Pope Tony Excommunicates Santorum

Tuesday, March 20, AD 2012

Well that’s certainly how I read this screed by Morning’s Minion.  It seems that Rick has offended the Magisterium of Vox Nova.

I get annoyed by silly media talk of Santorum’s connections to Opus Dei, everybody’s favorite dark and sinister Catholic cloak-and-dagger society.

Such a promising beginning.  Then it unravels.

The underlying assumption is that Santorum is a deeply orthodox Catholic, with a whiff of old-school authoritarianism about him. But this is nonsense. Opus Dei is a traditionalist Catholic group, heavily influenced by Spanish spirituality. It’s not my cup of tea, but it puts strong emphasis on fidelity to Church teachings, and I assume that means all Church teachings. Santorum, on the other hand, is a classic American right-wing liberal, picking and choosing his Church teachings, and with a spirituality that seems far more evangelical than Catholic. It is no accident that Santorum’s core support comes from right-wing evangelicals, not Catholics. Opus Dei has a vaguely “foreign” feel in the United States. Nobody could possibly say that about Santorum!

Goodness gracious.  My favorite part is where MM describe Santorum’s spirituality as “Evangelical,” whatever that means.  It’s the usual litany of cliches from Tony: right-wing liberals, scary Evangelical bogeymen, accusations of cafeteria Catholicism.  Honestly at this point you can play the Morning’s Minion drinking game and you’d be drunk by the second paragraph.  As for the astute observation that Santorum polls better with Evangelicals than with Catholics – well, I’m not sure if that fact reflects poorly on Santorum or on other Catholics.  Considering that many Catholics share Minion’s, umm, unique perspective on the faith it’s not surprising that Santorum is not doing so well with his co-religionists.

As for the specific charges that Morning’s Minion lays out against Santorum, I’ll link to Lisa Graas’s blog post here, and paste her responses after the jump.  She does a good job dismantling every claim laid against Santorum, and so I have nothing else to add.

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Pope Tony Excommunicates Santorum

  • Who brought popcorn? This could be entertaining…

  • Many of MM’s points are over the top, but some, at least, do require more careful consideration.

    American Exceptionalism

    Well, it depends upon what MM means by American Exceptionalism. I can’t venture over to VN without my blood pressure rising to unhealthy levels, so I can only guess that he does not mean it is anti-Catholic to love one’s country or be proud of its achievements, but rather American Exceptionalism is the belief that America is somehow exempt or “excepted” from moral standards that pertain to other countries. The attitude of “when other contries do it, it’s wrong; but when America does it, it’s ok.” E.g., torturing is wrong when Iran does it, but not when we do it.

    Rick Santorum supports the use of force against prisoners, not to extract confessions to crimes or to intimidate the individual, but to save lives.

    But you do the same thing the pro-choicers do – that is, you leave off what is implicit in the action. Pro-choicers always talk about freedom of choice, but rarely say the freedom to choose what? To murder.

    Likewise, you say Rick supports the use of force, not to intimidate the individual, but to save lives. But how does he save these lives? By intimidating (if not worse) the individual. You can say this is not “ends justifies the means” but that’s exactly what it is. Even just war doctrine does not support torture. Just war doctrine relates to two things – having a just reason to go to war (which is what Grass is probably alluding to) and conducting the war in a just manner. One can be justified to go to war, but conduct the war in an an unjust manner (e.g., by torturing prisoners) and thereby still transgress just war teaching.

    It is also very vague on what is meant by force in this context – how much? Whatever it takes? Are there any limits? If so, what are they? If enemies did the same action to our citizens, would it be different (eg, if Japanese forces captured one of the Enola Gay pilots before the bombings, would they be allowed to “apply force” to find out the intended targets?).

  • By the way, his screed does seem to offer at least a “left-handed” compliment to Opus Dei. Maybe he’s getting soft.

  • All you need to know about Tony A is that he has now on at least 2 occasions (and I’m sure there are more) made his stand with the most anti-Catholic administration in this nation’s history and against the Bishops of his own Church on matters of utmost importance: (1) the Stupak Amendment, which would have clearly and unequivocally included Hyde Amendment type language in ObamaCare; and (2) the HHS mandate. Tony routinely on these matters disparages those Bishops as out of touch and ignorant and partisan, while pretending that Obama is the embodiment of Catholic Social Teaching.

    Tony says Santorum is “anti-Catholic”? Then let’s be honest about Tony: he’s not a Catholic at all – he’s a Democrat first, last, and always. He’s a hard-core, left-wing statist hiding behind a fascade of Catholicism as a means of pushing what is at its core a secularist, anti-Catholic agenda that sees the government picking winners and losers in internal Church affairs, and determining Church doctrine and which Church activities constitute the practice of “religion” and which do not.

    Following Santorum’s preferred agenda would not threaten the Catholic Church or the Catholic faith in the least. Following Tony’s preferred agenda has brought this country as close to the precipace of anti-religious tyranny as we’ve ever been.

    NOW tell me who’s “anti-Catholic”?

  • , but rather American Exceptionalism is the belief that America is somehow exempt or “excepted” from moral standards that pertain to other countries.

    Tony doesn’t explain what he means by this, but this is certainly not what Santorum believes.

    As for the bullet about torture, this is admittedly one area where I have some quibbles with Santorum (and thus with Lisa’s defense of him). I won’t go into further detail because I really don’t want Catholic combox discussion #9235029554222 about whether or not the use of waterboarding is intrinsically evil.

  • Here are a few more targets for Pope Tony to excommunicate on the charge of American Exceptionalism:

    “Nor, perchance did the fact which We now recall take place without some design of divine Providence. Precisely at the epoch when the American colonies, having, with Catholic aid, achieved liberty and independence, coalesced into a constitutional Republic the ecclesiastical hierarchy was happily established amongst you; and at the very time when the popular suffrage placed the great Washington at the helm of the Republic, the first bishop was set by apostolic authority over the American Church. The well-known friendship and familiar intercourse which subsisted between these two men seems to be an evidence that the United States ought to be conjoined in concord and amity with the Catholic Church. And not without cause; for without morality the State cannot endure-a truth which that illustrious citizen of yours, whom We have just mentioned, with a keenness of insight worthy of his genius and statesmanship perceived and proclaimed. But the best and strongest support of morality is religion.”

    Pope Leo XIII

    “Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. Americans know this from experience – almost every town in this country has its monuments honoring those who sacrificed their lives in defense of freedom, both at home and abroad. The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate. It also demands the courage to engage in civic life and to bring one’s deepest beliefs and values to reasoned public debate. In a word, freedom is ever new. It is a challenge held out to each generation, and it must constantly be won over for the cause of good (cf. Spe Salvi, 24). Few have understood this as clearly as the late Pope John Paul II. In reflecting on the spiritual victory of freedom over totalitarianism in his native Poland and in eastern Europe, he reminded us that history shows, time and again, that “in a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation”, and a democracy without values can lose its very soul (cf. Centesimus Annus, 46). Those prophetic words in some sense echo the conviction of President Washington, expressed in his Farewell Address, that religion and morality represent “indispensable supports” of political prosperity.”

    Pope Bendict XVI

    “Respect for religious conviction played no small part in the birth and early development of the United States. Thus John Dickinson, Chairman of the Committee for the Declaration of Independence, said in 1776: “Our liberties do not come from charters; for these are only the declaration of preexisting rights. They do not depend on parchments or seals; but come from the King of Kings and the Lord of all the earth.” Indeed it may be asked whether the American democratic experiment would have been possible, or how well it will succeed in the future, without a deeply rooted vision of divine providence over the individual and over the fate of nations.”

    Pope John Paul II

    “A few days after the liberation of Rome, Lieutenant General Mark Clark, Commander of the Fifth Allied Army, paid his respects to the Pope: “I am afraid you have been disturbed by the noise of my tanks. I am sorry.” Pius XII smiled and replied: “General, any time you come to liberate Rome, you can make just as much noise as you like.””
    Pius XII

    Then we have Pio Nono who contributed a block of marble for the building of the Washington Monument.

    Pope Tony had better buy his bulls of excommunication by the gross.

  • The comments are hysterical, as Tony is being chided for being too soft on Opus Dei.

  • Well, I went too far in saying that Tony is not a Catholic at all, and for that I apologize. I certainly don’t want to be in the business of excommunicating those with whom I have philosophical, theological, and political differences. That’s a bit above my “paygrade”.

    But the rest of my comment stands. Tony is FAR more guilty of promoting an “anti-Catholic” agenda than Santorum is.

  • Does Vox Nova generally lend itself to be nothing more than liberal propaganda with strategically placed Catholic fig leaves?

    Santorum is one of the most pro-family, pro-life, faithful to the Magisterium Catholics we’ve seen run for the highest office in the land and they deign to attack him?

  • “Does Vox Nova generally lend itself to be nothing more than liberal propaganda with strategically placed Catholic fig leaves?”

    When it ventures into the political realm, with certain honorable exceptions among their writers, yes.

  • Jay, the only — ONLY — evidence for Morning’s Minion’s Catholicism is his own insistence upon it. He’s one of those I’ve been saying that bishops need to bring into line. He needs to get with the Church, or get out of it.

  • One commits a horrid error when one equates big-government socialism with the Gospels . . .

    VN needs to read and believe the Gospels, not Marx and Lenin.

    Someone tell them their definition of “social justice” is not the alibi for every mortal sin in the Book.

    Gospel “Planks in their eyes” – hundreds of aerial drone murders; 45,000,000 abortions; hundreds of millions of contraceptions; endless aggressive wars; every day fomenting mass class envy/hatred; gay privileges; etc.

    Speck – three mass murderers water-boarded; tax cuts for the hated rich; what-have-you; trying to keep it so as working class Americans can afford food and fuel; and etc.

    Capital punishment hasn’t been outlawed by Uncle Joe Biden’s boss, either.

  • Lisa is outright wrong about the torture issue. No need to rehash the arguments for the regular readers here. Newcomers can google ‘catholic waterboarding’ to get what they need.

  • There are quite orthodox thinkers who do not believe every act of coercive force is torture. Some very good ones outside the self-appointed, non-trained “experts.”

    Some intelligent and non-inflammatory discussion of the topic:


  • Water-boarding is so last administration. That was then.

    This is now. The Obama regime savagely (human dignity! Veritatus Splendor!!) ) kills them with unmanned aerial drones.

  • I, too, have tangled with Tony before over multiple issues. I am happier to report we have come to an amiable truce. While Tony’s critiques of American Catholicism’s tendency to see the faith through an overly-American prism can be over-the-top, they also can be a helpful corrective.

    The problem, I think, comes from the fact that I think it can be fairly said likewise that Tony sees the faith through lenses that are too uncritical of continental European assumptions and concerns.

    Also, it would help if Tony would read Santorum’s “It Takes A Family.” Santorum’s conservatism is a lot more solidarity-oriented and less-atomistic individualist than the standard American conservative template.

  • Pingback: So Which Is It? | The American Catholic
  • Pingback: Santorum and Catholic Italian Politics « Michael D. Driessen

Vichy Catholics

Saturday, February 11, AD 2012

While most Catholics with at least two brain cells to rub together realize that the HHS Mandate “compromise” is a transparent fraud, the usual suspects among the Obama-uber-alles branch of Catholics in this country have been hailing it.

Richard Rich Doug Kmiec is back on board the Obama bus (and demonstrates again the truth of the Socrates adage that an unexamined life is a tragedy):

Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association, last seen getting a pen from Obama for her support in passing ObamaCare, loves the compromise.  She was actually supporting it before it was announced, indicating that the Obama administration slipped her advance knowledge.  The administration is aware of the tame Catholics they can rely on.

And, mirabile dictu!, Morning’s Minion at Vox Nova gives the “compromise” a thumbs up!

Streiff over at Red State sums up this phenomenon of Catholics who can always be counted upon to carry Obama’s water for him in any dispute with the Church:

Continue reading...

36 Responses to Vichy Catholics

  • Watching that Granholm and Kmiec clip makes me want to throw up.

  • Oh how nice – my former governor and Catholyc Jennifer Granholm, still carrying the water for Obama. Another one that deserves ex-communication.

    I just realized – that news clip will probably get viewed by more people than there are total Current subscribers, merely because you linked to it. And that’s not saying much.

  • Its said to say but there are far too many useful idiots in the Church willing to follow Obama despite his blatant assault on our beloved Church.

  • Morning’s Minion at Vox Nova gives the “compromise” a thumbs up!

    Sheesh. I see that the ruling troika of Mornings Minion, MZ and Henry are all full throatedly in favor of the “compromise” and accusing the USCCB of being a bunch of out of touch rubes led around by partisan hacks. What a pathetic disgrace that place can be.

  • I cannot go to look at anything on Vox Nova. My eyes will bleed.

    Some Catholics amaze me. They should not, but they do. They shouldn’t be referred to as Catholics, but as left wing nuts.

  • I don’t get to be a ruling troika DC. I moved on several months ago from Vox Nova.

    …the USCCB [are] a bunch of out of touch rubes led around by partisan hacks.
    That sounds about right.

    While most Catholics with at least two brain cells to rub together realize that the HHS Mandate “compromise” is a transparent fraud, the usual suspects among the Obama-uber-alles branch of Catholics in this country have been hailing it.
    Most Catholics had no problem with the mandate. I’m doubtful any new dissent will be created with the compromise.

    The administration is aware of the tame Catholics they can rely on.
    You mean the ones that successfully applied political pressure and achieved their goal. I suppose I can concede that Obama wasn’t looking to receive respect from hacks like yourself who still believe he instituted health care reform in order to fund abortion. It is quite apparent the Obama administration is not interested in dialog with those who willfully continue to misrepresent his health care package. Unfortunately, that includes the USCCB. That is too bad for the USCCB, but I can’t really feel too much pity for them.

  • Carol Keehan ( I doubt if she is really a nun) is an Obama pawn. What is she thinking.

    She is for the compromise before it was announced? So the Lame Stream Media will herald this as a support for the compromise of a very influential group.

  • It seems that the basic economics of insurance are lost a great many people. Who do you think makes up for the “free” contraceptives? There is no free lunch.

  • “Most Catholics had no problem with the mandate.”

    Actually MZ, most Americans in general and Catholics in particular had a big problem with the mandate, although I understand you do not like being confused with facts.


    Obama understood this, which is why he floated this “compromise” to take the political heat off him, Obama having a better grasp of public opinion apparently than some of his more crazed acolytes.

    “receive respect from hacks like yourself”

    And the Pope MZ?


    Don’t worry MZ, you will get all the respect you can stomach from those like yourself who confuse Catholicism with a love of the welfare state, everything else be damned. Enjoy whatever solace that gives you.

  • ‘ … I don’t like my faith being used as political weapon … ‘ DK
    ‘ … Obama on the ropes taking punches from …’ JG from the war room
    and the CA lady distributing NYT gospel on the good people in Cinn., OH ?
    and an old vox of heresy just blathering against the Church Jesus established on earth to help us get to His Father ?

    War cry n. – A phrase or slogan used to rally people to a cause.

    All this muscle flexing talk in reaction to the Church standing up for the Constitutional right of its own religious liberty which is granted in the political arena where it’s now necessary to speak. What happened to pretty philosophic ideas of celebrating diversity and leaving no children behind? The answers given to the Church and public are in the spirit of telling misbehaving children to go sit in the corner and be quiet forever.

  • 10:28 ‘ I suppose I can concede that Obama wasn’t looking to receive respect from hacks like yourself who still believe he instituted health care reform in order to fund abortion. It is quite apparent the Obama administration is not interested in dialog with those who willfully continue to misrepresent his health care package. Unfortunately, that includes the USCCB. ‘

    Then, please explain why his ‘magnanimous’ 2/10 “Compromise Speech” was centered on the word ‘contraception’ with no specific details for the listening public. Or what areas of health, other than women’s preventive healthcare, is included.

    It is inconvenient to point out that the result of some of the healthcare is death. ( I think of that part as hellth.) The USCCB, the Catholic Church, and many other religions which branched off from the Catholic Church are the places where people entrust the guidance of their Souls. They are as much doctors as the ones guiding the executive branch.

  • Hitler on Vichy Catholics:

    “Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense. The tale is finished but we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the sake of their miserable little jobs and incomes.”

    Describes Kmiec and Sr. Carol pretty well, I’d say. And as for Vox Nova – well, it’s interesting. Over the past week, I’ve seen outrage about this from Protestants and Jews and even atheists and agnostics, who understand full well what an assault on religious rights it is. But the Catholic statists like MZ and the Vox Nova crowd keep digging their graves. However, I wouldn’t say they are betraying their god – no, they’re in full grovel mode before him. Well, if you can stomach voting for a man who approves of leaving babies to die on tables, forcing the Church to pick up the tab for birth control isn’t going to be that big of a deal to you.

  • I do not find it at all difficult to imagine a situation arising here similiar to the one in China, where you have the state-approved “Catholic” clergy and the ones who actually follow the Vatican.

    And I also do not find it difficult to imagine left-wing “Catholics” gleefully helping to turn in and persecute those who remain faithful to Rome rather than to Obama and the nanny state. Really. They are showing us now who they really worship and adore.

  • The filthy animals are showing themselves for what they are: Obama first, the state second, hatred of liberty third, and Christ number ten.

    You can’t reason with those in the thrall of the demon; those . Those that call good evil and evil good.

    It’s way past talking. Some real Christians say they’ll go to jail.

    Next from the Obama-worshiping imbeciles:

    3 . . . 2 . . .1 . . . Racists!

  • Maybe we should take comfort in the fact that WE know right from wrong as is noted in the commits here. The problem is that the propaganda seems to reach more than the truth does. Then again, more and more do not find the truth comforting as it conflicts with their lifestyle and desires.

  • While Obama got 54% of the overall Catholic vote, McCain got 57% of the vote of Catholics who attend Mass every Sunday. The fact that Obama got 43% of the Catholics who attend Mass on Sundays is what I find more troubling. While it is true that not all of those who attend Mass every Sunday, most of them are. So, we can safely say, as a conservative estimate, that about 25% of orthodox Catholics went for Obama. That is what concerns me. That is far more telling. And what it tells is that many orthodox Catholics do not understand how economic, national security, foreign policies affect the cultural and life issues. I mean how can honestly claim to be for life when you support big government nanny state policies that financially underwrite the culture of death (of which Obamacare is proof postive) or when you have a national security posture that projects weakness?

  • Very well said Donna-
    Well, if you can stomach voting for a man who approves of leaving babies to die on tables, forcing the Church to pick up the tab for birth control isn’t going to be that big of a deal to you.

  • Simply, this assault on Church Teachings (Pharaoh calls it opinion and ancient religious hatred) is the straw that broke the USCCB’s back.

    All that common good, justice and peace guff is corollary to the alibi (welfare of humanity) of tyrants and, worse, cynical political posturing.

    How is any of this (higher food and energy costs) good for the common man?

    In 2008, Obama promised he’d bankrupt the coal industry and raise the cost of energy if elected. He was elected, and we are suffering.

    This year, Pharaoh is closing three West Virginia coal plants.

    The shortages in energy supplies will ripple through the economy and put out of work about 100,00 people more, with added misery, and will raise the cost of living for all Americans, . . . including those deleted from the propaganda, unemployment/labor force numbers.

  • I’m reading various threads on Catholic blogs and I’m amazed at how disconnected (IMO) so many people are from Church teaching and an understanding of the moral component as well as the deeper understanding of the person and society. They are actually factoring in the idea that contraception is a cost savings and trying to use that angle in evaluating “compromises”. Contraception is NOT a cost savings. Only in the narrowest and inhuman view can one say that. The cost of contraception to our society is huge. It’s in part why as a nation we kill millions of innocents a year. It has probably done more to destroy the foundation of society, the family, than anything else in this country. The effects of that have resulted in many expensive, yet family destroying “fixes”. Not mention the overall degrading of both men and women. I really wish the bishops would call this out. It’s not that they need it for their defense of the Church and religious and conscience rights, but maybe they could help take that sort of misguided logic off the table.

  • Not one liberal did a thing to help.

    Don Surber: “About 40,000 people signed an online petition to demonize the bank of a Nashville woman who stands to lose her house to foreclosure, instead of actually stepping up and helping her.

    “Liberals: Not here to help so much as to seize power on your misery.”

    Justice and peace!!! All that 2008 human dignity, faux charity, “have-you-no-decency” wailing and gnashing of teeth was truly partisan BS.

    In 2012, a majority of liberal hypocrits, like MM et al, support drone assassinations and keeping the Gitmo tortuary operational. Funny how just as in 2008, death penalty, evil tax cuts for the evil rich, and water boarding still trump abortion, contraception, gay privileges, the moral destruction of our youth, mass desperation, tyranny, etc.

    It seems Obama-worshiping idiots think we are as stupid as they.

  • Whatever Doug Kmeic says to do, do the opposite. You won’t go wrong.

  • I know, I know. We’re all supposed to be adults. We’re supposed to educate ourslves on the vissicitudes of life. But can it be ignored that the silence form the pulpits is deafening? Especially concerning the American Holocaust. I guess it’s just human nature. If it doesn’t affect me directly then so what.

    Let’s face it; there are alot of socialists in the Ivory Towers of chancery buildings who just got bitch-slapped by Marxist numero uno and have been temporarliy(?) awakened.

  • Obama just wanted to get the Carol Keehan Catholics back into his flock, and it looks like he has succeeded. It is for the Bishops to revoke some charters which includes so-called Catholic association as well as religious orders such as the one which spawned Carol Keehan.

  • They have their reward.

  • Pingback: SUNDAY EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • I think Obama was on a fishing expedition, 1) to see just how the Church would respond, and 2) back off enough to win back his ‘Catholic’ supporters and drive a wedge in the Church’s opposition.

  • If the Bishops keep slamming hard, and don’t give up their just criticisms, then it doesn’t matter what these Catholic ignoramuses (or is that ignorami?) blurt out of their mouths.

    Keep writing to your Bishops who have demonstrated courage and tell them that you’re in their corner, helping on blogs, newspapers, etc. They NEED to hear that from you.

    Do it now.

  • Dan, and they (Bishops/USCCB) want us to contact our US Reps. about supporting the Respect for Rights of Conscience Act (H.R. 1179 S. 1467).

    We can support these brave defenders of the Church as well. The Reps aren’t afraid to ask for votes, so it seems like a time to urge cooperation all around. There’s more at stake than O’s contraception card.

  • …the USCCB [are] a bunch of out of touch rubes led around by partisan hacks.
    That sounds about right… I suppose I can concede that Obama wasn’t looking to receive respect from hacks like yourself who still believe he instituted health care reform in order to fund abortion. It is quite apparent the Obama administration is not interested in dialog with those who willfully continue to misrepresent his health care package. Unfortunately, that includes the USCCB. That is too bad for the USCCB, but I can’t really feel too much pity for them.

    God love ya, MZ, being an ObamaCath means never having to admit you’re wrong. The fact is that the “out of touch” USCCB and the “partisan hacks” who allegedly lead them around turned out to be 100% right on the conscience clause issue, and you and the rest of the ObamaCaths turned out to be 100% WRONG, as the original HHS mandate clearly demonstrates.

    “Trust us”, you said in the debate over the Stupak Amendment, “ObamaCare won’t lead to Church insitutions having to do anything that violates their beliefs, and the out of touch Bishops who are telling you otherwise are being led around by partisan hacks.” You were wrong (or lying) them, so forgive me if I believe you’re wrong (or lying) now when you claim the same thing about this alleged “accomodation”.

    The fact is that Catholic institutions providing medical coverage as part of their employee benefits will be providing things that violate their beliefs. Nothing has changed with the alleged “accomodation”. And it’s just a matter of time before additional items that violate Catholic teaching are added to the list of “must cover” items, abortion among them.

    Again, when I see you and yours FOR A SECOND TIME paying less heed to the Bishops on these matters than you do to a man who, via the extreme position his adminsitration took in the recent Supreme Court case that he lost in a 9-0 decision and via the extreme position his administration has taken with the HHS mandate, is clearly trying to limit religious freedom, you’ll have to pardon me when I say you no longer have any credibility (not that you ever did) after having been conclusively shown to have been WRONG the first time you chose sides.

  • Being credible in your eyes and $5 will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I shouldn’t be shocked that you lack the intellectual honesty to admit the USCCB was wrong about abortion coverage. I confess to being slightly disappointed though. Good play though on attempting to question mine by shifting the goal posts to a phony conscience controversy.

    And for the record, I don’t see any any conscience issue involved with employers being compelled to offer a contraceptive benefit if they provide health insurance. I don’t think employers have a legitimate interest in whether or not their employees have a sex act that respects the unitive and procreative dimensions.

  • Pingback: The HHS Mandate: It Was Never About Healthcare | The American Catholic
  • I must post what I know, after are my comments and opinion. FAITH IS A GIFT FROM GOD. GOD IS BEING AND EXISTENCE. All men come into existence at the will of God, our Creator. The virtue of religion is how man responds to the gift of Faith from God in private and in public. The virtue of religion can be perfected only by complete adherence to the love of God. Doug Kmeic teaches? Law? Constitutional LAW? An open question on conscience rights? What is an open question but to do what one knows is right in accordance to the will of God? I am stunned by the profound ignorance of Doug Kmiec. Doug Kmiec belongs on Saturday Night Live. no foolin’. Doug Kmiec has a problem with his “faith being used as a political weapon”. What Kmiec really means to say is that his virtue of religion, his response to the gift of Faith from God, is being pressed to do what is right in the eyes of God and he does not like it.

  • MZ “a phony conscience controversy”? Justice is giving each man what he truly deserves. Can there be JUSTICE without conscience? Animals have no conscience and do not require JUSTICE. Devils have no conscience because demons have no human body, therefore no human soul, therefore no eternal life in heaven. Justice requires that the newly begotten sovereign person, who constitutes our nation and whose perfect moral and legal innocence is the standard of Justice be given life as an unalienable right. Our nation’s constitutional posterity is being deprived of Justice and you call it a”phony conscience controversy”? The rest has been deleted by the poster.

  • Dan: Ignorami is Latin for ignoramuses. I really enjoy reading your post. You are correct especially the part about supporting our bishops, It is up to each and every man, if he enjoys freedom, he must stand together with the truth for the truth will set you free.

  • RL: Cost saving contraception drives Divine Providence away from our nation. Our Creator, WHO made us, makes the rain fall, the seed germinate, the sun shine. Malthus and Population Bomb ignored Divine Providence in their calculations. Therefore, It may be said of Thomas Malthus and Paul Erhlick: IGNORAMI. The horror of abortion is that the abortionists and those whose minds and souls are pro-abortion is that they enjoy murdering the innocent. Pro-abortionists revel in bloodlust, worship in bloodlust their demon god, moloch.

  • Hope and Change:

    “I strongly urge you not to be intimidated by extremist politicians or the malice of the cultural secularists (me: e.g., vox nova) arrayed against us.” Bishop Daniel Jenky

    “Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Illinois warned Catholic democrats that one day they will indeed have to meet their Creator and will have to give account for their irresponsible acts before God.” Gateway Pundit

    That goes for all you rascals that voted for pharaoh.

    Malicious secularist MZ: Thanks for reminding me!

    We NRA Endowment (I upgraded from Life) Members are going to Starbucks to show our support. Starbucks supports Second Amendment liberties. We will support Starbucks.

    3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . “Justice and peace and cynical political posturing!!! Only criminals and the gestapo are allowed to carry weapons!”

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.”

The Catholic Left and America the Evil

Tuesday, February 8, AD 2011

Thomas Peters took  the usual suspects, including Vox Nova, on the Catholic Left to task for ignoring Lila Rose’s new expose last week about Planned Parenthood a\k\a Worse Than Murder, Inc.  Mark Shea joined in.  In response Morning’s Minion at Vox Nova went on the offensive and blasted everyone to the right of Joseph Stalin after a pro forma condemnation of Planned Parenthood.  Nate Wildermuth made a more interesting contribution:


Thomas Peters and Mark Shea and those of like-mind rightfully point out that abortion and contraception are not understood correctly by many ‘progressive’ Catholics. When I lived in the Dorothy Day Catholic Worker House in Washington D.C., I participated in the vigils at Planned Parenthood, and asked a fellow Worker if she’d like to come. “Can’t do everything,” she said. “Not my thing.” And that’s the sort of answer that makes us think, “Wow, they just don’t get it.” The ongoing slaughter of children in the womb is one of the most frightening signs of the disintegration of Western Civilization.

And yet, standing so near the truth, Thomas Peters and Mark Shea and many of like-mind totally lose their minds. Example: they have likely Marched for Life in Washington D.C., but not before attending the idol-worshiping ceremonies that precede it, where the multitudes pledge their allegiance to a flag soaked in blood, to a Republic prostituted for Mammon, to a nation kneeling under a god called Constitution. “That’s just proper patriotism for the good parts of America,” they might say. But anyone who pledges allegiance to the American flag or gets goosebumps at the National Anthem just doesn’t get it: America is the greatest force for evil in the world in the history of mankind.

To get it means to be shell-shocked by the utter depravity of every aspect of the United States, to see that the game is up, that doom is allotted, and that abortion, war, poverty, and every kind of violence will continue unabated until the wrath and judgment of God is poured out upon this proud and blind people.

Like the blind men grasping at different parts of an elephant, we should waste less time denying what the other sees, and more time putting together the pieces, no matter how horrifying the conclusion.”

Continue reading...

55 Responses to The Catholic Left and America the Evil

  • “…Vox Nova went on the offensive…”

    Vox Nasty.

  • The left’s motive is psychological. They are solipsists, adopting the narcissistic illusion that –since everything depends upon us– all we need do is change our own behavior for everything to turn out right. It is akin to the co-dependent strategy of the child of an alcoholic, who strives to achieve perfect behavior in order to motivate the parent to change. To think otherwise is to concede that the world is a chaotic place that we cannot control, and demands of us difficult choices, responses of limited effect, and –above all– the uncertainty of faith.

  • Pro forma? Does that mean that MM’s condemnation of PP was insincere? Is he lying about his views on PP? Why would someone like MM, who has no compunction about sharing his views, feel the need to fudge here?

    Is it possible to be pro-life without making abortion the pre-eminent topic of one’s writing? (I write on the Eucharist far more than on abortion.) Is it even possible that one could be against abortion and disagree with the right about health care? Or must we assert that anyone who disagrees with the right about anything disagrees about abortion, even if they aren’t willing to say as much? MM doesn’t get to decide his own opinion on abortion, you will do it for him.

    It is one thing to disagree with MM (or any other fellow Catholic) on which public policy best serves the common good. It is another to imply his insincerity.

    If we at VN say nothing about abortion, we are pro-abortion. If we say something about abortion, it is not satisfactory if it does not toe the GOP line. Every post, and there are a lot of them, is just one more exception that proves the rule. There is a self-fulfilling prophecy going on here.

  • Also, I’m quite a bit right of Stalin and got no impression that I was in MM’s sites. A long list is not the same as a broad list.

  • Brett, MM voted for the most pro-abort President in our nation’s history. He is an unfailing shill for the Democrat party. Abortion obviously ranks very, very, very low on his order of priority.

  • Brett,

    Take a look at Morning’s Minions work at Vox-Nova. On the rare occasion that he bothers to even offer a mild rebuke of the abortion industry, he insists on following it up with a much harsher upbraiding of Republicans. Abortion to him is nothing more than a distraction from the bigger issues of government mandated health care and whatever pet leftist project he has in his cross-hairs.

    Nate’s comment is simply deranged. Can we put to bed the notion that we should take any of these fools seriously?

  • Wildermuth’s comments are warped and bizarre and I think reflect his own idiosyncratic pathologies. I would tend to suspect that the ill motives of the the general run of the Catholic left are far more commonplace.

  • I suppose there is a small grain of truth to the claim that the US is the greatest source of evil among nations. At present, it is the most powerful, and projects that power world-wide. No other country, except for China, perhaps, can project such power and China does not seem to be interested in doing so at this time, at least not in the same way as the US. But by the same token, the US is also arguably the greatest source of good among nations – no other country rushes to provide aid as much as the US. I don’t think it is necessarily inconsistent to be both – when you wield a lot of power, how you use it impacts for good or ill. It is manifestly unfair to only note the good or the bad. Just my own observation, but those on the right seem to overplay the good; those on the left overplay the bad.

  • MM voted for the most pro-abort President in our nation’s history.

    Have you mention this to the Justice Department? Given that MM is an Irish citizen and not entitled to vote, it seems you have accused him of a felony.

  • The basic error is in thinking that the “Catholic left” is Catholic at all.

  • Be careful. Disagreeing with Vox Nova’s America-hatred is condemned in Veritatis Splendour 80.

  • I was aware Katherine that MM is an Irish import. Considering that he endorsed Obama in a has-to-be-read-to-be-believed post on VN, I assumed that he had become a naturalized American citizen.


  • And once again we see the validity of Paul’s Second Law: “Life is too short to read Vox Nova.”

  • I think any honest reader can see that MM believes the Democrats give us a better chance at reducing abortion in the US.

    A fair-minded person can disagree with his assessment.

    But I don’t think it is fair-minded to imply that he is faking a concern for the unborn.

    And we can work with those with whom we disagree much more easily than with those we don’t trust. Sowing distrust of pro-life democrats imperils the pro-life cause. It ensures that whenever the Dems take power, as they will every couple elections, the house and/or senate will be largely pro-choice because, no matter where abortion is on MM’s list of priorities, it is pretty low for most Americans.

    One can be wrong without being dishonest. I do it all the time. 😉

  • Brett,

    At best you’re being incredibly naive if you think that the Democratic party has become more indebted to the abortion industry because of pro-lifers sowing “distrust” of pro-life Democrats. The Democratic party has done this of its own accord, and so-called pro-life Democrats have aided and abetted the Democrats by their continued blind allegiance towards the party.

    One can be wrong without being dishonest

    And some can be both.

  • The main problem is that, unless you are a news portal or something like it, blogging is entirely idiosyncratic. You blog about what you blog about. Making an argument from silence is especially risky under those circumstances.

    I think it’s a lot more telling when the news media doesn’t cover a particular story (e.g., the serial killing spree of Kermit Gosnell) that otherwise pushes all the buttons which usually mandate close coverage.

  • “I think any honest reader can see that MM believes the Democrats give us a better chance at reducing abortion in the US.

    A fair-minded person can disagree with his assessment.”

    Actually, any truly honest person should. There is little in the Democratic Party that is intrinsically “pro-life.” One may argue that increasing “investments” in different social programs will result in decreased abortion rates. However, there is little evidence that such is the case as there is little evidence that increasing “investments” in most areas actually results in positive change (see education.) So one may hold that position but it is very weak and does not make one necessarily “pro-life.”

    But the Democratic Party is almost entirely in the hold of abortion on demand, at any stage of pregnancy and for some, including Obama, even after birth. This wholesale surrender to an intrinsic evil, which cannot be rationalized by “investments” of dubious value in other so-called “pro-life” issues, renders MM’s vociferous support of the Democratic Party offensive.

  • Brett,

    It’s not that I think MM was lying about opposing Planned Parenthood. I think he is sincerely against Planned Parenthood and against abortion. But I don’t think he cares about it very much. It clearly doesn’t get him exercised the way that, say, a post by Thomas Peters criticizing Vox Nova does.

  • Thanks for the re-post, Donald, and in its entirety no less. And perhaps you and your readers are correct — perhaps it is I who have lost my mind, rather than those who see abortion as a holocaust yet continue to believe in a holocausting nation. Time will tell.

  • No, I do not think you have lost your mind Nate. Frankly, I was quite surprised by the post. You and I have often differed over the years, but I have always respected the sincerity of your pacifism. The depth of your feeling against America shocked me. America is much more today than the evil of abortion, just as America was much more in the days of Lincoln than slavery.

  • Pingback: TUESDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | ThePulp.it
  • Brett,

    I made an honest go of being a Pro-Life Democrat. It cannot be done.

    I am a Pennsylvanian and I remember fondly Governor Casey. I was proud of his stand and furious as the Democrat Party’s retribution. I hung in there until 2006. I read every bio and supported pro-life dems at every turn. Then Governor Casey’s son, now Senator Casey, proved to me that there is no place for Catholic beliefs in the Democrat Party.

    It was with a heavy heart too that I switched my affiliation for I honestly believed that the calls to justice that theoretically underpin the Dem platform well articulated the Church’s preference for the poor. After more than a decade of blindness, I acknowledged that the entire platform was a fraud.

    What you believe about the Democrat Party is of no concern to me. I have heard every false argument imaginable about how one SHOULD be a Dem if one believes the Church’s teachings. Believe what you will but you shouldn’t be surprised to be called on it when the party that our fellow Catholics on the Left support runs utterly rampant over truth and right.

    For my part, the Republicans have my support as long as they are the better alternative to the Dems. I don’t believe that the GOP represents the only or even the right answer to many social questions… but the organization is certainly less wrong than the Democrat Party.

  • Brett,

    Maniac MM needs to be judged by what he does, not what he writes. Talk is cheap.

    Nate seems a nice guy and I bet he means well. He seemingly thinks his country is “holocaust nation” and anyone that pledges allegiance is evil, too. I doubt he means that. He possibly couldn’t dream up any other defense for catholic abortion sympathizers.

    I would draw to lefty caths’ attentions the parable of the pharisee and the publican in the temple. It was the humble sinner’s prayer that was counted.

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

  • My post is updated to reflect the ongoing critiques. God bless.

  • rather than those who see abortion as a holocaust yet continue to believe in a holocausting nation

    Nate, that policy was imposed on our elected officials by our frigging judges. It is an indicator of the decay the bar in particular and the professional-managerial bourgeoisie in general. “The Nation” has not had much to do with it.

    Calling attention to the United States in this regard is peculiar. Abortion is regrettably lawful throughout the Occident and in the Far East as well. Malta has held out.

  • Dude, yeah, I know she was crazy. I’m glad you broke up with her. But it’s been months, man. You’ve got to stop talking about her. It doesn’t matter what kind of crazy stuff she’s into these days. It’s over. Move on.

  • I really think it is outrageous and obscene to identify America as the (or as the updated post says “one of the”) greatest source of evil in the history of mankind.

    What western nation even has a pro-life movement with the numbers and influence of America?

    If one wanted to speak of the evil of the last few administrations, that would be a different matter. But that isn’t what is taking place here: the flag, the Constitution, the essence of America is what is being identified as “evil” here.

    One of the posters on the comment thread for Nate’s post made the following point as well:

    “Who is “we”? The country doesn’t have abortions. Pregnant women do, and each one is making an individual decision. I don’t see how those individual decisions can all be consolidated into one action and collective responsibility assigned”

    Precisely right. The evil of abortion was ultimately given to us by radical leftist and feminist SUBVERSIVES – adherents of an alien, foreign, anti-American ideology called Marxism and its variants – who burrowed their way into our academic and political institutions. The American people did not choose legalized abortion, they had it foisted upon them by the Supreme Court, which was in turn provoked to rule by a cabal of radical feminists who manipulated and use, and then discarded Norma McCorvey or “Roe” from the infamous decision – and who is now a famous pro-life activist, by the way!

    I agree that glory and honor must be given first to God, and obedience first to the Magisterium of the Church – having satisfied those requirements there is nothing wrong with recognizing the relative goodness of the United States.

    Speaking about the relatively GOOD conditions of the Church in America as opposed to Europe, Pope Leo XIII wrote:

    “The main factor, no doubt, in bringing things into this happy state were the ordinances and decrees of your synods, especially of those which in more recent times were convened and confirmed by the authority of the Apostolic See. But, moreover (a fact which it gives pleasure to acknowledge), thanks are due to the equity of the laws which obtain in America and to the customs of the well-ordered Republic. For the Church amongst you, unopposed by the Constitution and government of your nation, fettered by no hostile legislation, protected against violence by the common laws and the impartiality of the tribunals, is free to live and act without hindrance.” — Pope Leo XIII, Longinqua

    Leo went on to warn, however, that America’s condition of separation of Church and State was not ideal or preferred, and that the success of the Church would be even greater and more secure if she were rightly constituted. Being a majority Protestant nation, this couldn’t have happened then or now, but in principle it is true.

    Leo also said:

    “All intelligent men are agreed, and We Ourselves have with pleasure intimated it above, that America seems destined for greater things. Now, it is Our wish that the Catholic Church should not only share in, but help to bring about, this prospective greatness.”

    In a better era, when leaders were not consumed by envy and resentment, as well as false idealism and utopianism, this was an easily expressed thought by “all intelligent men.” And this when Catholics in America were still officially discriminated against in many places, and had to fight for respect in the public arena!

    So any argument that treats our fallen nature as if it doesn’t exist, or could one day be abolished, is simply asinine and ignorant to the good that actually does exist and can be preserved. And any argument that says we cannot appreciate – not worship but appreciate and even safeguard – our Constitution and our traditions as if it were a form of idolatry isn’t speaking like a Catholic, but rather a Jehova’s Witness.

  • And for all that, I STILL have moral qualms about the methods of Lila Rose. There is something about the use of deception on that scale that bothers me, even if it is for a good cause. I cannot shake the “feeling” that it is immoral, even though I as much as anyone on our side would like to see Planned Parenthood destroyed.

    In fact I have to be honest – I would have less of a problem with the actual destruction of a Planned Parenthood, say by a fire (in which no one was killed of course), than I do with the use of deception and entrapment.

  • Art, you really think that abortion is only happening in our country because of some accident of bad judges? As opposed to the ‘sexual revolution’ and countless other lies that infect the American Way of Life? Moreover, overturning Roe vs. Wade won’t stop the ‘elected officials’ in New York and California from letting the murder of babies continue.

    This is precisely what my post was about — missing the big picture, and thinking that except for a few bad people (usually over there), everything in America is basically fine. Everything isn’t basically fine. Secular humanism has the world by the throat, and the hand that squeezes has U.S.A. tattooed on it.

  • Donald, I appreciate your thoughts. But I wouldn’t say that I hate America, any more than I would hate the Titanic. I just don’t think its going anywhere good, and would like to help people get off before the thing sinks.

  • “and would like to help people get off before the thing sinks.”

    And go where Nate? I can’t think of a place on this planet where I would rather live. Judging from the immigration rates to this country, both legal and illegal, I think a great many non-Americans around the globe feel precisely the same way as I do.

  • I have a good many Christian friends and associates who are leaving the city to live in the country, try their hand at small-town agrarian life. Wendell Berry stuff. I think that’s the right start — not moving away from America, but moving into the places where America is at its best.

  • Art, you really think that abortion is only happening in our country because of some accident of bad judges?

    The policy was imposed by the appellate judiciary and has been maintained by the appellate judiciary against the wishes of all but about nine state legislatures. Two thirds of the female population who have been in their child bearing years since 1970 have not participated in this practice and (as Fr. Neuhaus put it), 70% of the population disapproves of abortion in 95% of the circumstances in which it takes place.

    The elected officials could have used the tools at their command to discipline the judiciary. They did not. There should have been a popular mobilization to do that and restore the status quo ante 1967. There has been to some extent, but it has been stymied by the fact that the culture of the bar is simply very different from that of the general public, and the appellate judiciary has retained a prestige it certainly does not merit.

    The legal regime in question is permissive. A great deal of crime has been committed as a consequence, but it makes little sense to refer to ‘the United States’ as a ‘force’ for ‘evil’ ‘in the world’. The evil occurs in social life generally. The political dimension of social life is implicated only because of the misfeasance of the judiciary. For all that, the United States Government has not promoted abortion abroad in the world except perhaps through intermittent funding of United Nations agencies up to no good. And, again, it makes little sense to complain of public policy in the United States (much less the United States as a polity or society) when the evil in question is a feature of social life in the entire Occident and much of the Far East as well.

  • I have a good many Christian friends and associates who are leaving the city to live in the country, try their hand at small-town agrarian life.

    Get real.

    In my part of the world, small towns and rural areas suffer very few violent crimes. One county I lived in had a population shy of 70,000 and a mean of about five robberies in a year. There has not been a homicide hearabouts since 1996. That is the advantage you have over the city. Otherwise, the degenerate aspects of the age are to be found here as anywhere.

    They do not publish birth notices in my local paper anymore. They did so as recently as a decade ago. There were certain conventions observed (e.g. placing the mother’s maiden name in parentheses) in these notices which told you bits of information about the families in question. You could tell from these conventions what share of births at the local hospitals were out of wedlock. In the catchments of our two small-town hospitals, the share was about 40%.

    As for agrarian life, forget it. One of the staff of Co-operative Extension at Cornell told me (again, over a decade ago) that there were fewer than 700 farmers in that county with 70,000 people in it. The displaced dairy farmer working in my office was pretty plain about it: the economics of agriculture have rendered it impossible for any but the most skilled and meticulous to make a living at it. It tore him up to sell his cows, but the milk business has very slim profit margins.

  • The Titanic metaphor is actually reasonably compelling, and a far better argument than the “one of the greatest forces for evil.” Hubris and blindness are indeed driving us to a precipice, as surely as J. Bruce Ismay made sure the jewel of the White Star Line was going at top speed.

    But that makes Ismay (and Smith, and Murdoch, et al) tragic figures, not inherently malevolent. We should look at the potential ruin of America the same way Augustine faced the ruin of Western Rome–as a tragedy, and an evil in itself.

  • Pingback: Finding Truth in Nate’s Post | The American Catholic
  • Joe interesting remark about Lila Rose. I have not heard that anywhere else and I think it deserves some further exploration. Kudos

  • Zach, I actually wrote a post about it a long time ago here. But now might be a good time to write a new one. Perhaps this evening.

  • “I have a good many Christian friends and associates who are leaving the city to live in the country…”

    My husband and I did that once, for about 3 years. It was very nice in some ways — we had fruit trees and I taught myself how to can fruit and vegetables.

    However, several things made it eventually unsustainable — namely, the fact that in order to pay the mortgage and property taxes and keep food on the table, at least one of us had to have a full time job that required a lengthy commute each day. This meant spending lots and lots of money on gas and car maintenance, not to mention on home maintenance and repair.

    As Art pointed out, very few people can make a living at farming anymore. Unless you are successfully self-employed and able to work from home, rural living these days can be more expensive in many ways than city living.

    Today I’d rather live in the city if for no other reason than I don’t have to be totally dependent on owning a car — I can walk or use public transportation if necessary. As for growing one’s own food — a valuable skill in a time of rising food prices — many cities now offer community gardens in which one can participate.

    It is true that rural areas tend to suffer less violent crime, but that doesn’t mean they are totally immune. For example, the worst recent mass murder in Central Illinois — in which a married couple and three of their children were killed and a fourth child seriously maimed — happened not in a major city but in a tiny rural village of less than 500 residents. Plus, when violent crime or other disasters (fires, car accidents, medical emergencies, etc.) do occur, it takes longer for first responders to arrive and longer to get to a hospital or other place of safety.

  • As for the main premise/question posed by this post: of course America is and has been a force for BOTH evil and good, just like any other country made up of fallen and sinful human beings.

    And where else are you going to go that’s better? The only truly pro-life and Catholic country I can think of is Malta, but since it’s a tiny island in the Mediterranean, good luck trying to emigrate there or find a place to live (unless you can somehow wheedle an appointment as ambassador, of course).

    As for political parties, I think there is a middle ground between insisting that Catholics should ALWAYS vote Democrat and insisting that they can NEVER vote Democrat under pain of mortal sin. I end up voting Republican about 95 percent of the time anyway due to the fact that most (not all) Democrats tend to be pro-abort. However, I don’t think this is an ideal situation and I hate to see the Church or the pro-life movement become totally beholden to one political party.

    I think we should love our country (and our state and community) the same way we love our families and friends: not because they are perfect, incorruptible, sinless or always right, but just because they are ours.

  • I do not agree with the sickening leftism and liberalism of Vox Nova or any of its comrades in the false gospel of social justice and peace at any price. I do believe that the United States was founded as a Christian Constitutional Republic and was once a good nation. But as long as we murder unborn babies as the right to choose, sanctify the filth of sodomy as equal rights, create and distribute pornography as freedom of speech, and commit general outright idolatry, then we can expect God’s wrath. In a way, the terror and horror of the Civil War was God’s wrath against the sin of slavery, and I predict that the liberals will never let go of abortion until that horrible event of five years in the 19th century repeats itself in the 21st. I do not want that to happen. I do not advocate that. But the satanic liberalism that Vox Nova ingratiates itself with leaves no other alternative except that the Lord Himself returns to Earth first. Jews in concentration camps in WWII were not freed till Germany had been devastated by the Allies. Unborn babies in their mothers’ wombs will not be protected till liberalism is likewise defeated in these United States. Let us hope and pray that happens WITHOUT the bloodshed of either liberals or conservatives. But history says otherwise, especially as long as godless liberals continue their demonic murderous spree against the unborn.

  • “As for political parties, I think there is a middle ground between insisting that Catholics should ALWAYS vote Democrat and insisting that they can NEVER vote Democrat under pain of mortal sin. I end up voting Republican about 95 percent of the time anyway due to the fact that most (not all) Democrats tend to be pro-abort. However, I don’t think this is an ideal situation and I hate to see the Church or the pro-life movement become totally beholden to one political party.

    I think we should love our country (and our state and community) the same way we love our families and friends: not because they are perfect, incorruptible, sinless or always right, but just because they are ours.”


  • Nate, that policy [abortion] was imposed on our elected officials by our frigging judges.

    True, but it could not have been sustained for nearly 40 years without the acquiessence of a siginificant segment of the culture at large.

  • I was aware Katherine that MM is an Irish import. Considering that he endorsed Obama in a has-to-be-read-to-be-believed post on VN, I assumed that he had become a naturalized American citizen.

    So in a public forum, you falsely accused someone of election fraud (a felony) based on a wrong assumption* on your part. I missed the retraction and apology, but based on your inaccurate comments, I’m probably done reading what you write.

    * When you ‘assume’ you make an ..

  • Katherine I will miss your readership in much the same way I miss my most recent kidney stone. Go elsewhere in your attempt to create mountains out of molehills and avoid discussing the actual topics of the posts. Don’t get weary dragging those red herrings.

  • Its those red herrings which may one wonder about whether Vox Nova and their like are truly against abortion. When you spend so much effort to avoid denouncing their favorite political party, one is likely to think so.

    An example:


  • It looks like my last post didn’t make it. Anyway, any thoughts on the Protect Life Act Donald? May make a post of it. Then we can see if VN will actually condemn some dems.

  • Retrieved your comment from the spam file Philip. If a comment has a link in it, Akismet usually thrusts it there. In the post you linked to Sam Rocha was being satirical, although much of what he wrote has been said seriously by various other Vox Nova contributors over the years. Vox Nova, with certain honorable examples, tends to be the home of individuals who would sooner eat ground glass than give aid or comfort to the conservatives or the Gop. If that means they have to studiously ignore abortion, they will. This does not apply to all Vox Nova contributors past or present, but that is the general tone of the blog.

    The Protect Life Act is a wonderful move by the GOP, as can be seen by the hysteria of leftist and pro-abort blogs in regard to it. Sam Rocha’s snide attitude when you asked him in the comment thread about the Act is typical of VN. If a Republican proposed it, best to go on the offense. Well done Philip! Rocha writes a satircal thread and you get him to go into protect the left mode, thereby undermining what he was attempting to establish by his post.

  • Thanks. I understand that Sam was being satirical though I was hoping he would be honest enough to admit that the Democrats are supporting evil in opposing the Protect Life Act. I guess I was misguided.

    As I said earlier, I think this is why some hold that VN is not “sufficiently” pro-life. I suspect for some there, one can cut out “sufficiently.”

  • I knew you realized it Philip and I salute the skill by which you undermined the satire. Really, someone should instruct Mr. Rocha that posts are wasted effort if the author disproves them in subsequent combox debate.

  • Pingback: Inhumanity « The Cranky Conservative
  • So, Joe H., do you also oppose the use of undercover police?

  • Okay, so the questioning of Lila Rose, I get it, I guess. She didn’t break any laws, but was it ethical for her to go undercover (since that is what investigative journalists do?)
    Was it ethical for undercover journalists to expose widespread corruption in Chicago? Like in this story…http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,919328,00.html. So I guess the bigger question is “Is undercover investigative journalism ethical?” There is the ethical conundrum of whether the ends justify the means. If a journalist uncovers information that needs to be brought to the attention of the public, does that therefore justify the clandestine methods used to obtain that information? The concern is that the deceit on the part of the journalist sullies the critical information that is uncovered. Does a journalist dampen his credibility through the use of lies and chicanery?
    Journalism that relies on active deception and, more typically,passive’ misrepresentation to acquire information must satisfy at least the following three professional ethical requirements. First, the information pursued must be directly and strongly linked to a larger social purpose. Secondly, the public value of such information must clearly outweigh the injury caused by the deception and the privacy violation. Thirdly, undercover methods must not be resorted to where the information can be gathered by straightforward means. I would say Lila Rose met all of these requirements. The EVIL of Planned Parenthood far outweighs the deceit of her investigators.

Why Satirical Catholic Blogs Fail

Wednesday, August 18, AD 2010

I finally returned to internet connectivity this week, which has meant catching up on news & blogs I have neglected. Part of this “reconnecting” included denying a facebook friend request from someone I never heard of-only to find out that this someone was a fake online persona created in the Catholic Fascist’s attempt at satire. Having looked over all of the posts there, I was struck by how eerily similar the site was to another parody group blog-The Spirit of Vatican II.

Both blogs employed a host of satirical characters with enough resemblance to real life to make laugh (I think whoever thought of danmclockinload deserves a guest post on TAC) at first, both got roaring laughter from their own partisans-and neither blog was funny after a few days.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Why Satirical Catholic Blogs Fail

  • Two other problems with Satire:
    1. Unless it’s obvious, it really confuses those of us with autistic-spectrum personalities. I’ve seen the “Spirit of Vatican II” blog before, and I thought it was sincere.

    2. Satire and parody are only good when a) they have some level of respect for their targets and b) they don’t take themselves too seriously.

  • The amazing thing about the CF blog for me is the sheer output. There are more posts there than there have been at AC since it started, *and* whoever is doing it is writing most of the comments.

  • I agree the output is impressive. It may be that others are assisting Mr. Iafrate. Certainly one of his erstwhile co-bloggers has penned excellent satire on occasion.

  • I think it functions rather like primal scream therapy for the Catholic Anarchist, which means it might have one useful function.

  • Maybe its a manic phase. Lithium anyone?

  • This was not meant to be a thread bashing Catholic Fascist and/or Vox Nova and/or Catholic Anarchist. If anything, the post was meant to discourage such bashing.

  • It’s projection and status posturing by a clever but tormented fellow.

    Much political satire is like that, but I think you need at least a few drops of real disdain and even hatred to do it in a religious context on a sustained basis.

  • Michael Denton,

    I appreciate your heroic efforts to be super charitable to one of the most nasty, unreasonable, uncharitable fellows these blogs have ever known.

    I do question how many times you are to turn your cheek before you finally dust off your feet per Mark 6:11.

    Frankly, if this is the “bashing” Iafrate gets for his behavior, he will have gotten less than a tap on the cheek. I don’t think you need to worry about it. He is putting himself out there to be criticized, ridiculed, and bashed – and he secretly loves it, because he does fancy himself a prophet. If people aren’t bashing him, then he doesn’t feel as if he’s doing his job anyway.

    I might say nothing about him at all for that reason, but false prophets should be denounced.

  • I personally don’t mind satire or even strong opinions strongly argued. To argue strongly back does not bother me either as one can walk away and have that Abita (which I had for the first time this weekend) with you opponent. That’s the hard part.

    Unfortunately, sometimes there are real problems with others. Pointing them out is also not off-limits either, even if jokingly, as long as one recognizes that also. Part of running with the big dogs.

    I think the author of Catholic Fascist is truly having some problems. Though I would be happy to be wrong.

  • Good satirical blogs (Iowahawk, Scrappleface) take aim at everything. The former in particular is still going strong because there’s a wide variety of topics to skewer. Plus I don’t think he writes more than a post a day. A satirical blog that takes aim at either just one blog or one type of subject matter isn’t going to last – partly for the reasons Michael mentions, but mainly because it just gets old that much faster,

  • The Spirit of Vatican II is satirical? You must be thinking of a different blog. Or a different meaning of satirical.
    It is very much a woman’s blog. Satirical perhaps in the sense that women think men are pretty dense.

  • In one of my first encounters with Michael, I found my self quoting Matthew 18:

    If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

    I think it’s very difficult to make a quiet approach on the internet; maybe through email if the person’s address is known to you. Anyway, by this point, I don’t feel any obligation to respond to Michael’s postings, although I’d gladly help him change a flat tire. It’s not my job to rebuke him.

  • I should also note that his tantrum won’t be seen by more than a half-dozen people whom he hasn’t already alienated elsewhere. He may equal other sites in output, but he’s never going to get 1% of their hits. So he isn’t really scandalizing the faithful.

  • I don’t know. Certainly big boys can take the heat. For example a slam of TAC here:


    This combined with comments at the Western Confucian that find that TAC as a greater threat to the common good than Vox Nova. Not that its clear that one ever found Vox Nova to be a threat to the common good here. The bizarre thought ironically comes from two people who claim they don’t read TAC.

    But again, being big boys, most here can take such comments.

  • Mark Shea is, apparently, not much of a fan of TAC, either:

    “I agree with you that the bellicose messianic Americanism at TAC is far more dangerous and deadly than the nose-pulling of CF. However, as I virtually never read TAC and as CF (being the New Hotness) was more prominent on my monitor, I wasn’t attempting a full review of TAC.”


    Good thing Shea “virtually never read[s] TAC” or he might have to actually form an opinion based in fact rather than pulling things completely out of his ass like he usually does.

  • “The bizarre thought ironically comes from two people who claim they don’t read TAC.”

    Judging from Mark popping in on my Victory Over Japan post, I’d say he sneaks a peak every now and then. However, considering the way Mark has of scanning articles, based upon some of his posts, rather than reading articles to actually understand them, perhaps his statement is at least partially correct. 🙂