better than none. The only way to use a lethal condom properly with HIV/aids is total abstinence as Pope Benedict XVI has proclaimed. Read: “Do Condoms leak HIV?” Does Harry Knox accept that he is guilty for every person who has contracted HIV/aids through his advocacy? Does Harry Knox accept that there is an Eighth Commandment that says: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”? And a Fifth Commandment that states: “Thou shalt not kill” even through HIV/aids advocacy? If Harry Knox is a minister of the Word of God, He needs to minister to the Word of God by telling the truth. Concealing and withholding the scientific truth about HIVV/aids and condoms from the taxpayers is criminal. Distorting scientific fact does violence to the common good and to the will of God through abortion, promiscuity and disease. Our tax dollars deserve someone who is who he says he is. If Harry Knox takes an oath of office he is a perjurer.
    My immediate response to Harry Knox’s indifference to HIV spread is that he is infected.

  • This can be an amusing and diverting activitie.

    Here’s my corollary to Knox’s moral deviance.

    Everyone will rightly condemn the following: “Make the World a better place. Shoot a liberal in the face.” Let’s give it the “Knox Treatment.”

    The harsh and condemning judgments of some religious leaders are troubling. They suggest that shooting liberals is morally wrong, while ignoring the fact that shootings and armed assaults are common. They deny that God is present in these times . . .

    Knox is either dumber than dirt or so controlled by evil as to be unable think rationally.

    A religious person might contemplate miscarriage and ascribe it to God’s will.

    God is not present with baby murders. The baby murderer violently acts against God’s will and denies the victim God’s creative act.

    What an evil idiot.

  • Is a homosexual taking the lead in an antiabortion mocment somwhow equivalent to a blind mind taking charge of a gun club? Perhaps he sees his new role as advancing the gay anti “breeders” hate campaign.

  • I do hope this is not to off topic but did anyone else notice the man with the bag on his head?

  • Valentin says:
    Sunday, May 6, 2012 A.D. at 7:29pm
    I do hope this is not to off topic but did anyone else notice the man with the bag on his head?
    That was no bag.

  • Yeah it was a bag. The bag guy who was on the panel to the side of Knox in the video was called “Moses” and supposedly was a homosexual from Nigeria fleeing persecution. The bag over his head was a media attention getting device, although the purported reason was to protect his identity.

  • I think the whole coexist unitarian is not a group to trust at the school I go to there was once a couple of boys whose dad ran the local unitarian church and he would not let them eat meat (how tolerant) because he was a vegetarian so at the school the staff members would let them eat the food that they had there so they eat tonnes of meat at the school and eventually started looking like shining Adonises and their decided to pull them out and move his whole family to Mexico because he was inspired by nature and when they got there he left them there and ran off with some mistress.

  • I am sorry there is supposed to be a “dad” in between “their” and “decided”

  • Harsh and condemning judgements trouble Harry Knox. Murder of babes, soaking the earth with blood, cannot be morally wrong when the cause is so common. Abuse of Free Will is God’s fault. He shouldn’t have given it to the human race because it doesn’t want to be held responsible for justifying its insanity. If the kids want to cheat in school, then take risks with the lives of others for what they’re supposed to know; well cheating is common, so tragedies of failure and error should be allowable, not accountable. Blame whoever sheds light on – yes, even Harry Knox – right and wrong, good and evil, up and down, sane and insane. That’s the way it goes.

    Just wondering about the root of the word Episcopal – is it tied to Epistles, such as are found in the Holy Bible?

  • Episcopal derives from the Greek episkopos. Yes, it’s in the New Testament.

  • Donald, it is not a surprise that Obama has appointed yet another “Chief Advocate of the Culture of Death”. You should all have seen it coming. By now, Obama’s Evil design on Humanity is as clear as the Sun at Noon. He is mocking God with every breath he takes and each beat of his heart. Yes, and Jesus HAS WRITTEN IN THE EARTH about him and his cohorts. He wrote and continues to write IN THE EARTH for those Sinners whom He knows – as only God can know – who will never, ever repent because they sold their souls to the Devil a long time ago.

  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EDITION | The Pulpit
  • bill bannon,

    Thanks for the insight.

  • Huh. Minor mystery.

    The NAB translation of Jeremiah 17:13b is very different most other bibles:

    “The rebels shall be enrolled in the netherworld; they have forsaken the LORD, source of living waters.”

    Virtually every other translation has something along the lines of “those who turn away from you shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water.”

    There is almost always a good reason for the word choice in NAB, but this one is escaping me.

    The Hebrew verb is ‘kathab’ and the various meanings are shown here, mostly supporting the translation ‘written’ where NAB uses ‘enrolled’:

    The Septuagint uses ?????????? which I would suspect also supports ‘written’.

    Also, NAB’s choice of ‘netherworld’ where other translations use ‘earth’ or ‘dust’. But what’s really baffling is that NAB’s footnote to John 8:6 references RSV: “Cf. Jer 17:13 (RSV): “Those who turn away from thee shall be written in the earth, for they have forsaken the LORD, the fountain of living water”; cf. Jn 7:38.”

    Anyway, thanks again to Bill for bringing this up.

  • He’s not just anti-Catholic; the guy is also anti-sequitur. I read the original column of his at HuffPo and every bit of it was as poorly-reasoned as the example given above.

  • We can do these all day: The harsh and condemning judgments about beating my wife, perhaps to death, are troubling. They suggest that wife-beating is morally wrong while ignoring the fact that wives are beaten, occasionally to death, all over the world. They deny that God is present in these times. Call it the Harry Knox defense.

  • Episcopal (episcopos) and Epistle (epistole) are only related in the Greek – linguistically – by their preposition starting the words. Epi… has several meanings but upon or over are a basic hit.

    Their root words are different – EpiSCOPOS is related to seeing, thus the bishop’s office is one of oversight. EpiSTOLE is related to the word “to send.” Thus it is something sent to (upon).

    They are both in the New Testament because functionally for the faith the ARE related, as the Epistles are letters which the teaching office (magisterium) of the Episcopacy sent to their “flocks.” Thus, to use them correctly in a sentence: I certainly hope the Episcopal conference in the U. S. would send more epistles with the quality of the recent document on our first freedom!

  • And yes – I noticed I’m not perfect with my grammar. I’ll blame it on the construction happing in my office right now.

Jesuitical 12: America and the Bishops

Monday, February 27, AD 2012


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading...

8 Responses to Jesuitical 12: America and the Bishops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Campaign poster or next issue cover?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gerry Connolly: Former Seminarian-Democrat Congressman-Anti-Catholic Bigot

Friday, February 17, AD 2012

Hattip to Chris Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal.  Johnson is a non-Catholic who has taken up the cudgels so frequently for the Church that I have named him Defender of the Faith. 

Gerry Connolly, (D.VA.), graduated from Maryknoll Preparatory Seminary in Illinois in 1971.  Rather than becoming a priest, he, fortunately for the Church, became involved in politics.  In 2008 he was elected to the House.  In 2010 he was re-elected by fewer than a thousand votes.  (Better luck to the unfortunate constituents of Mr. Connolly this year.)  Although he purportedly is a Catholic, he has routinely engaged in Catholic bashing as a political tool.  In his race for the House in 2008 he played the anti-Catholic card against his Republican opponent:

House minority leader John Boehner is urging Democratic leaders to stop a vicious anti-Catholic smear campaign against Republican congressional candidate Keith Fimian, who is challenging Democrat Gerry Connolly for a rare open seat in Virginia’s 11th District. All 157 Catholics currently serving in the House, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi, should join their 25 Catholic colleagues in the Senate to denounce this vile attempt to denigrate their fitness for office.

Postcards mailed to voters on behalf of Connolly by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) portray the Fairfax County businessman as anti-women because he sits on the board of Legatus, a group of traditional Catholic CEOs founded by Domino’s Pizza magnate Tom Monaghan and endorsed by the late Pope John Paul II. Catholic League president Bill Donohue condemned the scurrilous ads as blatant “Catholic bashing” and demanded that Connolly publicly denounce them. Instead, the Democrat repeated the smears on TV.

It goes without saying of course that the CINO (Catholic in Name Only) Connolly is a complete pro-abort and a big supporter of Planned Parenthood.  Connolly can always be relied upon as a tame Catholic to defend the Obama administration from critics pointing out obvious anti-Catholic bias.

Thus it was no surprise that Connolly, at yesterday’s hearing on the HHS Mandate, belittled the witnesses who appeared to protest the infringement of the Mandate on religious liberty:

Continue reading...

7 Responses to Gerry Connolly: Former Seminarian-Democrat Congressman-Anti-Catholic Bigot

  • I noticed quite a while ago that the most venomously hateful anti-Catholics are those raised Catholic. The Jews have the phenomenon of the “self-hating Jew” but I don’t know that we can speak of “self-hating Catholics,” since the Catholic anti-Catholics seem to have very high opinions of themselves. (Unlike us, they “see though” the Church.) Really, I’ve heard one-time Catholics go off on tirades that make Jack Chick sound like Little Mary Sunshine. Unfortunately, because the bigots were raised Catholic, outsiders can get the idea that they know what they are talking about.

  • Why are Obama and Connolly talking about contraception, ending the health care scourge that are children, “why I hate Catholics”, etc.?

    Because they don’t want you to notice America is going bankrupt until there’s nothing left for them to steal.

  • I know the following is Godwin’s, but I can’t resist:

    “But he was a seminarian!”

    “So was Stalin.”

  • “…we were denied, on this side of the aisle, any witness who might have a differing point of view. And I think that’s shameful.”
    Did he stomp his foot too? What a whiner.

  • If Obamacare could heal the sick and raise the dead, participation must still be freely chosen to acknowledge the free will of the individual person to say: “THANK YOU, NO” Persons whose free will is not acknowedged are enslaved. Slaves are not citizens and do not vote. Remember to vote against your slave master.

  • ‘ to testify about your rights being trampled on — an overstatement if there ever was one — while you’re on a panel, and your participation on the panel makes you complicit in of course the trampling of freedom, because we were denied, on this side of the aisle, any witness who might have a differing point of view. And I think that’s shameful.” ‘

    Just like a trained attack dog. And they had to listen to what he thinks, not call him on what he’s doing to bring them there. Bailouts were the first order of business back when, causing spin enough to get minds too dizzy to watch where the cash waves crashed. Now, passions for the 1st Amendment problem will leave little left for the rest of coming Constitutional and financial trouble. God help those who try to stem the tide by ‘depriving’ anyone. Exec Branch has cried foul over any opposition creating stalemates to build its reputation for getting things done. They call the legislative branch do nothings. Now they scorn Religion on the front burner, while doing what with mammon.

  • Pingback: SATURDAY EDITION |

Become a Certified Catholic Priest For a Low, Low Price!

Friday, December 16, AD 2011

Christopher Johnson, the non-Catholic proprietor of Midwest Conservative Journal who has taken up the cudgels in defense of Catholicism so frequently that I have named him Defender of the Faith, has a brilliant spoof column, taking off from a news story on “let’s pretend” women Catholic “priests”:

Thank you for your interest in becoming a certified Catholic priest.  We here at Certified Catholic Priests International, Inc. have helped thousands of people around the world to lead richer, more fulfilling lives as certified Catholic priests.

You probably have lots of questions.  The first question everyone asks is, “Do I have what it takes to become a certified Catholic priest?”  Our research staff here at CCPI has put together this quick aptitude test to help you find out.

(1) The Roman Catholic Church was founded by:      (A) Romulus      (B) Former Los Angeles Rams quarterback Roman Gabriel      (C) Jim Rome      (D) None of the above

(2) “Missal” is:      (A) A long-range rocket containing some sort of weapon      (B) The opposite of “hittal”      (C) What everybody in Council Bluffs, Iowa used to call Miss Alberta Leffingwell, head      librarian of the Council Bluffs Public Library from 1939 until 1983      (D) None of the above

(3) When the telegraph was the only form of long-distance communication, the average amount of time that it took to complete one level of Angry Birds was:      (A) Six months      (B) Four years      (C) It depended on the difficulty of the level      (D) None of the above

Continue reading...

One Response to Become a Certified Catholic Priest For a Low, Low Price!

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite: Why Doesn’t That Papist Bishop Just Shut Up?

Friday, July 8, AD 2011

Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, current faculty member and former president of the Chicago Theological Seminary ,(don’t laugh yet), doesn’t think much of Catholic bishops expressing opposition to gay marriage, and she  said so recently at some length in the “On Faith” (trust me that is a misnomer) blog at the Washington post.  Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal, a Protestant who takes up the cudgels in defense of the Church so often that I have named him Defender of the Faith, gives her a fisking to remember:

Nobody, and I mean nobody, does pompous, arrogant self-righteousness better than liberal Protestants.  Via David “He Reads ‘On Faith’ So You Don’t Have To” Fischler comes this drivel from the Chicago Theological Seminary’s Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite criticizing a Catholic bishop for being…well…a Catholic bishop:

How can we expect other nations around the world to create and sustain pluralistic democracies when prominent religious leaders in the United Sates, such as Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio of New York, fail to grasp the fundamentals of this concept?

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite: Why Doesn’t That Papist Bishop Just Shut Up?

  • The stand that the Church has taken (and must take) against homosexual behavior was severely weakened when Bishop Hubbard of the Diocese of Albany, NY gave such a rousing tribute to Governor Andy Cuomo at his inauguration Mass (did I describe that correctly?), knowing (how could one be unaware) of his stated position on abortion, homosexual marriage and co-habitation with his concubine.

    People like Cuomo, Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Kucinich, Leahy, Guiliani (let’s not leave the RINOs excluded), etc., must be publicly excommunicated (1) to bring them to repentance and (2) as an example to the Faithful. St. Paul set such an example with Hymenaeus and Alexander in 1st Timothy 1:19-20. And worse happened for less to Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. Neither one murdered unborn babies or sanctified homosexual sodomy. Worse also happened to Jezebel at the Church in Thyatira as recorded in Revelation 2:20-23.

  • A lot of bandwidth to give an idiot, Don.

  • She and her ilk are treated seriously by the elites who run our country Joe, even if her position boils down to the belief that anyone who disagrees with her should just shut up.

  • Well, Don, maybe we should ignore the “elites,” too. 😆

  • As soon as they have no power in our society Joe I will be happy to do so.

  • “…her position boils down to the belief that anyone who disagrees with her should just shut up.”

    That is the hallmark of liberalism, progressivism and “demokracy”: two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

    “Well, Don, maybe we should ignore the ‘elites,’ too.”

    We should vote them out of office.

  • Don, only in the next life.

  • Oh, I think we can make them limp a bit in this life also Joe.

  • Catholics have been persecuted, put down and belittled for centuries and some of them (martyrs) have died for the faith. It is liberal sport to criticize Catholics. This leftist is no different than the persecutors of old and she will ultimately lose this battle. The truth always wins. “People the Earth” cannot apply to those who practice sodomy. There is a reason for everything within the Catholic Church and all of it stems from Jesus Christ, himself. The depravity of the leftist, modernist progressives knows no bounds: proved by the legalized murder it commits on the unborn. They may be the elites here on earth but they will not be the elites when they burn in hell. God help them all.
    It is up to all of us to remove all of them from power and from our churches. They are Lucifers with College Degrees.

  • I read her article on Ryan’s plan and Rand. I agree with a lot of what she said. The surge of interest in Ayn Rand does bother me, and I didn’t know that Ryan had been a fan. (Then again, I haven’t checked her sources on that.) But the piece ends with a classic bit of McCarthyism: if you support a plan that Randians support, you’re no better than they are. If a Christian supports the plan for a Christian reason, and a Randian supports the plan for a non-Christian reason, the Christian is acting as a non-Christian. Appalling.

  • May I gently remind my separated brethren here that it was the Republicans who were key to passing homo marriage in NY. The vote in the Legislature was 32-29 with the GOP posting the swing votes.

    So the idea that you can vote the bums out, as Paul P suggests, is ludicrous. Despite the so-called “shellacking” last November, House Republicans are on the verge of caving to Obama’s demands for either tax hikes or defense cuts, according to the latest scuttlebutt.

    Given that most Republicans pay mere lip service to important social issues such as abortion and gay marriage, there is not much difference between the two major political parties. That, Don, comprises the “elite” you reference. Making them “limp” is an inadequate remedy as long as they can still walk.

  • Pinky,

    Ryan has read Rand. I think his enthusiasm is for her thoughts on the free market etc. Contrary to what’s out there, he’s not made it required reading for his staff.

    I think reading Rand is the equivalent of reading Marx. A lot wrong in both (more wrong in Marx than in Rand) but not necessarily evil to understand their thoughts and where they may hit the mark.

    I’m sure Thistlethwaite has no problem with reading Marx.

  • There’s a certain amount of truth to what Joe green points out. I am thoroughly disgusted with the Republicans, but when given a choice between a Demokrat and a Republican, I will always vote Republican. The Republican Party certainly isn’t the party of God, but the Demokratik Party is the party of Satan.

    That being said, I really like the platform of the Constitution Party:

    It is the closest to Church teaching of any of the political parties that I am seen. But the chances of this party gaining ascendency are abysmally low. So…..when the only two choices are the Demokrats and the Republicans, vote Republican. We cannot afford another four years of the Obamanation of Desolation.

  • In reference to RINOS Joe they are not the main problem. Your example of gay marriage is instructive in New York. The vast majority of Republicans voted against it, while virtually all Democrats voted for it. The Pox on both your Houses stance is silly since it is the Democrats who are the driving force behind virtually all the bad ideas currently afflicting this country in the government arena. I have no problem with voting RINOs out and belaboring them, but I never take my eye off the main cause of bad ideas being made into law: The Democrat party and the voters who pull the lever for it.

  • “But the chances of this party gaining ascendency are abysmally low.”

    Actually the chance of the Constitution party ever being more than an electoral asterick on the national scene is abysmally low.

  • I realize that, Donald. -10 pts for me not wording the sentence more accurately.

  • Phillip, yeah, that may be the case. I don’t know anyone on his staff. Making an intern read one of her 3000-page books has got to be a violation of some labor law, though.

    I think Rand is a trap that the Buckley-Reagan generation knew to avoid. The conservative movement has never tried to alienate people who have good intentions. The effort is always made to explain why some things that sound like they’d be bad for the poor are really good for everyone including the poor. Conservatives get labelled cruel and uncaring, but always defend their principles as fundamentally good. The Rand trap is to espouse good economic policy in the name of evil. That doesn’t persuade anyone. And as Catholics, it’s our greater duty to identify and condemn evil.

  • What is depressing is three fold:

    1. The woman’s political thought as exemplified is confused, stereotyped, and crude;

    2. Her conception of her function vis-a-vis her denomination and protestant Christianity generally appears to be to re-imagine it in accordance with the zeitgeist – which is to say her position is parasitic, dishonest, and supercilious.

    3. She has an honored position on a theological faculty.

  • “She has an honored position on a theological faculty.”

    Ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth – that’s in Scripture somewhere.

    My 2nd sponsor in a 12 step program used to tell us pigeons prideful of our education in Academia, “A thermometer has degrees and you know where you can stick that!”

    We really didn’t take too kindly to his statement (and he didn’t give a hoot because that’s what it took to rid us of the pride that kept us from staying sober), but sometimes it’s better to be without those credentials than to be like this woman – “done educated into imbecility.”

  • Pingback: The Former President of Chicago Theological Seminary is Really This Stupid? | ImNotHerzog
  • Maybe because Incompetent and Unqualified Obama has not yet repealed the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights . . . He and the commie crowd are working on it.

    Credentialed, infallible ignorance . . . theology: making up stuff about god (purposefully not capitalized).

Bishopess Mangles Church History for Paulists

Friday, January 28, AD 2011


Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who I have designated Defender of the Faith, has a not to be missed post on the farce that ensued when the Paulists had the presiding bishopess of the Episcopalian church in this country deliver a lecture to some Paulist seminarians:

Each year, St. Paul’s College, a Roman Catholic institution for Paulist seminarians in Washington, DC, hosts what it calls the Hecker Lecture.  This year’s speaker was the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Organization, the Most Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori.  And I cannot remember the last time I read any sort of message about anything at all that fell completely apart in the very first sentence:

We are the respective heirs of different strands of western Christianity.

No “we’re” not.  “We” were all one big happy family until the 1500?s when “we” Anglicans decided to go it alone.

I will not begin with the Reformation, but with a much earlier, indigenous Christianity in the British Isles.

And herrrrrrrrre we go.

Roman soldiers appear to have taken the Christian tradition with them when they were posted to the frontiers of the Roman Empire – at least by the second century.

An alternative theory suggests that British Christianity was kept alive in Middle Earth by hobbits and that Frodo is Elvish for Jesus.  That’s my story and I’m sticking to it; if the Presiding Bishop can live in a fantasy world, so can I, consarnit.

That tradition remained when the Roman Empire receded, but the faith continued to grow and develop in its new context.

Sort of makes one wonder why the western Church sent all those missionaries to the British Isles.  Why did Columba leave Ireland and set up Iona?  And just what was he telling the Picts anyway?

If we would look for a modern parallel, we might point to the development of the Three Self Movement in China, with roots in the various colonial plantings of Christianity in the 16th to 19th centuries.

Awkward analogy, that, insofar as, whatever its origins, Three Self was at one time shot through with Communists who didn’t believe all this supernatural crap, becoming, in effect, a sort of Episcopal Organization backed by fiercely-atheist state coercion.

Gregory sent Augustine to 6th century Britain, and challenged him at least in part to bless the best of local tradition in recognition that God had already been at work there.

I believe that would be Pope Gregory and does the fact that Pope Gregory sent Augustine to Britain suggest anything to you, Kate?

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Bishopess Mangles Church History for Paulists

  • She also says, “Vatican II was able to say that there is salvation beyond the church.” which isn’t actually true. It should read “Vatican II was able to say that there is the possibility of salvation beyond the Church.” Huge difference there.

    Great post!

  • Well, the Bishopess is not completely incorrect. The Roman Empire did bring Christianity to Great Britain during the last century or so of its existence (Though more in the 3rd and especially 4th century than in the 2nd). Its a matter for debate about whether Christianity was the dominant faith in Britain when the empire pulled out in the late 4th and early 5th century, but it was certainly reasonably prominent.

    The real fact of the matter is that in the 5th and 6th centuries, Roman Britain was invaded by Germanic Tribes (most commonly the Angles, the Saxons and the Juttes), and that these vibrant pagan groups appear to have replaced the native Roman-Celtic culture (Including the Christian faith) in the parts of Britain now known as England.

    Where there Christians still in England following the Anglo-Saxon conquests? Probably, but they certainly had little to know influence in the broader society. Hence the need for St. Augustine.

  • Maryland Bill, Christopher Johnson was not disputing that there were Christians in England following the invasion of the Germanic tribes in the Fifth Century. He was jabbing at Kate the Confused’s obvious intent to depict them as separate from Catholicism on the Continent. As to Christianity in the British isles following the invasion of Hengist and Horsa and their successors, we know as little about that as we do about the historical “King Arthur”. That is one period of history that is largely a blank page due to an almost total lack of contemporary accounts.

  • The following is more valid than anything that priestess (to what goddess doth she sacrifice?) spouted:

    Ziggy zoggy
    Ziggy zoggy
    Oy Oy Oy!!!

    Mac, as one notorious politico of disputed parentage oft spake, “You cain’t put lipstick on a pig.”

    Lo, Hygelac and I had a good laugh.

    Though, it was a valiant effort on your part.

  • She forgot to mention how Jesus spent his youth in Britain and St. Thomas spent some time there before being posted to India (part of the good old colonial administration, what?) not to mention the grail and the lance and all that.

    In other news, the expanding universe theory finally proved what all good true born British men and women had always suspected — Britain is at the center of the universe. (And anyone who has not had the good fortune to be British true born, or a man or a woman, can just listen up as a matter of simple decent respect!)

  • Donald, that might be his intent, but that is not what he wrote. He not only mocked (justifiably) the notion that those tradition remained strong in Anglo-Saxon England, but also that Christianity was brought to Britain in the first place by the Romans.

    Some of the original Roman Christianity did remain; in Ireland and Wales. And Irish monks actually were responsible for converting the Anglo-Saxons of Northumbria independently of St. Augustine’s mission. The mistake the Bishopess makes is that this “Celtic” Christianity was part of the Catholic Church with their own particular traditions… while most of those traditions (tonsure and dating of Easter) were abandoned when contact was reestablished with Rome, at least one (Irish Penance practices) were ultimately adopted by Europe as a whole.

  • Well, apart from the legimitate and scholarly disputes about the status of Christian belief in the British Isles prior to Augustine of Canterbury, it is clear that her intent is to lessen or, indeed, deny the fact that the Henrician reformation was a major rupture with the existing practice of Christianity in England. Her fantastical view–found, actually, also in much of the propaganda in the early modern period–is that the Henrician reformation was merely a reassertion or development of a native strand of Christianity that had preceded the presence of the Roman Church on the isle. This (fantastic) account of history–believed by nobody working on the English Reformation today–is what justifies her opening line.

    She’s describing Anglicanism as though it had always been a local rite of Catholicism, instead of an invention of 18th and 19th century divines, flailing to find a way of describing the ad hoc negotiations between Puritan hard-liners, the monarchy, and the masses that eventually gave rise to that curious thing: the “Anglican” Church.

  • What a hoot! This lady is confused to the max! She mixes liberal theology, the myth of an independant Celtic British Church, and ecumenicalism into one heady brew1 Why didn’t she throw in British-Israelism, too?! LOL!

  • Critiquing the Episcopal bishop’s lecture is one thing, being so utterly rude and disrespectful of her as a person and fellow Christian is quite another. We Roman Catholics may not recognize Episcopal orders, but Episcopalians some Lutherans and other Christians, with whom we share a common, valid baptism, do. This post–and the posts that hoot encouragement– embarrass Christ, who says to all who are baptized, “Love one another as I have loved you.” Even if you think of Bishop Jefferts-Shori as your enemy, Christ says “Love your enemies,” and if somehow you are offended by her, “Do good to those who do you harm.” Do you think you prove the truth of Catholicism by this kind of writing? Do you think you persuade others to come to Christ with this tone? If this is “defending the faith,” which faith? Surely not Roman Catholicism, the supreme law of which is the law of charity.

  • Forgive my guffaw David. Considering her support for homosexual clergy, abortion on demand, and watered down Anglicanism, the Bishopess is getting off lightly in this post. Reread some passages in the Gospels and the Epistles and ponder what Our Lord and Saint Paul had to say about those who would lead others away from the Truth. A true Protestant man or woman of God, following the teachings of Christ the best they know, will always have my respect. I do not place the Bishopess in that category.

  • Some background on the Bishopess:

    I am thankful to her for one thing. Her and prelates like her in the Episcopalian and Anglican churches, have made many good Catholics by driving former members fed up with their antics across the Tiber. Keep up the bad work Bishopess!

  • Love the sinner. Hate the sin. Admonish the sinner. Instruct the ignorant. Counsel the doubtful.

    I could be wrong: Christ used a knotted cord to beat the money changers in the Temple.

    Correct me if I’m wrong. One of the last things Christ said (updated): “Let him who has no gun sell his robe and buy one.” Therewith the Second Amendment is sound theologically. Case closed.

  • Sure sign that someone, while having the theologically correct position of ordination reserved for men, also is particularly animated not just by orthodoxy but by misogyny — they can accept the common and papal courtsey of referring to Episcopalians by their self-named titles of “priest”, “bishop” or “clergy” even though the Church as ruled Anglican Orders invalid, but feel compelled never to extend the same courtsey to Anglican women (or even the non-commital term “clergyperson). To them the pagan term “priestess*” or the belitting term “bishopess” must be used.

    * In a quick “google” search, I find not a single use of the term except in reference to non-Christians or as a slur toward female Protestant clergy. I find not a single example of Christian using the term to describe herself.

    Sadly, my life’s experience is that those who find the need to write or speak extentisively on this issue, allowed to ramble on long enough, almost always move from a simple statement of orthodoxy to a revelation of underlying hatred of women.

  • “To them the pagan term “priestess*” or the belitting term “bishopess” must be used.”

    Priestess is a pagan term Katherine? No more than priest is a pagan term. As for bishopess, are you arguing that only the male form of the term is proper? How sexist of you! I find it amusing that you are more exercised by the term to be applied to the bishopess rather than the rot she was speaking. As to hatred of women, my wife of 28 years, my 15 year old daughter, and my secretary of 26 years I think would give me a good character on that score. However, I can understand why you would wish to cast aspersions of misogyny rather than dwell on the hilarity of having a pro-abort bishopess attempting to instruct Paulist seminarians on Church history.

    As for the term clergyperson, it does have a certain classic pc-uber-alles feel to it. I might in future sometimes refer to the bishopess as the bishopperson, although that might be sexist as it does end in that dreadful “son” suffix.

  • Priestess is a pagan term Katherine?

    Can you show me a Christian who uses the term for herself or a Christian denomination that names their clergy such? Papal and common courtsey accepts whatever titles a separated Christian community uses for itself. Yo find a need to invent titles to belittle others — correction — you don’t seem to find a need to belittle Protestant pro-abortion clergymen, it’s just women that win your ire.

    If you think bishopess is a perfectly non-pejorative word for an Anglican woman in episcopal orders, I would refer you to the church’s teaching on both Anglican Orders and the admission of women to the priesthood.

    If you are simply following common courtsey and applying self-chosen titles, then I would suggest you better investigate what term she and the Episcopal Chuch use.

    If you want to give a commentary on her remarks, do that rather than engage in childish name calling.

  • Nothing childish about it at all Katherine. Merely calling a knave a knavess.

Some People Say That No One Is Pro-Abortion

Wednesday, July 14, AD 2010

Occasionally pro-aborts make the argument that no one is pro-abortion.  Anglican priestess Katherine Ragsdale is Exhibit A that this is rubbish.  Christopher Johnson, a non-Catholic who I have designated Defender of the Faith for his spirited defenses of the Church, at the Midwest Conservative Journal examine Katherine Ragsdale’s views on abortion as a blessing in a post simply entitled “Monster”:

Abortion is a blessing — sometimes a joyful relief; sometimes a painful choice — but a blessing still.

Why is that so hard to see? How can anyone not understand that unless women can control our reproductive lives we can’t control our economic lives either, we can’t be fully functioning members of the commonwealth or stewards of the gifts God has given us unless we can decide when or if to have children?

There is, of course, one simple way around that little problem.  It’s a very old idea that has a number of names.  Keeping your clothes on, locking the barn door, keeping it zipped up, keeping the one-eyed snake in the cage, viewing men/women as human beings rather than ambulatory narcotics, saving yourself for marriage, etc.

I have been stunned, since all the uproar, to hear self-described feminists – feminists – say, “oh, abortion is always a morally complex tragedy but it’s sometimes a necessary evil and so must remain legal.” Is it any surprise that people are becoming less and less willing to call themselves pro-choice if even feminists are lamenting a necessary evil rather than celebrating a means to our own liberation and empowerment? 

“You use the phrase ‘killing every single Jew in the entire world’ like that’s a bad thing.” – Heinrich Himmler.

Look, the only way abortion is a tragedy or an evil is if a fertilized egg is a baby. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that (and they’re entitled to) but science doesn’t, most theologies don’t, and common sense doesn’t. Why should we believe that? Yet every time we called abortion a tragedy we reiterate the position that a zygote is a human being of equal moral standing with a woman. We create an antiabortion climate and I fear it has come back to bite us.

Two things.  Katie Rags was a fertilized egg once.  So was her entire audience and so was every single person reading this.  And as far as Rags is concerned, you’re still a “fertilized egg” nine months after one of your dad’s swimmers made it inside one of your mom’s eggs, as demonstrated by her lionization of Old Partial-Birth Abortion.

It is only this that makes it possible for people to be as outraged as many have been by the characterization of George Tiller as a saint and martyr. Dr. Tiller — like most if not all people who work in clinics that provide abortions — did difficult, demanding, and dangerous work under constant threat, harassment, and terrorism. He did it even though he could make more money doing easier, and certainly safer, work. He did it because he believed it was the right thing to do. It was his ministry. He spent and gave his life on behalf of others. That’s a saint and martyr. The only reason anyone could question that is if they thought abortion was a bad thing. The only way they can think that if they believe a fertilized egg is a baby. And we contribute to that whenever we try to compromise and be conciliatory by calling abortion a tragedy.

Says here that participation in the Einsatzgruppen during the Second World Was was terribly stressful on the German soldiers involved.  But the fact that they needed copious quantities of booze to get through the day didn’t make those bastards virtuous.

Continue reading...

One Response to Some People Say That No One Is Pro-Abortion

Defender of the Faith

Friday, October 30, AD 2009

Defender of the Faith

For years I’ve read Christopher Johnson’s first rate blog Midwest Conservative Journal.  If you want to know what is going on in the Anglican world, his is the blog to read.  I have always been impressed by how frequently a man who says he will probably never convert to Catholicism has taken up the cudgels in defense of the Faith.  Recently Newsweek decided to give Richard Dawkins, an ignorant, in matters of religion, bigot, an opportunity to vent his hatred of Catholicism by asking him to comment on the Anglican initiative of Pope Benedict.  (That is akin to asking Madonna, the strumpet, not the Mother of God, to give her opinion on the Summa Theologica.)  Christopher gives his hate filled screed a fisking to remember here.  Bravo Christopher!  You may never swim the Tiber, but you will always have a cheering section on this side of the bank!

Continue reading...

5 Responses to Defender of the Faith