I have read with some satisfaction that the National Catholic Register has fired two of his worst bloggers/journalists. This is not officially confirmed, but factually sure.
What I dislike in the particular brand of writing of the two (particularly one) is the all-pervasive bending of their (particularly his) own particular brand of leftism until the simple believe that it resembles Catholicism.
Mind, I am not angry at the emotional tone. I am an emotional one myself, though I do not react directly to those who insult and mock me on the blogosphere.
What makes me angry is the utter perversion of Catholicism, in a relentless Jihad against every form of social conservatism under the thinnest of varnish of a pretence of Catholicism. A Jihad made most clear by the insults thrown at conservative Catholicism – and at the very pro-life movement – as a whole.
This is the tone – and the thinking – of those who hate every form of social conservatism first, and try to hide behind the finger of a very stupid, deformed wannabe Catholicism second. Social justice, anti-Conservative Jihad that can’t even see the yearly holocaust of unborn children because hey, all is preferable to Trump becoming President.
The other one – another leftist, for what I can see, and a very vulgar one at that; but I read her even less than the first one – is probably more the victim of her interactive intemperance (and vulgarity) than of a relentless will to wage Jihad on those who fear the Lord and happen not to be SJWs. But when you start cleaning the home, it’s better to do it well.
The Jihad will continue, and it will continue with the same tones. Even after the famous public apologies for the vitriolic style the vitriol kept flowing, so this gives you a good indication of the future.
The best thing to do is, as before, to ignore these people. No links to them, no mention of them on your blog (brings traffic, and makes their name go higher in internet researches), no traffic sent their way in any way whatsoever.
The religion of Social Justice is not Catholicism, even when it camouflages that way.
Interesting article on the National Catholic Register about the newest findings regarding the way Pope Pius XII helped the Jews.
In April of 1939, just one month after Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli was elected Pope, the U.S. Jewish Veteran magazine called the new Pope’s leadership “a source of great satisfaction to Jews.”
“Pope Pius XII is known as a staunch friend of Jews,” the veterans wrote, noting the success of his election despite the attempts by anti-Semitic Fascists to prevent it.
The March 1939 issue of the magazine also expressed the community’s “fervent hope” that Pius XII would “have a long and successful reign; that he will fill the spiritual vacuum left by the decease of his predecessor, and that he too will be sanctified by the love of his fellow men.”
Here must be said – what many people nowadays conveniently forget – that Pius XII was Mussolini’s candidate, and the worst possible choice for the Nazis. The Nazis knew his stance when he had been the Nuncio in Bavaria – that is, the Nuncio for Germany as there was no nunciatura in Berlin – and knew that he was the driving force behind, and the actual writer of, Mit brennender Sorge. The Voelkischer Beobachter was savagely critical of Pacelli’s election.
Another very interesting piece of information is about the situation in Poland:
[…] then-Cardinal Pacelli had intervened to block an anti-kosher law in Poland in 1938.
Had the legislation passed, it would have forbidden Jewish ritual practices and constituted a “true persecution for Jews,” Pope Pius wrote at the time.
The facts are the facts, and the day the communist lie about “Hitler’s Pope” ( a lie conveniently adopted since by everyone with an axe to grind) is debunked among the great public is getting near every year.
No doubt, news like this one will multiply in the years to come, and the opening of the vatican archives will give additional impetus to the re-establishment of sanity. At that point, I think, there will be no obstacle for this great Pope’s beatification, whose beatification prayer is already approved.
Jack Kevorkian has gone to his Creator or – much more probably, though we can’t know for certain – to Hell.
The National Catholic Register (which is the good “NCR” one) has an interesting article shedding some light into this very, very disquieting personality. The stated aim of the article is to avoid that Kevorkian be, after death, transformed in a kind of gentle soul, an atheist “Father Teresa” ooh so concerned with those who are suffering. Instead, it turns out that Kevorkian was not only in favour of suicide, but also displaying some (very predictable) Nazi traits in the following:
1) the strange (for anyone who is not a Nazi) concept of “obligatory assisted suicide”. This is very interesting. When someone has no choice whether to die or not (say: condemned prisoner), Kevorkian is in favour of forcing him to commit suicide. The man is truly excited at the idea of suicide, one must say. Besides the strange notion of forcing one to commit suicide who doesn’t want to (what sanction can you give to him in a Western country? Execution?), I note that this is, even, beyond Nazism. I mean, Hitler gave Rommel & Co. the choice whether they wanted to commit suicide or undergo public trial and, in theory, Sippenrache (the extermination of one’s family members), he didn’t force them to commit suicide, nor did he oblige them. Perhaps, is Sippenrache the key of how Kevorkian would have forced people to “obligatory suicide”? Questions, questions…..
2) the outlandish “optional assisted suicide”. This is the suicide of someone who really would want to commit suicide, but doesn’t have the gut to do it. Therefore, a sadist will do it for him without, in Kevorkian’s world, having to go to jail for that. Sadly for Kevorkian, in the real world he did have to go to jail for that. Nazis did that too if the person was ill or otherwise not really useful. They didn’t lack sadists, either. A world made for Jack Kevorkian….
3) then there is the concept of “suicide by proxy”. The thinking goes that in certain cases you must assume that the person, if he could express himself, would want to commit suicide; say, a gravely handicapped child. The decision is not taken by him, but by people who, so to speak, think for him (the parents, say). This is another thought that would move Hitler, Dr Goebbels and Dr Mengele to tears of joy, with the vision of all those children with malformations and their parents deciding that hey, he does not want to live, so let’s kill him now.
4) Going on along the Nazi path of this truly diabolical chap (as they say in Italy, “speaking as if he was alive”, of course) we have the desire of getting all the organs of the thus, how should I put it, ” forcibly suicided” people to make various medical experiments. In his own words, suicides should be, erm, executed within special suicide clinics that would
make the quantum leap of supplementing merciful killing with the enormously positive benefit of experimentation and organ donation
Note how good “quantum leap” sounds. You read these words and you know the man would have asked to be sent to Auschwitz, just to “mercifully” help people who, hey, would have to die anyway in the end, at the same time making a “quantum leap” in medical research…..
5) But don’t think Kevorkian would have admitted to enjoy killing. He paid attention to describe the act of killing as “distasteful”. Distasteful. A bit like squeezing a spot, I suppose. Instead, he pretended to see the main advantage of the exercise as follows:
What I find most satisfying is the prospect of making possible the performance of invaluable experiments or other beneficial medical acts under conditions that this first unpleasant step can help establish.
At this point, his identification with Auschwitz doctors has become complete. They too, certainly, experienced as “satisfying” to have so many organs with which to conduct “invaluable experiments” and “other beneficial medical acts”, whilst the fact that these people were dying was dismissed as something already decided elsewhere and that therefore didn’t have to concern them (though, no doubt, “unpleasant”); exactly the same as our nazi-hero happily experimenting with the condemned criminal.
This has made for depressing reading, I know. But depressing as it is, I think that it is right to delve at times into the cruelty of human nature; particularly when, as in this case, the monstrous nature of such people is disguised under the cloth of “humanitarian” thinking.
Just in case someone is confused (I am; time and again)…..
The National Catholic Register is very orthodox. Excellent bloggers like the Archbold brothers can be found there. They still belong to the Legionaries of Christ, a group that, whatever you may say of their disgraceful founder, can’t be defined as “liberal” by any stretch of the imagination. They were, last time I looked, in the process of being bought by EWTN.
The National Catholic Reporter is, on the other hand, the disgusting, openly heretical, leftist, pacifist and, well, cretin-ist publication often exposed on these pages as well as in countless other blogs. They are good to test your patience on very calm, relaxed days. They are also good to start being extremely worried should you, for a strange coincidence, happen to be of their opinion. Can’t remember it ever happening to me, though. We might agree on 2+2=4, but that’s about it.
Therefore please keep in mind: reporter= bad. Very easy to memorise, I should say.
Similarly, if you look at the “good” American Catholic you land here, a thoroughly orthodox site always good for some good reading and, at times, a good laugh.
But if you are inattentive, you may easily land on this site, a Franciscan outlet which, when it writes something right, does it purely unintentionally and on which I have read, in months past and whilst being inattentive, some of the most stinking post-Liberation Theology crap ever. Might be improving, though, as the Grim Reaper incessantly works through the ranks and files of the once-glorious Franciscans.
This should be easier, as upon seeing that one has landed on a Franciscan site the desire to click oneself away should be, actually, automatic and almost irresistible.
Think before you click, then, and be aware of the consequences. I remember serene afternoons utterly ruined at the thought of the people reading the “reporter” and leaving comments about how wrong Catholic doctrine is, perhaps ruining others in the process. Not a nice thought.
Absolutely beautiful contribution from Tim Drake for the National Catholic Register.
The points of interest and comparisons are too many to mention here. The sources are numerous, authoritative and – most importantly – intelligent. The parallel between the priesthood and the army is not only very reasonable, but it is beautiful in its own right.
Mr. Drake is very alarmed for the future of the US Army. He rightly points out to the fact that whilst the Church is indefectible, the US Army isn’t. He is spot on.
In my eyes, a very notable point is that the astonishing technological superiority of the West and the absence of wars from our own soil for such a long time have created such a complacency that the army has become just another field for liberal and pervert propaganda instead of being seen as an instrument meant to guarantee one’s own (and one’s nation) survival. I wonder how many of the above mentioned liberals and perverts would favour such measures if the risk of being raped and killed by an invading army was a concrete possibility. As things stand, the army is something liberals and feminist only notice when they criticise it, or when they criticise the government of the day for using it.
But the most important element to be noticed is in my eyes a different one: the de-Christianisation of the West that makes such abominations (and such utterly ridiculous measures) thinkable in the first place. What until not many years ago (with remembrances of war a concrete experience for most, a more solid Christian thinking and a keen perception of what an army is there for) would have been the subject of low-grade comedies is now supposed to become not only the norm, but be celebrated as an achievement to boot.
Mala tempora currunt. I do hope that the new composition of the Congress and Senate in the US will make it possible to repeal this abomination in the years to come but I do not doubt that, should not be the case, the problems will be enough as to force the US Army to backpedaling in just a few decades, as the Church did.