Wednesday, January 04, 2012

News bites...

The Bishop has two kids.
VATICAN CITY Jan 4 (Reuters) - An assistant bishop of the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Los Angeles in the United States has resigned because he had a secret family, including two teenage children.

The Vatican said on Wednesday that Pope Benedict had accepted the resignation of Gabino Zavala, an auxiliary bishop of the diocese which has been plagued by sexual scandals. - More here.
Stuff like this is not even shocking any longer.  Apparently Fr. Maciel wasn't the anomaly many of us thought.  And we move on...


Michael Voris is coming to the Twin Cities to speak at the Argument of the Month club.  It should be a sell out.  Badger Catholic has the details here.

The canonist Ed Peters has commented on the situation involving Michael Voris and Real Catholic TV and the notice from the Archdiocese of Detroit that they are in violation of Canon Canon 216 which states: “Nevertheless, no undertaking is to claim the name ‘Catholic’ without the consent of competent ecclesiastical authority.”  He posts objectively on the matter, click here to read.

The Archdiocese is well within its rights to ask that they stop using the name 'Catholic' - since they do not speak for the Catholic Church in any official capacity, and of course there are other Catholic broadcasting enterprises, so to claim, "Real Catholic" may be a bit presumptuous, if not annoying to bishops who really are supposed to be the real, authoritative teachers of the Catholic faith.

Michele Bachmann

Her speech today was very good - I find I agree with her on practically everything she stands for.  I admire her tenacity and courage.  How unfortunate that she is just cast aside - but the endless debates proved whose convictions were genuine and I believe Bachmann made a difference.  I'm behind Santorum now.  I'm not convinced anyone can beat Obama however - unless it is Romney - but I don't trust him, and I doubt he would win.

Photo:  Kramer's living room.  For me it expresses the idea of the blog as a talk show.  Kinda.


  1. If we would just castigate and ban gay priests we wouldn't have this problem.

    Oh. Wait.

  2. I don't know where you get that from Thom - The Church is against castration.

  3. So you're behind someone whose wife, for all intents and purposes, had an abortion in 1996?

  4. If Romney wins, he won't be able to weather the attacks against him either. He's not well-liked by conservatives who are supposed to be the Republican base - they rightly recognize that the man has no principles to stand on. And besides, when general election time comes, Mormonism will become and issue that the other side will harp on. And McCain junior's record will also be known as similar to Obama on many issues anyway.

    So far, he's the only candidate who has relied on almost exclusively negative campaigning (actually ha tge audacity to attack Gingrich's pro-life record, which takes balls considering Romney became pro-life right around the time it became convenient for him) - the other candidates have been campaigning on principle. When general election time comes he will also face severe negative ads, and it won't be pretty.

    I'm happy for Santorum and I really Iike him, but I don't think he's got the clout to defeat Obama. I also really like Gingrich, but if Romney can hurt him with negative ads, just imagine what the Chicago machine can do. Paul is principled, but pretty crazy on some issues - and besides o think he's uncomfortably cavorts by all kinds of racists and anti-Semites. If he's in a general election, those newsletters will sink him, an he'll lose in a landslide.

    Bachmann - I used to like her, but now if find that she's kind of ignorant. She calls "Marxist" any time anyone thinks the government should do ANYTHING. And I am no fan of PC tiptoeing around Islam, but her views are pathetically unnuanced and about as dangerous as Paul and Obama's views, just from the opposite side.

  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  6. "Reality" Check - check your facts, please. They induced early labor to save the mother's life, with the intention of trying to save both of them. The child died in the loving arms of his parents. Nothing was done to attack the life of the fetus directly. Someone please check me here, but I do not believe this situation goes against any moral principles.

    It's sick that a bunch of advocates of elective child murder are calling this "partial birth abortion" - the baby was named an given a burial, not discarded in pieces in a dumpster. No one sucked out his brains or crushed his skull.

    You're reading propaganda pieces that deliberately refuse to make the distinctions that make a difference. The Left is devoted to the issue of human sacrifice to the God of Orgasm - that's why they actually love abortion and any se that is not procreative, even in principle. They will tar anyone who is in their way, and try to make equivalencies that aren't there.

    Your man Obama, though, is all for killing babies outside the womb if the abortion goes wrong.

  7. So it's not an abortion as long as you give the fetus the right kind of "proper burial"? BTW, abortion to save the life of the mother is against Catholic teaching is it not?

    If you were truly for reducing abortions you'd favor contraception, but you don't, so you're insincere. It's not about "life" for you or reducing the number of abortions--it's about ensuring women don't have any sexual autonomy whatsoever, and punishing those that try to exercise any kind of sexual autonomy or have ambition in life to be something other than a human incubator with 12 kids by age 45, with a lot of high-risk pregnancies inbetween. It's about controlling sexuality for you, at the end of the day you fear women who have sexual autonomy. You feel emasculated by it.

    And BTW Obama isn't "my man", I vote Green Party.

  8. RC - WHAT?

    I have no idea what kind of claptrap boilerplate nonsense you just recited. Where did you learn that from?

    In any event - it's not abortion if the intention is not to kill the fetus. If something is done for a proportionate reason which regrettably results in loss of life, that falls under the principle of double effect. The death of the baby was no one's intention.

    Catholics, as well as Evangelicals, know this - that's why there's been no issue here. Do you think pro-lifers would take Santorum seriously if there were an issue?

    And no, we don't believe in "sexual autonomy" for women. But we don't believe in it for men either. We believe it's wrong for a man to even deliberately entertain sexual thoughts about a woman who is not his wife. Adultery in the heart and all that.

    And sir, please note that the number of abortions has gone up DRASTCIALLY ever since contraception became widespread, and ever since marriage has been no longer seen as the ideal. It's obvious that widespread contraception INCREASES abortions, and only a fool can deny that.

  9. @Mercury

    Uh, abortion was made legal only after contraception was. Again, if contraception was outlawed tomorrow, you seriously think the number of abortions would go down?

    Sorry, but this is all about (for you) reducing women to the status of human incubators.

  10. "Uh, abortion was made legal only after contraception was."

    Uh, no shit, that was my point. Contraception increases abortion.

    No, dude - if contraception were made illegal tomorrow, it wouldn't help. The problem is its widespread acceptance, not its legality.

    Reducing women to human incubators? Kind of like how you reduce the sex act to mere self-gratification, and children to a "clump of cells"?

    You're such a bigot.

  11. And thanks for proving that liberals, especially of the sexually liberated kind, HATE motherhood, fatherhood and children.

    Nothing is more tragic than being "forced" to raise the children that you make huh? Think of all the poor men who are "forced" to care for and provide for the children and their wives. The poor women who are "forced" to carry those dreadful little beasts in their bodies.

    Yes, it's a lot better to kill them in an act of human sacrifice.

  12. Reality Check
    The fact is that the Santorums' baby, Gabriel, was diagnosed by ultrasound with a life-threatening condition. Karen Santorum had in-utero surgery to try to save the baby's life and as a result, nearly died herself. She was already in labor when she permitted doctors to speed up the process with the administration of Oxytocin. Where do you figure she had an abortion?

  13. Little Way - it's all over the websites like Dailykos and Huffington Post. I read some of the articles, and they are deliberately ignorant of the actual events and of what the Church (and other Christians) believe in this regard, just to they can run headlines like "Santorum: OUR Abortion Was Different".

    The purpose is to deliberately mislead, because these people can't be honest about anything, nor can they bother to actually report on what the people they hate actually believe (to do so would devastate their arguments, so they use straw men - same reason guys like Richard Dawkins only address Christianity in the form of snake-handlers and Creation Museums).

    The whole issue sounds like a pretty clear case of double-effect, and in any event, Santorum would be loathed by pro-lifers if he was as hypocritical as they think he is being. Obviously he is not.

  14. All these comments, and none about Voris? Is no one here even interested in talking about the important things????

    Merc - don't let RealityCheck get you going. People like him/her/it aren't interested in the Truth, they're only interested in getting good people riled up. Save your breath - and your peace - and pray a rosary for such people. It's the best way to poke a demon in the eye.

  15. I don't "hate" "motherhood" or "fatherhood" (if those patriarchal constructs truly mean anything), I just don't think having children is for everyone and you shouldn't be imposing your values on others, nor should a women be forced to have her career or educational oppourtunnities ruined because of a mistake.

    There are already too many unwanted children in this world. Of course your church helps keep it that way by preventing loving LGBT couples from adopting, even to the point of shouting down adoption agencies rather than comply. THAT is disgusting.

  16. I don't find anything having to do with Voris even remotely interesting, let alone important. To each his (in my case her) own.

  17. RC - Catholic adoption agencies have been forced to close their doors in some states and some countries because of your insistence that we MUST accept your values.

    And, btw way, HILARIOUS how you called "motherhood" and "fatherhood" patriarchal concepts. Interesting though how there do seem to be cultural universals, and how all historians reject the "primitive matriarchy" crap of Marija Gimbutas, Dan Brown, and other hacks.

    You know what is a patriarchal concept? Gravity. Oh, and mathematics. Who are you to say I have to fall to the ground? Who are you to say the earth attracts the moon? Who are you to tell me that I can't make 2+2=5?

    Btw, RE: adoption - I do not believe all heterosexual households are healthy environments that children should be placed in. I do, however, believe that putting children in a household where Daddy buggers "Other Daddy" out of "love" is wrong, always wrong.

    So while many heterosexual households are dysfunctional, ALL gay households are. I'm probably pissing people off there.

  18. That's a hurtful and bigoted statement to so many people--it's no wonder so many LGBT teens commit suicide with hate like that in the world.

    And yes, you have to let LGBT couples adopt, you can't discriminate because discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or national origin is illegal. You can't deny a LGBT couple the right to adopt on a basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity anymore than you can on account of their race.

    Do you think private adoption agencies should be able to ban interracial adoption, for example?

  19. I mean I think indoctrinating a kid into organized religion before they're old enough to rationally make decisions is dysfunctional, but I'd never advocate that adoption agencies be able to discriminate on the basis of religion.

  20. Of course you would find it hurtful and bigoted - but it's because I think children have a right to grow up in a stable household with both a mother and a father. On the same grounds, I would not allow single people to adopt, nor would I allow unmarried people to adopt, nor would I allow polygamists to adopt.

    Do you really think the government has the right to force private institutions to act against their consciences? Really? LGBT Couples have no "right" to adopt ... where does such a "right" come from? Perhaps the reason they can't have children of their own is because putting you know in ... you know, doesn't, you know. In the case of barren couples it's different - it's a case of organs not functioning properly, not a case of organs having their purpose directly contravened.

    While I think it'd be asinine and immoral of a private adoption agency to have such a policy, I still see no reason why any private organization should be forced to do anything they don't feel right doing.

    Besides, the whole gay = race thing is a moronic canard that is trotted out for nothing but an emotional response. It hold no water.

    There can't be anything fundamentally wrong with the mixing of races because races simply are not fundamental. Sexes are fundamental, however. Yes, yes I know that crap about the "fuzzy" Kinsey scale and all that, and "women in men's" bodies and stuff, but except in very rare cases I think it's bullshit, and in any event why should the entire structure of society have to change so that a tiny fraction can have its way?

    Why must Catholics be forced to say that gay anal buggery is good? Why must we be forced to say that putting children into homes where tat is a common practice is morally great? Why must we be forced to go against our consciences?

    Opposition to gay adoption is not a batshit crazy idea just thought of recently, but the idea that marriage is one man and one woman goes back for millennia, at least where polygamy wasn't practiced. No culture in the world has ever had gay "marriage", because it does not exist - even those cultures that widely practiced homosexuality would laugh at the idea.

    You are literally asking people who have had moral traditions and beliefs to simply give them up and surrender because some people over the past 20-30 years have rejected milennia-old truths for purely emotional reasons. (But I wanna! Waaah!)

  21. How do you define dysfunctional? Because I'd say that as a whole, society is a lot more incoherent, depressing, and vicious since we had our little "Sexual revolution".

    Only an idiot would think that it's better for a kid to grow up in a house where mom has several lovers, or where dad and Uncle Bruce play bareback mountain until dad finds another playmate (and monogamy is a rarity among homosexual men, though perhaps not women).

    Where is the evidence that society is better off? Because people now feel good about what they're doing? Who gives a shit? Come back to me in 30 years when there aren't enough children to pay your pension.

    This "we are better off because of the sexual revolution" is based on NO, absolutely ZERO evidence, except a smug sense that now men can have mistresses in the open, divorce is not big deal, mixing blood with shit is no big deal, babies can be killed when they're inconvenient - in other words, nobody need feel bad about what they do. But where is the evidence that children or society has benefited form this crap?

    Yeah, contraception sure liberated women. Look at all the liberated women on the internet selling their bodies for money, which they use to kill their children. Liberation, my ass.

  22. It would be awesome to get the conversation back on track.

  23. Sorry, I began by responding to the bullshit accusation that Rick Santorum's wife had a partial birth abortion and that they are hypocrites.

  24. But I also learned that some people really do think Catholic adoption agencies should be FORCED into putting children into "LGBT" homes.

  25. How could anyone in their right mind force children to not have both a mother and a father? What horrible deprivation that LGBT (sounds like a confused bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwich with a smattering of gravy) groups would force on children by depriving them of both a mother and a father. How could such people impose their immoral "values" on children?

    Also, how could people impose murder on children because they want to make money or for any reason?

    Who are people to impose "unwanted" status on children?

    Also, for someone who is supposedly small beer, Voris sure does keep getting talked about, by those who like him, by those who don't care either way, and by those who say they never talk about him. Yep.

  26. Paul, that sandwich sounds delicious.

  27. Oh come on, Paul, don't you know it's a "fact" that "discrimination" is eeeeeeevil? And hasn't like, science, like shown that having a mother and a father isn't like, all that important, and doesn't research over decades and centuries like, prove that children who grow up in a household with daddy and other daddy tend to be perfectly and utterly normal? Yep, no difference between married and unmarried parents either.

    Some people are especially dogmatic though they claim not to believe in absolute right or wrong.

  28. Ah yes, discrimination: to discern differences - in this case fundamental differences that precede all cultural manifestations and which are their very underpinning, like man and woman: the two unchangeable and unchanging entities beyond all cultural, racial, societal bounds, which are united and bound together in marriage.

    And then discrimination that tells the difference between what is good and what is evil based on natural law derived from above-mentioned reality.

    These discriminations are evil like genocide. Equivocation is what will usher in paradise. Blind equivocation. Also better known as the dictatorship of relativism.

    Who am I to say that a man can't keep a human slave? That would be evil discrimination.

    I could go for a good BLT.

    But who am I to say what shall go on it?

  29. Voris is controversial even when he's not being talked about!

  30. Maxfield Parrish is very good, but I like N.C.Wyeth better;his is a muscular art, not referring to the figures, but to the compositions and handling of paint.
    BLTs are yummy, but only when tomatoes are in season.
    Now I'm hungry.

  31. Mr Stilwell - Excellent comment. Thank you very much.

  32. @Paul Stillwell

    "Slaves, be obedient to your masters with fear and trembling"

    "Let slaves under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor"

    Guess who wrote that? Hint: the same person that condemned gays.

    The Catholic Church finally condemned slavery unequivoacly only after 1,800 plus years of its history. I hope it doesn't take that long to abandon the obsolete and repressive teachings it gives on homosexuality.

  33. Terry - you should have used a shot from the Jerry Springer Show for your picture with this post.

  34. First, St Paul was not "endorsing" slavery.

    Second, the slaves he was addressing were of this new religion called Christianity, and they were taught to be obedient to their masters so as to show the love of the teaching of this new religion called Christianity of which they were baptized members.

    Third, learn the difference between ages that never had any inkling of a societal structure without slaves (which is pretty much every age before Pentecost) and ones based upon the dignity of every individual as a child of God (where did that notion come from?). It was precisely the civilization that Christianity introduced that did away with slavery. It is very likely that even in St Paul's time people who were baptized into Christian religion were already doing away with the practice of keeping slaves. Though the term "slave" itself had completely different connotations than those with which we give it. Like, for instance, the "slave" that the centurion kept who asked Jesus to heal him. If he died could just as well have gotten another "slave".

  35. So why then would the centurion ask Christ to heal his slave?

  36. Amazing how people don't understand where the notion of human rights, and the opposition to slavery even comes from.

    As if pagans would have ever stumbled upon such notions.

    Slavery, like war, was simply a fact of ancient life, and while it was not nice, it was nothing like the slavery we know of in the modern age, especially in the U.S.

  37. Why couldn't Paul just have said "The Lord has told me you shouldn't own other human beings"?

    Better yet why didn't Jesus say "Thou shalt not own slaves"? Funny he spent a lot of time on divorce but no time on slavery!

    Oh, and we didn't have opposition to slavery until after the Enlilghtenment--a secular and rational movement.

  38. Wrong again, jackass.

    Read up on the Dominican Bartolome de las Casas. Also, the abolitionist movement was explicitly Christian. In fact, the whole notion of the dignity of the human being comes entirely from Christian premises, even when certain Enlightenment individuals espouse it. It certainly has no basis in paganism AT ALL, nor is it rationalistic (something later Enlihhtenment types like Nietzsche, the Communists, and the Nazis realized). In fact, the notion of human dignity or human rights makes NO sense outside of a religious worldview. The very fact that we still even have such notions in our society is because it was once Christian.

    The "Enlightenment" brought us such "freedom movements" as the French Revolution. Taught us how to
    enslave our fellow men in the name of freedom.

  39. You don't realize what slavery was. It didn't come from without. It was as encoded as the Old Law, which one could say was a sort of keeping-the-peace amid sin, but not the true freedom from it.

    Slavery was (and is) the organic fruition of original sin in every man's soul shaping the structure of every society on the planet. In many cases it was taken as mutual. Some masters were cruel, like the Egyptian rulers using up people to build pyramids; some masters developed a relationship with their slaves as to be almost familial, with the slave having his own house and wife and kids.

    In some cultures being "freed" from your master meant that you were then doomed to a miserable existence as a starving waif, out wandering the freezing hinterlands.

    How about marriage? Parents matching up each others kids for marriage? The very ideas of marriage and slavery that were held in B.C. Time were world's apart from what we talk about today.

    Even when God told Pharaoh to free the Jews from slavery and let them go, it wasn't some commandment that "Slavery is wrong, therefore let them go", but He said to let them go because they were His chosen people who were to worship Him in freedom, set apart.

    Again, you don't realize. You take the virtues of Christian civilization for granted.

    Why didn't Christ say anything about abortion? He did. It doesn't mean that He addressed it directly and specifically. Jesus addressed slavery: He broke our enslavement to sin, in His own death and resurrection. He freed us from the bondage to sin, which is slavery. The ending of slavery in the structure of society (at least in western civilization) was merely the out-flowing of that.

    Just as slavery was the organic fruition of man's enslavement to sin shaping the structures in society, so the freedom from original sin resulted in the organic fruition of a new kind of civilization.

    Your notion of how things come to change in history is frankly superficial. Just because the abolition happened somewhere around the Enlightenment therefore everything that went into it happening happened in that time period alone? With nothing preceding, founding and building up to it? Indeed, maybe it would have turned out even better if it were not for the Enlightenment fools, and that it happened in spite of their heresy and pride?

    If Jesus or St. Paul said "You shall not keep slaves" they would have been mere social revolutionaries. Once one accepts the principles, teachings, commandments of the Christian faith the bit about keeping slaves kind of simply becomes unacceptable as a result. As Mercury says, "the whole notion of the dignity of the human being comes entirely from Christian premises".


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.