Pavone's Third Appeal

HE'S STILL ASKING FOR MONEY!


Tell me this man doesn't have a tin ear.

It's September 17, the bishop chastised him on September 9, and in the intervening eight days, he's sent out TWO, count 'em, TWO appeals for money even though he knows full well that his own bishop has serious concerns about his fiscal accountability!


This is unconscionable.


In the first e-mail, he and his staff lied to his donors.
Then, when he realized his donors knew what was going on and were angry at the bishop, he used his donors' anger to double down and appeal for more cash.

I'm sorry, but at this point, I firmly believe Fr. Pavone is a money-grubbing worm.
He's got ZERO business doing this until a little more clarity is brought to the situation.
The man should at least show a little respect for his bishop - no matter what else - and hold off on begging for funds for a few weeks. He's barely waited a few days.


Now, to be clear, I don't have a problem with lay people going after bishops on doctrinal issues. Everyone should go after bishops when they get doctrine wrong - lay people, priests, brother bishops, whoever. A person is only bound to follow a bishop insofar as he does not violate doctrine. Once he does, the duty to obey him is gone.

And on prudential issues, lay people can certainly make clear their disagreement with the bishop. They can even do it in a public way, if they want. That's the beautiful thing about being Catholic - there are some prudential issues on which good Catholics can disagree.

But when it comes to a priest disagreeing with his bishop, the priest has a duty to maintain his vow of obedience. He can still disagree, but he cannot do so publicly, even if the bishop is prudentially in the wrong. The priest has a duty not to undermine his bishop's authority, since the priest's authority flows from that of the bishop.

It doesn't matter whether the priest is heading a private corporation, occupying a political office or doing something that is under direct diocesan control - the man took a sacred vow to obey the bishop and uphold his authority, and he's bound by that vow. Even if his corporation is not bound by the vow, the man is.

Fr. Pavone is now directly undermining his own bishop's authority.
He is no better than Fr. Michael Pfleger in Chicago, or any other disobedient priest.

September 17, 2011 Dear Steve, I sent you this urgent email because I have some important issues that concern you, me, our work together at Priests for Life, and the entire pro-life movement here in the United States. In light of all that’s happened in the past couple weeks – and again, I’ll discuss this with you in just a moment – it is vital that you maintain your unconditional support for Priests for Life and the fight to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America. Right now that means doing whatever is necessary to click here and send Priests for Life the largest gift you can possibly make today. Not an hour from now.  Not later this evening.  Not tomorrow.  But right now! Forgive me for being so blunt, but there’s a reason for it. Due to all the many and various means of getting information today, I have no idea what you may or may not have heard or read about me and my bishop, the Most Reverend Patrick Zurek. In any case, over-zealous members of an abortion-friendly news media, as well as enemies directly involved with the abortion industry, have spent the past week or so spreading a lot of misinformation and totally false allegations against me and Priests for Life. I suspect they did so in the hope that you, as well as everyone else who makes our work possible, might pull back on your support … or abandon us completely.   In order to keep you from falling victim to their agenda, I decided the best course of action would be to go on the offensive and tell you everything that’s happened over the past two weeks so that you will have no misgivings whatsoever in continuing to support Priests for Life as faithfully and as generously as you have in the past. You can also click here and watch a short YouTube message I recorded while here in Amarillo. In any case, here’s the official position of the Amarillo diocese concerning me:  1.  1. I am not suspended and I never was.  You can call the Amarillo chancery if you feel like you need to.  The number is 806 – 383 – 2243.  You’ll probably be connected to Deacon Floyd Ashley, the diocese’s Executive Assistant.  He will confirm what I just told you. 2. 2. I have not lost any of my priestly faculties.  Again, Deacon Ashley will confirm that. 3. 3. And I know this will be of great interest to you, Monsignor Harold Waldow, the Vicar of Clergy for the Amarillo Diocese, has sent out a letter in which he states that I have not been “charged with any malfeasance” nor even been “accused of any wrong doing with the financial matters of Priests for Life.”  4. 4. While Bishop Zurek wants to clear up any and all misunderstandings, he made it clear that he does not want the work of Priests for Life to be harmed.  5. For the time being, my ministry is restricted to the diocese of Amarillo and it will remain restricted until Bishop Zurek and I can sit down and reach a mutual understanding on my dual role as both a priest in his diocese and a priest dedicated to pro-life work on a full-time basis. There you have it.  That’s it.  That’s everything. So for now I am here in Amarillo anxiously awaiting Bishop Zurek’s return from a trip he’d scheduled some time ago so we can have our meeting and I can get on with the work of leading the People of Life to victory over abortion.   And in the end, that’s all I’m concerned with.   Because no matter what happens to me personally, the fight against abortion must continue without pause and without interruption. But that fight is in real jeopardy now because of a misunderstanding between my bishop and me that someone leaked out to a news media filled with individuals who would like nothing better than to fracture the pro-life movement and bring Priests for Life down. I’m writing to assure you that I am doing everything I can to keep that from happening. Still, I’m not so naïve as to think that there won’t be some fallout from this situation. In spite of the fact that I am a member in good standing on the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life; that 21 bishops and cardinals sit on the Priests for Life Episcopal Advisory Board; that dozens of outstanding and highly respected pro-life leaders endorse Priests for Life’s ministry, the fact remains that there are a great many pro-life individuals who will read the headlines and think that I have been suspended or that Priests for Life has been dissolved. Again, neither situation is even remotely true. But in today’s world, more often than not, perception is truth.   And those heralds of the culture of death who seek to destroy Priests for Life and undermine the pro-life movement will use my current situation to mislead people into thinking that they are wasting their precious pro-life dollars by entrusting them to Priests for Life.   I simply cannot afford for you to fall victim to their lies and campaign of misinformation.  So even though I am deeply grateful for the outpouring of support that I continue to receive from people all across the country, and even from around the world … … the only support I’m interested in securing right now is yours! That’s because there are literally millions of men and women here in the United States who share our pro-life convictions to one degree or another. Regrettably, however, only a small percentage of them have the same commitment and dedication as you do.  These are the people who will read the headlines and be fooled into thinking that they should hold off on giving any more financial support to Priests for Life until my situation is resolved. But that’s precisely what the devil wants them to do. After years of extremely hard work and a lot of personal sacrifice on your part, we’ve got the abortion industry on the ropes!  The polls show this.  The efforts in states all across the country show this. Now is not the time to restrict our work.  It’s time to advance it!  Full speed ahead! But we cannot possibly do that if you abandon Priests for Life in this its hour of greatest need. So please click here right now and make as large a contribution to Priests for Life as you possibly can.  Please do this before you delete my email and go on to your next one. In asking you to trust me in this way, I want to make it very clear to you that Priests for Life is above reproach in its financial management and the stewardship of the monies it has received from you and other dedicated pro-lifers. And as relieved as I am to learn of Monsignor Waldow’s letter confirming that, I must tell you that I’m not in the least surprised. That’s because I am painfully aware of the many sacrifices which you and other supporters make to send Priests for Life the contributions that enable us to fulfill our pro-life mission.  I would never betray the trust you have put in me.   You have my word on that. And if you have any concerns about how your dollars are spent, call us up and ask.  Come and visit our offices.  Priests for Life is an open book and has absolutely nothing to hide. Now let me address another important matter. Due to the serious ramifications of how some in the news media, as well as those working to advance the abortion agenda, have used Bishop Zurek’s letter to attack me and Priests for Life, I felt it necessary to begin a process of appeal to the Vatican.  This process aims to correct any mistaken decisions of the bishop in my regard and to protect my commitment to full-time pro-life activity for my whole life.  I am extremely confident that the Vatican will resolve this matter in a just and equitable fashion.  And you will be pleased to know that, based on that confidence …  … we are not currently making any changes in any positions at Priests for Life, or in any of our projects and plans. In closing, let me assure you that Priests for Life will continue to be out front leading the fight against abortion.   I refuse to allow this current incident to deter me from giving everything I have to the cause of life.   Our bishops correctly teach that the right to life is the fundamental right upon which all human rights are based.  Our nation’s founding documents insist that the first of man’s inalienable rights, those that come to us from God alone, is his RIGHT TO LIFE!!! Knowing this, Priests for Life will continue to support our bishops here in the U.S. and act as a megaphone to help spread their pro-life statements far and wide.   What’s more, Priests for Life will continue to serve dioceses – both clergy and laity – without asking for so much as a penny in compensation … no speakers fees, no reimbursements to cover travel expenses when we preach at parishes, no printing costs to help pay for the millions of pieces of pro-life literature we provide for dioceses at no charge, nothing. Our commitment to winning the fight against abortion remains firm and complete. And we will not be deterred in the work God has called us to fulfill. Again, though, in order to make good on that commitment, Priests for Life must have your financial help … especially now when so many false stories and news reports are out there damaging our reputation and our good name. So if you haven’t already done so, please click here and make as large a contribution to Priests for Life as you possibly can. I cannot write to every American and tell them the truth. But I can write to you.  And that’s what I’ve done today. Like I said, as grateful as I am for all the support and encouragement I’ve received over the past several days, the only person I’m interested in hearing from right now is you! By making a contribution to Priests for Life today, you’ll be telling me that you’re still with us.  And if ever I needed to hear that from you, now is the time. Finally, know that in anticipation of your receiving your reply to this email, I am praying for you; especially at each Mass that I offer.  Thank you again for your constancy and your commitment.  May God bless you. Sincerely,  Fr. Frank Pavone  PS There is one more thing I need you to do: PRAY!  Pray for Bishop Zurek.  Pray for me.  Pray for all those who may be harmed as a result of this minor misunderstanding … in particular, our unborn brothers and sisters.  Thank you again for your friendship and trust.  I do not know how I would ever survive trials such as these without you and dear friends like you.  God bless. NOTE: If you prefer to send a check, please make it out to Priests for Life and send it to us at PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314. If you have any questions, call us toll-free at 888-735-3448 x232.  If you do not wish to receive any emails from us, let us know at unsubscribe@priestsforlife.org. However, unsubscribing will deprive you of some important and helpful information in the months to come, and therefore we strongly encourage you to stay on our list!

Click here to unsubscribe

Second-Guessing Bishops

As you all know, I'm never averse to second-guessing a bishop.
That having been said, we have an obvious question:
Is the Bishop of Amarillo right to pull a successful pro-lifer off the front lines?

Well, keep in mind the Vatican had already shut down Missionaries for Life back in 2008 over precisely these kinds of issues.

But doesn't this harm the pro-life movement?

Speaking as an ex-atheist, I was arrested twice for blocking abortion clinic entrances while I was an atheist.
I was surrounded by Jesus freaks (active Catholics), and their freaky attachment to the Church is part of what woke me up to the larger problem: education.

As I realized that the abortion problem is a problem of education, I also started to recognize that the education isn't just one of biology, but of spirituality - that's what brought me back into the Church, that recognition. It was the Church's pro-life stance that converted me, so this is what I see as Fr. Pavone's problem.

A priest's ability to do ANYTHING flows from the sacraments.
If he doesn't honor his sacraments, he can't do any really effective work.

Part of a priest's sacrament is obedience - that's why Archbishop Fulton Sheen was placed in a small parish by his bishop for a year even after he graduated with highest honors from Louvain. Especially and precisely BECAUSE he passed with highest honors and was offered a professorship, Bishop shoved him in a nowhere parish in the worst part of the diocese. He gave Sheen absolutely zero reason to think his immense gifts would ever be effectively used.

Bishop was testing Sheen. He wanted to make sure Sheen was going to honor his sacrament before he allowed his spiritual son to be tempted with the ego-gratifying career that would certainly follow once Sheen was released to the world. Would Sheen break, despair, and give up some aspect of his priesthood in order to pursue fame and glory? After a year of testing, he hadn't done any of that. Sheen submitted with quiet good humor to whatever his bishop wanted, exactly as any excellent priest would.

One year later, Bishop released Sheen to Louvain and to the great honors that followed.

To the end of his life, Sheen appreciated that test of his soul and thought it a good thing the bishop had done it.

Pavone is failing the test Sheen passed.
Bishop is reigning Fr. Pavone in precisely to keep him from becoming Fr. Corapi.
I think Corapi kind of shook a lot of people, including bishops.
It's not a coincidence that this is happening AFTER Corapi, and didn't happen before Corapi.

As an aside, I've never seen a public episcopal letter with that level of opprobrium.
Ever.
Only a very angry, deeply concerned bishop would write such a thing and disseminate it to all of his brother bishops and to the world.

The fact that Priest for Life responded to the bishop's concerns by sending out yet another plea for money less than a week after the letter went public looks all the world like Fr. Pavone decided to stick his thumb in the bishop's eye.

Now, if a priest were to do that over doctrine, I could see why that might happen and wouldn't necessarily have a problem with it. I'm still not entirely sure about Corapi's situation precisely because I'm concerned that part of that situation is driven by a desire to grab Corapi's money. Corapi has framed it as a doctrinal dispute, and I'm not sure which side is telling the truth, so I pretty much withhold judgement against either side because there aren't enough facts.

But, Pavone's situation is entirely different.
Here, he's publicly disrespecting his bishop over money.
And nothing else.
You can see that from the timing of the "cash plea" letter.
Over money?


Yah, that's not right.

When Fr. Pfleger was rebuked by Cardinal George, Pfleger instantly realized he stepped over the line, and he shut up, at least for a few weeks.
When Fr. Corapi was reprimanded, Corapi recognized his vow to the bishop (in a kind of backwards way, but...) by stepping back from his priestly ministry, and he showed some abject public contrition afterwards in the way he handled talks and material sales.

But Fr. Pavone?

Fr. Pavone sends out a dishonest letter cadging for cache, a letter which fails to mention a very public rebuke he received from his own bishop, a rebuke which has very serious bearing on the content of the letter Pavone allowed to be distributed.

Corapi and Pfleger didn't deny their rebukes or attempt to hide them.
They discussed their problems openly.
Some would say far too openly.
But Pavone?

I don't generally side with bishops who go after orthodox priests, but this time... this time, I think the bishop is on to something.

The First Shall Be Last

There's another book out on why being successful is bad for your health.

In other news, it was demonstrated that "alpha researchers" suffered undue stress when compared to "beta researchers."

While only comprising 10% of the researcher population, alpha researchers publish over 50% of the peer-reviewed articles and win the majority of Nobel prizes. In addition, they constantly publish mass market books in a wild attempt to gain name recognition and market share.

"Beta researchers", on the other hand, are content to teach community college classes, do little research and spend a lot of time fishing, boating and renting cabins in the Adirondacks with their families.

Research shows that the "betas" are much happier, have lower levels of cortisol, and eat fresh, stream-caught fish (with beneficial omega-3 fatty acids) more often then their "alpha" counterparts.

Unfortunately, related research has shown that "beta" researchers aren't interested enough in "alpha" showboating to point out to the alphas that alphas always die young, alone, and with festering boils. Alphas, on the other hand, appeared to be biologically unable to recognize the negative health effects of their own activities.

Like the deconstructivists who constantly write books explaining that communication between two people is basically impossible, alphas write books explaining why being "alpha" isn't a good idea. In America, the inevitable book chapters lamenting popular non-scientific irrational thinking are generally considered among the finest examples of irony in English literature.

Fr. Pavone Cadging for Cash?

OK, I'm confused.

According to all the news stories, Fr. Frank Pavone has been suspended of all priestly faculties outside of the diocese of Amarillo by his own bishop while investigation of possible fiscal malfeasance proceeds.

This suspension was communicated by letter to ALL bishops in the United States on September 9, 2011.

So why did I just receive this in my e-mail inbox today (see below)?

Did someone in his own organization not get the memo?

Do these guys have ANY IDEA how stupid, larcenous, etc., such a letter appears to be at this juncture?

Exactly how tone-deaf is Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life?

And how is it, in this long, lugubrious letter, they forgot to mention that their founder is currently under investigation for what appears to be at least fiscal malfeasance, if not outright embezzlement?

It will be interesting to see which bloggers jump on Fr. Pavone in the same way they jumped on Fr. Corapi, nicht wahr? 


Will anyone mention that both priests enjoyed enormous support from EWTN?

September 13, 2011 (Thank you for your support of Priests for Life. If you already responded to the following appeal online, I appreciate your support. This email is intended for those who did not respond when we sent it previously.) Dear Steve and Veronica,I’m writing on behalf of Father Frank.My name is Jerry Horn and I am the Senior Vice President for Priests for Life.I’m glad Father asked me to write to you because I have a special favor that I need to ask of you.  It’s a surprise for Father Frank.But before I get to that favor and surprise, let me tell you why Father asked me to send you this email.On Wednesday, October 5, Priests for Life will mark its 20th Anniversary with a Mass at the Cathedral of St. Mary of the Assumption in San Francisco.  The Most Reverend George Niederauer, the Archbishop of San Francisco, has enthusiastically agreed be the main celebrant for the 6:00 p.m. Mass.  His support reflects that of many bishops.Father Frank had intended to write to you himself and invite you to join us for the Mass, but time simply got away from him.  In fact, he just finished taping the “Defending Life” series of TV shows at EWTN and is now at his diocese in Amarillo.So he asked me to write to you in his place.This email is your invitation to join Father Frank and staff for a special Anniversary Mass when we will thank God for the many blessings he has showered on Priests for Life’s ministry. If you can be with us for the Mass and the reception to follow, click here.  Please include your name and the number of people who will be coming with you. There will be a small reception following the Mass … and it is at that reception that I hope to surprise Father Frank with a very special Anniversary gift.If you cannot be with us in person, then at least join us in spirit and ask God to continue to bless the work of Priests for Life and to guide Father Frank and the Pastoral Associates as they continue to lead the fight to end abortion.  Without question, prayer is the most powerful weapon we have in that fight.And yet, it’s going to take more than just our prayers to win this battle.  For as St. Augustine said: “Pray as though everything depended on God.  Work as though everything depended on you.”So we pray.  But we must also work.And no one is working harder to end legalized abortion-on-demand in America than Father Frank and the Priests for Life team.  To a person, every one of us is on the road constantly preaching the Gospel of Life, building up the People of Life, and energizing all Americans to defend the youngest members of our human family; namely, our unborn brothers and sisters. But that work cannot continue without your loving and generous support … not only spiritually with your prayers, but also financially with your donations to Priests for Life.And that brings me to the special favor I have to ask of you. As you may have guessed, that favor is to help us surprise Father Frank with a check for $676,678 that Priests for Life needs to keep all of its important projects and programs going full-speed ahead. To be part of that surprise 20th Anniversary gift presentation, just click here and make as large a contribution to Priests for Life as you possibly can today. The reason why I’m hoping that our check is for $676,678 is because that’s the amount Father Frank indicated he needed in a letter he sent to the entire Priests for Life family a few weeks; as well as the urgent email he sent to you not long ago.I’m not sure if you’ve already responded to that email or not, but even if you have, it’s critically important that help with another contribution for as much as you can possibly send so that we can present Father with as large a check as we can … but hopefully for the full $676,678 that he needs.And if you haven’t yet sent Father a reply to his email, then please decide to do so now as part of the special 20th Anniversary gift the Priests for Life family is going to present to Father on October 5 in San Francisco.The reason I’m asking you to do this is because Father Frank really needs your help. As I mentioned a moment ago, after returning from three weeks of preaching pro-life missions, and then meetings at the Vatican, he raced down to Birmingham for ten grueling days of taping.I’m telling you this because I know how much you respect and trust Father Frank. Well, you aren’t alone. No leader and no organization in the pro-life movement is more worthy and more deserving of your support than Father Frank and Priests for Life.  I know.  I’ve been involved in the fight to end abortion since the early 1980s.  For thirty years now it has been my honor to work with most of the great pro-life leaders – Judie Brown, Joe Scheidler, Melody Green, Mark Crutcher, Nellie Gray ... too many to mention all by name.They’re all great people and they’ve done fantastic work.Still, if I had to pick the one person best suited to lead our pro-life movement, it would be Father Frank.  He is the most determined, most single-minded individual I have ever met in my life.  He works 17- and 18-hour days.  And he is consumed with the mission God has entrusted to him; namely:  To end abortion in America! Not to limit abortion.  Not to cut it back.  Not to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Not to make abortion illegal.  But rather to make abortion unthinkable and to end all abortions in the U.S. ... and then throughout the world!Between you and me, that’s the reason why I work with him.  He is relentless.  He is never deterred.  Never sidetracked.  Never distracted.  Always pressing forward.  Moving here, then there.  Energizing this priest.  Reaching out to this victim of abortion.  Converting that abortionist.  Always preaching the Gospel of Life ... both in season and out of season. A man as dedicated as that deserves our full support.  And that’s what he needs now.  So I’m writing to ask you to click here and help make the 20th Anniversary of Priests for Life one that none of us will ever forget. I’m doing so because, when all is said and done, the amount of preaching Father and the other Pastoral Associates are able to do is in your hands … yours and every other member of the Priests for Life family.That’s because no matter what plans and projects and programs Father Frank comes up with, they only go forward if there are dollars to fund them.  And since it is you and other friends who provide those dollars, what Priests for Life is able to do to advance the cause of life is really up to you.That’s why Father Frank sent you his email ... and why I’m writing to you today.The best thing we can do to mark Priests for Life’s 20th Anniversary and show Father Frank the depth of our commitment to the pro-life cause is to do all we can to keep Priests for Life fully funded and on the front lines of the fight to end abortion.That said … … please click here and make as generous a contribution as you possibly can to Priests for Life! I’m sure if you and I and every other member of our Priests for Life family gives as much as they can we can raise that $676,618.And if we do, then come this time next year, we will have grown the People of Life into such a powerful force that no one will dare ignore us or our cry to end abortion and stop the killing of our innocent unborn brothers and sisters.Together let’s use the occasion of Priests for Life’s 20th Anniversary to re-dedicate ourselves to the cause of life.  Let your prayers and your special Anniversary gift be a sign of your renewed commitment to the fight to end abortion and win for the youngest members of our human family their unalienable right to life!!!Make no mistake.  The enemy is working furiously to keep abortion-on-demand the law of the land.  Father Frank and the entire Priests for Life team are working even harder to thwart them.  But it’s becoming more and more difficult as the economy continues to sap Priests for Life of the dollars we need to carry on the fight.A gift from you today would be a huge help and provide much relief. So please take a moment right now to click here and send Priests for Life a special 20thAnniversary gift that Father Frank will use to lead God’s people to victory over the powers of evil and the culture of death! Thank you and may God truly bless you for your willingness to help defend and protect His defenseless, innocent unborn children.Sincerely yours in the Love of Christ,Jerry Horn, Senior Vice PresidentPriests for LifePS In addition to asking you to send a special 20th Anniversary gift, I invite you to write Father Frank a short note telling him how he and Priests for Life have impacted you.  Your note will be included in a booklet that we will present to Father at the reception following the Anniversary Mass … along with that $676,618 check.  To send us your note, just click here and follow the instructions.  I know Father would really appreciate hearing from you because you mean more to him than you know.  The only thing I ask is that you send me your gift and note right away so that I’ll have them well before October 5.  On behalf of Father Frank, thank you again for your help.  I cannot overstate how urgently it’s needed right now. NOTE: If you prefer to send a check, please make it out to Priests for Life and send it to us at PO Box 141172, Staten Island, NY 10314. If you have any questions, call us toll-free at 888-735-3448 x232.If you do not wish to receive any emails from us, let us know at unsubscribe@priestsforlife.org. However, unsubscribing will deprive you of some important and helpful information in the months to come, and therefore we strongly encourage you to stay on our list!

The Attack of the Neo-Cons

I have long had enormous respect for Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham, but that respect is turning south rather rapidly.

First, Ann Coulter not only chooses to headline a talk for sodomites (Republican sodomites, but sodomites nonetheless), she decides to become a member of their board of advisors.

Sad.

Then, Ann and Laura together decide to trash Sarah Palin.

Now, I don't mind that they don't think Palin can win the Presidency against Obama. To be honest, given how badly smeared she's been in the media, I'm not sure Palin should run for President right now. She's got to build trust with a lot of different constituencies that have been frightened off by the bellowing MSM beast.

But the attack A&L launched against Palin seemed quite over the top, and I couldn't figure out why they had gone ballistic.

What I now find is that this joint assault happens just a few days after Palin's Indianola speech.

This is fascinating, especially given A&L's major complaint about Palin.
According to them, Palin "isn't capable of digging deep" on policy.

Hmmm...
What odd timing for such a complaint...

For in her Indianola speech, Palin points out that the current political fight is not between Republicans and Democrats. The current fight is between, on the one hand, entrenched corporate interests and sitting political figures who constitute one incestuous block of power, and on the other, the small-business owners and normal main-street Americans who make up the portion of America that actually does some decent, honest work.

And it's not like there lacks concrete evidence for this contention. One need only look at the NYC 9/11 commemoration, which has banned the attendance of all the "little people" - like priests, ministers, firefighters and policeman - in order to make room for the important people. And why shouldn't they be banned? Slaves aren't welcomed as guests at their master's functions.

For someone who "isn't capable of digging deep" on policy, Palin's assessment of current policy is so accurate that even her mortal enemy, the New York Times, recognized and applauded her for it.

And we won't even mention all the other policy calls Palin has made (first to promulgate the death panels, major proponent of drilling, etc.), every one of which has turned out be dead-on accurate.

Indeed, Sarah Palin appears to be the only member of the political class who not only understands what current policy does, but is also willing to tell main-street Americans the unvarnished truth about it.

Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham seem unhappy about that.

Which makes me wonder why....

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.