The Philosopher Millennial

Monday, March 21, AD 2016

Justin Bieber Church Christian Taco Bell Millennial Philosopher

Update Below

“You don’t need to go to church to be a Christian.

If you go to Taco Bell, that doesn’t make you a taco.”

– Justin Bieber

This is probably the quote of the year, from a Millennial no less.

(Hat Tip: Taylor Marshall at Maccabee Society)

Update: A few developments that have come up through reliable sources:

  1.  Justin Bieber does attend both Sunday service and Wednesday night Bible study weekly.
  2.  This may be an old Protestant meme with no relation to Justin Bieber.
  3.  If the graphics on the pic above are correct, I recognize the CNN Headline News logo and it may well be anti-Christian propaganda.
  4.  For the record, I do not dislike Justin Bieber, I just found the quote quite funny, but with these recent developments, please keep in mind that this could be another smear against professed Christians.
Continue reading...

17 Responses to The Philosopher Millennial

  • Justin Bieber, a Canadian migrant doing a job Americans just won’t do.

  • Meet the new press secretary for Pope Francis!

  • …wait a minute.
    Wasn’t it Justin Bieber who said?; “A mind is a terrible thing.”

    Mr. Bieber is one taco shy of a combo platter.

  • Justin Bieber is typical of today’s generation. There are intelligent, rational engineers in their late 20s or early 30s with whom I work who would say exactly what he said. This is the fruit of godless liberal progressive Academia.

  • Some day he might also be saying with the same authoritative voice, “If you go to Hell, that doesn’t make you a bad person”

  • O tempora o mores!

  • Deport him to Canada for gross stupidly!

  • Whoa! JB future Vatican star, you are so wrong with your food magisterium. Indeed, you are what you eat-so-enough tacos and you become a taco-just look around at so many on such a diet and you see immediately this is gospel truth. There are walking human Dunkin Donuts and living Whoppers. Same same-eat His flesh, drink His blood and become incorporated into the biggest fan club of all time-the MBOC. Mystical Body Of Christ. Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

  • Taking Tito Edwards’ title a step further, I find it fascinating to [attempt to] discuss history, politics and economics with millennial philosophers. Some are surprisingly thoughtful, and appear to realize, “Yeah, that’s right.” (i.e., about capital drives all economics, you cant increase pay if you don’t increase productivity, that communism has been the greatest murderer in history with greatest living murderers still around us like Fidel & Raul, and the little fat man in Pyongyang, or historically, the sociopath named Lenin, the goon named Stalin (they don’t know he started as a bank-robber in Pt. Baku), nor the late round-faced god with his little red book that murdered upwards of 40 MILLION.

    Mind you, most of these people bring up the questions to me in the course of my work—I don’t volunteer or practice “solemn-nonsense proselytism.” Heaven forbid.
    ….
    But with many others, you reach a THC-addled, drug-fused wall (at least out here in CA) melted into a dense mantle of 12 years of ecological Leninism. Hard to penetrate. This is the stronghold of the Bernie supporters—emotion welcome, reason an enemy, rage a virtue. One person got terribly red in the face and positively outraged as I ticked off the evidence once—he asked me now—that global-warming aka climate-change was a fraud. His mother and his religion had been insulted.
    ….
    That young man is now teaching in the public elementary schools in Madison, WI. PIty the poor children. In another decade, all the more, pity us.

  • Pingback: HOLY TUESDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
  • He’s just paraphrasing a guy born in the 60s.
    .
    The 1860s.
    .
    “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you an automobile.”
    http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/27312-going-to-church-doesn-t-make-you-a-christian-any-more

  • Steve Phoenix-
    the kids are unlikely to be any worse than the guy you talked to; he’s just copying the 60s era teachers that he had, who were most likely the only ones who acted like it was good for him to share the same views.
    Those of us who did not and do not agree with those teachers learned to shut up about it, unless it’s really worth arguing.
    The guys on the opposite side will abuse you, and the guys who in theory agree with you tend to be nasty because you haven’t been on their side since before you were born. The philosophical evangelism on the right sucks. Some of us will agree anyways, because it’s right, but we’re sure as heck not going to speak up on the subject even when politely possible unless we think it’s important enough to risk the scolds.

  • Foxfire, Billy Sunday was a Protestant – a Protester against the Church in which He refused to believe. To be a Christian is to be baptized into the visible Church, the Body of Christ. How ironic that a man whose surname was Sunday could not understand this.

  • A guy that i once knew well, when we were discussing going to Church on Sunday, came out with that statement, claiming he was a “good” Presbyterian, but didn’t need to go the Church..

    A couple of years later, he started an affair with his best friend’s wife, which I think is ongoing.

    I guess he thinks being a good christian is “by sharing the lerv”- in a manner of speaking. 😉

  • LQC-
    I rather guessed. Just was *sure* I’d heard that “going to Church doesn’t make you a Christian any more than going to (place) makes you a (think usually found in that place)” line before. I was betting it was from the 60s, since it sounded like a usual hippy-dippy philosophy.
    I was only off by something like half a century……

  • @Don the Kiwi.

    The guy you once knew is everywhere these days. Clones? Maybe, but I’m sure it’s the taco sauce. Cheeky bastards.

  • I’ve heard the sort of remark attributed to pop-idol Bieber before from Protestants, especially ones who despise those they call “Churchians”. (I remind these separated brethren that Jesus did not leave us a book, he left us a Church–one that He promised the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against. I borrowed that from Steve Ray. It really messes with sola scriptura heads.)

4 Responses to Low Information Voters Explain Why Obama Deserves His Nobel Peace Prize

  • That’s nothing.
    I used to listen to Howard Stern (yes, I have no taste) before, um, budget cuts took effect. He would send his staff out to do man in the street interviews.
    2008:
    “Who are you voting for?
    “Obama.”
    “Do you agree with hm about making homosexuality illegal[or bombing Iran, or deporting illegals]?”
    “Well, um . . . yeah . . . it’s the right thing to do”

    After the election:
    “Did you vote yesterday?”
    “No.”
    “Who would you have voted for?”
    “Obama.”
    “Are you aware he lost the election by ONE vote — McCain won.”
    “[expletive]!’

    Can’t we bring back literacy tests?
    Scratch that, literacy isn’t the problem.
    How about a quiz to ensure voters know the candidates and the duties of each office. I’d accept any general in-the-ballpark answer.

  • Sad and funny at the same time. I laughed out loud on the ONE vote win remark.
    Basic literacy test- a great idea; however, we live in a nation where a simple requirement to identify oneself at the poll as a legitimate registered voter is objectionable to many.

  • The carnival music is very appropriate.

  • I’m beginning to think a civics/political literacy/current affairs test should be required of all voters. If it were, it is certain Obama would not be president.

Could Husband of the Year be Next?

Thursday, January 10, AD 2013

Former president Bill Clinton can add Father of the Year to the many awards he’s garnered in his decades of public service.

The National Father’s Day Council, which has been giving out such an honor for 72 years, has named Clinton one of its recipients for 2013.

“With the profound generosity, leadership and tireless dedication to both his public office and many philanthropic organizations, President Clinton exemplifies the attributes that we celebrate through the Father of the Year award,” said Dan Orwig, chairman of the National Father’s Day Committee.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Could Husband of the Year be Next?

Tuition Money at Work

Monday, December 3, AD 2012

 

 

Eliana Johnson at National Review Online helps explain why college costs a gazillion dollars:

A construction crew working on the campus of Ohio’s Sinclair Community College was forced to halt work until it removed a “Men Working” sign that was deemed “sexist” by a college administrator. A spokesman for the college told National Review Online that the incident, which occurred on November 21, stemmed from the school’s “deep commitment to diversity,” and that it takes that commitment “very seriously.” 

Continue reading...

One Response to Tuition Money at Work

75%!!!!

Tuesday, May 15, AD 2012

 

Will Smith, Obama supporter and proponent of the rich paying more in taxes, is stunned to learn that under the tax proposal of the newly elected Socialist President of France,  Francois Hollande, he would be paying 75% of his income in taxes.  Hollyweird celebrities do tend to live in a bubble, and it is amusing to see their reaction when they catch a glimpse of outside reality.  Ah well, I’ll probably still see Men in Black III Memorial Day weekend:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to 75%!!!!

One Response to Uintentional Humor

The American Catholic in Good Company

Monday, February 27, AD 2012

 

We get a fair amount of drive by troll comments here at The American Catholic.  One such comment appeared in the Apologias thread from a William L. Zimmerman.  Here is the comment by Mr. Zimmerman:

Mr. Obama’s apology over the burning of Korans was entirely appropriate.  If you really think Muslim outrage over the incident is insincere, think back to when Mapplethorpe’s “Piss Christ” art work was enough to enrage the Christian world.  I truly wish you web site would stop posing as a “Catholic” publication.  It isn’t.  It’s at best a political rag for the American right.  Stop misrepresenting my religion to the world.  You are as out of touch with the message of Jesus Christ as I can imagine.

 

In regard to the comment, a hint for Mr.  Zimmerman:  If you are going to bring up a red herring, it should have some relevance.  The banally blasphemous Piss Christ of Andres Serrano, not Maplethorpe, aroused ire largely because it received an award partially funded by the National Endowment of Arts, a taxpayer supported institution, and no one lost their life or suffered any injury in the subsequent completely peaceful protests by Christians and those art lovers who could distinguish art from a con job.  As for his critique of The American Catholic, we seem to be in good company when it comes to Mr. Zimmerman’s attempt to drum us out of the Faith.

At the site Our Common Thread, the web site of Catholics United, a George Soros funded astroturf group of Catholic Anti-Catholics, Mr. Zimmerman left this observation about the Bishops:

Continue reading...

13 Responses to The American Catholic in Good Company

  • Has Mr. Zimmerman ever bothered to read the Bible, or the Catechism, or anything else that is remotely Catholic? Morality is absolute. But the devil’s favorite color is grey. And Adam and Eve made a decision on an individual level whose repercussions we still deal with today.

  • “Sincere outrage” for them not for THEE!

    The honorable ways to dispose of the American flag, Holy Bibles, religious materials, etc. are to burn or bury them.

    Here’s another lying liberal false comparison. As usual, they reward evil and assault virtue.

    No one: not Marplethorpes, was murdered – “SINCERE OUTRAGE” – because of his distasteful, faux art. He’ll be eternally dealt with.

    I don’t advocate killing all filthy pagans, just killing – “SINCERE OUTRAGE” – the ones that will murder us because someone 8,000 miles away mistakenly burned books or drew cartoons of the profit Muhammad.

  • I ga e up Facebook for Lent for the second year in a row this year. Last year it took until September for me to revert to arguing politics on the internet. “Troll” is an appropriate name for people who do what Mr. Z does, in that it is ugly and creates anxiety in the knowledge that somebody could be both so wrong and so steeped in the absolute surety of his own correctness.

    The giveaway is the implication that The Church is just another set of robber barons, pilfering from the poor to line thier own pockets. It’s the standard left/prgressive/neo-fascist rant against everything that isn’t driving down the street in his neighborhood throwing $100 bills out the windows.

    If I had a chancer to ask him, my question to the conflicted Mr. Zimmerman would be: “Why are you still calling yourself Catholic? If you disbelieve all of The Church’s tenets, why stay? The Unitarians would love you. If you miss the Liturgy, there are some Episcopalian dioceses in New England that would love to have you aboard. Your bleats, err, opinions are as substantial as those of an Orthodox Jew complining about how he can’t enjoy his baby back ribs. Please, go find peace, and when you do, your return will be heralded as with The Prodigal.”

    We must pray for Mr. Zimmerman and all those misguided and deceived souls like him. “St. Anthony, pray for us.”

  • Keep posting, Mr. Zimmerman. It’s important to preserve for posterity a certain ossified type of smug, leftist Church Lady emoting which identifies as “Catholic thinking.” Health warning: constantly patting yourself on the back for your enlightenment is potentially dangerous to long term rotator cuff health.

    Let me guess–you attended Catholic school, too.

    There’s no nice way of putting this, but you are a willfully obtuse twit immunized against any facts which might pierce your leftist bubble.

    Such as the lack of a body count from ANDRES SERRANO’S “Piss Christ” display. Good Gaia, Zimmerman, you can’t even get your artist straight in your preening vents. I know Donald already pointed it out, but watching you flail about trying to denigrate others with your alleged superiority is a lot like watching a one-legged cat determined to bury turds on a frozen pond.

    So, yes–keep it coming.

  • Let me guess–you attended Catholic school, too.

    I’m guessing he was an altar boy too. The question is, however, did he go to seminary?

  • If not “seminary”, then “sanitary” – as in sewage waste treatment. 😉

  • ” What is right in one situation is wrong in another context. There are no short cuts in moral decision making. But there are a million shades of grey. Catholic Bishops should learn that. ”
    These men are Bishops because they know the Word and Laws of God, the black and white, and how to apply it in moral decision making and in other areas where grey enters to confuse. I’ll stay with them for safety. Otherwise, it’s a life of trying to digest the fester and rot from ‘millions’ of grey views.

    ” But these right thinking old fools are intent on imposing their views on all of us. ”
    [Correct: Right thinking/ men of God]
    [Incorrect: ‘fools’ are found in grey areas, ‘imposing’ as does government,
    ‘views’ are personal opinions such as above, in contrast to applying God’s Law]

  • Please tell me you’re not moderating his comments. Please.

  • All trolls and William L. Zimmerman are free to go to hell. What the trolls and William L. Zimmerman are not free to do is to take other people with them. Then the state and the Church must step in and prevent innocent persons being drawn into the hell forever and forever by the likes of trolls and William L. Zimmerman. Moral relativism only begets more moral relativism making us all lost. Any shade of gray is good if the person consents with full knowledge to having gray. Having gray shoved down our throats on our way to hell with a troll is not exactly what Jesus wants for us in freedom. Thomas Aquinas defined the human being as “an individual substance of a rational nature”. God’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”, HE WHO IS, HE WHO WAS AND HE WHO WILL BE, GOD IS BEING, GOD IS EXISTENCE, God is the theological basis for the notion and truth that the human life of another person begins at conception, when two become one, with the will of HE WHO WILL BE. As far as ejaculation, one must be concerned with every cell of the human being as it is precious in the eyes of God, WHO made every one. How dare you speak your vile tongue for me? Who are you to speak for me? Did you get my permission? No, I do not give you permission to speak for me. Plagiarist. Liar.

  • Dale Price,
    “Good Gaia” the exclaimation caught my eye and I thought I may start using it. Gaia is an idea, but her priestesses refer to humans as parasites on the back of Mother Earth, so I do not know if this is good. The idea of God as Mother is treated at http://www.rosaryvictory.blogspot.com. “Nature is not our mother. Nature is our sister.” GKC

  • GEORGE SOROS Goinng, goooingg, gone.

  • Dale Price.

    ….like a one legged cat determined to bury turds on a frozen pond.”

    Priceless – 😆
    Couldn’t help picturing this in my mind.

    Maybe, Don, you could encourage Mr. Zimmerman to keep commenting? Would arguably raise the level of mirth on the blog 🙂

The Very Quiddity of Civility

Sunday, January 15, AD 2012

 

Hattip to Creative Minority Report.  No, the above video is not a Daily Show spoof.  There really and truly is a Froma Harrop.  She is an editorial writer for the Providence Journal and President of the National Conference of Editorial Writers.  (I know that sounds like a spoof, but it isn’t.)  The NCEW has a project to restore civility in American life, and you may read all about it here.

On August 2, 2011, Ms. Harrop delivered herself of this glittering gem of civility:

 

Make no mistake: The tea party Republicans have engaged in economic terrorism against the United States — threatening to blow up the economy if they don’t get what they want. And like the al-Qaida bombers, what they want is delusional: the dream of restoring some fantasy caliphate in which no one pays taxes, while the country is magically protected from foreign attack and the elderly get government-paid hip replacements.

Americans are not supposed to negotiate with terrorists, but that’s what Obama has been doing. Obama should have grabbed the bully pulpit early on, bellowing that everything can be discussed but America’s honor, which requires making good on its debt obligations. Lines about “we’re all at fault” and “Republicans should compromise” are beyond pathetic on a subject that should be beyond discussion.

That the Republican leadership couldn’t control a small group of ignoramuses in its ranks has brought disgrace on their party. But oddly, Obama’s passivity made it hard for responsible Republicans to control their destructive children.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to The Very Quiddity of Civility

  • Obama has reacted by illegally, unconstitutionally depriving all citizens, but especially those with whom he (Obama) disagrees through the National Defense Authorization Act, enacted by Obama’s signature on New Year’s Eve, while he (Obama) was in Hawaii, giving Obama the power to detain any citizen indefinitely without charges, undoing the Magna Carta, eight hundred years of civil rights and Habeas Corpus. This, I believe, is because the nation refused to try enemy combatants as non enemies to give the enemies the civil rights of citizens, and as citizens under the Constitution

  • I always hate it when I have to defend Obama Mary, but that simply is not true, although it is claimed all over the internet.

    This section of the Authorization ensures that American citizens suspected of terrorism can not be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism:

    “Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.”

    I would note that I do not want this thread to become a debate on that act. This thread is about “civility police” lacking civility, not tin foil hat hysteria spread on the internet. (My contribution to civility today!)

  • I never knew there was such a word as “quiddity.” I left school 40 years ago. When was it invented?

    Anyhow, Whatz-her-name seems yer typical idiot ideologue liberal: infallible ignorance.

    I observe that she lacks the intellectual capacity for dishonesty.

    I think the main item on display here is (I think the shrinks call it) “projection.”

    Obama must go.

  • “Terrorism is not confined to physical attacks. ”

    Example of a verbal one.
    Quid pro quo -ness, too.

  • “quiddity” comes from the latin “quidditas” a term used as a synonym for nature or essence.

  • @Donald R. McCleary: The only reason I responded to this post is because I like the word “Quiddity”. I hattip my aluminun hat to you. Thank you for your kind response.

  • I like the word too Mary since I became familiar with the works of the Angelic Doctor. It tickled me tan, if not pink, that I could use it in a title for a blog post!

  • Wrecking crew. Wreckers. Whatever. She’d clearly prefer all Tea Parties to “disappear.”

  • I think this is another example of civility quiddity from John Hinderacker at PowerLine (they post a pic of something that has “Newsweek”??? above and a whole-page picture of someone who doesn’t look happy):

    “We who are unhappy that unemployment has increased on Obama’s watch, that over-regulation has stymied economic growth, that our children now owe a $15 trillion debt that we can’t pay–hey, we’re just dumb! We obviously aren’t smart enough to understand how devastating our economy, unemploying millions of Americans and burdening our children with trillions of dollars in debt is really a great idea.”

    I think it’s the obama-worshiping idiots’ stupidity quiddity (or projection thereof), not faux civility.

    As Bart Simpson famously exclaimed 20 years ago, “I’m insulted!”

National Catholic Reporter in Full Melt Down Mode

Monday, November 28, AD 2011

Having sat through some pretty dreadful masses since Vatican II, I guess I have a wee bit of schadenfreude right now.  The National Catholic Reporter has an editorial that has to be seen to be believed.  This is a choice paragraph:

The Vatican issued new translation guidelines, Liturgiam authenticam, in 2001, reorganized ICEL to report not to the English-speaking bishops but to the Curia, and appointed a committee, Vox Clara, to advise it on the approval of English translations. All this was done ostensibly to ensure the authenticity of the translation, but it was clear from the beginning that a clerical, imperial ideology was being imposed on the translation. The poetry of language and beauty of prayers were secondary concerns.

 

 

Continue reading...

15 Responses to National Catholic Reporter in Full Melt Down Mode

  • This is the first I’ve heard of the 1998 translation. I looked it up and it’s somewhere between the 1973 and current translations but much closer to the 1973. So close that I don’t even see why it warranted change.

    I do see Mr. Tambourine’s point though. It’s a step back for comprehensibility. But then again, it is more poetic which I prefer to simplicity. On the third hand, the Mass should be accessible to the masses. I keep on returning to the idea I have about bifurcating the missal into high and low versions or maybe even more.

  • RR:

    Can you post a link to the 1998 translation?

    The editorial was actually much better than the irrational “Leave Britney Alone!” freakout I was expecting (and have seen before).

    But I’m really getting tired of the refusal of those wetting their beds over the change to admit that the ’73 was a steaming pile of crap, and not just the product of “aw, shucks–we were carried away by enthusiasm!” In some sections, it’s a bad paraphrase, which prompts fair questions as to the motives of the translators.

    Until the protesters admit to the awfulness of the previous translation, I’m inclined to roundfile their objections.

  • I keep on returning to the idea I have about bifurcating the missal into high and low versions or maybe even more.

    I can understand the motivation, but the liturgy is already diverse enough by having four eucharistic prayers in the new rite and the ’62 Mass. “Indulting” the ’73 (so to speak) is pretty close to fracturing the rite altogether.

  • The English Mass was hardly a translation from the Latin to English. It was a re-write.

    E.G., Et cum spiritu tuo is And with your spirit in English, not And also with you. Big difference in meaning and intent.

    The youths won’t be there because their parents weren’t there.

  • 1998 Sacramentary: http://rapidshare.com/files/387089704/ICEL_Sacramentary__1998_.zip

    Dale, I’ve never actually heard the alternative Eucharistic prayers used. There may be enough diversity but it’s not taken advantage of due to, I suspect, inertia. I think making clearer distinctions (e.g., designating a version as “high” or “solemn”) and encouraging their use could be beneficial.

  • Well, given the way the NCR editorial staff feels about the new translation – how they will cringe with the new words – they might have a better appreciation at how faithful Catholics feel when they read the cr*p they consistently publish.

  • I guess this fellow commenting on the NCR thread can be the one to turn off the lights for the Episcopalians:

    “Oh, Heavens!! The Catholic Church lost me 50 years ago & I’ve finally “grown up” and left it ~ HOORAY!!!! My Methodist-raised spouse & I joined the REAL Church of the Good Lord, the Episcopal Church ~ our church does Mass the correct way with all the former “High Mass” trimmings EVERY SUNDAY morning AND the fabulous formal choir (in ROBES!)always sings ALL the verses to the lovely Christian hymns. The congregation dresses properly ~ not in junk clothes like the Catholics these days (at 5 p.m. Masses, especially) ~ and really WANTS to be there to praise & thank the Good Lord…unlike Catholics who just “show up” so they won’t “commit a mortal sin & go to Hell” ~ or so they were trained to believe they will!

    No wonder there was the Protestant Reformation ~ the Episcopalians got it right!!”

  • Pingback: MONDAY EXTRA: NEW TRANSLATION | ThePulp.it
  • We tambourine people! Oh my goodness! LOL!

    I see where this is going now, they really just want the jingle-jangle worship that is entirely the sound of tambourine, and will avoid any language whatsoever so as not to offend anyone who is offended by Latin, English, commas, unfamiliar words, the idea we are sinners in need of mercy, or religion and belief in God in general.

  • I’m thinking a chorus of “Listen To What The Flower People Say” from This Is Spinal Tap would pretty much sum up the Tamborine People…

  • Donate to NCR? You have got to be kidding. The Mass this past Sunday was beautiful, poetic and reverent. The thing is that we must get out of “auto pilot” with our responses. At daily Mass yesterday, “and also with you” was said several times. There is a difference between “and with your spirit” and “and also with you”. When the Mass was translated into other languages, the translations were much closer to the Latin text. Only in English speaking countries was the translation so abominable. The Eucharistic Prayers are beautiful. I am thankful to JP II and Benedict for this beautiful and faithful translation.

  • I’ve written quite extensively on the new translation, having examined and commented upon every prayer in the ordinary, and every collect, offertory prayer, preface, postcommunion, special blessing, and prayer over the people, for every Sunday and every feast day, even the minor ones, throughout the year. The translation we have now is immeasurably superior to what we’ve had for forty years — and superior in the very poetic qualities that the Distorter pretends to long for. The 1998 translation was a Trojan Horse — and the Distorter doesn’t want to admit it. They did actually try to translate, sort of, the collects and the prefaces (as opposed to the lame paraphrase of 1973), but they left the bad translations of the ordinary alone, and they introduced some really bad and stupid stuff, via the feminist syndrome.

    As for the young people: I have spent my whole professional life around young people. I teach them for a living. If I offered a class on singing Renaissance polyphony, I’d have thirty kids signing up overnight, half of them boys. The students I know who love their faith are more, not less, interested in learning Latin and recovering their Catholic heritage. Haven’t oldsters been pretending for all these years that they knew what would attract young people? Haven’t they already tried making things “cool” and “hip” and “relevant” and so forth? Haven’t the kids seen through all that and shrugged? When I’m at a Mass where the people sing the atrocious muzak from Haugen, Haas, and Schutte, and the “choir” consists of a bunch of middle aged women who like to be looked at, some old guy going along with it to please his wife, and a teenage girl or two, it doesn’t take much genius to see behind the stony faces of the boys in the congregation — if there are any.

  • Thank you Tony. I too have noticed the young people preferring the new translation. There are more young people at Eucharistic Adoration. Yesterday, I noticed more young people at daily Mass. Those to whom I spoke after Mass, said that they prefer the new translation.

  • My sons are 20 & 22 and they want to be told the TRUTH, even if it is harder than a sugarcoated lie. They will do great with the new translation because its TRUE. One of the most disrespectful thing that people can do is to lie to get a certain response from others…it tells them that you don’t respect their capacity to have the correct response from the actual truth.

    Noone likes disrespect but young makes especially dont will violently remove themselves from situations when disrespected. Give them the TRUTH….as close as we have it, the new translation is the truth.

Does This Surprise Anyone?

Thursday, November 10, AD 2011

 

Hattip to commenter RL for alerting me to this.  Father Z directs us to Chiesa for some information about the confusion surrounding the release of Towards Reforming the International Financial & Monetary Systems in the Context of Global Public Authority:

Over at Chiesa, there is a piece about the new, confused “white paper”, as I prefer to call it, from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

Too Much Confusion. Bertone Puts the Curia Under Lock and Key

The document of “Iustitia et Pax” on the global financial crisis is blasted with criticism. The secretary of state disowns it. “L’Osservatore Romano” tears it to shreds. From now on, any new Vatican text will have to be authorized in advance by the cardinal [Imagine!  The left hand knowing what the left hand is doing!]

by Sandro Magister

ROME, November 10, 2011 – Precisely when the G20 summit in Cannes was coming to its weak and uncertain conclusion, on that same Friday, November 4 at the Vatican, a smaller summit convened in the secretariat of state was doing damage control on the latest of many moments of confusion in the Roman curia. [You would think they’d be getting good at damage control.]

In the hot seat was the document on the global financial crisis released ten days earlier by the pontifical council for justice and peace. A document that had disturbed many, inside and outside of the Vatican.

The secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, complained that he had not known about it until the last moment. And precisely for this reason he had called that meeting in the secretariat of state.  [But… wait.  That means he saw it before it was released.  Or did I get that wrong?]

The conclusion of the summit was that this binding order would be transmitted to all of the offices of the curia: from that point on, nothing in writing would be released unless it had been inspected and authorized by the secretariat of state.  [Interesting in principle, I suppose.  But the Secretariat of State is already the über-dicastery of all dicasteries.  Perhaps the Suprema, the CDF ought to be involved.]

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Does This Surprise Anyone?

  • I am a bit surprised, actually. I’d been ready to assume this was a case where a lot of the Vatican was caught up in a way of thinking I just think is wrong — though since it’s not a doctrinal issue I don’t necessarily see that as a problem.

    Instead it seems like the dictum that one should never attribute to wrongness what can instead be attributed to glaring incompetence comes into play.

  • The Vatican has no special competence to advise on the manner in which financial transactions should be conducted. At best it should maintain that business should be conducted with good faith and integrity. But this does not allow the bureaucrats to carry on about mysterious banking interests – never the ones who handle the Vatican’s own financial interests – and the plutocrats. In any transaction there are at least two parties; in the moral universe inhabited by these people it is never the fault of the borrower that a loan goes into default – that he had borrowed recklessly beyond his means, that he had in many cases made false representations as in the case of Greece. No only the lender is liable, he is the only moral agent here; the borrower a mere babe in the woods. There is nothing Christian about such an ethic; it is simple granstanding and tasteless to boot, coming from such an ancient institution.

  • As St. Josemaria Escriva wrote: “When a priest speaks about politics, he is wrong.”

  • Considering the parts that caused controversy were direct quotes or applications of Caritas in Veritate, I’m thinking there is not really a disagreement in substance as is being implied. Most commentary in agreement with the “white paper” grounded its legitimacy in its agreement with previous encyclicals and teaching and not just that it came forth from a Vatican agency. Fr Z might be more aware of this if he actually visited his home diocese on occasion rather than living on a pastoral estate in Wausau playing on the Internet and living off a right wing sinecure for the past 10 years.

  • Refuse to engage with the Magister article: check.

    Attack Father Z personally: check.

  • Heh. Exactly.

    Directly from Magister’s article:

    But more than these terrible grades, what has been even more irritating for many authoritative readers of the document of the pontifical council for justice and peace is the fact that it is in glaring contradiction with Benedict XVI’s encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.”

    In the encyclical, pope Joseph Ratzinger does not in any way call for a “public authority with universal competency” over politics and the economy, that sort of great Leviathan (no telling who gets the throne, or how) so dear to the document of October 24.

    In “Caritas in Veritate” the pope speaks more properly of the “governance” (meaning regulation, “moderamen” in Latin) of globalization, through subsidiary and polyarchic institutions. Nothing at all like a monocratic world government.

  • Magister’s opinion on the analogous nature of passages is worth what you paid for it.

    Heh and other obnoxious mumblings.

  • What’s even funnier than MZ’s avoidance of the inconvenience of Magister’s article is that his non sequiter ad homimen against Fr. Z doesn’t even make sense. It’s disappointing, actually. MZ used to put his heart into his inane ramblings, but this seemed like a perfunctory effort lacking in spirit. It’s a shame to see a master lose his touch.

  • So your claim is that the Note and CV are substantially the same in re world government and your support for this is that we should take your non-expert opinion over Magister’s (which is based on interviewing top Vatican sources). Yeah…

    And that’s aside from the tear apart which L’Osservatore Romano ran on the economic analysis in the note.

  • You are free to take anyone’s opinion you would like. Neither I nor anyone else is obligated to take a tabloid reporter’s opinion. When people go on record, I might accept their authority.

    So now you give a rip what’s in L’Osservatore. I must confess there is the faint appearance of authority shopping going on.

  • The only authority shopping I’m seeing here is that now that the Vatican Secretary of State and L’Osservatore Romano have come out basically discounting and contradicting the Note, the people who have been on their high horse for the last couple weeks are all “nothing to see here”. Somehow I don’t see your co-writers retracting any of the posts about “right wing” heretics and dissidents from the last little while — but it’s evident that the level of disagreement with this Note which the Vatican is comfortable in publishing itself is rather higher than level which some self appointed champions of orthodoxy (who were all too ready to shop around the “Pope joins the OWS” meme) were willing to tolerate.

    In a sense, I’m all the more annoyed in that I bothered to read the thing and admit where I clearly didn’t see eye to eye with it. I suppose, if nothing else, it’s a good lesson that if something seems too silly or trivial to be “Church teaching” rather than getting all searching about it, one should assume that it in fact is.

  • “…if nothing else, it’s a good lesson that if something seems too silly or trivial to be “Church teaching” rather than getting all searching about it, one should assume that it in fact is.”

    Money quote of the week. 🙂

  • Generally speaking I’ve found Magister’s reporting to be highly reliable on Vatican affairs (whether it’s stuff I want to hear or don’t want to hear) and I haven’t particularly heard of the CNS writer. This certainly does provide everyone with a version they can enjoy, however.

    On Tedeschi’s L’Osservatore Romano article — it pretty clearly disagrees with both the account of the origins of the financial crisis given in the Note, and also with several of its suggestions (for instance, the transaction tax). It does not mention the note by name, but given how directly it seems to address its content I don’t see how one can interpret it as addressing anything else.

    At an absolute minimum, the conjunction of these two pieces seems to suggest that the reception of the Note has been as divided among Vatican sources/insiders as it has been among the US laity. Hardly reinforcement for the claim that this is the only acceptable way for Catholics to think. (Much less the idiotic “Pope Joins Occupy Wall Street line which Reese was peddling before the Note even came out.)

  • Traditionally the Vatican bureaucracy has been ridden with factions and infighting, but this is reaching Keystone Kops proportions. I wonder if this paper is one of the opening shots in preparation for the next conclave? It will be interesting to hear what Magister has to say about all this. I have no doubt he reported accurately what his sources told him, and his analysis of the factional infighting surrounding this paper in the Vatican would be both illuminating and highly amusing for those of us who do not mistake such ephemera as this with Holy Writ.

  • I’m just surprised that anyone of either political stripe would be particularly impressed by that document. The uncritical embrace of supra-national authority and centralized banking (particularly with the backdrop of the Euro imploding) sounded like the work of an over-earnest undergraduate in the early aughts. The economic analysis was, to put it mildly, based on highly disputed assumptions, and the eccentric recommendation of the Tobin tax (while a reasonable policy proposal for debate) is a rather down-in-the-weeds wonky detail for an otherwise ‘big picture’ document. I’m sure the authors were well intentioned; and, naturally, it wasn’t all bad. But it was pretty embarrassing all the same, and it’s hard for me to believe there wasn’t a little blushing going on even as it was seized upon as a tool for bludgeoning the dreaded conservative Catholics.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings Provide The Commentary

Tuesday, August 9, AD 2011

AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.

We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.

We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to The Gods of the Copybook Headings Provide The Commentary

  • “when all men are paid for existing and no man pays for his sin”

    I always have a hard time reading poems and I really don’t know why. Well maybe that speaks to something about me. This definately speaks about what is currently going on…

  • This poem needed the date of publication!! So I looked it up:

    Published in October 1919 when the poet was 53 years old, “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” has proved enduringly popular, despite the fact that copybooks disappeared from schoolrooms in Britain and America during, or shortly after World War 2. A copybook was an exercise book used to practice one’s handwriting in. The pages were blank except for horizontal rulings and a printed specimen of perfect handwriting at the top. You were supposed to copy this specimen all down the page. The specimens were proverbs or quotations, or little commonplace hortatory or admonitory sayings — the ones in the poem illustrate the kind of thing. These were the copybook headings.

  • “… and the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire; …The gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!”

    Rudyard Kipling handles the ‘history repeats itself’ idea without going blue in the face.

    This poem so fits the speech above, mixer included. Our problem doesn’t appear to be debt reduction according to the Copybook, because we have to agree to continue to support results of natural disasters, and then there are those high payroll taxes that prevent us from going to market, then … (how unspeakably base to use this) wages of war (for what battery element) in current news as final emphasis.

    I was glad for the mixer problem on the speaker, but not amused for the 10 minutes.

    I worry about long it will be before some handling of debt reduction (balancing the budget for a CHANGE) happens. Would it be forgotten if London’s events (are they related to other 2011 uprisings?) moved across the ocean.

  • Robert-
    I generally have the same issue. Kipling has always been an exception, starting with “Female of the Species.”

  • “Female of the Species.”

    My late formidable mother’s favorite poem!

  • Well said Hank!

    “His vows are lightly spoken,
    His faith is hard to bind,
    His trust is easy broken,
    He fears his fellow-kind.
    The nearest mob will move him
    To break the pledge he gave –
    Oh, a Servant when he Reigneth
    Is more than ever slave!”

  • Ouch– well struck, Hank, Donald. The line about Throws the blame on some one else. is especially painful in light of that “look what happens when you type ‘obama blames’ into google” thing.

  • I am most impressed, Don, that you found this poem to epitomise the “ramblings” of the Obamessiah.
    I have never read much Kipling, apart from some of his militaristic writings, and his Indian conection – Gunga Din etc.
    But I find,
    “That a dog returns to his vomit, and the sow returns to her mire,
    “And the burnt fools finger bandaged goes wabbling back to the fire.”
    particularly poignant.
    I listened to Obama after I had listened to Michele Bachman.
    “WOW” – what a woman. She leaves Obama for dead – and she never had a teleprompter 😉

    The US has to get back to its manufacturing and leading design base that made it famous just a few decades ago. Get the design and efficiency right, the price doesn’t matter. Back in the 60’s 70′ sand 80’s the world loved US products. Sure, the cost of labour is critical, but design, quality and efficiency of scale does make a difference. Get rid af the crazy Union control, take a bit of a dip, and ALL the people will benefit.
    (My 2 cents worth)
    The US rating is now the same as NZ – AA+ – its not all bad. 🙂
    .

63 Responses to Mel Gibson and Beaver Bomb

  • Pingback: Mel Gibson and Beaver Bomb | The American Catholic - Christian IBD
  • Don,
    First, Kyle Killen wrote the script, not Gibson. Second, at least two other big name stars were originally set to take the starring role. I know of know evidence at all that the film is a commentary on Gibson’s own experiences.
    And to be honest, I’m surprised you would view box office success to be a proxy for anything. I fully expect “There Be Dragons” to bomb, but it is a fine film. Same for “Jane Eyre.”
    Gibson did indeed take a axe to his life, and it is true that “The Beaver” is bombing at the box office; neither of these facts sheds any light on the merit of the film in my opinion.

  • This is a rare occasion when we will have to agree to disagree Mike. I defy anyone to see this piece of tripe and not think that it is a bizarre look at Mel Gibson’s own estrangement from his family, and I rejoice in the failure of this film since the entire concept is monumentally stupid, except as the blackest of black comedies. In this case box office failure is a sign of the film going audience rejecting true rubbish.

  • It got mediocre ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. Not great but not terrible. Surprisingly, the reviews universally praise Gibson’s performance and unsurprisingly mock the premise.

  • I’ve read a number of reviews; all agree Gibson’s performance is brilliant…given the premise, I find it hard to believe the guy with the hand puppet coudl be brilliant. And given Gibson’s relationship with critics post-Passion, I find it even harder to believe that critics were going easy on him. There must be something there.

  • From Peter Rainer’s review in the Christian Science Monitor:

    “Foster seems blinkered and tone-deaf to what’s actually appearing onscreen. When, for example, Walter is reunited with his family – which includes his unconditionally adoring young son Henry (Riley Thomas Stewart) and the unforgiving 17-year-old Porter (the adept Anton Yelchin) – there’s a quick sex scene where we see Walter, Meredith, and, yes, the beaver, frolicking together in bed. He addresses his toy-store workers, as he does everybody else, almost entirely through the hand puppet, and there are precious few reaction shots of them looking anything more than agreeably amused.

    When Walter turns the company around and ends up on the cover of national magazines, and, puppet in hand, appears on “The Today Show,” Foster’s fable enters the realm of blithering unbelievability.

    “The Beaver” never even makes it clear if Walter knows his puppet is just a puppet. He passes out cards to people explaining that he is utilizing a “prescription puppet,” but that could just be the beaver talking. When the puppet becomes increasingly uppity and malevolent, I guess we’re supposed to think that Walter is healing himself by separating himself from his alter ego and becoming whole again. But we never get a sense of what Walter was like before his personality fractured, so his impending wholeness doesn’t have much heft.

    The story line involving Porter is comparatively conventional, which, under the circumstances, is something of a relief. Even before the beaver shows up, Porter already hates his father so much that he papers his room with Post-its notating all of Walter’s many traits he wants expunged from himself. He’s the sole person who barks at Walter about how crazy he seems. Only when Porter becomes involved with a brainy cheerleader (a fine Jennifer Lawrence) with her own pack of troubles does he begin to register the compassion necessary to reunite with his father.

    Or at least that’s what we’re supposed to believe. I’ve rarely seen a movie about severe malcontents that ended on such a note of unearned uplift. Who knows? Maybe it would have all turned out better if the beaver had been a bunny rabbit. Grade: C-”

    The only thing brilliant about this film is if the lights are turned up at the end for the audience to flee for the exits.

  • Pingback: MONDAY MORNING EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Strange – very strange; but that’s the way Mel has gone recently, and a departure form his previously relatively sane life is now manifesting itself.

  • Hmmm…. clearly you did not see the movie yourself and are using others’ articles to try to form your own. That leaves me doubting anything else you write. I did see the movie, liked it, and would recommend it to anyone.

  • “That leaves me doubting anything else you write.”

    One does not have to eat garbage Jennifer to recognize it as such. There is enough floating around on the internet about this cinematic trainwreck that I do not have to cast my money down this particular rathole in order to condemn it and the beaver it slouched in on.

  • you admit you haven’t seen this! I’ve wasted 5 minutes of my life on your blother…see ya!

  • I don’t know how we will soldier on here at TAC without your vital one comment contribution bob c., but somehow we will.

  • I don’t understand a movie review for which you haven’t seen the movie.

  • What part of the concepts of bomb and garbage are difficult for you to comprehend Jennifer? Let’s see if I can sum up the film for you: Gibson is a deeply depressed man who has alienated his family (a classic case of bad art imitating bad life); he uses a beaver hand puppet to speak for him in a bizarre attempt to mend his broken life; instead of Gibson’s character being committed to a loonie bin, the hand puppet becomes a mechanism to get back together with his family, and inspires a hit new toy for his toy company that the puppet beaver now runs; when he and his wife have a tender moment in bed the puppet is present. Gibson ultimately breaks free of the need to use the puppet. Have I missed anything salient from this beaver’s breakfast of an insult to the movie going world?

  • Makes me think of “Larz and the Real Girl” which had a similar premise and was actually very good. So I’m withholding judgment on this one.

  • Thanks to his new imaginary pal, Mel is chewing up the scenery again. : )

  • I would note in case any of Mel Gibson’s fans think that I am carrying on a vendetta against Gibson, that I have liked many of his films, including the Mad Max trilogy, Gallipoli, Braveheart and The Patriot. His The Passion of The Christ moved me more deeply than any film I have ever seen. Gibson has talent as an actor and a director. However, his career is also littered with films that have proven to be both artistic and money making bombs. In the case of The Beaver he has made the blockbuster of all such bombs.

  • I’m curious to see it, myself. But given how little free time away from our squad my Much Better Half and I get, I’ll probably wait until this is available “On Demand.”

    I think it’s safe to say that one’s position on Mel Gibson films/performances are de gustibus, which makes Mr. Bob’s reaction a puzzler. This is much different from the effect of one’s position on whether or not it is safe to root for the New York Yankees. Which, according to the 23rd session of the Council of Trent, it is *not*–anathema sit.

  • Donald you are most certainly an ignorant and an arrogant hypocrite, as it is to be expected, and a liar!
    One do not make a review of a movie one has not seen, and in worse without even mentioning that “detail” in its review!
    thats both couardise and hypocrisy of the highest degree!
    You do not dare to watch the movie becausie oyu know it is good nad your hatress of mel Gibson stop oyu form doing that.

    Name one single movie that was a artistic deisaster or a finacial disaster n mels career???
    All Mel Gibsons movie are fantastic even the most dubious script and even as secodn role or thrisd like in umer city or Gallipoli, Mle Gibson simlly master it and elevate it to a higher degre and he do the same wiht his co actors and actresses, so to make them do a better performance even they are mediocre ot begin wiht, than they will ahve been if it iddnt hd been him in the leading role.
    Youa re an idiot.
    Hamlet with Mle gibson n it is the alone one used in english class and universty when teachign about Shakespear and this alone says it al
    together with the fact that Mle Gibosn made 4 movies, all blockbusters, bakc to back that same year!!
    you are jsut deeply jealus.
    That movie was made in august to novemebr 2009 and can hardly reflect mel Gibson life.
    and as real painfull and embarrassing part of your gratuitiuous criticism, coems the fact tha tthe ovie is ABOUT DEPREESSION AND MENTAL DESEASE which oyu completely forgot, or shall i said totaly ignored as oyu never saw that movie!
    People sufferign form depression are often shun fom society cause its a difficultdesease ot cope wiht, explain an dhsow and the family having to live wiht it, either they are parents of a child suferign form this condition or husbands and kids, arre also ignroed,
    Cancer or a broken leg or other vidible desease are more easily accepted as wella s not sovisible ones like diabets 1, but the tem of depression and how it occur and affect peoples life is seldomly debated.
    this movie shed light into it and has the adavantage to dont falliot the trap to mkae it into an entertianment movie wiht a pupet..
    Your sarcastic review is laughable and scandalous at the same time
    you dont have sen it but oyu surely want ot influence everybody else on not going to se it.
    SHAME ON YOU!!!
    You are certianly not a christina but a pantomime of it.
    This movie is fantastic and its sale also show it.
    It was show in 21 theaters and made as much as Thor, a bokcbuster, taken inot acount that THor was shwon in all theaters alos aborad and since april, and whos entrance price is much higher oftne the dobble, because it is shown in 3D, and people wihsing to see it in 2 D had huge porblem ot fod a theater that show it that way.
    take a calculator and see for yourself.
    The beaver made 1659 dollars per theater per day, meanig it will ahve made 28 million dolars nation wide ahd it been pned like thor was, and adding the extra by 3D ticket, thats 50 Million dolars!! agaisnt 66 Millon dolars ofr THor who is a blockbuster and not a artistic mvie as the ebaver is.
    peoplebring their gf to weathc thor but not to go watgch a mvie about depression.. specialy on mother day..
    Add to it that Thor was show form thursday while the beaver only form friday and only in 21 theaters, while Thor was hwoed nationwide and in eurpe where its premiere started in April.
    So after runing for 3 weeks, Thor made 66 millions dolars, with overpriced 3D tickets, and on Mother days weekend.
    after running for 3 days in limted theaters, and only in USA, The Beaver made over 50% comparativly, to Thor.
    It means that when the Beaver will open nationwide on May 20, and then internationaly from june 1st, it will gross 200 to 300 milion dollars, whihc is what spiderman, a huge marvel blockbuster, grossed in 2002.

    Eat that and eat yoru hat, pal!
    btw thor grossd a lot of money, but people who saw it idnt like it. i saw critics form the people in europe and they said the movie die 20 minutes after it started. very impressive for 20 minutes and then it dies. like the movie was over and turn into a regu’lar rose water romantic flick.

    On “the other hand”, maybe you actualy suffer form depression and need to get yoruslef a beaver!!
    could be why oyu feel so challenged to go see it! it wil confront your inner deamons.

    The movie is planed to be shwo in Cannes festival ad was put out of competittn as a sure winner.. so ot let a chance to the french movies..
    its a fact.
    read what the director of Cannes Festival hjas ot say about that movie.
    its revoew for th american SW festival were fantastic!
    The reception of the movie is overwhelming.
    They all hope to can see Mel Gibsn in Cannes,a nd i9f it was in the competition it wil win the Palmes d’Or!
    All movie reviews with enough seriousneess to actialy see the mpoive befroe taling about it, have aclaimed it and declared it was in for 2 oscras, one for directign and one for best acting for Mel Gibson!
    Your posts are baised and your article is cynical and hatefull, and has nothing to do wiht reality.
    It simpy reflect oyur dark imaginary, and yoru inner fears.
    You do worse than judging a book by its cover, you lie about its contain.
    Do you do the same about the Bible?
    Did oyu read the New testament before judging it negativly?
    Are you sure?

    i said it earlier, and i say it again: SHAME ON YOU!

  • Now who can possibly argue with that? (Although it is more convincing in the original crayon.)

  • Sophie, need to work on that spelcheker. Leave it to beaver to start a flame war.

  • I like Sound of Music.

    I don’t expect to make it to Mel “What are you looking at, Suger T**” Gibson’s latest.

  • Man we really to tighten up that spam filter.

  • Sophie, “All Mel Gibsons movie are fantastic”

    Even Signs? Really?

  • Oh, I let that one go through Paul. Sophie had obviously expended a lot of energy, not to mention spittle, in the preparation of it, and it seemed to be less than generous not to share it with the world! 🙂

  • DEFINE SPAM. TO YOURSELF.

  • As a Navy vet I take umbrage at any criticism of that venerable meat product.

  • Her oeuvre is almost poetic, really. The ambiguity ensures that you could mine it for hours and come up with different possible meanings each time.

    In the meantime, I’ll be defining spam to myself.

  • Actually, RR, I kind of liked Signs. Considering how awful every subsequent M Night movie has been, it almost qualifies as a masterpiece in comparison.

  • Ransom wasn’t bad either.

  • Hey, I liked Signs!

    . . .and SPAM is awesome, it’s the official “meat” of Hawaii!

  • Don – I get it. But I am still hopful that Mel with see his name is written on the back of his belt – someday. (Old Military folks will get that). I will not see this movie and the reason is two old – not interested and I want to see some kind of change in Mr. Gibson before I support one his movies again. As far as his work – i have always been a fan. We were soldiers was a great film IMHO. But I will pray for mel – again tonight. I love this website and the comments from everyone. God Bless.

  • Thank you Robert. I enjoyed We Were Soldiers Once, a gripping retelling of the battle of the Ia Drang in the Vietnam War.

    In regard to Signs, I have to confess to enjoying it, but only as a comedy. The scene where Gibson comes home and sees that his kids and his brother have donned tin foil hats has to be one of the most screamingly funny bits in an American film in many a year.

  • Oh, and I liked “Signs,” too. A reasonably effective spiritual thriller, almost (but not quite) derailed by the achilles heel of the bad guys. Still, that was the warning sign of much worse to come from MNS.

  • Roger Ebert couldn’t quite get his thumbs up on Beaver, gave it 2 1/2 stars, said he was constantly reminded of Señor Wences.

  • By the way, Ebert gave Signs 4 stars. Go figure.

  • I think that Mel Gibson is a fine actor and director. His skills in this area have historically been very underestimated. He also, unfortunately, clearly has mental health and substance abuse issues that have not been properly addressed. Both of these illnesses are progressive in nature and without intervention, his mental state and health will both deteriorate. We need to pray for this man.

    Aside from the above, I believe that a movie can be successfull with a good premise. People want to go to the movies to escape reality and to be brought into lives that are not theirs for a couple of hours. That being said, I doubt that this movie, even with a less notorious lead actor, would probably make more box office receipts than most other “indie” moves – not much. The topic does not appeal to most people, such as the premise of the movie “Lars and the Real Girl”, which although good, never made much money at the theaters.

    Couple this unpopular topic with an (albeit fine) actor who obviously has severe mental health issues, and you have a stinker. Most people do not want to pay 10+ dollars to see a mentally ill man play another mentally ill man who indulges his mental illness through a dissasosiative proxy (hand puppet).

  • BTW. Does anyone have the decoder ring for Sophie’s comment? It’s illegible.

  • I’d rather see a Lethal Weapon 5.

  • Apocalypto, anyone?

  • I actually enjoyed Apocalypto, not as much as Signs, but it was OK.

  • Apocalypto was a fine film.

  • NOPE i didnt prepared a sh.it i wrote as i thought directly with no correction, ad very fast too.
    I am not lke oyu, I can think on my own.
    I am glad ot see i shut oyu up.
    No contra argumentation coming form your side, only personal atakcs, whihc is the prove that i won the argumentation.
    When the oposit part cant argue agaisnt oyu, they ressort to personal attacks.

    I didn tused much energy nor preparation at all. iot took me the time to type it, and i type very fast.

    Joe Green, its clal Spell checker and not spelchecker..
    and i have never used one in my life.
    But we all can se that yours is not working or that you are the one in need to work on yours..
    dont thorw stones when oyu live in a glass house..

    Kurt. mel Gibson NEVER said “sugar tits” to any woman in his life.
    As Mle Gibson stgated in ferbuary 2009, at the kjjimmy kimiel show, (on youtube) he never said it it was attributed ot him buit was a lie, and as can be verificated in the internal affair police report on the police station, publicly published in february 2009, and mentioend in 2 newspapers, Mel Gibson never called any female officer for “sugar tits”, it was the arresting officer James Mee, who used ot clal ALL female officers at the station for “sugar tits” and on a daily basis whihc got him lot of comlian for sexual harrassemnt since a very long time and severla warnings by his superior, about bereaking other police rules too, and made him in seriosu conflict wiht his boss. he wasnt promoted for 15 eyars and had been fried form 2 police stgations prior ot coming ot LA..
    It was most obviously as a revenge to hsi superior, that he knew were in good terms wiht Mel gibson, who genrously contributed finacialy to the staton to, that he arested, in solo, agaistn police procedure, and did a car chasse, when he was officialy ouit of duty that night, just to can arest Mle gibson that he was taging for his stunt since a while, and then was ocntactged by harvey levi, by phone, privatly and at the station, on his celphone and at his phone at home, as the police koreport show, to make up a DUI report with stuff about Mel gibsn that harvey levi form tmz could use to make a scoop.
    The entire stuff was a fake, it doesnt mention the name of mel gibsonanywhrre as oyu can still see it at TMNZ, as it wil have represented a legal danger to TMZ if it had been foudn out that it was a fake, and ahervey as a lawyer knew so.
    that report cointain stuff that this polcie officer often say himself but that he put in the moughth of mle gibson. beside the fact of coure, that nobody in police history, ever wrote down what a guy arested for DUI ever said durign his arrest..
    the fake report also mention a temtative to escape, form Mel Gibson which is fauklse and nevr occured. mel Gibson was never charged for it whihc he wil have been oif htis had take palce as its a felony.
    the report alos state that mel gibson was angry, and shouting alos when he came ot the station and while being interfogated.
    well an officer filemd mel gibosn arrival at the station and shwo him very quiet, low profile, and saying helo to a police officer and oyu can hear that he was very polite and never said sugartits whihc was alos confirmed by both feale police officer at the station and make who often heard jamees mee call the women for sugar tits there, and had went into fight with soem of his collegues because of that.
    A secodn police officer took a video of Mle Gibson when he made his declaration and here oto mel gibson was very quiet and politge.
    TYhere was a third video, in the cell, as there is cams in al celss, but that is no longer avialable as it is regulary deleeted unless they need to for something specific, and thats of course that one that james mee aledged prove tha tmel gibson was mad and angry and so on, and aledged in his new lawsuite agianst the state of california ofr antisemitism (against CA!! LOL) contained proves tha tMle Gibson behaved as he did. Og course he waited 4 years to claim that video.. knowing it was gone since a long time.

    Harvey Levi also stated in an interview in Novemwebr 2009, that the whole story was a hoax, and that he was about to close TMZ and needed a scoop fast, so he contacted james mee to get one..
    So that hoax of pseudo antisemitc sentence saved harvety levi and TMZ form bankruptcy.
    In the immediate months after it, in 2006, TMZ was bought by Warner Bros and harvey levi confessed in that interview in november 2009, that he was stil living in the aftermath of it and enjoying the gush of visits that story gave him, but that he will not redo that kind of things as he wanted to make a more serious tabloid website.
    Ironicaly that interview didnt recieved much echo in the other media and one can only ask why..
    The same goes for the internal affair report that Mel Gibson never said sugar tits but that it was a typical expression of the arresting officer james Mee, whihc pretty much sign his report to TMZ as well as prove that he was the source.
    Same goes with the source to the recordings endingin radar online we all know its that russian grifter but none theless its left unpunished, In both case a felony.
    and in both case a tampered criminal evidence.
    Mel Gibson had already been stmapled as antisemite since he made the passion of the Christ, so it was easy fro a tablod ot have that story pass for a real story. Alan Nierob recommanded ot Mle Gibson ot apologise publicly about it and ot dont mention that he never said it as it wil only make matter worse.
    It didnt helped much since 95% of the psots about it on the internet as wella s articles form journalists mention it without refereing to his excuses even mentioneing that he never apologize and that if he had done so it wil be much better…
    Ignorance prevailed.
    Mel Gibson stated in an interview with REubin in ferbuary 2010, together with Winston, while promoting Edge of Darkness, that he never refered to jewws while he was arrested, and added “those rants who were attrributed ot me but that i never made”. hallas, instead to be quoted on this, and for that journalist instead to try to depen the interview on what Mle gibso jsut stated and who was a scoop as the very first time that Mel Gibson publicly declared that he had never made any antisemitic comets when he was arrested, that journalist and all the othe rmedia after hm, chsoe to make an extravagant scoop of that interview titled “do oyu have a dog in this fight?” and that all wil remember for that and not for the korte important stuff that transpired and were nveiled in that interview.
    and this thus the fact that the entire segemnt of that interview was largely publicised n al tv network and on youtube.
    Talking of blindness and refusing to see whats in front of them!

    So the sugar tits story as wel as the pseudo rant about jews were both made up and a lie, an hoax that profited their maker, the officer who got his revenge on his superiors, and ahrvey levi who saved his business, received national recognition, and got a very lucrative deal with warner bros as wel a a TV chanel (!!!) and the applause of the jewish comunity as wella s any detracotr of Mel Gibson and still does.
    At the exception perhaps of the owner of radar online who also field for bankrupcy last year, witht he consequneces we know on Mle Gibsons personal life.. becomig very public with edited and tampered fake digital recordings, of which nobody, not even oksanas lawyers, ahve seen the roiginal off.. but we can assure wiht confidence that boith her and her lover jimmy hoyson, audio engeneer, with her on the 18, 19 and 20 of february when those recofdings took place, heard the originals before they transforimed them.
    Jimmy Hoyson told in his declaration to the police in spetemebr 2010, that he was wiht oksan in february 19 and 20 2010.. which the date of the recording on oksanas computer, available on TMZ, show that they were made on those dates..
    whic alos imply that she couldnt be in fear ofr her life since she wasnt alone when she made them, and that she therefor had no legal rigths to recortd those phone convrsation, but she wasnt arrested nor charged for felony.

    Donald, its not called “expended” but “spend”.
    To expend is something else, like the expension of the universe.

    To dont let oyu feel like marthyrs being preached agaisn toyur will, i wil add that Mle Gibson is not the father of Lucia, the child that was attributed ot him,and thsat Oksana is ntits mother either, but that the child was bought in ukriane and imported to california in best human traficking manner, and that urkiane is known by all speical agencyies in the world working agaisnt human trafiking, like the federal bureau of invesitgation, and its plice dptmt in the Major Crime Bureau (MCB) who also invesitgsate Mel Gibson’s case form july to december 2010, as being the country who export the most babies towards western contries, and the most specialiosed in it.
    We wil alos notice that oksanas sudden interest in thcernobyls orphanges ocured right after the aledged birth of lucia by her and that the childs was alegedly born 1½ month to ealry, yet looked like a normal 1 monht child when it was 4 days old..
    and that oksana ttraveled solo to london on novmwbr 5 2009, less than 5 days after having alegedly given birth, to give an interview ot an unknown russian tv chanel.
    At that time she had no nany and at that time her mother ahd not yety landed in CA but was stillin russia
    yet, in a phone interview oksana gave to the pravda in decemebr 2009, she hapend to confess that her moter was at ehr place since ocotber 15, 2009, 2 weeks before the aledged birth who formher wn word occured unexpectedly and suddendly and wasnt expected before mid ot end of decemebr.
    her due dates alos changed a lot during al her fake pregnacy, as wel as after her staged birth.
    Which is more peculiar.

    You can expect a decalraton from Mel Gibson very soon on that matter.
    He already told in his first interview since this case started, given to Deadline, that he had many legal matters still pending, and that it will all come clear to all very soon what really happened.

    RR. Sign was a very good movie and we can only blame nick shamalan for being such a screwed up director with a chldhod childish dream that he wished to make real in a perfect danish instructor’s style of DOGMA film. Tho less succesfully than Thomas Vinterberg and Lars Von Trier

    Sign was a major economical succes world wide, and a newbie in his genre of makng a sci fi wihtout special effects. More realistic and closer to home.
    I will say he used more of the Hitchcok way to create tension and fear by using the audience own imagination and showing vdery little of the creatures.
    Oh and witha antihero as leaidng role who do not save Earth at all, but his soul and his fanily.
    An Ante-Matrix.

  • christine ilegible do not exist

    you ment to say illisible? LOL

  • Night at the movies with popcorn: $20
    Laptop: $400
    Postings by Sophie: Priceless

  • christine, who told oyu that Mel Gibsons alcohl abuse and mental health have not been properly adressed nro treated??
    your little finger maybe??

    Mle Gibson dont have drink since 2006, and undergo AA meetings and checks ofr 3 years after his arest. As for mentla issues, he sees sepcialists since his 30’es.. so oy know.
    is under treatmenet since 2009 and see a shrinks too since 209, which proves that he was better off untreated!!
    or that he do not have anything worng and oyu know the sayiong, dont try to fic what aint broken!
    his helath certianly deteriotrated and so wil yours if you were under cosntant stress and heavy one, ofr years and had alos ot dela wiht hwavy critixcism and beign ot fel paranod while the critcism often unjustified increase..
    same oges ofr public internviews serioes, rigth as he was being blakcmaild and extorted by that russian grifter.. ba timing or mayeb done in purpose
    ade him look washed out and dead stressed in al interviews, fearign the next quesiton, asif they were goig ot ask him about the tpaes any time or like oksa was goig to release it next day…
    i speka of winter and spring 2010..
    he was living wiht a gun on his head hold by that woman.
    and 2009 wasnt beter either in that regard.

    I disagree about what oyu think what poeple want to se.
    or not
    the life sotry of Stephen Hawkin was alos about a disabled man it was a success.
    de niro alos played a mentaly diabld man sufferign form a selfdom disease whose cure was yet to be found.. it was a succes.

    i certainly donot appreciate that oy refer t Mister Mel Gibos as a mentaly ill man!!
    who are you? his doc??
    Nor the tune oyu emply an dconvey when refering to mental disease.. I supose that using the word retard is not out of oyur vocabulary?

    Scuse me but that kind of statement chock me and offend me.
    Maybe you should go see “Mifunes last song”.
    Mel Gibson is fine, and if you eman he is mentaly ill, then better be as him, than thining as you do, and as so many poeple think, and who seems to becoem the normality in society thus its totaly sick!
    When to behave crazy has becoe the normality you know what that mean? that normal people are stampled as sick.

    So i hope that I am as mentaly ill, and retard, and crazy as Mel Gibson.
    This way only I am Blessed!

  • Joe Green, who said i was priceless?
    😉
    Dont take yoru understanding so cheap.
    I dont warranty i can cure you, I say i have already done it.

  • “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.”

    –George Bernard Shaw.

    A man yelled frantically into the phone, “My wife is pregnant and her contractions are only two minutes apart!”

    “Is this her first child?” the doctor asked.

    “No!” the man shouted, “This is her husband!”

  • Mat Mle will have ot work on his little Weapon to can make a new Lethal one..
    the rigths of the franchise are i the hands of Warenr Bros, who id darn after Mle Gibsons butt since he cut the ombilical rope wiht them an dmade TPOC solo.. they never came ofver it. went banan whne he bought icon distribution in august 2008, tha threy had their friend lev, russian bilionaire, to buy him bakc in novemebr 07, 2009, 7 days after the fake baby birth, and 2 days after oksanas solo trip wihtout premature-baby-with-her, to London for unknown reasons.. mayeb to pay soem mroe to the guts who came wiht that baby..

    making a new one means little money to him comapre ot how much warner will be able to harvest form it alone
    and since they love tmz and eonline tha thtey own to, and hwo have been bashig mel gibson and broight in apiedestal oksana, since 20o9, he isnt going to bend over.
    thats the alone reason why thee is no lethla weapon 5.
    Mle would like , Richard Donner beg on his knees to get it every 5 ot 6 months, but WB want its cake and eat it.
    Give it a few and it will come.
    made by Icon 😀

  • Dale, stick to spam! BAHAHAH!!

    shawn is an overated idiot.

    communication depend of wach peros levelof develop,ment and background and knolwedgre and of course culture.

    it also depend on the wether, the season, Mercury, and wether or not your on the rag, or cheating oyur wife.
    Beside that, all is fine.

  • If you look up the word “illegible”, not “ilegible”, you will find the definition.

    Also, sometimes you can just tell a person isn’t right in the head by the way they communicate – in verbal and in written forms. I’ll pray for you as well. It seems to me that you are vehemently, and unfortunatly, illegibly, defending a man you don’t know.

    You perhaps need to see a mental health professional as well. Take care, and try not to take these blogs so deadly serious. It would also help you if you would slow down a bit, so that others could understand you. God willing, when you speak to a mental health professional, please show them your comments this blog, because there is a mania to your communication style. This can be helped with counseling and medication.

  • All things will be produced in superior quantity and quality, and with greater ease, when each man works at a single occupation, in accordance with his natural gifts, and at the right moment, without meddling with anything else.

    And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul? Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul.

    Entire ignorance is not so terrible or extreme an evil, and is far from being the greatest of all; too much cleverness and too much learning, accompanied with ill bringing-up, are far more fatal.

    Excess generally causes reaction, and produces a change in the opposite direction, whether it be in the seasons, or in individuals, or in governments.
    Excess of liberty, whether it lies in state or individuals, seems only to pass into excess of slavery.

    For a man to conquer himself is the first and noblest of all victories. Good nurture and education implant good constitutions.

  • “You perhaps need to see a mental health professional as well. Take care, and try not to take these blogs so deadly serious. It would also help you if you would slow down a bit, so that others could understand you. God willing, when you speak to a mental health professional, please show them your comments this blog, because there is a mania to your communication style. This can be helped with counseling and medication.”

    Christine raises a good point, one I hadn’t considered. As a result, that is the end of the Sophie show. I found her posts amusing, but if they are evidence of some sort of mental problem, than it would be cruel to post anymore of them, and so I will not.

  • Aw, crud–I was going to post even more quotes from Greek philosophers to see if Sophie would call them “overrated idiots.”

  • Sorry to ruin your fun Dale. The posts made me worry about her.

  • You may be correct, Christine. I guess I’ve seen so much strange behavior online that it’s increasingly hard to tell. My impression of her was that she was an unusually obsessive fan who did not have English as a first language.

    But it’s certainly better to err on the side of caution.

  • Hey Don.

    You should invite Sophie Sweetheart to be a guest poster -in the comedy section.
    Her comments are hilarious – but obviously spoken from the heart. 🙂

  • I don’t think I have to watch the movie to be entertained . . . these posts are entertaining enough!

  • Haha! Ouch my brain is huting time to get back to work. Now where is my secret decoder ring….

  • Pingback: This Explains a Lot about Hollywood | The American Catholic
  • Donald;

    Do you need to see a XXX rated film to know it is junk?

    I think there is no need to watch to know it is junk.

    Can you review a XXX rate film without seeing it?

    I think so. You know the plot and the major themes of the story so what else is needed? Trash is trash no matter who stars in it.

  • Donald
    It was very disappointing your sarcasm about Mel.
    He has given a heroic legacy for Catholic media with the Passion of the Christ
    for which we should all be eternally grateful to him for.

    Anyone with the gifts he has, including faith, will be attacked by powers and principalities. As for me, I ask everyone to join me and pray for his healing.

  • A good act does not excuse future sin PC, neither does a great film excuse an abysmally bad one. Mel is a public figure who made what I consider to be a very poor film. Public criticism goes with living a life in the limelight as Mel “Beaver” Gibson has chosen to do. By all means pray for Mel, although I think he could also use a good swift kick in the hind end.

Christ Died For Your Sins? Don’t Be Silly!

Tuesday, April 26, AD 2011

Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.

Saint Paul, Romans 4:25

Jamie Manson of the National Catholic Fishwrap Reporter doesn’t think much of the dogma of the Catholic Church that Christ died for our sins, viewing that as a silly pre-Vatican II guilt trip.  Unfortunately for her, two of the finest masters of the art of fisking decided to take notice of her scribblings.

First up, Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal who I have designated Defender of the Faith because of the number of times, he, a non-Catholic, has taken up the blogging cudgels in defense of the Faith:

Here’s another.  At the National Catholic Reporter, Jamie Manson doesn’t want to know what happened on Good Friday as much as she wants to know why it happened:

I’ve had more than one Catholic who grew up either before or on the cusp of Vatican II tell me horror stories of how they were taught that Jesus died because of their sins.

“Horror stories of how they were taught that Jesus died because of their sins.”  I think you already know where Ms. Manson is going with this.

This was a particularly heavy-handed way for priests and nuns to lay an even thicker coat of guilt on impressionable Catholic school children. Because they were sinners, Jesus had to suffer and die to redeem them. It was one rendering of the traditional theological interpretations of the crucifixion — that Jesus had to die to fulfill the Scriptures and that his death atoned for the sins of the world.

Get ready for the customary condescending pat on the head.

I know that countless people throughout the centuries have found profound, life-changing and even comforting meaning in this understanding of the Cross.

Since Ms. Manson has much more important fish to fry(see what I did there?), she’ll let the rest of you have your little legend.

But I’ve often felt that if we immerse ourselves in the accounts of Jesus’ arrest, passion, and death as told by the four Gospels, these texts can broaden and deepen our understanding of the crucifixion.

I don’t know how much deeper one needs to go than getting one’s sins taken care of so that one can go home to the Father.

It can help us make meaning of so much of the anguish that we witness in our world and in our church.

I stand corrected.  Jesus died the most horribly agonizing death that it is possible to imagine in order to “help us make meaning of so much of the anguish that we witness in our world and in our church.”  Got it.

Me, I’ve never ever been able to “make meaning” of diseases, wars, genocides, famines, earthquakes, tsunamis and other tragedies with their attendant human suffering.  I guess I’m not trying hard enough.

When I read the passion narratives of the Gospels, I don’t hear simply that Jesus suffered and died for our sins. Rather, I hear the four evangelists very clearly say that Jesus’ suffering and death was the will of those who conspired against him — those whose political systems he had undermined, those whose religious convictions he had offended.

Glad we’ve finally cleared that up.  Neither Romans nor Jews killed Christ.  It was the Republican Party and the religious Right.

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Christ Died For Your Sins? Don’t Be Silly!

  • I won’t stick my beak in this doctrinal debate, as Tony Soprano might say, but I find it curious, Don, that Catholics often quote C.S. Lewis, who wasn’t a Catholic. We don’t see Protestants quoting the Popes or Bishop Sheen.

    BTW, Don, is it possible that some of us non-believers will never get it. I reread the parable of the sower constantly and do not believe I am “good earth” in which the sown word can take root. Why are some of us so stubborn?

  • “quote C.S. Lewis, who wasn’t a Catholic.”

    I quote him because he was a brilliant thinker and writer and his Screwtape Letters show immense insight into the human condition. Not all straight thinking is confined to the Catholic Church. Lewis himself was rather eclectic in his use of sources and would sometimes cite Catholics.

    “Why are some of us so stubborn?”

    Free will Joe applied to the complex process by which we humans make decisions about anything. It took a miracle before Saint Paul stopped “kicking against the goad”.

  • I believe Lewis was influenced by Chesterton as well.

    I’ll probably go out kicking, but hope to see the light before it’s too late.

  • …which raises an oft-asked question: “Is there salvation outside the Catholic Church?”

  • “Outside the Church there is no salvation”

    “846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

    Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

    847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

    Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.

    848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

    In times past the formulation “No salvation outside the Church” was interpreted so as to emphasize the Justice of God. Today it is interpreted so as to emphasize the Mercy of God. My own humble observation is that it is probably an error to presume too much on either the Justice or Mercy of God.

  • I had a teacher with a similar absence of soteriology. He asked me what I thought of Anselm, and for the rest of the semester, the college professor went after the seventeen year old, all the while preaching non-judgment. I have a suspicion that these guys harbor just a little resentment toward Catholics.

  • Actually, Joe, you *do* see Protestants quoting popes. Just a few weeks ago you had Protestants aplenty favorably reviewing and quoting from vol. 2 of B16’s book on Jesus.

  • It’s true, of course, that C.S.Lewis wasn’t a Catholic.

    There’s some question, though, whether he was aware of this. Not, of course, that he believed himself erroneously to be in communion with the Roman pontiff!

    But he seems to have believed the claim of the Anglicans to have been a continuation of an ancient communion as equivalent to that of the Eastern Orthodox; one could say that he thought the orders of the clergy to whom he submitted himself valid ones because he thought he was in the Anglican Orthodox church, so to speak.

    It’s worth noting that Lewis held this view during an era when the Anglican communion could more easily be mistaken for the Catholic Church. The relaxing of the prohibition against contraception took place during Lewis’ lifetime and he inveighed against it in several writings. Lewis also practiced auricular confession to his Anglican priest (and on occasion to an Orthodox priest of his acquaintance, I believe). Lewis believed in Purgatory and in prayers for the dead, seems to have believed in the intercession of the saints, and in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and in the obligation of obedience to the bishop.

    He did however note that he rejected the Roman doctrine of Purgatory. What to make of this? Apparently what he rejected was the Middle Ages’ imaginings of Purgatory rather than the doctrine itself: All the devils poking sinners with forks and the like. About this, and about the popular forms of devotions to the saints which he also rejected, he does not seem to have made a distinction between what the Church teaches as dogma and what the imaginations of the faithful have added, in a non-canonical fashion, to this over centuries. Or rather, he made that distinction, but seems to have believed that the Catholics did not, and that he therefore could not be Catholic.

    Anyway, he considered himself to be within the ancient church, and was very comfortable quoting all the saints and doctors of the church, including some from the East after the 11th-century schism and some from the Catholic side of the divide after the 16th-century divide.

    The Church calls those divided from her “separated brethren” because by virtue of Christian baptism they have been adopted into the family of God. The Church sadly notes the separation, the lack of the fullness of the union which Christ desired. But she also notes that the separation is not an utter and complete separation: Because the Christian communions and sects hold certain doctrines and sacraments in common, there remains a partial unity, though it is incomplete and insufficient to make us one “as the Son and the Father are one” so that “the world may know.”

    Given the very high percentage that which Catholics affirm which C.S. Lewis also affirmed — rather more than the garden-variety non-denominational American evangelical, in fact! — and given his attention to the ancient saints and doctors and his lack of animosity towards Catholics in his day, it is hard to find much reason for Catholics not only to quote him, but recommend him.

  • How’s her uncle Charlie doing?

    A quote of Bishop Sheen: “Not many men want to die to their lower selves; it costs so much. Some prefer to have a cosmic religion, which neither puts restraint on their pride nor curbs their passions.”

    Zingers from Bishop Sheen:

    “There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church.”

    A heckler asked Bishop Sheen a question about someone who had died. The Bishop replied, “I will ask him when I get to heaven.” The heckler replied, “What if he isn’t in Heaven?”
    The Bishop replied, “Well then you ask him.”

    A man told Bishop Sheen he did not believe in hell. The Bishop replied,
    “You will when you get there.”

    TRUTH

  • If you take the NCR article to its reasonable conclusion, you’d end up with something virulently anti-Semitic. After all, Christ didn’t die for all our sins, but died because of the situation he was in. Our little acts of intolerance may be mini-deaths of God, but the death of God Incarnate was caused by the Romans and the Jews, and I don’t see any Romans standing around for me to vent at.

  • Correct me if I’m wrong, but this presents Christ as “victim.” Rather, he said that no one took his life; he laid it down and could pick it up again.

  • Wasn’t this NCR article’s premise– that the Jews and the Romans were
    responsible for the crucifixion– the same reason for which the NCR and
    their ilk denounced Mel Gibson’s film The Passion of the Christ?

    Before they were for it, they were against it…

  • Mel Gibson has his problems, to say the least, but he made a magnificent film in The Passion of the Christ, and showing his hands as the hands driving the nails into Christ demonstrates a very Catholic understanding of whose sins are responsible for Christ being on the Cross.

  • Don,

    If you don’t have it you should get Benedict XVI’s (Cardinal Ratzinger’s) “Feast of Faith.” Discusses the Eucharist as sacrifice (and only in a limited and sacramental sense, as a meal.) Also discusses the false interpretation of the OT verses which ask not for “sacrifice but a heart turned to God” as denying God seeks sacrifice. Shows how true abadonment to God is in the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross and our union in sacrifice.

The Difference Between Libya and Iraq Explained

Monday, March 28, AD 2011

For additional comedy relief, here is a video put out by a group supporting Obama for president detailing Obama’s opposition to the war in Iraq.

You know, I think quite a few of the easy marks who voted for Obama will regret eventually having voted for him, perhaps none more so than those who voted for him because they actually believed that he was a peacenik.

Why, perhaps even Morning’s Minion at Vox Nova, who wrote the paragraph below, will someday realize that Obama played him like an accordion:

Continue reading...

9 Responses to The Difference Between Libya and Iraq Explained

  • Here’s the difference. A hated, GOP president liberated Iraq.
    A messianic, progressive president gave Libya to al Qaeda, et al.

  • As the Instapundit notes, the real rubes are those who somehow believed Obama was something other than a sleazy Chicago pol.

  • How about I think about minding our own business… I think we had it right after WWI mind our own business and only involve ourselves when we cannot ignore it like WWII …. but let continue to go to war and spend more money we don’t have sounds smart Obama/Bush II ..feel like every prez since nixon is a manchurian candidate but lets keep on chugging with that rep/demo talk that gets us so far…

  • “I think we had it right after WWI mind our own business and only involve ourselves when we cannot ignore it like WWII”

    Actually Alex, I think one of the contributing factors that led to World War II was the retreat of the US into an isolationist cocoon following WWI.

  • “the real rubes are those who believed Obama was something other than a sleazy Chicago pol”

    If Obama were just another “sleazy Chicago pol” his highest ambition would have been to get elected alderman or mayor, not POTUS!

  • That is one of the many mysteries of Obama Elaine: he strikes me as neither ambitious nor driven, two characterists of most presidents. Another mystery is that once having grasped the brass ring of the Presidency, he seems to me to be completely disinterested and disengaged from the job. There are many question marks about this man.

  • Donald, you’re on to it now!
    Obama really never wanted “power”. That requires responsibilities and decision making which he knew were “above his pay scale” as well as his limited abilities. Barry, the lovable community organizer with the big smiley face and velvet tongue, desired only the “position” of the highest office. He never cared about being the people’s candidate or the people themselves. He had the job of his life before he ever entered public office. He was fully aware the power and wealth of those backing and guiding his career and writing his books were able to fill the enlarged ego of the little boy with such a humble and mysterious childhood far beyond his wildest dreams.
    We need to stop thinking we, the voting public, “employed” Obama. He accepted the “position” he desired with the “power” he saw as the dominate force in world politics for the future as soon as he finished college. The 2008 election brought that power into a position at the White House and Obama is its voice. Got it?

  • I’d like to add…
    And now you can understand why Obama seems to be preoccupied with parties, palling with celeb’s, festive receptions, golf, basketball, vacations, expensive family trips out of the country, and avoiding meetings now with other national leaders of opposite stripe here and world leaders from abroad who have been our closest allies in the past.
    Speech is the main purpose of his occupation not negotiating on his feet and the words only come together for him after the community organizers preordained ideologues have determined what they want his audience to hear from him

  • Here are two more difference.

    In Iraq, US marines and soldiers were killing jihadis.

    In Libya, per Byron York, US is aiding jihadis that killed Americans. KIA of the USS Coles must be spinning in their graves.

    And, per Donald Sensing: “Obama got rolled by the Europeans. This is an after-affect of French and Italian colonialism. The Libya war is neo-colonialism by the Europeans. And the United States is like fraternity pledges that the brothers make mop up the frat house floor on Sunday morning after an all-night kegger that they didn’t attend.”

Obama Zombies

Thursday, July 29, AD 2010

Hattip to Southern Appeal.  Hard to believe that the above video is actually pro-Obama rather than  a spoof.  It is produced by Campus Progress, a George Soros funded leftist group.  An odd thing about the video is the riff on Michael Jackson’s Thriller, a song that came out in 1982, long before most college students were born.  This would be rather like a leftist campus group in 1968 using “Big Band” music from 1940 to make a political ad.  Oh well, I guess it is easier to make a fairly useless video for Obama than dealing with the fact that young people searching for jobs that simply are not there are increasingly soured on the South Side Messiah.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to Smart Donkey and Dumb Donkey

  • Biden is the gift that keeps on giving.

  • I have a new local hero! This provides me with another excuse to visit Kopps, a Milwaukee treasure. ( My sister had the place on speed dial when she was pregnant and ‘eating for two’ so she could quickly find out what the flavor of the day was. Some commentators on other sites understandably, but wrongly, have mistaken “frozen custard” for pie of some sort. To those who have never had the good fortune to eat Wisconsin frozen custard, think of the richest, smoothest, creamiest ice cream imaginable. Now triple that richness and you have frozen custard.)

    I would not be at all surprised if the manager is soon notified of an upcoming IRS audit. Daring to ask for lower taxes – why, clearly, this uppity peasant doesn’t realize what’s good for him.

2 Responses to What Have We Got Into With ObamaCare

  • I can feel the division. It is well known at work that I am a practicing Catholic and a conservative Republican. I’m starting to get dirty looks and be shunned because my party decided that the country could not afford this and that they could not abide public funding of abortion.

    I’m praying along with you Tito.

  • daledog, Gaudete! Our Lord promised us the scorn of the world. Rejoice!

    This country hasn’t been this divided since the War for Southern Independence. Satan’s only goal is to divide men from God and the best way to do that is to divide us against each other. We must seek and pray for unity, solidarity and brotherhood, yet we must hold fast to Our Lord first. Remember, he told us to hate our lives and our families and the world – that simply means we must be detached from temporal things and seek His Kingdom first – always and everywhere.

    Mandatum novum do vobis ut diligatis invicem sicut dilexi vos. Jn 13:34