Monthly Archives: March 2010

Who are the real racists, Part II?

A few days ago, I blogged about liberals who characterize statements against Islam as “racism.”

There’s also another claim of “racism” being lobbed at conservatives these days.

Example paraphrased from a comment on Vox Nova:
Liberal in 2010: “I went to a Tea Party meeting to see what it was all about, and they said ‘Obama was only elected because he’s black.’ That’s so racist!”

Dialogue from _30 Rock_ episode “Hardball” in early 2007:

Jenna: Liz, I’m just worried that I’m going to sounds like I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Liz: Hey, would Sharon Stone worry about that?
Jenna: Uh uh.
Liz: Would Richard Geere?
Jenna: No!
Liz: Then you go out there and voice your opinions like a star.

Liz: What are you going to do if they ask you about 08?
Jenna: Of course I want Hillary to be the first woman president.
Liz: Ugh, no. Obama, you support Barak Obama. Remember? You like those pictures of him at the beach?
Jenna: Oh right. Obama. What is he, Hispanic?
Liz: No he’s black.
Jenna: And he’s running for president?! Good luck.

Joe Biden on Obama, early 2008: “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

African Americans I overheard while sitting in the Richland County Health Building, shortly after the election in 2008:
“If Palin were running for president, I might have voted for her, but I voted for Barack because he’s black.”
“Yeah, I like what Palin has to say, and she’s pretty hot, too.”

Woman on this video:

Teacher: “Why are you pulling for [ber ACK] or [ber ACH]?”
Little boy: “Cause, I just want a black president or something.”


And so it begins . . .

Now that “health care reform” as passed, Republicans start asking, “How are we going to pay for all these old sick people?

On Pre-Existing Conditions and Mandatory Coverage–Two Perspectives

One of the things about the healthcare debate is contradictory examples, and the contradictory examples show why “one size fits all” is not a solution.

Scenario #1: Tom has normal health. He is self-employed and makes about $100K per year. He can afford private insurance, but he chooses not to pay for it. Tom gets cancer. He goes to get health insurance only now that he needs it. This is what people who are *against* the bill bring up for pre-existing conditions.

Scenario #2: Dick has normal health. He is also self-employed and makes about $100K per year. He can afford private insurance, but he chooses not to pay for it. He also goes through a catastrophic illness. He racks up hundreds of thousands in hospital and doctor bills with no insurance. So he a) goes bankrupt or b) lies about his income so he can get a charity waiver (a charity waiver that might have gone to someone who’s poor. Ironically, Republicans will use a story like this to say why “there’s no such thing as free healthcare” (even though Dick got it), and “people can manage on their own” (even though Dick didn’t). For those who support manndatory insurance, Dick is the guy they’re talking about.

Scenario #3: Harry has a genetic disorder. He has always had coverage through his parents or his wife. He *could* qualify for SSI, and spent some time on SSI, but he’s a conservative and doesn’t like living off the government. More importantly, he knows you can’t really live off what SSI pays, and he wants to contribute to society. So Harry works rather than go on government disability. He can’t qualify for Medicaid under his state’s regulations. He and his wife go through a period where neither one is working for more than 3 months. When his wife gets a new job, they’re outside the pre-existing condition limit, so he can’t get coverage under her insurance.
This of course is what those who support getting rid of pre-existing limits are talking about.
But Harry is also the guy that conservatives point to when objecting to mandatory coverage, since Harry can’t afford it.

As it stands, Tom and Dick are both leeching off society. They claim to be good self-sufficient Republicans, but they’re not. They claim to be exercising their freedom, but they’re doing so at others’ expense.

The whole theory of insurance is that healthy people pay into it *in case* they get sick, and those who aren’t healthy enough get the support of the healthy people without having to beg.

If the healthy people don’t pay into insurance, there isn’t enough money in the insurance pool to pay for those who are sick. If the healthy people wait until they get sick, they haven’t made their own reasonable investments ahead of time, and they’re leeching off those who’ve paid.

Of course, those who don’t have insurance by choice, and then try to weasel out of their medical bills, are also mooching off society. They’re either getting the debts discharged, at the cost of the medical professionals, or else they’re getting charity that could have gone to those who really needed it.

Our third group is stuck in the middle. On the one hand, they can’t get insurance. On the other hand, they can’t afford it if they did, unless they’re getting it through an employer program.

It is important to note that one of the reasons I chose to actively support George W. Bush during his second term was his campaign promise to provide greater incentives for employers to provide health insurance. And McCain talked about mandatory insurance, and tax credits to pay for it.

So I really don’t see why Republicans are objecting to mandatory insurance. Also, since health insurance is an interstate commerce issue (e.g., some people can’t get their insurance policies to cover out of state care) the 10th Amendment doesn’t really apply, although subsidiarity might.

The real problem with the Act, besides abortion and euthanasia-related matters, is that it was all passed as one lump, which shows it to be a powergrab by the Democrats, not a real attempt at reform.

Fr. Murphy’s Judge speaks out: The NYT is 100% lying

My father in law has a favorite expression about the media I’ve quoted before: “Liars from Satan.”

With the exception of the lies about Pius XII, that’s no more true than in these attacks on Pope Benedict XVI.

Let’s summarize what we know so far about the case of Fr. Murphy in Milwaukee, and last week’s New York Times piece:

1. Murphy was head of a school for deaf children from the 1950s to mid-1970s, and had lots of allegations against him.
2. The allegations against Murphy were known about since at least 1974, but canonical action was not taken till 20 years later. So the inaction was the responsibility of the local bishop.
3. The Archbishop of Milwaukee during all those years was none other than Rembert G. Weakland, OSB, author of the New Mass, who once said that it’s a mortal sin to vote for Pat Buchanan, banned EWTN advertising from his diocese, trashed his cathedral at parishioners’ expense, called Mother Angelica all sorts of names, once threatened to go into schism, embezzled money to pay off his own sex abuse victims, and finally “came out” as an active homosexual in his memoir last year.
4. The reporter who wrote the Times piece wrote a glowing article on Weakland last year to coincide with his memoir. The article mentioned SNAP delivering documents to the Vatican, when the documents had not been delivered at the time the article was written. These point to a clear journalistic bias.
5. *Someone* supposedly wrote to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith–which was not in charge of sex abuse cases at the time–and asked for action against Fr. Murphy. Correspondence to the CDF on the issue was answered by the Secretary of the CDF at the time, now the Vatican’s Secretary of State, not by Cardinal Ratzinger himself. The media have portrayed this as “Cardinal Ratzinger’s secretary,” which isn’t what Secretary means in this case.
6. Apparently, Murphy himself wrote an appeal to the Vatican, asking for mercy given his age. Supposedly, at some point, Bishop Bertone, the CDF Secretary, wrote a letter to Weakland suggesting that canonical proceedings should be suspended due to Murphy’s advanced age and failing health as well as the lack of evidence after so many years.
7. We now have a statement by Cardinal Schoenborn that in at least one prominent case, Cardinal Ratzinger’s desire to reduce an accused bishop to the lay state was overriden by John Paul II, aka “the Great,” aka “Garrulous Carolus the Koran kisser,” a pope who had some great teachings and fantastic PR skills but very lousy management skills and a very liberal attitude about dealing with sinners.

Now, the Canonical Judge in the trial, Fr. Thomas Brundage, JCL, has written an article for the Diocese of Anchorage (also noteworthy to Fr. Brundage’s credit is that he notes he’s been in Alaska as early as 2001–obviously sought out a transfer from service under Weakland), trying to clear up some of the facts in this case. This is extremely noteworthy and groundbreaking. After all, one of the inherent problems in these issues, from an American “need to know” standpoint, is the extreme secrecy of canonical trials. *Everyone* involved in a canonical trial is sworn to secrecy.

But because this case is so important, and already so well-publicized, Fr. Brundage–with permission of his current bishop–has violated his oaths of secrecy as a canonical judge and as a participant in the Murphy trial to set the record straight:
1. He emphasizes his own commitment to fighting the plague of sexual abuse, having seen its horrible effects both as a canon lawyer and as a prison minister.
2. He emphasizes that perhaps no one has worked harder in the Church to solve this problem than Cardinal Ratzinger–how the process drastically changed for the better when authority over these cases was transferred from the Roman Rota to the CDF in 2001. Indeed, did Pope John Paul give the power to Ratzinger *because* he realized Ratzinger was right all those years?

3. Fr. Brundage says he never wrote to the CDF about the Murphy case, but the times quotes a handwritten letter that he supposedly wrote. He says that he would not have written to the CDF since the CDF had no authority, and the handwriting in the letter is not his own. He notes that he has been “quoted” or referred to in this case but never once contacted by a journalist. He notes a journalist’s responsibility to double-check all sources (particularly text sources), and that the reporter ought to have contacted him to verify the letter.

4. The letter from Archbishop Weakland Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone dated August 19, 1998–two days before Murphy died–stated that Weakland had instructed that canonical proceedings against Murphy cease.

5. Fr. Brundage emphasizes that he heard the pleas of the victims–and the Catholic Deaf community in general–and he agreed that Fr. Murphy should be laicized, but that was a Vatican matter, and had to take place after the local trial was completed. He was never told to stop proceedings by Archbishop Weakland. If he had been so ordered, he says, he would have filed an appeal with the Vatican to take the case to the Vatican Supreme Court.

Of course, to the secularists who are out for blood, none of these facts will mean anything; just as the facts, discrepancies and contradictions that were obvious from the NYT article itself didn’t mean anything. These people care nothing about the victims–remember these are the people who want “sex ed” in kindergarten–they just want an easy way to attack Pope Benedict XVI.

If anyone at the Vatican was suppressing investigations, it wasn’t Cardinal Ratzinger

Christoph Cardinal Schoenborn has come to the defense of Pope Benedict XVI as the one who has most been pushing for reform of the sex abuse crisis–that as Cardinal, Joseph Ratzinger tried to push for an investigation of Schoenborn’s predecessor as Archbishop of Vienna, Hans Hermann Groer.  Groer was removed from his post as Archbishop of Vienna in 1995 because of sex allegations, but no further action was taken.  Ratzinger pushed for a full canonical process but, as he told Cardinal Schoenborn, “the other side won.”

Apparently, John Paul II overruled Cardinal Ratzinger’s efforts to investigate Groer, because he was swayed by other “Vatican advisors” who told him the accusations were exaggerated.

Just as they are doing by siding with Rembert Weakland against the Pope, the media are letting the real culprits go in their desire to shoot down the B16 Bomber. It should be obvious that the media have had it out for him from the beginning, athing nd have done everything they can to cast his papacy in a negative light, from the Regensburg speech to the lifting of the SSPX excommunications.

This is not to say even that JPII was necessarily complicit–just naive, which is perfectly in keeping with his management style.

But it once again proves that there are clear factions within the Vatican. Whether we’re talking in this case about an “old boys club” trying to protect their power and superficial reputation, or about the “smoke of Satan” infiltrators, or both, we now have it in a quotation from Cardinal Ratzinger: “the other side won.”

Conspiracy of Hypocrites: More facts on Pope Benedict XVI

Click here for a radio program on the recent “revelations” about our Holy Father in the <em>New York Times</em>. It pretty much destroys the spurious allegations that, as Archbishop of Munich and Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Joseph Ratzinger tried to prevent prosecution of child molesting priests.

I noted in regard to the German case that reporters  show an ignorance of how the Church operates in thinking that Archbishop Ratzinger “should have known” about the priest there–archbishops have a lot of roles and often delegate them.

Something even more stupid is at work in the <em>New York Times</em> piece and its copycats.  The <em>Times</em>, that prestigious journal of plagiarism and extreme left-wing propaganda, focuses on how Archbishop Rembert G Weakland–who retired amid scandal, came out in his memoir last year as an active homosexual *while he was both a bishop and a member of the Benedictine Order*, and has long been known as a stalwart of heterodoxy–wrote a letter “to Cardinal Ratzinger” at the CDF and got a response back from “his secretary.”

It struck me that once again this shows how ignorant these reporters are.  Bishop Tarcisio Bertone was not “Cardinal Ratzinger’s Secretary”; he was the Secretary to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.  In other woords <strong>he was the guy who writes the letters, the second-in-command</strong>.  It is noteworthy that Cardinal Bertone is now the Vatican Secretary of State.

This is not the equivalent of someone writing to President Barack Obama and getting a letter back from his personal secretary.  This is the equivalent of someone writing a letter to Obama regarding US foreign policy and getting the response from Hillary Clinton. 

Further, as they explain on this recording, the real culprit of all this is Rembert G Weakland, who took 20 years to even pursue a case against this Fr. Murphy character, and the Vatican only said to stop canonical proceedings when they determined that it was too impractical to try a case that old, and the guy was dying anyway.

Though it should give us pause that this deplorable man, Rembert Weakland, was one of the principal authors of the “New Mass.”

This is about a conspiracy of hypocrites, folks.  What is a hypocrite?  The Pharissees were hypocrites.  Why?  Because they found fault <strong>only to try and bring people down</strong>.  They were not trying to make people better; just to bring them down.  How could they condemn Jesus for dining with tax collectors and sinners when they were there at the banquet themselves?  How could they condemn the woman caught “in the very act” of adultery unless, like the men in the case of Susanna in the book of Daniel, they were admitting that they were voyeurs?

The Pharisees tried to  trip Jesus up because  Jesus called people to a higher standard. 

Today, the Catholic Church is the main voice for morality in the world.  The various permutations of the Englightenment and Freemasonry have always seen the Catholic Church as their greatest enemy, going back to the French Revolution and before.  The Communists have always targeted Catohlicism, specifically, above other religions.

Today, these people are the real hypocrites.  All they want is complete moral license.  They don’t care about the children who are being abused.  They don’t care that the vast majority of child abuse cases come from “live in” “significant others” or stepparents  in divorce situations.  They don’t care that the rate of child abuse among public school teachers is several times that of Catholic priests–indeed, as part of recent budget cuts, the great state of South Carolina has cut previously required  “safe environment” training for teachers.

Let’s pray for all those CAPE Catholics today.

Today is one of those “busy shopping days” at Church, depending upon where you live.  While it’s a day many regular Sunday churchgoers dread for its length and (depending upon the depth of one’s spirituality) depressing nature, it’s also a hugely popular “cultural Catholic” day, which leads to the phrase a friend taught me this past Ash Wednesday:

“CAPE” Catholics = Christmas, Ashes, Palms and Easter.

Let’s pray that those who just showed up today for palm fronds to stick on their mantles will be touched by the liturgy, and by the sacrifice of Our Lord on the Cross.

St. Teresa of Avila on “Were You There”

There is often a temptation to think, when we reflect upon the Passion, that we would have acted differently if we’d been there.
“If I had been there, I wouldn’t have denied Jesus.”
“If I had been there, I would have stayed awake in the Garden.”
“If I had been there, I would have yelled for Jesus instead of Barabbas.”
“If I had been there, I would yelled ‘free Him’ instead of ‘crucify Him.'”
“If I had been there, I would have stood by the Cross with St. John and the Blessed Mother.”

Here’s what St. Teresa de Jesus has to say about that:

You will ask me, sisters, how you can possibly do all this, and say that, if you had seen His Majesty with your bodily eyes at the time when He lived in the world, you would have done it willingly and gazed at Him for ever. Do not believe it: anyone who will not make the slight effort necessary for recollection in order to gaze upon this Lord present within her, which she can do without danger and with only the minimum of trouble, would have been far less likely to stand at the foot of the Cross with the Magdalene, who looked death (as they say) straight in the face. What the glorious Virgin and this blessed saint must have suffered! What threats, what malicious words, what shocks, what insults! For the people they were dealing with were not exactly polite to them. No, indeed; theirs was the kind of courtesy you might meet in hell, for they were the ministers of the devil himself. Yet, terrible as the sufferings of these women must have been, they would not have noticed them in the presence of
pain so much greater.

So do not suppose, sisters, that you would have been prepared to endure such great trials then, if you are not ready for such trifling ones now. Practise enduring these and you may be given others which are greater. Believe that I am telling the truth when I say that you can do this, for I am speaking from experience. You will find it very helpful if you can get an image or a picture of this Lord — one that you like — not to wear round your neck and never look at but to use regularly whenever you talk to Him, and He will tell you what to say. If words do not fail you when you talk to people on earth, why should they do so when you talk to God? Do not imagine that they will — I shall certainly not believe that they have done so if you once form the habit. For when you never have intercourse with a person he soon becomes a stranger to you, and you forget how to talk to him; and before long, even if he is a kinsman, you feel as if you do not know him, for both kinship and friendship lose their influence when communication ceases. (Way of Perfection, Ch. 26, para. 8).

Milwaukee story is a fraud made up by a Weakland supporting Reporter

Read the facts here.

Who are the real racists?

I was graciously given a link by this blog, and was struck by the first comment from an anonymous poster.  The blogger has a rather strict comments policy, banning any “bigoted” comments.  Of course, we all know that liberals define “bigoted” as “anything that disagrees with liberals,” so I’m posting a reply here, because it was apparently deleted there.  Here’s what the anonymous poster said:

<blockquote>”When Coulter said *all* Muslims were Terrorists and should fly back home on their magic carpets, and told one girl (who had asked the question that instigated this) who replied “I don’t have one” to “Get a camel”, she was promoting racial hate, which is against our laws here in Canada”</blockquote>

Now, I was linked, and ridiculed, in the post for calling Canada Stalinist, and yet here this person is showing just how Stalinist Canada is.  Or should I say Maoist, since political correctness is part of Maoism?

Anyway, I pointed out to this person that it is *racist* to accuse Coulter of Racism for saying “All Muslims are terrorists.”  To say that statement is racist is to presume that either a) all Muslims have the same race (which they do not) or b) all members of a particular race are Muslim (which they are not).  Indeed, it is racist to label all people from the Middle East as “Arabs,” as a friend of Lebanese descent pointed out to me recently (since Lebanese are not Arabs but Phoenicians).

It’s no secret I have a huge admiration for Middle Eastern Christians, particularly the Lebanese.

But what really irks me about the defense of Islam by liberals and neoconservatives–you know, the whole “Religion of Peace” garbage–is that they accuse those of us who actually know what Islam teaches of being “racists” or “bigots.”

OK, I know what Islam teaches.  I know what Christianity teaches.  I took the History of the Middle East in college.  I’m well versed in various religions.  I admit I’ve never read the Quran but I’ve read enough quotations from it.

The problem with liberals is that they care nothing for religion, so they care nothing for the teachings of religions.  They define all religions by the standards of freemasonry.  Years ago, I saw some liberal Muslim woman college professor on a news program.  She was dressed quite immodestly by Muslim or traditional Catholic standards, and she was talking about how “all religoins teach people to be good citizens.”  This is the basic teaching of freemasonry: subordinating religion to morality, and morality to citizenship; reducing all religions to a least common denominator form of Natural Law, which of course boils down to a very saccharine interpretation of the Golden Rule.  In other words, Chesterton’s famous dictum that “tolerance is the only virtue that remains when a man has lost all convictions.”

Liberals see the least important aspects of religion as the most important, and then use that as the basis for saying “All religions are essentially the same,” dismissing the most important aspects of religion as superfluous window dressing.

The fact that two religions have sincere theological differences makes no sense to secularists, just as it makes no sense to them that Catholics actually view the Darwin issue differently than Fundamentalists do.

This is tied into the fact that liberals think mere attendance or association with a religion is all that matters.  So Nancy Pelosi is, in their view, a “good Catholic” by simple fact she claims to be Catholic.  Her opinion is, in their view, equal to the opinion of the Pope because both are Catholic.  Similarly, the aforementioned Muslim feminist professor has as much a right to say what Islam teaches as Osama Bin Ladin.

This is not true.   A religion means unothing unless its teachings are clearly defined.  The teachings of the Catholic Church are defiend by the Magisterium.  The teachings of Islam are defined by the Quran and the traditional practices and interpretations Muslims have adhered to. 

Yet, as I always point out, Mohammed is the only founder of a major world religion who was a conquerer.  Christians have engaged in some horrible acts over the past 2000 years, but Jesus was not a military dictator–Mohammed was.  Whatever has happened at points in history since Constantine, the original spread of Christianity did not happen through warfare.  It happened through spreading the message of Christ and working miracles.  Christianity may have been closely associated with the Roman Empire, but Ethiopia’s king converted to Christianity in the mid first century, and sui iuris Churches were established from Persia through India in Apostolic times. 

Islam spread through conquest.  It teaches that infidels should be killed.   It is not bigoted to say that that is what Islam teaches.

Muslims who say “Islam is peace” are liberal muslims the way Catholics who use birth control are liberal Catholics.  They’re not actually following the teachings of their religion.  They may or may not be good people.  They may or may not be good citizens, but they are bad Muslims.

Everything I ever needed to know in life I learned from watching _Transformers the Movie_ (1986) [UPDATED]

(“The real one, not the 2007 Bayformers,” as any TF fan with taste must now qualify):

1. The Universal Greeting, “Bah-weep-grahna-weep-ninny-bong,” (spelling up for debate) works every time.
2. Appeasement doesn’t work: If you give a Sharkticon your energon rations, he’s just going to eat you anyway.
3. “Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost.”
4. “One shall stand; one shall fall.”


Found this looking for a screen cap of the actual scene and couldn’t resist.

5.  Leadership isn’t based upon worthiness but being in the right place at the right time.

6.  When faced with a choice between two crises, just say, “I can’t deal with that now.”


His name is literally “Really Great”

7.  “Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it.”  Or, any problem in life can be addressed by a metaphorical anecdote.
8.  “I wasn’t worried for a microsecond.” “Then you probably didn’t understand the situation.”
9.  “I’ve got better things to do tonight than die.”
10.  Even when you’re innocent, they’ll still feed you to the Sharkticons.  Thus,

11.  “I have nothing but contempt for this court.”
12.  The key to social reform is a giant T-Rex to scare the military into turning on its leaders.
13.  Sometimes you have to “Act now, destroy Unicron.  Kill the grand Pooh-Bah.  Eliminate even the toughest stains.”
14.  Life is more fun when “We talk TV.  You talk some TV?”
15.  When it comes time to “jettison some weight,” the sick and disabled are the first to go.
16.  Before you think that nobody will follow an uncharismatic bore like Soundwave, consider these words:  “Nobody calls Soundwave uncrasimatic!  Let’s tick tailgate!”
17.  Much of Galvatron’s dialogue is very helpful when dealing with chronic chest pain: “Unicron!  Why have you tortured me?”

18.  “One day, an Autobot shall rise from our ranks and use the power of the Matrix to light our darkest hour.  Till that day. . . . Till all are one!”
19.  In 20 minutes or so, you can have your entire toybox wiped out.

20.  If you take power by throwing the previous leader out an airlock, there”s a good chance someone else will come along and kill you.
21.  Never underestimate a giant talking planet that eats other planets.


Bart Stupak: Just another Americanist.

Sometimes, when there’s a lot of buzz about a topic I normally might cover, I don’t cover it because I figure it’s well-discussed. Other times, I accumulate a lot of articles, and get overwhelmed. This time, I’ve accumulated the links, but rather than try to juggle fifty windows, reading articlse for exact quotes and precise hyperlinks as I go, I’m going to just link them all at the bottom and run through.

The usual suspects have been making much hay of the Bart Stupak situation. He’s the real pro-lifer, they’re telling us. This health care thing has exposed Republican hypocrisy (and, to some extent, I agree with that). They’re reiterating the Obama Catholic mantra that it’s OK to fund abortions if the net result is to “reduce abortions.”

It would be one thing if only the “political pro-lifers” were upset by Stupaks’ compromise, but the USCCB has expressed dismay as well (of course, the Usual Suspects are claiming the USCCB is nothing more than a politicla arm of the Republican Party, that is about the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard). 

Interestingly enough, as you may have heard, the House and Senate have already rammed through some “revisions” of Sunday’s health care bill.  Already?  So, when everyone’s distracted reeling from the *first* Bill, they introduce *another* one.  Also, when they tell us we’re nuts for thinking they’ll just pass another bill to overturn Obama’s executive order, they’ve demonstrated what a real possibility that is.

Some Republicans tried to put some riders iin to see how much the Demonocrats were willing to compromise.  For example: a measure to deny Viagra coverage to anyone who’s a convicted sex offender was laughed off the Senate floor.

Most notably, though, apropos to Bart Stupak, Sen. Ben Nelson, the alleged pro-life Democrat from Nebraska, sold out unborn babies for increased Medicaid money to Nebraska.   Guess what?  He had his thirty pieces of silver taken away from him in this second health bill.

We still don’t know what Stupak got, but appearenttly he’s gotten death threats from both sides.  Now, obviously, I don’t support death threats, and I don’t see how anyone claiming to be pro-life can make them.  Yet Stupak had talked previously of getting death threats from pro-aborts and never quoted them.  Now he’s saying he’s getting pro-life death threats but actually quoting them.  Then there’s the whole question of what consitutes a “death threat” versus a conditinoal statement.  For example, when P.Z. Myers threatened to steal a Host and desecrate It, various Catholics sent him messages saying how they’d defend the Host if he came into their churcches and tried it, and he tried to say these were “death threats.”  There was also the case a long time ago of a Christian girl in a public school who told her principal he was going to Hell because he was a sinner, and this was taken as a “death threat.”

Anyway, I’m not justifying their behavior; just pointing out that when we’re dealing with words, things are open to interpretation.  Actual acts of viiolence are *not* open to interpretation.  And despite what we keep hearing from the MSM about the dangers of the “Tea Party” movement (referred to disparagingly by the Left, including many Catholics, as “teabaggers”), the only act of violence so far in this potential catalyst for a new Civil War has been done by a Liberal, reaffirming what I said the other day: some peace-loving gun control supporting Obama supporter shot up the offices of Republican Representative Eric Cantor from Virginia.  Go figure.  And, as I always point out, the media and FBI told us the DC Sniper was going to be an “Angry White Male” Christian Conservative Racist NRA member.  . . . . .

Oh, and this bill that is actually pro-life and is not going to pay for abortions, according to Catholic Progressives (TM), has been praised by Planned Parenthood.  Last I checked, Planned Parenthood declares it a horrible loss any time there’s a law passed that requires abortuaries follow basic safety standards.  And this bill that Progressive Catholics, and the USCCB, have assured us is not socialist has been praised by none other than Fidel Castro (I thought he was dead).

So, back to Stupak, who will go down in history with Quisling, and Spooner, and wooden shoes called sabots for a new word based upon his name.  The newest verb in the English language is to “Stupak”–to claim to support a cause and then turn around at the very last minute.

Stupak has wasted no time in doing this.  While he supposedly has a 30 year pro-life voting record, recent events have caused that record to be brought under scrutiny.  For example, Jill Stanek reports that Stupak has actually voted in support of Planned Parenthood funding.  He justified that support by saying that Planned Parenthood doesn’t do abortions . . . in his district.  This wonderful pro-life Catholic also said Planned Parenthood provides many good services.  You mean like contraception, Mr. Stupak?  Or how about inappropriate forms of “sex education”?

Then he took it up a notch by declaring himself a firm advocate of the Kennedy Doctrine:

<blockquote>”The Pope and the Catholic faith does not control Catholic legislators. We must vote reflective of our districts and our beliefs. When I vote pro-life, it happens to be my own personal belief, also my district’s beliefs and the nation’s. As the polls show 61 percent of the American people believe we should not use public funds to pay for abortion. I agree with that.”</blockquote>

So, in other words, Stupak has openly proclaimed the heresy of Americanism.;_ylt=Aqynnyh4m6OwwTL0Z_eq57pWr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTJsbmNtb3Y4BGFzc2V0A21jY2xhdGNoeS8yMDEwMDMyNC8zNDYwMTQyBHBvcwMyMwRzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNoZWFsdGhiaWxsaW4-;_ylt=AmP33qRpvR1bbG10Q_CzG.BWr7sF;_ylu=X3oDMTNkY2I3ZW52BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMzI2L3VzX2hvdXNlX3JvbGxjYWxsX2hlYWx0aF9jYXJlX292ZXJoYXVsBHBvcwM0MwRzZWMDeW5fcGFnaW5hdGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNyb2xsY2FsbGhvdXM-

Darned if we do, darned if we don’t

One of my frustrations with “the Scandal” has been the world’s hypocrisy in condemning the Church. One day, it’s how horrible Catholics are because of the Inquisition. We hear about Draconian penances. People talk about “Catholic guilt.” We’re told by Protestants that “Jesus forgives,” and that we have too many “works” involved in our theology of forgiveness.
We’re told our theology is “behind the times,” that we don’t understand mental illness, etc.

So, after Vatican II, the clergy start kowtowing to those demands. Behaviors that used to be roundly condemned as sin were now taught to be “mental health issues”. Instead of a balanced approach–the kind advocated for example by Frs. Groeschel and Corapi–between the psychological and spiritual aspects of sin, priests turned to saying, even in the confessional, “That’s not a sin anymore. That’s a mental health question. You need to see a psychologist.”

In the 19th century, there was a Carmelite priest who’s in some stage of canonization. He ran a mental hospital. He exorcised every patient. If the problems went away after exorcism, he sent ’em home. If they still had issues after exorcism, he passed them on to the doctors. Today, as Fr. Amorth laments, exorcism is an absolute last resort, saved until people are horribly in the grip of evil, saved for after the psychologists have had a stab at the person.

Penances have gone from “push your armor up the mountain and drop it down again” to “say three Hail Mary’s and come back next month.”

So, all that kowtowing to secularists and Protestants led to a situation where the bishops listened to psychologists about “curing” priests accused of sexual molestation, and they trusted in “Christ’s forgiveness,” and generally applied to sinful priests the same kind of extreme tolerance they’ve been giving us laity for 40 years–the kind that allows Nancy Pelosi to call herself a “Catholic.”

Meanwhile, there is another factor weighing on the hierarchy within the Church. St. John of the Cross was falsely accused of sexual sins. St. Gerard Majella was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. St. John Bosco was accused of all sorts of things (but never sexual misconduct so far as I know). St. Pio was accused of both embezzlement and sexual misconduct (and still is).

There is a long history of false accusations against good priests. And in each of those cases, we look back on the officials who investigated them, suspendd them, etc., and say, “how could they have allowed those false accusations against a Saint?” “What horrible corrupt bishops/religious superiors they must have been to listen to such false accusations!”

So, those were all factors weighing on the minds of many bishops. It doesn’t help that you had the infiltrators like Weakland and Gumbleton and Mahony manipulating things as well (love how some of the recent media stories are even trying to paint Weakland as a noble hero in this!!)

If the Church were following basic Catholic moral principles to a “T”, such as “avoidance of the occasion of sin,” a lot of this might never have happened. In other words, even if you want to say they’re “cured’ psycohlogically, or they’ve been forgiven by Jesus, fine. If you want to say it’s a matter for internal jurisdiction and not involving civil authorities, I’d accept that, *if the Church were enforcing internal disciplines*. But don’t put the sinner back in the occasion of sin. Priests aren’t supposed to be alone with women. Well, homosexual priests shouldn’t be permitted to be alone with men, and priests attracted to minors shouldn’t be permitted to be alone with minors.

And if they hadn’t gone to these awful face-to-face “reconciliation rooms,” how much abuse could have been avoided??? It’s kind of hard to sexually molest someone with a wall and a small metal grid between you.

I’ve quoted many times the teaching of Pope St. Pius V, of “Quo Primum” fame, that priests who commit sodomy should be defrocked and handed over to the civil authorities.

Certainly before Vatican II, we had the problem of clericalism, but much of what’s come since Vatican II has made this situation a lot worse.

Now, the Holy Father’s enemies are salivating over the chance to “get him” for his alleged mishandling of cases in Germany, or cases brought to his desk at the CDF.

And, yes, I personally take some offense at the workings of the CDF when we’ve learned from the recent Times report that thousands of valid cases against abuser priests never get canonical trials, while Fr. James Haley was given a rather swift trial–with no follow-up by the CDF–for his “offense” of being a whistleblower.

But all the accusations against Cardinal Ratzinger, whether as bishop of Munich or prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, smack of “Witch Hunt,” and history will see them as such. Much like the attacks on Pius XII, they’re the attacks of a jealous secular world eager to damn the Catholic Church when history will judge that the Church has done far more on this issue–even before the scandals–than anyone else.

Indeed, at least they *tried* to get these guys rehabilitated. How many public school teachers are fired for sexual misconduct, much less sent to jail? How many public school teachers lose their teaching certificates for it?

“Never, ever attempt to out-lame _Mary Worth_.”

The Comics Curmudgeon is a great blog in which Josh Fruhlinger and sometime sub “Uncle Lumpy” provide sardonic critiques of that dying medium, the newspaper “funnies”, particularly the ones that refuse to die, aren’t particularly funny, or just don’t make any sense.

One which meets all three of those criteria is the classic “soap opera” strip _Mary Worth_, in which we see what Jessica Fletcher would have been like if she’d lived in a California condo and never solved any murders.

Recent storylines have focused, interestingly enough, on the perils of the internet: six months or so of our time (a few days of _Mary Worth_ time) in which Mary’s friend Toby frets over being phished and having her bank account stolen because she clicked a message asking for her bank account information. The bank quickly resolved the issue about a third of the way through the storyline; the other 2/3 were Toby fretting about what to tell her husband when he came home from a business trip. When he came home, it was “Oh, sorry that happened, but glad the bank covered the charges. No big deal.”

Then a character–one of them newfangled lady doctors–fell in love online only to discover her boyfriend was a con artist. She subsequently fell in love with the cop who arrested him, and he was later shot.

This led to a storyline about a middle-aged widower who got on Facebook and was contacted by a young man who claimed to be his illegitimate son. Turned out his beloved college girlfriend had cheated on him with some rich dude, got pregnant–and that’s why she dumped him, and this guy wasn’t his son. So the alleged son who admitted he knew all along he wasn’t left town.

The arbitrary break between Mary Worth storylines is a condo pool party, which apparently occured this weekend. In Monday’s installment, Mary observed that some acquaintance had “returned,” and then segued into the day’s cliffhanger: “speaking of returns . . . ”

Says the Curmudgeon:

“But what can Mary mean by “returns”? Have her widows’ stocks declared dividends? Is Carlos Alora back on the job as groundskeeper? Dare we hope for Zombie Aldo? More likely, she just needs to get that copy of The Shorter Bartlett’s Quotations back to the library. Those fines add up.”

Well, surprisingly, we did not have to wait six months to find out: the return in question was a blouse Mary decided to return to “Marcy’s” Department Store! This led to the following comment, a quotation that will go down in history with ALF’s “Remember, Brian, we have nothing to fear but fear itself, or A Very Brady Anything“:

Hey, remember yesterday when I suggested Mary’s mysterious “return” might be an overdue library book? Note to self: never, ever attempt to out-lame Mary Worth.

BTW, as many professional bloggers do, on top of having ads, and huge hit numbers, and merchandise, the Comics Curmudgeon is currently doing a fundraising drive.

I only mention this because I don’t do fundraising drives. I just make periodic requests to download a copy of my audio prayerbook, Hide Me In Your Wounds

Has Vanity Fair’s A. A. Gill *ever* read a book?

Danielle Bean reports about how A. A. Gill, a food critic at Vanity Fair, has taken a stab at typical atheist writing (at the level of, “Ha, ha, Christians are stupid”), specifically targetiing the “Creation Museum” (whatever). Then, in an interview with Megan “I want to kill all Christiains” Fox, Gill takes on an upcoming appearance by Fr. John Corapi, CPA, STD, SOLT, in the Cincinnati area (even though the topic is the Church’s social teachings, not evolution). Again, his level of discourse amounts to calling our generation’s St. Augustine “Fr. Crappy.”

Here are the quotes from the most original source I can find:

“All this theoretical religious rubbish, it baffles me the amount of money and time invested in a conference with a priest ranting about an age old message that carries no basis or fact. Have these people opened a book in the past decade!? Who cares what message this man pretends to have, while he makes money off if (sic) it.”

So, charity for the poor is “theoretical religious rubbish”? Again, liberal secularists show their true colors.
I think it’s safer to say that Fr. Corapi’s listeners are far more likely to have “opened a book in the last decade” than most of Gill’s audience, especially the types who spend all their time watching Comedy Central or MTV.

“Surely there is nothing “Fr. Crappy” (referencing Fr. John Corapi) could possibly say that would affect me or the rest of humanity who, like me, have more than half a brain”

Since anti-Catholic bigotry usually coincides with ethnic bigotry against Irish, Italians and Slavs, it is notworthy that this dignified representative of secular atheist pseudo-intellectualism (aka he thinks like a thirteen year old) is not just insulting Fr. Corapi as a Catholic priest; he’s also making fun of Father’s Italian last name.

The obvious response to Mr. Gill is exactly what degrees *he* has, since Fr. Corapi is a CPA, served on the Nevada Gaming Commission, ran a multimillion dollar real estate business in Hollywood and has a doctorate from one of the most respected universities in Europe.

All liberals are terrorists

Our “friend” and resident demonaic pest “Operation CounterStrike” promotes the idea that all right to life advocates are terrorists because of a few isolated acts of violence in nearly 40 years (i.e., Salvi, Roeder, Hill)–even though most of the murderers in those cases were a) certifiably nuts and b) not even primarily pro-life activists but were primarily anti-government radical libertarians.

Now, I don’t know of cases where pro-lifers have assembled en masse to not only protest but actively shout-out pro-abortion presenters, but it regularly happens on college campuses that pro-life speakers have their speeches interrupted by violent and abusive protests by campus Commies.

Last night, Ann Coulter was surprisingly scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa, and had been “warned” to “be polite” by a university administrator. As it ended up, the speech had to be cancelled because of loud and violent protests.

This is just the kind of dignified behavior we can expect from young people in a country that has socialized medicine, legalized marijuana and prostitution, and laws banning so-called “hate speech.” Even though “hate speech” is supposedly “speech that incites violence,” liberals are allowed to engage in all the violence they want.

I’m no fan of Coulter. I don’t like her pro-Bush Derangement Syndrome. She is definitely in the class of talk show types who encourage the worst stereotypes of conservatism.

But such behavior is outrageous, especially when she has herself been warned to “be respectful.”

“Since I’ve arrived in Canada, I’ve been denounced on the floor of Parliament — which, by the way, is on my bucket list — my posters have been banned, I’ve been accused of committing a crime in a speech that I have not yet given, I was banned by the student council, so welcome to Canada!” said Coulter.

There is no secret that our own Democratic Party has a huge admiration for Canada and wants to turn the US into Canada.

Incidents like this just prove once again what the Democrats really are: Stalinists.

If there is a Democrat who is not a eugenicist, please stand up?

OK, for all the so-called “pro-life” Democrats out there. If this past weekend hasn’t disproven that lie, can you tell me?

Is there any Democrat out there who does *not* think it’s perfectly acceptable to kill “defective” babies in the womb?

Is there any Democrat out there who does *not* think it’s perfectly acceptable to use artificial contraception to prevent conception of “defective” babies?

One of the several reasons I started this blog in 2004 is that I got sick of message boards. A friend had asked me to join in on a political message board where people were under some confused misconceptions about Catholic teaching because of pro-choice Catholic politicians and pro-choice Catholic voters.

When I got down to the point that all the liberals on the board, and some of the conservatives, proved themselves to be eugenicists, I saw no further reason in dialoguing with them.

There’s not much point in dialoguing with someone who wants you dead.

Of course, that was also when the Terri Schiavo case climaxed, and we’re now approaching the fifth anniversary of her murder–a murder that Democrats around the country salivated over as much as they’ve salivated over the slaughtered babies over the past 37 years.

Indeed, the Schiavo case, like abortion, embodies all the Democrats’ goals: elimination of disabled people; promotion of sexual license; killing of anyone who’s inconvenient to their materialistic agenda. And let’s not forget the Democrats’ #1 goal: tyranny.

Pat Buchanan, at the time, said it should have been the key turning point in the culture wars. Sadly, it wasn’t. Sadly, most people just went back to their lives. The liberals were up in arms that anyone would resist an adulterer’s efforts to starve his disabled wife to death, while most conservatives said, “ho-hum, we lost; go home.”

When will this country wake up?

Why do we want to ‘reduce’ abortions

We hear a lot from the Left about “reducing” abortions. As Bill Donohue pointed out during the 2008 election, since when is there a “constitutional right” that we want to “reduce”?

If abortion is bad, it’s bad. If it’s not bad, then why “reduce” it?

Indeed, the radical abortion lobby is annoyed by Obama’s talk of “reducing” abortions for that very reason (besides that it cuts into their profits).

Should rape be “safe, legal and rare” because it’s necessary for some men to vent their frustrations?
Should terrorism be “safe, legal and rare” because it’s necessary for some Muslims to fulfill their religious obligations?
Should embezzlement and bank robbing be “safe, legal and rare” because they’re necessary for some desperate people to pay their bills?

I don’t know what to think

I really don’t know what to think about what happened last night.

I can’t get upset, because I feel like we need time to tell.

Anytime Planned Parenthood claims victory, we know it’s a bad thing. But I’ve seen too much evidence that pro-lifers confuse issues to take the anger of the pro-life movement as a sign this is a loss for the unborn.

It so easily switches from “this is a victory for abortion” to “this is a loss of our freedoms,” and “our freedoms” in context meaning the “freedom to be greedy.”

I am not crazy about this health care bill at all. I am not crazy that the pro-life movement and the bishops have focused on abortion only, when they should have talked about contraception, conscience rights, euthanasia.

I hate that Sarah Palin is ridiculed for the “death panels” comment, but the Democrats themselves said they want abortion to reduce costs.

Obama is a cypher. I’m never 100% certain whether he’s more centrist than we give him credit for, or he’s the most effective liar Satan has ever produced. It’s been clear in this debate that there are differences between Obama and Pelosi on what this bill should do. Obama has always insisted “abortion isn’t paid for,” while Pelosi has always insisted abortion should be paid for.

Techniaclly, an executive order can’t override congressional law, and all it takes is another executive order for Obama to rescind it, if he wants. So the executive order is in itself a loss because it’s another victory for presidential tyranny.

I’ve been “defriended” on Facebook by one major figure in the pro-life movement, not for my pro-life views but for challenging Republican worship of money as unChristian. This person posted a quote from Proverbs about borrowing being a state of slavery, and applied it to health care, and I said, “That’s also why capitalism is evil,” and she defriended me.

Is the pro-life movement about advancing capitalism or helping the unborn?

Because for people for whom abortion is supposedly the #1 issue, the war and “economic freedom” sure seem to take precedence.

There should have been a way to make real bipartisan compromise on this issue.

There should have been a way to regulate the insurance and health care industries, end pre-existing condition restrictions, and, yes, require people who can afford it to buy health insurance, without too much federal funding, and without conscience rights.

As for abortion, if your insurance pays for birth control pills, you’re paying for abortions, and most major insurance companies pay for abortions as it is. And this does not create federal funding of abortions. The government has been paying for abortions on military bases since Clinton signed that executive order in 1993–an executive order George W. Bush conveniently did not reverse. Medicaid pays for abortions in many states, including South Carolina.

Unless pro-lifers are going to fight legalized contraception, we’re hypocrites, and we’re fightnig a losing battle.

For once, I find myself agreeing with a post at Vox Nova–the Republicans were their own worst enemies, as usual, on this issue. They could have offered an alternative plan. They could have agreed to support the bill if there were clear limits in regard to abortion, contraceptoin, euthanasia/”end of life care” and permitting conscience rights for medical professionals. They could have agreed to support a bill that was largely regulatory and didn’t involve a “public option” or too much taxpayer funding.

But they didn’t. They opted to let the Democrats win the whole thing rather than reach a compromise that would have saved the unborn, showing that Republicans are themselves more concerned about what’s in their pockets than they are about saving babies’ lives.

And if anyone can show me one passage in the Bible (other than the “Parable of the Talents”) that favors investing at interest, I’d be glad to see it.

What do atheists, child molestors, abortion supporters and wall street investors have in common?

If they don’t repent, they’re all going to end up in the same place.

And that’s true on either end of Pascal’s Wager.

After all, if the atheists are right, the final destiny of all these people is to be food for bugs, so why does anything in this life matter? Why do they pretend that it matters? Why do atheists conveniently claim moral indignance over one select matter while proclaiming freedom of lifestyle choice in regard to others?