Why the Peace Corps Hates The Free Market

I've been in a debate over at Sojourner's on the importance of helping the poor.

Now, I've got a small pamphlet on this theme, available for free download and free reproduction, but the debate got me thinking.

What, really, is the difference between a "social-justice" type who spends a couple of years in the Peace Corps, or who sends money overseas to help the poor and the CEOs of major corporations who send jobs overseas?

I mean, the "social-justice" types are always catewauling about how we should pay higher taxes in order to help the poor. But a lot of them seem upset that CEOs are sending jobs overseas.

Now, isn't the sending of a job overseas simply the imposition of a kind of tax?

I mean, what's the difference between the government taking half my salary in order to send it overseas and the CEO moving my job overseas?

Well, there is one difference.

The poor person overseas who gets the new job will probably start thinking of himself in a much different way than the poor person overseas who just gets a handout.

The one with a job begins to think he actually has self-worth, that he is actually contributing to society. He is actively supporting himself and his (perhaps extended) family. He might begin to consider that if he's worth something, he might have intrinsic rights that others don't have a right to quash or infringe on.

The person who just gets a handout doesn't have any of these thoughts.

Now, obviously the CEO does all this in order to be mean, and to increase his own profit margin.

But, isn't it the case that a lot of people involved in "social justice" do it in order to feel superior to the down-trodden? Don't they do it because the very fact that they are the "helper" and not the "helpee" necessarily makes them better than all those dark-skinned, infantile foreigners who could never make it without the help of the "social justice" type?

So, how much social justice is driven by "the white man's burden" concept Kipling so succinctly described?

The Peace Corps workers, the UN workers, steal jobs from the locals, the CEOs send jobs to the locals. I lose my job to a computer or an overseas worker - to me, it matters not which. Either way, I have to re-train in some other field.

If I am against shipping jobs overseas, then am I against technology in the workplace?

For a computer can often take my job at least as effectively as an Indonesian.

Forty years ago, we were angry at computers for taking jobs.

We got over it.

Why are we still angry at CEOs and Indonesians?

Why do we like the Peace Corps and higher taxes, which steal jobs and take my money, but get angry with CEOs, who move jobs and take my money?

Perhaps its because we can retrain for a new job, start earning again and keep our self-esteem, but we can't escape taxes except by losing our income and our self-esteem.

Peace Corps workers don't do things for money, don'cha know.

CEOs do things for money.

Yes, but if money is not meant to be the measure of our society, why are the Peace Corps workers so upset about what the CEO does for money? Wouldn't noticing that kind of thing be beneath them? By fixating on it, don't they just reinforce the idea that it really is all about the money?

Or is it more simple?

Perhaps Peace Corps workers just don't like the competition that CEOs present.

If You Show Me Yours...

...I'll show you nothin'...

And you'll LIKE it.

He couldn't show us Osama's body.

Too dangerous.

Couldn't even show us pictures.

Far too dangerous.

Can't show us a budget plan.

Too dangerous.

Can't even show us the paper it's written on.

Far too dangerous.

Can't show us his law school grades.

Too dangerous.

Or his senior thesis.

Far too dangerous.

Can't show medical records.

Too dangerous.

What about his original application for a social security number?

From Connecticut.

(Connecticut?)

Nope.

Too dangerous.

Need a subpoena to look at his original birth certificate.

Too dangerous otherwise.

Hmmm....

I've got an idea.

How about we just show him the door?

Creation Ex Nihilo

Marx famously thought that capitalism was the engine which drove the creation of class differences in society. Simply spread out the capital, he said, and the class differences would disappear.

Now, Marx was a raving lunatic, a man who never held a job in his life. He was a man who was, in fact, incapable of holding a job. His wife and whose wife and children nearly starved to death because of his incredible incompetence. But, as historians like to point out, personal peccadilloes really aren't relevant to the importance of a man's insights.

This is why no one listens to historians anymore.

In any case, as Lincoln might have said, but didn't, for the last forty years American government has been engaged in a great civil war, testing whether this economy, or any economy conceived on socialism can long endure. That is to say, it has been trying as hard as it can to "spread the wealth around a little bit", become Robin Hood, take from the rich and give to the poor, spend other people's money because they can't be trusted with it, etc.

As part of this important and selfless work, the government takes tax money and loans it to students so they can go to college. The selflessness of this generosity is enough to make one weep.

Unfortunately, as commentators are beginning to realize, the inherent generosity of an essentially socialistic program has actually helped to create the very classes that socialism is supposed to destroy.

...the tuition-scholarship relationship to the higher-versus-lower-school choice constitutes an allocation matrix that uniformly funnels wealthy applicants to the higher school, securing the attendant advantages, while people with less financial means divide between higher and lower. Multiply this out by tens of thousands of like decisions each year and the effect is large. The pricing structure of law schools thereby helps the wealthy in America further consolidate their grip on elite legal positions.

And, of course, tuition has been sky-rocketing precisely because federal aid is so ubiquitous. Indeed, the increase in college tuition tracks precisely with the increase in available federal college aid. These two numbers have tracked identically together for the last thirty-five years.

Now, this increase in federal aid has come at no small cost to the United States. In the last three years, the increase in aid has contributed no less than $504 billion to the US national debt. And that's just the last three years.

Worse, the increase in federal aid doesn't just create the very class differences that the program is meant to eradicate, it adds injury to insult. Because those student loans cannot be avoided apart from avoiding college entirely, nor can they be gotten rid of through normal relief mechanisms (e.g., Chapter 11), they constitute an enormous additional tax burden on the aspiring graduate.

To sum up: the federal college student loan program artificially raises college tuitions. Because of the radically increased tuition, poor students cannot possibly work enough to make up the tuition cost of a high-ranking school on their own. The enormous cost difference between the tuition of a "high-ranking" school versus a "low-ranking" school stratifies society into different educational classes based on wealth.

Those who take out the loans necessary to avoid being forced into a lower social class will now be TAXED AT A PREMIUM for daring to attempt to enter the upper class.

America, the society famous for having virtually no permanent social classes, has now got a government which creates permanent social classes out of nothing.

Well, that's not entirely true.

Those permanent social classes are created out of your tax dollars.

The government is now in the business of creating a class system, and the people who run the government are, of course, the upper class.

The Languages of God

How many Americans realize that we're speaking God's language?

Now, I will concede a point early on and agree with the many people, especially the Extraordinary Form Catholics, who like to point out that Latin is the official language of the Catholic Church. In fact, the documents of Vatican II require that all priests be well-versed in Latin, a requirement bishops mostly honor by completely ignoring it:

13. Before beginning specifically ecclesiastical subjects, seminarians should be equipped with that humanistic and scientific training which young men in their own countries are wont to have as a foundation for higher studies. Moreover they are to acquire a knowledge of Latin which will enable them to understand and make use of the sources of so many sciences and of the documents of the Church. The study of the liturgical language proper to each rite should be considered necessary; a suitable knowledge of the languages of the Bible and of Tradition should be greatly encouraged.

Alright, now that we've taken care of that bit, let's think a bit more. Latin isn't the only language that springs from the heart of the Church. Take English, for example.
We are all familiar with modern English, but do you realize that modern English is an invention of the Catholic Church? 

It is.

Modern English comes from early modern English, which is based on Middle English, which is based, in turn, on Old English. So, let's start there. 

Old English was developed by Anglo-Saxons and used between about the mid 5th and the mid 12th centuries. It was the language used by the Catholic poet St. Caedmon and by the Venerable Bede, doctor of the Church, the man who wrote the first history (an ecclesiastical history, no less) of the English people. Old English eventually transforms into Middle English, which became popular between the 11th and 15th centuries. Middle English is, of course, famously the language of Chaucer. 

After the invention of the printing press in 1453, by the Catholic printer Gutenburg, English began to standardize and became the essentially modern language we know today, with up to 60% of its vocabulary drawn from Old French. It is worth noting that the very earliest evidence we have of Gutenburg's skill - the first thing he apparently printed - were some letters of indulgence.

Where's the Catholic Church? 

 Now, when the Roman Empire made Catholicism the official religion of Empire in 391 AD, the pagan tribes in the surrounding areas began to be drawn to the new Faith. With the baptism of Clovis in 478 AD., France began it's process of Christianization, a process that was mostly complete by the end of the 8th century. By that time, England, too, was officially Christian. 

Germany's evangelization began about the same time, but took quite a bit longer, but was essentially Christian by the year 1000. Scandinavia, Russia and Kiev would also see their rulers baptized by roughly that year.

So, all the countries whose language influenced the development of modern English were being evangelized while Old English was still alive. All these countries were Catholic by the time Middle English arrived on the scene around the year 1000. For almost 1000 years, the Catholic mindset marinated and developed the English language. Catholics invented both the printing press and most of the expressions of ideas those Catholic presses produced.

Evidence
It isn’t over the top to point this out. Language molds itself to express the dominant thoughts of the culture. The dominant culture in Europe for over a thousand years was the Catholic Faith.

Realize that even simple words, like “cell” and “person”, exist only in European languages. Robert Hooke called the unit of living material a “cell” because the nucleus inside the membrane reminded him of a monk sitting in his cell. The word “person” was invented by Catholics to describe the three “persons” of the Trinitarian Godhead.

If you go to a non-Christian language, like Swahili, there is no corresponding word for “cell”. African culture had no similar monastic institution. Similarly, when Americans tried to explain the Declaration of Independence to the Chinese and Japanese, they discovered those languages could not express the idea of “individual rights” because neither one even had a real way to express “individual”, much less the rights of such an entity. Many Pacific island languages have trouble expressing the idea of “mercy” because the concept of NOT pursuing revenge is so damned weird.

The very word “religion” assumes Christian theology. “Re + Ligare” - to tie back together again - assumes an original Paradise, followed by a Fall, followed by Christ putting the pieces back together. Properly speaking, only Christianity is a “religion”, because it is the only theological system that teaches all three pieces. Nothing else does. These examples could be expanded almost endlessly.

And Modern English is not alone in being a thousand-year work of the Church. In fact, there is no modern European language which can deny that it was essentially developed by Catholics. 

The language that drives individualism, science, technology, commerce, economics, the great engines of our secular economy, is a language created by the Faith. Keep that in mind the next time someone says, "We need to keep religion out of the classroom." or "We need to keep religion out of politics." 

Yes, we could do that. We could snuff the Faith out of our discourse entirely. But in order to discuss the merits of the proposition without the influence of Catholic Faith, we would first have to dispense with using any modern European language. Only then could we begin to discuss the idea. And that might hobble the discussion a bit, nicht wahr?

Very Polite Of Him

Well, the attacks in Oslo appear to be by a native Norwegian.

It's odd how nice this guy has been in terms of helping out reporters.

A Facebook page matching his name and the photo given out by the police was set up just a few days ago. It listed his religion as Christian, politics as conservative. It said he enjoys hunting, the video games World of Warcraft and Modern Warfare 2, and books including Machiavelli’s “The Prince” and George Orwell’s “1984.”

It's just incredibly convenient.

Not only does he blow up Oslo with what were at least meant to be several bombs, he then travels to an island that holds hundreds of people. He's dressed as a police man and he has the only gun.

But before he does any of this, he takes the trouble to set up a Facebook page just a few days before, in which he carefully describes himself as a conservative Christian hunter who reads Machiavelli.

Man, if I were writing fiction, I couldn't get away with that story line.

I mean, who could?

Some Things Don't Change

Some things don't change.

In late 1600's England

The Declaration of Indulgence and the Test Act

Charles II's proclamation in 1672, suspending by his royal prerogative the penal statutes against Nonconformists (known as the Declaration of Indulgence), was seen by many Members of Parliament as evidence of both the King's sympathy for Catholicism and his preference for absolutist rule.

Their opposition was so fierce that Charles II was forced to cancel it in 1673 and instead to agree to Parliament's Test Act. This required all those wishing to hold office to swear an oath to the King and the Protestant English Church and to sign a declaration denying the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation.

Charles II's younger brother and the heir to the throne James, Duke of York, made his Catholic faith publicly known later that year and resigned all his offices under the terms of the Test Act.

In late 1600's America:

The history of the Catholic Church in America, however, has much deeper and less triumphant roots. Most American Catholics are aware that the spirit of New England's North American settlements was hostile to Catholicism. But few are aware of the vigor and persistence with which that spirit was cultivated throughout the entire colonial period. Few Catholics realize that in all but three of the 13 original colonies, Catholics were the subject of penal measures of one kind or another during the colonial period. In most cases, the Catholic Church had been proscribed at an early date, as in Virginia where the act of 1642 proscribing Catholics and their priests set the tone for the remainder of the colonial period.

Even in the supposedly tolerant Maryland, the tables had turned against Catholics by the 1700s. By this time the penal code against Catholics included test oaths administered to keep Catholics out of office, legislation that barred Catholics from entering certain professions (such as Law), and measures had been enacted to make them incapable of inheriting or purchasing land. By 1718 the ballot had been denied to Catholics in Maryland, following the example of the other colonies, and parents could even be fined for sending children abroad to be educated as Catholics.

In the decade before the American Revolution, most inhabitants of the English colonies would have agreed with Samuel Adams when he said (in 1768): "I did verily believe, as I do still, that much more is to be dreaded from the growth of popery in America, than from the Stamp Act, or any other acts destructive of civil rights." (3)

In 21st Century New York:

The New York government’s recognition of “gay marriage” has caused a religious town clerk to resign because she cannot in good conscience sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples. Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that those who cannot recognize “gay marriages” should not hold those positions.

“When you enforce the laws of the state, you don't get to pick and choose the laws,” the governor said at a July 12 press conference. “You don't get to say, ‘I like this law and I'll enforce this law, or I don't like this law and I won't enforce this law’ -- you can't do that.”

“So if you can't enforce the law, then you shouldn't be in that position,” Cuomo said, according to the New York Daily News.

There's really no problem.

It's just that Catholics and other Christians aren't allowed to hold elective office.

That's all.

If they can't swear to the oath of office, then.... well, what else would you expect?

Bachmann and the Anti-Christ

The Huffington Post and a few other Democrat outlets are trying to make political hay out of the fact that the Wisconsin Lutheran Synod - the faith to which Michelle Bachmann once belonged - formally teaches that the office of the papacy is the anti-Christ.

Not to split hairs, but I have had a Wisconsin Synod pastor specifically tell me that a distinction needs to be made - it isn't the individual pope that is the anti-Christ, but the office of the Pope (an understanding which is re-affirmed here). Lutherans, even Wisconsin Synod Lutherans, tend to like the Pope in general. Take, for instance, this eulogy to John Paul II, found on the wels.net website:

Four to five million people spent hours in line to file past his body and pay their last respects, and 1.1 billion people claimed him as their spiritual father. Catholic and non-Catholic, Christian and non-Christian alike sang his praises. Even English Prince Charles’s wedding was postponed one day for his funeral. Only a few detractors were to be found. The world had lost a truly great man.

I’m speaking of Pope John Paul II and the days following his death. Some clearly have overdone their adoration for him. A Mexican immigrant, after he had seen John Paul in person on one of the pope’s 104 trips abroad, said, “Holy God came to us today.” Similarly, a 44-year-old Ohio woman opined, “I don’t know if you’re going to get any closer to God on earth.” And one archbishop now has prayed, “From heaven may he look over us always and help us to cross the threshold of hope.”

That kind of awe begs questioning. However, much of the hundreds of tributes paid by religious and political dignitaries around the world were right on. This pope was a man of “transparent integrity,” “unselfish compassion,” “love and courage,” “friendship and understanding.” He was a champion of world peace, human freedom, morality, justice, and life. He loved the youth, the poor, the suffering. He is credited with helping cause the fall of communism, defending human rights, opposing anti-Semitism, serving the cause of Christian unity. He has been called “The Gladiator” and “The Great.”

All of this and more John Paul was and did.

If you want to read the WELS statement on the Anti-Christ and the papacy, it's right here. It's rather long, so I won't bother reproducing it in full in this essay. If you read through it, you'll discover that Lutherans aren't all that keen on the sacrifice of the Mass (it's "Baalitic") or the invocation of the saints, but it DOES acknowledge "...the bishop of Rome had the primacy by divine right...", which is rather heartening.

Now, Bachmann has apparently left her denomination. She could do little else, since denying that the Pope is the Anti-Christ - and she has emphatically denied that the Pope is the anti-Christ - has a specific repercussion in her denomination:

This teaching that the Papacy is the Antichrist is not a fundamental article of faith. . . . It is not an article on which saving faith rests, with which Christianity stands or falls. We cannot and do not deny the Christianity of a person who cannot see the truth that the Pope is the Antichrist.

Yet it is an important article and should not be side-stepped or slighted. It is clearly revealed in the divine word, and there is nothing needless and useless in the Bible; God wants us to know about the Antichrist. . . . This article is clearly expressed in the Lutheran Confessions; whoever denies it does not stand in one faith with his fathers; he is not a confessional Lutheran.

Now, was Bachmann aware of this teaching? WELS spokesman Joel Hochmuth

said in an interview the anti-papal doctrine is “not one of our driving views, and certainly not something that we preach from the pulpit.’"

Speaking as a former RCIA director, who brought dozens of Lutherans into the Church while I worked in Nebraska, I absolutely believe Hochmuth. I've had detailed discussion of the Lutheran and Catholic faith with probably dozens, if not hundreds, of Lutherans, and the only one who mentioned the "papal anti-christ" connection was one Wisconsin Synod pastor.

When I brought it up in discussions with non-ordained Lutherans, they were always uniformly unaware that their church taught such a thing. Indeed, several were aghast to discover it. Lutheran pastors may (or may not) believe this, but they certainly don't preach this, which is undoubtedly why Michelle Bachmann denied that her church taught such a thing way back in 2006 - she had no idea.

So, how does Bachmann's situation differ from that of Barack Obama?

Bachman was in a main-line Protestant community that embraced liturgy. The doctrine of a liturgical Christian community like Lutheranism, Anglicanism or even the true Church, Catholicism, are so wide-ranging and interconnected that it is literally impossible to learn all the teachings and their ramifications by simply listening to Sunday sermons.

In order to learn the doctrines of a liturgical faith, you have to sit down and study through the various pieces.

Obama, on the other hand, belonged to an essentially non-liturgical church, the United Church of Christ. Yes, they claim to have liturgy, but as they themselves point out, it's so amorphous that they themselves are hard-pressed to identify it.

A non-liturgical faith community is built much more strongly around the personal beliefs and charisma of a specific pastor than it is around a bedrock of specific doctrinal beliefs. Reverend Wright, Obama's pastor, was well-known for vocally preaching all kinds of racist, hate-filled vitriol. Indeed, that's how he got and maintained his position.

In direct contradiction to Bachmann's situation, Obama sat for 20 years, basking in the glow of that nonsense. He was married by the Reverend Wright, he had his children baptized by the Reverend Wright (although Obama was apparently never himself baptized), he named his book after one of Wright's sermon snippets.

Bachmann, on the other hand, was never formally or informally taught the WELS position, there is no indication that she heard it from the pulpit or even via hearsay, and WELS' teaching is hardly clear to someone who hasn't seriously studied it, since it obviously has some very nice things to say about various individual popes.

Furthermore, she's a LOT more honest than most cafeteria Catholic politicians. When she discovered her personal understanding differed from her confessional church, she left the church. Would that the Cuomo's, Pelosi's and Biden's of the world would do the same.

When all of this is combined with the fact that Wisconsin Synod Lutheran moral teachings (e.g., on stem cell research, homosexuality or abortion) are essentially identical to Catholic teaching while UCC positions are essentially identical to Planned Parenthood, the position a Catholic should take on all this is quite clear.

If you vote for Michelle Bachmann, you are voting in line with Catholic Faith.

If you vote for Barack Obama, you are enabling evil.

Any questions?

On Obedience

St. John of The Cross:

‎"On the night of 2 December 1577, John was taken prisoner by his superiors in the calced Carmelites, who had launched a counter-program against John and Teresa's reforms. John had refused an order to return to his original house." "He managed to escape nine months later, on 15 August 1578, through a small window in a room adjoining his cell. (He had managed to pry the cell door off its hinges earlier that day)." St. John of the Cross disobeyed his superior's order because it was unjust, therefore, immoral. For disobeying he was imprisoned, but then escaped since he knew the actions of his superior was not God's will for his life."

St. Thomas Aquinas refused his parents will for his life.

On the other hand, Savonarola was excommunicated by Rome, then imprisoned and burned by a mob for refusing Rome's request that he come and explain himself. Martin Luther refused to obey as well.

So...

Where does Father Corapi fall in this spectrum?

I have no clue.

I don't really have any passionate attachment to Fr. Corapi, nor have I had any interest in his talks or work for years and years.

On the other hand, there's a lot of people who seem disproportionately angry with him. Passionately angry with him.

I Officially Don't Get It

1) I don't understand why SOLT would release an explicitly damaging statement about Corapi and then disappear for three weeks - it's almost like they want to make an accusation and then not answer for it. I find that very odd.

You can argue that Corapi is being irresponsible and I won't disagree, but I can't see how SOLT is acting in a responsible fashion either.

2) As for other commentators, like those who say that there MUST be a big file on Corapi because that's just how the Church works... well, tell it to Padre Pio, who was forbidden to say Mass publicly for ten years.

The Church may well have had a big file on him, but it must not have amounted to much, since he got canonized on the basis of that SAME big file.

3) So, why are so many people ticked at Corapi?

And why do all these people who are ticked at him seem to originate from groups that are used to working closely together? I mean, we've got Mark Shea (Ascension Press), who really needs rabies shots on this one, the NC Register (EWTN octopus) and Phil Lawler (CatholicCulture).

Apart from a wild attempt to grab part of Corapi's audience, what are their respective beefs, exactly?

This is primarily a dispute between a man, his religious order and his bishop, none of whom look particularly good in this go-around.

Why everyone is treating it like the end of the world is beyond me.

UPDATE:

Ah... the penny has dropped.

Or, in this case, several million dollars.

That may well be the motive behind all this brouhaha.

According to this story, SOLT needs money to pay off the rape victim created by another SOLT priest who was also into contract murder.

Conveniently, Corapi is a SOLT priest who happens to have a lot of money.

So, rob Peter to pay off Paul's victim.

That certainly makes a lot more sense than anything I've heard so far.

If it is true, Mark Shea, Fr. Longenecker and several other "Catholic" commentators should get down on their knees, apologize to Corapi and kiss his boots, begging forgiveness.

I'm still not saying I approve of Fr. Corapi's solution, but if that story is correct, the course he chose certainly makes a lot more sense. It also certainly puts Corapi a lot closer to St. John of the Cross (i.e., contending with venal superiors and illicit commands) than any of us might originally have guessed.

What Dolan Didn't Do

Over at the Knights of Columbus news site, Headlinebistro, Kathryn Jean Lopez attempts a defense of Archbishop Dolan's work in regards to sodomite marriage.

And since when is the archbishop of New York a Third World potentate, whose will will be done owing to his mere presence? Anyone who thinks Andrew Cuomo would have made an about-face at the sight of Dolan skipped over the laughter and patronizing disdain in his recent conversation with Maureen Dowd.

The whole article was filled with questions like this.

Well, since Kathryn seems to like questions so much, here's a couple for her:

Why was Cuomo so happy-go-lucky, Kathryn?

Would a Catholic who had been interdicted or excommunicated be happy?

Why hasn't the good archbishop cut the divorced, co-habitating, pro-sodomy, public pro-abort off from the Eucharist, as is his duty?

Why has Archbishop Dolan not only NOT discussed these issues with Cuomo, but publicly expressed his happiness that he HAS NOT done so even when given the chance?

Joseph Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, said the controversy did not arise during the governor’s “cordial” lunch with the bishops.

“Thank God it didn’t,” Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan told reporters after the meeting, “because it was a bit of a tempest in a teapot.”

Yes, I can see how flagrant public mortal sin is just a bit of a tempest in a teapot. That's a set of positions Cuomo took ENORMOUS leadership on. Thank God that Dolan's manly silence on little things like adultery and abortion obviously encouraged Cuomo to be absolutely instrumental in leading the charge to get the sodomite marriage legislation passed, right?

But Kathryn wasn't done:

And since when is the archbishop alone in this? What about the rest of us?

You know what, Kathryn?

I am truly SICK of hearing this gambit.

The archbishop has a duty to lead. If he ain't leading, there's no point crying about who ain't following. I was always under the impression that the bishops - by definition - consider us all SHEEP who follow their lead.

Isn't it odd how the bishops get so damned angry when we try to lead into places they don't want to go?

In fact, isn't it odd how they get nettled if we just ASK them why they aren't leading us into places they don't want to go?

What?

You don't remember anything like that?

How odd.

Think "priest abuse" or "vaccine waivers for Catholic school-kids" or "receiving Jesus on our knees" or "kneeling during the consecration" or "requesting the Tridentine Mass" or "washing only men's feet during the Mandatum" or "interdicting flagrant public sinners" or even "parents doing sacramental prep instead of parishes."

Has there been any upset about any of these issues?

Have any American bishops LED on these issues, instead of following cravenly behind whatever the liberal nutcases wanted?

Let's put this another way, Kathryn.

I'll use little words so you understand.

If Dolan isn't going to get on Cuomo's case for leading the charge on sodomite marriage or any other aspect of public sin, where in the name of heaven and earth do YOU get off screaming at US for NOT leading on these issues?

So, the orthodox laity get yelled at when they lead on something the bishops don't like (even though it is in perfect conformance with the Catholic Faith) and then people like you yell at us AGAIN when we notice the bishop hasn't done a whole lot of leading on issues he pretends to support? Is that how it's supposed to work?

"Shut up!" you scream, "Where were YOU when the bishop was hiding out on the West Coast?"

Why does this response remind me of nothing so much as the pro-abort who complains about how many children the pro-lifers haven't adopted this month?

Indeed, even if you have a legitimate beef against lay Catholics who notice how easily Archbishop Dolan rolled over (not that you do, but let's pretend for the sake of argument), then how do you explain the pro-abort, pro-sodomite factions who have been crowing over how easily the New York Catholic bishops rolled over?

It was befuddling to gay-rights advocates: The Catholic Church, arguably the only institution with the authority and reach to derail same-sex marriage, seemed to shrink from the fight.

As the marriage bill hurtled toward a vote, the head of the church in New York, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan, left town to lead a meeting of bishops in Seattle. He did not travel to Albany or deliver a major speech in the final days of the session. And when he did issue a strongly worded critique of the legislation — he called it “immoral” and an “ominous threat” — it was over the phone to an Albany-area radio show.

Kathryn, that's the New York Times, sweetie. Do you understand that the New York Times is calling Dolan a coward?

Kathryn, Cuomo knew Dolan wouldn't say "boo", honey. Dolan hadn't shown backbone on things like cohabitation, being pro-abort or being pro-sodomite, so why would he show backbone on Cuomo's support for sodomite marriage? Indeed, one could argue that Cuomo made a backroom deal in which Dolan would leave town and avoid addressing ANY comments to the legislature in exchange for... what?

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and find out, won't we?

This is not North Korea, as Archbishop Dolan now famously blogged. And Andrew Cuomo isn’t torturing anyone. But he, and everyone who voted to redefine marriage, is torturing the truth.

Oh, there's one last point, sweetie. If Cuomo is "torturing the truth" as you yourself aver, then Cuomo IS torturing someone. The truth is not a thing, He is a Person - Jesus Christ.

Catholics know that.

Why don't you?

Now, I understand that headlinebistro.com is run by the Knights of Columbus, and that the K of C has a history of retaining high-level members who support sodomy and abortion, but this column is a bit much even for you people, don't you think?

The only reason anyone would have to write such a bone-headed STUPID defense is if she has a favor she wants from the bishop and she's shining her nose in preparation for making the request.

So, put on your make-up, go on into his office and ask already.

Quit wasting our time with your blond-haired essays.