Daily Archives: February 24, 2009

FEELINGS!

Here’s a somewhat “balanced” op-ed from a Jewish publication which says that the Catholic Church should be free to deal with internal Church matters as she likes, but must at least have the courtesy to explain them to Jews and to be cautious about moves that would hurt Jewish people’s feelings.

In the process, the article says the Vatican should have been clearer about why the SSPX excommunications were lifted and what it meant. Uhh, an explanation of what it meant was issued *with* the letter lifting the excommunications, and this sort of thing rarely has the fanfare it did this time around.

The article also takes for granted the calumnies against Ven. Pope Pius XII, taking for granted that the potential canonizationi of a man whose direct orders saved the lives of tens of thousands of Jews would be offensive to Jews. It’s well-documented: Pius authorized the Holy Office to use its vast network–already at work helping Allied soldiers escape enemy lines–to help Jews escape (sort of documented in the film The Scarlet and the Black, which plays into political correctness by misrepresenting the Pope’s role). He ordered cloistered religious houses to suspend their rules and allow Jewish refugees asylum. He paid for thousands of Jews to flee to the US, and did everything he could to pave the way (yet many of them were denied refugee status by the US when they got here). He hosted thousands of Jews in the Vatican itself, refusing to enjoy some of the luxuries of his own apartment while his guests were sleeping in the hallways and closets.

But, today’s liberals–who balk at the notion the Pope should more vociferously condemn pro-abortion Catholics–condemn Pius for “not doing enough” to vocally condemn the holocaust or excommunicate Catholics who participated in it.

Arguably, Pope Pius XXII did far more to actually save Jews from the Holocaust than either of our past two Popes have done in their papacies to actually save babies from being aborted (at least that we know of).

But, most of all, what is with all this concern over feelings? Jesus didn’t care about people’s feelings. He called His own apostles a “wicked and perverse generation.” John the Baptist didn’t worry about people’s feelings. He called the Pharisees a “brood of vipers.” Elijah didn’t care about the feelings of the prophets of Baal when he cut their heads off! God didn’t care about the “feelings” of the Canaanites when He ordered Israel to wipe them out. He didn’t worry about the “feelings” of the Egyptians when he sent the Plagues. He didn’t worry about the “feelings” of the Israelites when He had Moses destroy the Golden Calf (or the various times He punished them in the desert).

Where does all this concern about “feelings” in religion come from?

Advertisements

How many times can you say "anti-choice" and "reproductive health" in the same breath?

This article about Kathleen Sebelius’ nomination for Secretary of Health and Human Services really goes out of its way to avoid using the term “abortion.” It’s actually funny.

Christy Dermer: pro-life Marfan martyr

Christy Dermer, pregnant at age 28 and suffering from Marfan syndrome, chose to carry her child to term despite warnings that it might kill her. She died during childbirth in October 2007.

Her family live in Michigan, but were interviewed by the Toledo Free Press for an article on Toledo Hospital’s new Aortic Center.

It’s Official: Archbishop Dolan is now Archbishop of NYC

That Timothy Dolan would be the next Archbishop of New York has been expected for weeks, though some of us would have liked to see a Vasa or Martino get the post, to really follow in the footsteps of the late great Cardinal O’Connor.

However, Dolan had the burdensome task of trying to clean up the diocese of Milwaukee after decades of Rembert Weakland’s leadership, so there’s always the chance he’ll present a slightly different style when serving an archdiocese with a slightly more conservative heritage.

MSM starting to crack Obama’s image

Quoting Hillary Clinton’s mockery of Obama’s idealism during the Democratic primary, CNN is criticizing Obama’s failure to achieve so-called “bipartisanship.”

Of course, the question I raise every time someone talks “bipartisanship” is: “WHY?”
Why would anyone ever want bipartisanship? We want a single party? A totalitarian state? Is that what the American people want??

Do people really stop to think about what it would mean to have no opposition?

As my political science professor liked to say, “Gridlock is good.”

Video about shoulder surgery using adult stem cell therapy