“Have the students write the name JESUS in big letters on a piece of paper,” the lesson reads. “Ask the students to stand up and put the paper on the floor in front of them with the name facing up. Ask the students to think about it for a moment. After a brief period of silence instruct them to step on the paper. Most will hesitate. Ask why they can’t step on the paper. Discuss the importance of symbols in culture”.
This is not a joke, but what has happened in a university in Florida. Apart from the fact that the “assignment” reminds one of kindergarten exercises (without the blasphemy) one truly wonders what goes in the twisted minds of certain people.
I will not spare you the very easy, but very true remark that the genius who thought this did not consider using, say, a Mohammed Cartoon as stomping material. I am sure he knows why. A shame, really, because if one wants to “discuss the importance of symbols in culture” I can barely imagine a more fitting starting point.
Still, the problem here is much vaster than stupidity. This episode shows not only a total lack of Christian feeling, but also the complete absence of every regard for Christianity as a religion. In a Christian country like the United States, this is an obvious indication of a degree of Anti-Christian militancy speaking volumes about the degree of “inclusiveness” and “tolerance” of the blaspheming classes.
The University has apologised, after the fact. The question remains what kind of University it is that employs geniuses like the one who thought this. Personally, I also wonder what kind of kindergarten is this, where people cannot start a discussion about “the importance of symbols in culture” without stomping like little children.
If this is the level of higher education in the United States, decline and fall cannot be very far away.
Extremely interesting blog post from the “American Papist”, Thomas Peters. In his blog post, Peters point out to a clearly visible, but often not sufficiently considered reality: that the overwhelmingly liberal mass media greatly increase the feeling of inevitability of homo marriage by stubbornly ignoring their many defeats, and giving enormous space and “historic significance” to their very rare victories.
Stop for a moment and reflect what the liberal media (that is: the vast majority of the mass tv channels in the US and Europe, and the majority of mass newspapers) would have said if in the US there had been thirty popular consultation about the so-called homo marriages and the perverts had won all of them. And now please think that the reality is that they have lost them, all of them. It’s 31-0 for Christian values, and counting!
If this kind of results had been achieved by the other side, the call for the end of the debate would be deafening, and every opposer treated as an undemocratic nazi.
Or let us examine the legislative part of the battle, the arena where the homos try to transform their clear minority in the country in a majority by attracting representatives of the people ready to please them in exchange for favours. Well it turns out that this year they have already lost in Maryland and Rhode Island, and only won in New York; it’ 2-1 on the legislative front then, but there are at least other six states – let us count them: Minnesota, Indiana, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Iowa and Pennsylvania preparing themselves to reinforce marriage as the only…. marriage, or to reverse past decisions favourable to the homos.
Not persuaded yet? Look at a liberal state like California, where the homos have lost several times through either popular vote or law initiatives, and are now trying to overturn the people’s decision through an homosexual judge living together with his lover (or mistress, I suppose; or both; no idea what disgusting “arrangements” these people make).
Or perhaps you think that wherever homosexual so-called “marriage” legislation is passed, the situation is irreversible? Think again! Iowa and New Hampshire are two points in case, California is another example of sort (with the victorious Proposition 8 being the people’s answer to pink judicial activism). Wherever you look, people don’t sit and say “oh well, it had to happen I suppose”, but they react.
This, mind, even before the massive Catholic machine has been mobilised. If the US bishops started to say it as it is in a way that can’t be ignored, things would change in a matter not of decades, but probably of years, and the great risk for puppets a’ la Andrew Cuomo to be wiped out would soon let them decide that it is better for them to shut up like as many children when the headmaster enters the classroom.
Thankfully, in the United States more and more people are starting to understand what your humble correspondent has been saying from pre-blog times: homosexuality is the front line of the Christian war. Re-establish a Christian attitude to this, and abortion and euthanasia will be won on the momentum created by this recovery of Christian values.
Sad as it is to say so, too many people are still numbed to the atrocity of abortion, as – as they say in Italy – “the laws of one generation are the morality of the following one”. Not so for homo “marriages”. This is a battle that every Christian can fully grasp now and the re-discovery of his Christian values in one matter will unavoidably lead to a more mature reflection on all others.
Therefore, be in good spirit and wait for 2012, when pro homo representative and senators will hopefully get a pounding (these things can be pretty brutal, look here and tell me if you’d want to be in one of the pictures) and the people will wake up to the reality that they have the right to demand a Christian country and a legislation fruit of the will of the people rather than of judicial activism, or corridor politics. When the pendulum starts to clearly swing back in the US, it will only be a question of time before the same happens in Europe. At least in Southern Europe, where the ability of the Church leaders to mobilise the masses and shape future generations would still be very high, if they did as much as to wake up.
Is there one area, just one area of the faith that the modernist, hippie, liberal, progressive, watered-down-the-faith, bongo-pounding, liturgy-destroying, church-wreckovation modernist crowd has not destroyed?
This asks Michael Voris in this brilliant video and I’m afraid that – if we consider “destroyed” in a sociological rather than sacramental meaning – we know the answer.
This video is not about the travesty in drags proposed by our pervert community, but about the real thing. The dramatic drop in marriages is – as the Catholics in the United States clearly haven’t developed a sudden desire for collective bachelorhood – obviously linked to the downplaying of this sacrament by the liberal clergy . Voris actually puts it stronger than that, defining such shepherds as “liberal or gay* or modernist priests” and pointing out to an issue that should be discussed more often, that is: priests who are liberal because they’re homosexual.
Homosexual or not homosexual, many a priest has a very comfortable “let’s wait” attitude, which is in the best case similar to a “can’t be bothered” attitude, and in the worst to a “I agree with you” attitude. The idea is that, given time, everything adjusts itself and the prodigal (but oh so nice; and with the heart in the right place; and certainly environmentally friendly) sons and daughters will come back to marriage and sacramental life once they are settled.
“Are you mental!? No they do not come back!”,, is Voris’ emphatic answer. And in fact you must ask yourselves how would parents be considered who, seeing their children taking drugs and drifting toward alcoholism, reacts by saying “hey, no big deal; they’ll stop in due time”, and how many of those unfortunate teenagers would grow up to be responsible adults rather than, alas (can I say that without anyone being “hurt”?) junkies and drunkards. There’s a reason why a priest is called “father” instead of, say, “favourite, all-forgiving grand-grandmother”: his duty is to give guidance, to reproach when it is suitable, and to be able of showing some tough love when necessary.
The protestantisation of the liturgy has led us to this, because the protestantisation of the liturgy unavoidably leads to the protestantisation of the theology.
This unless even worse – like a homosexual priest pursuing his own diabolical agenda – is at play. Voris again refers to the problem when he invites his listeners to check that his priest is not a “less than ideal model of masculinity-priest” and he once again makes a connection with this and the “social justice”, “inclusiveness” mania.
The last remark is a rather general one, but valid nonetheless: in a very general sense, liberal priests are sawing off the branch they’re sitting on, as those “modern couples” who never came back are unlikely to fund their retirement.
A brilliant video, and one which in my eyes denotes Voris’ new, rather stronger stance about homosexuality both inside and outside the clergy.
* “gay” means here, strangely enough, “homosexual”.
On the Vivificat blog, this beautiful blog post about “Why I oppose same sex marriage”.
It is so pithy, beautiful and charitable (charitable in the right way), that the best thing to do is to reproduce it in its entirety, including the emphases.
There you are:
Why am I strongly opposed to same-sex “marriage”?
Because it is an offense against the institution of marriage? Yes, but not really: that institution has already been demolished by our modern Godless society.
Because it will most likely wind up forcing me, as a citizen of this nation, to in some way participate? Yes, but not really: I am ready and willing to be persecuted for my beliefs.
Because this is a democracy and most Americans oppose same-sex “marriage”? Yes, but not really: I support many things that most Americans oppose and oppose many things that most Americans support.
Because it is a slippery slope that may lead to legalized polygamy, incest, etc.? Yes, but not really: that would be like opposing abortion because it could lead to condom use (Sodomy is the greater evil)
Because it will likely lead to more disease and economic devastation in our nation? Yes, but not really: those are fleabites compared to my real concerns
Rather, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because I love homosexuals. Because I do not want to see just another enticement (which is what this would be: a legal endorsement of that behavior) for them to remain in that wayward lifestyle and for young people to join that lifestyle. It is a lifestyle that tears apart their souls, makes depression rampant, and motivates suicide to an astronomical degree. For the government to bless their unions with same-sex “marriage” is to say “Come and partake of this banquet, for there is nothing wrong with it. Come and appease your passions and give in to your temptations, we will bless your efforts. Come and reap the fruits of your actions, that you may spend eternity with us.” In other words, I oppose same-sex “marriage” because it turns the government into the very mouthpiece of Satan.
Is this “theocratic” of me? In violation of “separation of Church and state”? Label me as you will. My stance here is a stance of love, in obedience to the Almighty through His Church, and it will never change.
As for myself, I don’t give a hoot how many from the glitterati, the elites, Hollywood, government in all three branches give their secular blessing on this so-called same-sex “marriage”. Call me what you wish, I will never set this lie above the Truth.
Congratulations to Teofilo de Jesus and Dan O’Connor, the authors of this beautiful witness of Christian love.
On Insight Scoop, an interesting blog post dealing with the matter of “why dissenters remain in the Church”. After all, Luther & Co. at least had the intelligence and logical thinking of drawing the consequences of their revolt.
The blog post article (in turn mentioning an essay) opines that in the end it is a matter of power: the power-obsessed liberals do not want to go away, they want to conquer and reign over nuChurch. The same would be true, says the article, when the dissenters say that the Church “infantilise” them. Like a rebellious child, they are looking for….. power at the expense of the legitimate authority of the Church.
I found the theory very interesting and it is in my eyes unquestionable that the quest for power is an important part of liberal thinking. One is reminded of school and university, where the most vocal leftists were clearly looking for personal advantages and a political career and whenever you heard “we must this” and “we must that” you knew who was supposed to lead the “collective” effort.
Nevertheless, I would like to offer other three elements; of which two I would attribute largely to the female public (and please note that among “dissenters” women are clearly very well represented).
1) Ego or, if you wish, pleasure. Human beings as such tend to do what gives them pleasure, and to eschew what gives them pain. Dissenters act in a way that is not different: they please their ego by feeling “modern”, “progressive”, “inclusive” and “rebellious in a comfortable way”. But they mostly abstain from thinking this to the end, because to draw the consequences would be traumatic.To say “I have decided to leave the Church” would be very painful, because it would force them to really feel the gravity of what they are doing. As long as they don’t say that they want to go, they think themselves free to feel like “reformers” instead of what they are: heretics.
To make a parallelism with everyday life, think of the “wannabe rebel” adolescent who questions parental authority but continues to be fed and cared for by them. Were he to be kicked out of the parental home – or to decide to leave it and fend for himself – his rebellion wouldn’t be much fun anymore. Therefore he will choose to be rebellious from the comfort of the family. The well-fed, shirt-ironed, college-paid “rebels” are, and always will be, the vast majority.
2) Emotions. Some people (particularly women, but not only them) tend to put a huge premium on how they “feel”. In this perspective, thinking is merely an optional. Therefore, many dissenters (particularly women) will stay within the church (or thinking they do) because of the fuzzy feeling they get by calling themselves “Catholic” and still feel part of the oh so big family. This is the religion of their fathers and mothers, and they just don’t see as “fuzzy” to say to them (or to their tomb) that they have become Episcopalians, even if they are. “I have always felt comfortable in the Catholic Church”, they’ll say clearly revealing the inability to add 2+2 if it feels bad.
3) (Macho alert! Feminazis please look away now!!) Approval. The day a woman stops kidding herself (between seventeen and nineteen, mostly), she realises that women have in their genes a strong need for the approval of men. You see this happening anywhere, with women fighting for male approval in the office and dissing the female colleagues in their presence with an energy and passion men would never find (or care to find) to diss other men in front of women; or berating each other in what makes them cheap in the eyes of men (ever heard men calling each other “slutter”?). I could make much stronger examples, but the important thing for us is that the same mechanism is at work here. These “emancipated” wannabe priestesses badly need to be approved by the same men they accuse of being oppressive to them. It’s…. dad all over again! They can’t do their own thing, leave the church, get a beer with their friends, go to a bar and never give a dime for what the people of the opposite sex in the church they have left think, as men would. No. They must get men’s approval, and in their deluded minds they think that if they only nag men for long enough, they’ll get their way. Foolish but, I must say, very gender typical. Works rather well on an individual level, anyway.. 😉
And so there we are, with this singular mixture of ego trips (“the Church doesn’t satisfy my needs“), emotional orgies (” I always feeeelt that I was born a priesteeeeess”) and starvation for men’s approval (“I’ll not be satisfied until men approve of women priest”) causing what we are seeing: the strange phenomenon of rebellion without severance, and seeking approval from those rebelled against.
From the CNA, some rather interesting news for Catholic readers.
1) Countries like Norway routinely put – through the United Nations – poor countries under pressure to legalise abortion. The idea is that if you don’t allow abortion, you are infringing the human rights of the women.
Babies have, of course, no human rights in Norway. They must have learnt that during the Nazi invasion.
2) Pressure from non better identified European Countries – always through the UN – has already achieved that Nicaragua had to (well, chose to) bow to the pressure and legalise abortion after being threatened with aid cuts.
3) Next chosen victim, apparently, Paraguay.
It is nice to know that the money of European taxpayers is used to force poorer countries to adopt the nazi agenda of our oh so liberal rulers; even nicer to realise that this is done not through the usual, old channels of covert bilateral pressure, but with the convenient excuse of the “human rights” defended by our so meritorious collection of bloody and corrupt dictatorship and pro-abortion liberal lobbies called United Nations. That Norway – one of the most atheist countries on earth – be in the first row of this genocidal movement is no surprise.
When a country forgets Christ, Hitler isn’t far away.
I’d like to know how Norway will react on the – possibly not very far away – day that the United States will seriously start to reverse the pendulum on abortion. Will they denounce the US to the UN, or give them their “recommendations”?
Read here on Deacon’s Bench about the latest “inclusive” madness. It has been organised by some interfaith group or other, and everyone has been invited to participate. In short, in every one of the participating houses people from the other two religions will get in and read from their own scriptures.
Truly, it is as if the First Commandment didn’t exist anymore. These people get together and everyone appreciates how good the other’s religion is. That this should happen also in Christian churches is another manifestation of the new religion, Niceness.
Scandalously enough, among the Christian parishes adhering to this unheard-of summer sale of Christian values is one Catholic parish. Behind the initiative seems to be (as usual, I would say) a Jesuit, called Father Pat Earl.
In another example of how distant Jesuits have become from Christians, Father Pat Earl is on record with the following words:
“Just having something public is not going to be a big, big deal here, but to have someone come in and read from the Quran and to recognize publicly the existence of Islam and to reverence and respect is a good thing for the church to do,”
Truly, the Jesuits have become the enemies of Christianity and the worst defender of the moral relativism criticised by the Holy Father. This is even worse than moral relativism though, this is active promotion of other religions under the pathetic disguise of fashionable words like “reverence” and “respect”.
I can understand a certain feeling of vicinity (and a rather detached one, anyway) with our – to use the Holy Father’s words – “older brothers and sisters”, the Jews, though I’d never allow this to create any confusion whatsoever about who is right and who is wrong. But it is still not clear to me why I, a Christian, should have any “reverence” for Islam, or show any “respect” for a murderous, false religion founded by a pedophile.
I do hope that the responsible bishop stops this initiative and doesn’t allow the Catholic parish to participate. I am not holding my breath, though.
If you don’t know what the American Catholic Council is, don’t worry: you are not alone.
In short, this is one of those ridiculous outfits which claim to be Catholic whilst clearly being Protestant. From thinking that everyone should be priest, to being in favour of wymmyn priest, to encouraging the usual pervert sexual behaviour, they serve you the whole enchilada of the “dissent” madness. You may ask why they don’t become Protestant as they clearly… already are, but intelligence and logical thinking are graces clearly not given to everyone.
It so happens that this mickey-mouse “catholic” organisation holds a conference in Detroit in the next few days, featuring some of the usual heretical muppets. The event will (would; was supposed to) also host an “ecumenical mass”, which considering the ideas of the organisers screams “liturgical abuses” from very, very far away.
Now the local Archbishop is a certain Vigneron; a man who might possibly not be a sword of Catholic orthodoxy (I seem to recall his diocese being pretty harshly criticised by Michael Voris in the past; I might be wrong) but has certainly the energy to avoid tolerating such a load of manure without reaction.
Therefore, Archbishop Vigneron has made the following:
1) he has not authorised the mass, and
2) he has written a letter to his priests and deacons stating that his questions about the mass have not been answered to his satisfaction, that the whole thing screams of liturgical abuse, and that therefore any deacon or priest who should entertain the unealthy thought of participating in this liturgy runs the risk of being dismissed from the clerical state.
I can picture the “dissident” Protestants-telling-themselves-Catholics now faced with the unpleasant reality of even a “moderate” archbishop throwing around threats of laicisation for deluded feminist/homosexual hotheads, and posed in front of the unpleasant task of having to find a priest in good standing but ready to risk the soutane (if he ever wore one) for them or show that the archbishop can well and truly block them.
Alternatively, they may ask some layman to celebrate a fake mass; or some wymmyn; and what about the dog……
I think of their situation and try to feel sorry for them in their quandary.
Thankfully, I can’t.
You would think that the Jesuits had some sense of shame. Perhaps, a few have. The impression is, however, that most of them don’t. I can’t explain otherwise how a group old sixty-eighters (several of them, no doubt, homosexuals; some of them, very probably, sodomites) continue to march towards extinction as if this were a valuable end, and one worthy of pursuing.
Take this article from a magazine called – with unwanted humour – National Catholic Weekly. The author of this article wants you to absolutely know that if he is not an homosexual himself, he would so much like to be one.
Let us examine the forma mentis of our man from his way of writing:
1) He receives a letter from a reader. The reader points out to Pedro Arrupe, the former Superior General of the Jesuits, he who got the boot in 1981. (” a move that dismayed many Jesuits”, says the article’s author, and we don’t doubt it for a second). The reader points out in his letter that “so many Jesuits were screaming fags that something had to be done, you know, to clean the filth out of the clergy.” I can’t see how anyone can have anything to say against this self-evident statement. Unless he is a liberal Jesuit, of course, in which case:
a) the word “fag” will hurt the oh so delicate feelings of our man (to the point that he describes the word as “not the pleasantest thing to read in the morning”). This screams “homo” if nothing else does; and
b) he will not say a word confirming that homosexuality is “filth”. To him it is, probably, just an “orientation” in the liberal sense. Like preferring vanilla to strawberry, say. Again, besides saying much about his theology, this inspires some fears about his sexuality.
2) Read this:
Homophobia is still out there, no matter how much we would wish to think of ourselves as an enlightened culture, and exists in our church.
This is another beautiful example of homo-thinking. One would expect a religious to be worried about homosexuals within his orders, but does he spend a word on that? Emphatically, no. Instead, he throws around the favourite word of fags – and those who would like to be it – all over the planet: “homophobia”. “Homophobia” is, then: a) not compatible with an enlightened culture (read: Christianity pre-modern-Jesuits is backward and “homophobic”) and b) “homophobia” exists within the Church (which is a coherent statement, seen that “Christianity” and “Homophobia” really express the same concept). Just as an aside, note that “church” is written with the small “c”.
It doesn’t stop here. Exhibit 3) is this truly, truly disturbing statement:
Thus, the need for June as “LGBT month,” as just proclaimed by President Obama.
The brown-nosing to President Obama (he of the late-term abortion, and who considers a pregnancy a “punishment”; but our man doesn’t seem to care.. a fag) doesn’t hide the fact that here an explicitly homosexual language is used; a language which is never used by the Church in her official statements, like encyclical letters and the like. Not only does the Church never use the word “gay” (which is absurd: they just aren’t as their rate of depression, psychosomatic morbidity and suicide attests), but she obviously never uses the extremely homo-laden expression “LGBT”. This man, of course, does. He takes a certain pride in it, as you can read in the article. How very ………
It follows the most absurd attempt to smuggle some politically correct statement of the extremely liberal US bishops are….. Church teaching.
Church teaching is, if the man can read, here, where it says that homosexuality is not an acceptable option; but hey, let us not allow Church teaching to come in the way of pro-homo propaganda…
The last pearl (before I get tired) of this not-very-manly author is his oh-so-sensitive drowning in a huge wave of sympathy for the poor oppressed homos:
And shouldn’t a group of people be free to call themselves what they want?
“No”, is the simple answer.
He wouldn’t call a pedophile “Smart” if they decided to call themselves that way. He wouldn’t call a Ku Klux Klan member “Natty” if they decided to call themselves that way. He wouldn’t call a Neo-Nazi “Spiffy” if they decided to call themselves that way.
The problem is, that to this man homosexuality is so… natural, that he is even unable to see the problem and therefore writes the bollocks we have just read.
The work of cleaning of the Jesuits from the filth within them has certainly not been concluded with the kicking out of Arrupe, and one shudders at the thought of what the situation must have been at the time. Still, these Jesuits are such a public shame, that I hope the Pontiff will soon act to put an end to their antics as he has acted with the “irreligious sisters” in the USA.
He doesn’t have to call them “bunch of pot-smoking faggoty liberal idiots”. I understand that a religious will have to express himself in a less vitriolic way than an indignant layman would.
But if he gets the concept, it will be more than enough.
The Diocese of Rockford has put an end to its collaboration with the diocese of Illinois in matters of adoption, after it has become clear that they would have been forced to work with unmarried couples and even with homosexual so-called couples.
This is why Catholic Charities has stopped the collaboration with the State of Illinois. Sixty-six people have lost their job. The activity of Catholic Charities will continue – including adoption – on a private basis.
It is highly ironic that the political correct blindness of these times does not even allow to consider the religious nature of an organisation. The sufferers will be those who cannot afford the private adoption service and will be deprived of the service ranked as second-best in the state.
I hope that there will be more controversy on this in the years to come, and that the bishops in the US will energetically start to fight such absurd mentality and plead for the return to sanity; not only for the good of the country, but – though it may seem rhetorical to say so – for the good of the children.
Following to the Gallup polls showing an increase in pro-life stance in the last years, a new set of polls from NPR shows that the trend is not only consolidating, but very marked among those below 35.
As there were several questions asked, I refer you to the link. The most notable facts are the constant prevalence of pro-life supporters under 35 and the diffused misinformation about actual abortion rules.
The first fact once again seems to validate the perception that once the undertaker has taken care of the sixty-eighter potheads, things will naturally improve. The second makes clear that information on the ground is extremely important and can help changing things without having to wait for the above-mentioned potheads to kick the bucket.
Be it as it may, that in general opposition to abortion grows – at least in the US; in Europe we will probably have to wait longer – is a fact that in my eyes can’t be denied anymore and is cause of great hopes for the future.
In 50 years time, methinks, people will read of our age and wonder in disbelief how this generation could tolerate abortion.
Joe Biden met the Pope yesterday. We do not know what the Pope said to him (I hope he slapped him; someway I doubt it), but we do know what Joe Biden, the highest-ranking Catholic in name only in the land, thinks of his being Catholic. The man suffers, like many of his Catholic colleagues, of a strange form of schizophrenia. At home, Mr. Biden thinks that life begins at conception. But as soon as he goes out of the door of his house another Joe Biden takes over. This one “cannot impose his personal convictions in the legislative arena” and therefore (!) backs abortion.
I thought being a politician was about having personal convictions, but I must be gravely mistaken here: being a politician is obviously about saying what people want one to say and make a living out of it. Brilliant.
More brilliant (this time, though, seriously) is the answer given to him – some time ago, but CNA rightly reports it – from his bishop:
“No one today would accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to human slavery and racism but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’ Likewise, none of us should accept this statement from any public servant: ‘I am personally opposed to abortion but will not impose my personal conviction in the legislative arena.’”
Brilliant here is not the concept (which is rather banal, and should actually be understood by every person with a bit of sense in his head), but the fact that a bishop openly exposes the hypocrisy of such cowardly – or, worse, purely fake – Catholic politicians.
One could hope – if he is in a really, really good mood – that this meeting with the Pope will lead to a change of Biden’s stance about, at least, abortion. Unfortunately and not being in such a really, really good mood I am more inclined to think that Mr. Biden is merely trying to get some headlines and polish his image among Catholics on the cheap.
There is only one abortion clinic in North Dakota. The American Papist now informs us that the local bishop, Samuel Aquila, has authorised the establishment of a chapel next door to the clinic.
The chapel is meant to
pray for women with an unexpected pregnancy, to pray in reparation for the sin of abortion and for the conversion of those who participate in abortion.
One cannot praise Bishop Aquila (which is Italian for eagle, and what a fitting name it is) enough for his open defiance of the Nazi mentality of our times. I hope that it will be possible to make the chapel not only a constant point of reference for those who gather to pray near the clinic, but also in some way visible to the women visiting the structure. The fact that it is on the third floor of a building would seem to speak against it, but if the chapel is conspicuously indicated from the street level, perhaps a certain degree of visibility will be achieved anyway.
Once again, the comparison with the bishops of England & Wales is rather depressing.
A prayer for this brave bishop is fully in order.
This is not really new anymore, but in my eyes it touches themes and a way of seeing religion that is at the same time still actual and very well argued. The comparison with the “gigantic german mouse” is powerful, the one with the carmelite nuns even more so.
Enjoy this brilliant video of Andrew Klavan.
Shocking affirmation of the newly appointed chaplain of the United States Congress; unsurprisingly, a Jesuit.
Rev. Patrick Conroy is on record saying:
I never pray in the name of Jesus — except when I’m doing something Catholic — saying Mass, for example.
This would look like a serious case of schizophrenia, if it wasn’t just a normal case of being a Jesuit. A Jesuit like the chap tolerating homo masses in Manhattan, or like the chaps leading universities with links to Planned Parenthood, or like the chap denying the existence of Hell.
Interviewed for the liberal Huffington Post and – being a Jesuit – wanting to accommodate everyone and the devil, our hero of the day basically says that he prays in the name of Jesus only when he really must because of his profession but otherwise, hey, he is far too inclusive for narrow-minded acts like……… praying in the name of Jesus.
Someone of his confreres should explain to him the origin of his order’s name. If anyone still remembers it, or was taught it in the first place.
So we have a Jesuit appointed to a prestigious and exposed position, saying that Jesus for him is confined to the realm of strict professional duty. When he prays alone, or when he talks to others, he will simply ignore Jesus and pray – who knows – some other non specified, politically correct, inclusive, huffington-post-approved deity instead.
What this Jesuit (who might or might not be a Christian, but I doubt it) is basically doing, is:
1) denying Jesus in a way which, he thinks, wouldn’t automatically cost him his habit; he might be, unfortunately, right on his assumption, though if the Jesuits were still Christians I think the matter would look entirely different.
2) making of Jesus an embarrassment that he is ready to push out of the way whenever halfway practicable; and
3) making a clear statement of Assisi-I-style religious syncretism, in which Jesus is nothing more than a badge to wear on certain occasions, a particular aspect of one way to pray; basically, an option.
Of course, one must hope that the usual clarification will now hit the computer screens, explaining to us what a horrible misunderstanding this is and how “white” has clearly being misunderstood as “white” when it is clear that it means “black” instead. Only, no one – not even one who has probably long begun to forget what Christianity is, as I bet most Jesuit are doing – could have possibly conceived such an utterance without having a very clear idea of what the implications are and without asking for the text to be modified or, failing that, issuing a clarification together with the interview.
This has not happened; which means that Rev. Conroy is either blissfully unaware of what he has said, or doesn’t care a straw.
Yep, he must be a Jesuit.