Posts by sitetest

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Back to Normal: Bishop Liberal in Doctrine and Morals is Liberal in his own Mores

    09/28/2014 1:04:55 PM PDT · 3 of 4
    sitetest to ebb tide
    “What is needed is not a slick media-savvy operation, but enforced purification in the ranks of hierarchs. Yes, there was one traitor in the original Apostolic College, but he still comprised only one-twelfth of its original composition. Enough is enough.”

    But 10 abandoned our Lord at His Passion. Only one was constant.

  • White House pans ‘unfair’ magazine cover with Obama in Bush’s flight suit

    09/27/2014 10:36:44 AM PDT · 35 of 64
    sitetest to lonestar67
    Dear lonestar67,

    I don't agree with everything on the list, but overall, it's a good list, and it's good to remind people that President Bush does not equal the Kenyan anti-Christ Obama.


    sitetest

  • The US Government Is Warning You To Stay Away From These Countries

    09/27/2014 10:07:24 AM PDT · 11 of 40
    sitetest to blam

    I wonder how this map looked on Jan 20, 2009.

  • Jeb Bush will not save the Republican establishment

    09/27/2014 8:06:07 AM PDT · 20 of 24
    sitetest to cotton1706

    “But as almost anyone can tell you, there’s a huge step between ‘good on paper’ and good,...”

    It isn’t that he’s not good. It’s that he’s wrong.

  • The Rise of Bergoglianism

    09/27/2014 6:35:56 AM PDT · 10 of 22
    sitetest to ebb tide

    For those not motivated to read the entire piece.

    Summary: Franky is a bad pope.

  • Hot Mic Catches News Anchors’ Bashing Government Assistance & #EBT – Social Media Promptly Erupts

    09/26/2014 12:47:27 PM PDT · 15 of 32
    sitetest to Impala64ssa

    The biggest gaffe in the public arena is to tell the truth. What a gaffe this one was!

  • Episcopal priest praises new Planned Parenthood clinic as “safe place for the .......

    09/25/2014 12:55:59 PM PDT · 24 of 27
    sitetest to Morgana

    I notice that folks in favor of baby-murder talk about “reproduction,” as if we’re using copier technology to make little humans.

    But folks who aren’t crazy about baby-murder talk about procreation, which, kinda gives away our view of things: we’re pro creation (no comments from the etymology Nazis, I know that’s not the actual etymological derivation of the word).

  • Clearest Sign Yet the GOP Will Take the Senate: Eric Holder to Resign

    09/25/2014 8:22:06 AM PDT · 14 of 73
    sitetest to cotton1706

    It is a signal that the regime thinks it’s quite possible that the Party Of Satan will lose the Senate in November.

    With Harry Reid in charge, the anti-Christ has a great deal of leeway in who can be confirmed. That leeway narrows with the Republicans in charge.

    As well, with Reid in charge, the nomination and confirmation process will proceed pretty quickly. With the Republicans in charge, it could drag out considerably longer.

    Holder looks like a critter when the lights get turned on - can’t wait to scurry out of sight. He doesn’t want to be left dangling for an extended period while the Republicans drag out the process to confirm his successor.

  • Upcoming Synod Must Address Family Disintegration

    09/24/2014 6:23:05 PM PDT · 23 of 23
    sitetest to redgolum
    Dear redgolum,

    No, it doesn't beg the question.

    It is YOU who is creating this dichotomy between law and culture, and saying that Catholics only focus on law.

    That's a fib.

    If you actually read someone like,..., oh, I don't know,... like... St. John Paul II, you see that although he understands that law shapes culture, it is ultimately culture that wins.

    I haven't said otherwise. It is you seem to think that I think or say otherwise.

    Law is a moral teacher. It shapes culture. But as I said in the my FIRST POST, culture shapes law, too.

    And, what I'm saying is that the laws on abortion were changed WITHOUT first changing the culture, at least not anywhere as dramatically as Roe would suggest.

    THIS is why 40 years later, more folks identify as pro-life than in the years immediately following Roe, and most folks are, whether they know it or not, more pro-life than pro-abort. Because the underlying culture had never shifted to support the change in law, which was, after all, not achieved democratically, but rather by nine black-robed tyrants, for the very reason that the pro-aborts realized they couldn't accomplish their goals widely through the democratic process.

    And thus, law, again, shapes culture, as many more folks are accepting of legal abortion than before Roe, but culture will eventually re-shape the law, as the move toward a legal regime that protects life becomes inexorably more appealing to most folks.

    Stop creating this dichotomy between which shapes which, and then attributing it to me.

    Your thesis is incorrect. Abortion on demand did not become legal because the culture first changed or collapsed. Rather, abortion became legal IN SPITE of the fact that there was a real and growing cultural backlash against the attempts to make abortion widely legal, and this was done through judicial tyranny, NOT through legislative processes.


    sitetest

  • Federal Appeals Court: No "Qualified Immunity" Defense For Officers [in] Raid

    09/24/2014 1:17:17 PM PDT · 34 of 37
    sitetest to reaganaut1

    Abuse of authority at this degree should generally be a capital crime. These wanna-be storm troopers deserve death.

    The advantage, of course, is 100% lack of recidivism on the part of the perps.

  • Upcoming Synod Must Address Family Disintegration

    09/24/2014 12:42:36 PM PDT · 20 of 23
    sitetest to redgolum
    Dear redgolum,

    “That is why I don’t see the change in the law as the whole issue.”

    Straw man. Read what I actually wrote:

    “Law and culture shape each other.

    It goes in both directions.

    “We went from a religion that valued life, to one that values money.”

    Although the culture may value money above most else, my religion does not. Not that there aren't plenty of Catholics who don't value money most, but it can hardly be said that that is an authentic expression of Catholic faith. Rather, it is a defect in the practice of their faith, to the degree that they practice it at all.

    As well, although lay Catholics have many flaws (when my sons are here, we spend much time together lamenting the problems of both our hierarchy and our laity), but among the devout Catholics that I've personally met and known (and I am a cradle Catholic who has never not been involved with my church), overvaluing money has not been a common problem that I've encountered. In fact, the opposite has often been the case, in that many Catholics have really messed up economic ideas based on how little they appreciate money and how difficult it is to earn it, especially in great gobs.

    As to what changed in the culture generally, it was in some ways a good thing that changed. As issues of class status, of station, of nobility and aristocracy, of position, of all the ways by which people are snobby toward each other, as all these ways receded in importance, one of the last surviving ways to distinguish oneself from the others, one of the last bastions of ego, has been money.

    You can trace this desire to be better than the next guy to something we call Original Sin.


    sitetest

  • Upcoming Synod Must Address Family Disintegration

    09/24/2014 11:43:08 AM PDT · 18 of 23
    sitetest to redgolum
    Dear redgolum,

    “My point was that the shift happened in the culture before the law. Roe V Wade was met with a whimper according to some of the older Pro Life people I have met with (I was born in 75 so I don't remember).”

    This is mostly not true. I'm a little older than you, and I can tell you, Roe was already a big, stinkin' deal by the time you were born.

    At the time of Roe, change in the law through legislative means had pretty much petered out. A few liberal states had permitted abortion under limited circumstances. Liberal scum had “interpreted” those laws, especially in California, to permit widely-available abortion, but even in those states, they had to maintain the fiction that abortion was only for “therapeutic” reasons, and not abortion on demand.

    In New York, where one of the more liberal abortion laws was passed while folks weren't paying as much attention, the backlash was so very great, that the very next year, the legislature REPEALED their new liberal abortion law, only to have the repeal vetoed by the demonic Nelson Rockefeller, who, if there are human souls in Hell, is probably among their number.

    The very reason for Roe was that once ordinary folks were awakened to what was being done, they shook off their slumber and began organizing and becoming active, and were SUCCEEDING legislatively, and the death-lovers realized that abortion would not become widely available unless they got the judiciary to take up their cause.

    It is true that during the 1960s, folks slept while the forces of Satan gathered strength to make their assault on abortion laws, but the population was never widely pro-abort. Many people were in favor of abortion in the “exception cases,” but nearly no one accepted a general “right” to abortion.

    But then, folks woke up, and even BEFORE Roe, pro-life movements were underway in those states with the greatest legislative threats to the rights of unborn children.

    That was the very motive behind Roe - the increasing opposition to legislative change.

    Of course, in the early years AFTER Roe, pretty much nearly every ecclesial community collapsed and gave its approval to Roe, even the Southern Baptists. The seal of the Supreme Court was like the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval. Law shaped culture. And conscience.

    The Catholic Church stood nearly alone in formal opposition to the abomination. It took a few years before the others wiped the demonic scales from their eyes and began to see “abortion rights” for what it is: child sacrifice to idols.

    Even within the Catholic Church, although our prelates and hierarchs denounced Roe from the start, this has been a movement of the laity, as too many clerics then, and now, still fail to grasp that the Democrat Party is the Party of Satan, of Death, of Hatred, of Hell, of Murder. So we wind up with part-time Catholics/full-time Democrats like Dolan, O’Malley and Donna Wuerl.

    But even to this day! Even to this day, roughly three out of five Americans is more pro-life than pro-abortion, in that roughly that percentage would ban abortion except in the “exception cases” that comprise less than 4% of all surgical abortions. Even to this day, some 40+ years after Roe!

    Nonetheless, the law has “taught” 40% of our people to be bloodthirsty baby-murderers. May God have mercy on them.


    sitetest

  • Upcoming Synod Must Address Family Disintegration

    09/24/2014 8:39:49 AM PDT · 13 of 23
    sitetest to redgolum
    Dear redgolum,

    Law and culture shape each other. The law, whether just or unjust, is a moral teacher. Most people draw from what is legal that which is moral, even when the underlying premise, that a particular law is just, is false.

    Thus, legal restrictions and bans on evil things can help shape the consciences of persons. Failure to make illegal certain evils encourages many, especially the weaker-minded, to believe that these evils are not, after all, evil.

    Therefore, a ban on abortion, if it were achievable via democratic methods (as opposed to judicial whim) would encourage many to form their consciences a little more properly than they might otherwise.


    sitetest

  • D’Souza Speaks Out on Sentencing: There Was ‘All-Out Attempt to Put Me Away’

    09/24/2014 8:00:40 AM PDT · 3 of 48
    sitetest to afraidfortherepublic

    On the order of a halfway house or rehab center.

  • The Annulment Argument: a Quick Guide to the Two Sides

    09/24/2014 6:05:45 AM PDT · 32 of 32
    sitetest to ThomasMore
    Dear ThomasMore,

    I'm merely pointing out that Mr. Peters does answer your question, whether or not you like the answer.

    I'm not sure that the Orthodox look much to natural law in their theology, and thus, I'm not sure that Mr. Peters’ explanation would make very much sense within the context of Orthodox theology.

    But natural law certainly makes sense within the context of Catholic theology.

    Nonetheless, whether the Orthodox have valid sacraments is sort of beside the point. The validity of their sacraments doesn't mean that the way they handle divorce and remarriage is theologically-valid (especially since subsequent marriages are outside of their sacramentology), or that something that works within the context of their theology would apply to the Western Church, properly. In the Western Church, it would merely be a complete vitiation of Jesus’ words.


    sitetest

  • The Annulment Argument: a Quick Guide to the Two Sides

    09/23/2014 1:19:18 PM PDT · 28 of 32
    sitetest to ThomasMore
    Dear ThomasMore,

    “I guess my question to Dr. Peters would be why this situation was relegated to jurisprudence?”

    Mr. Peters addresses this question:

    “Natural law requires that presumptions (here, of validity) be overturned only for specific reasons (here, grounds) demonstrated by objective information (here, declarations and testimony) weighed by independent minds (here, judges) subject to review by superiors (here, appeal).”

    This is part of a longer quote, but to me, it's the key.

    What I take from this is that if we are to say that sacramental marriage is a real, objective thing, and that there are people who are validly, sacramentally married, then to the critical question is, objectively, did a particular putative marriage actually occur sacramentally?

    If it did, then nothing short of the death of one spouse or the other can gainsay what Jesus said about the indissolubility of marriage, and anyone who remarries under such circumstances lives in sin.

    If it did not, then that fact must be objectively determined, and the nature of that inquiry must be an objective process which, when we describe it, is essentially, intrinsically juridical.


    sitetest

  • 'Divorced and remarried Catholics – We’ve got to do something'/ Poll (Freeps needed!)

    09/20/2014 6:20:28 PM PDT · 10 of 75
    sitetest to Marie

    Assuming that the marriage is valid, when the man dies.

  • Exile to Malta for Cardinal Burke

    09/18/2014 8:28:57 PM PDT · 33 of 42
    sitetest to CTrent1564
    Dear CTrent1566,

    “Pope’s, some more than others, sometimes do have thin skins,...”

    Oh, dear! But Pope Franky told us that he is a humble man! How can this be if he is a humble man!

    Whatever the reason, it appears that Franky has harmed the Church in demoting Cardinal Burke, especially as the synod on the family is about to start.

    I'm unimpressed.


    sitetest

  • Pope Francis is Irritated -- with a Pro-Marriage Book Published by Ignatius Press

    09/18/2014 5:43:36 PM PDT · 64 of 64
    sitetest to SpirituTuo
    Dear SpirituTuo,

    “If that is so, then how can a priest know if politician so-and-so hasn’t gone to confession and reformed their life?”

    That's easy.

    A politician who has publicly proclaimed support for abortion is still giving scandal, is still sinning, mortally, until he has publicly repented.

    He sins twice. First, he commits himself to baby-murder. Second, by publicly supporting baby-murder and proclaiming himself a good Catholic and receiving communion, he leads others to Hell by his evil example.

    The sin of being a pro-abort may be gone, but the sin of leading others to damnation is not yet corrected. Without making his repentance public, he does not cease leading others to Hell.

    “While past behavior suggests Nancy Pelosi will never repent of supporting abortion, is it the duty of the Church to assume such?”

    Of course it is. We see Franky over there in Rome saying that mafiosi can't be buried in the Church. But what if they privately had a deathbed conversion, and the priest who would otherwise celebrate the funeral Mass is unaware?

    Too bad. The public nature of the sin remains until the sinner repudiates it.

    I understand the pope's view, here. This fellow may have murdered some folks during his long, criminal career. It would give scandal if he had not publicly repudiated his evil.

    The pope is right, here.

    A fortiori with pro-abort politicians, who are morally drowned in the blood of tens of millions of innocents.

    In fact, in something a little less serious than baby-murder, we know that the Church teaches that those who find themselves in a second, putative "marriage" without the benefit of a declaration of nullity (while the spouse still lives) may live together if they live together chastely, if it is necessary to fulfill family obligations. But the Church ALSO teaches that if it will give scandal to others in the parish, that they still should not approach for the Blessed Sacrament.

    The issue of scandal, of not leading others to Hell by one's own bad example, is so important, that the Church BARS from reception of communion those WHO ARE NOT ANY LONGER IN SIN, but where many might misconstrue the circumstances, and be led into sin.

    Again, all the more reason to apply the same moral theology to baby-murderers who have not publicly repented of their red, bloody crimes against God, humanity, and innocent babies.

    It is disgusting to defend bishops who permit the crime of giving communion to notorious pro-aborts. It is disgusting to have to actually make arguments to show that it is gravely criminal. I need a shower.


    sitetest

  • Major ISIS Leader Recruits Eleven Muslim Men, And Sodomizes [...] Them In Homosexual Islamic Ritual

    09/18/2014 4:03:58 PM PDT · 15 of 67
    sitetest to Vince Ferrer

    Islamic vermin turning on other islamic vermin.

  • Exile to Malta for Cardinal Burke

    09/18/2014 3:47:31 PM PDT · 19 of 42
    sitetest to Political Junkie Too
    Dear Political Junkie Too,

    Not exactly. I don't think there was a direct tie between Cardinal Burke's insistence on orthodoxy and the particular work of the court. If this is confirmed, I think it will just be a matter of removing from power, any sort of power, someone who stands by Catholic Faith.


    sitetest

  • Exile to Malta for Cardinal Burke

    09/18/2014 3:45:16 PM PDT · 18 of 42
    sitetest to Dick Vomer
    Dear Dick Vomer,

    That's wonderful! Welcome back!

    I like your father's thinking.

    Remember that Jesus chose twelve apostles. When He needed them most, one betrayed Him, 10 abandoned Him, only one followed Him to the Cross.

    I don't know why we would think that ratio would have improved.


    sitetest

  • Pope Francis is Irritated -- with a Pro-Marriage Book Published by Ignatius Press

    09/18/2014 3:42:47 PM PDT · 60 of 64
    sitetest to piusv

    Not really. Kicks in the head readily cause concussions. Not so good for you.

  • Exile to Malta for Cardinal Burke

    09/18/2014 1:24:29 PM PDT · 7 of 42
    sitetest to Dick Vomer
    Dear Dick Vomer,

    It's pretty simple. Right now, Cardinal Burke holds a pretty important position in the Roman Curia, which is the governing administrative body of the Church. He's essentially head of the highest appeals court for the Church.

    According to this report, he is being removed from his current position and moved to a position that is mostly an honorary title. It is usually a position that is an "add-on" to more substantial jobs in the Vatican. The new position is also not a part of the Curia, so he will no longer participate directly in the governance of the Church.

    It not only is a big demotion, but removes him from any nexus of real authority in the Church. Hope that helps.


    sitetest

  • Pope Francis is Irritated -- with a Pro-Marriage Book Published by Ignatius Press

    09/18/2014 10:10:27 AM PDT · 58 of 64
    sitetest to Arthur McGowan

    The first time this happened to me, it was a revelatory experience. It was like being kicked in the head.

  • Pope Francis is Irritated -- with a Pro-Marriage Book Published by Ignatius Press

    09/18/2014 10:00:10 AM PDT · 57 of 64
    sitetest to SpirituTuo
    Dear SpirituTuo,

    We can never completely know the intentions and motivations of any other person. In fact, we cannot even fully know our own. That's why St. John tells us that not even our own conscience can adequately judge own selves.

    You're hung up on the wrong issue. The question is, are the actions of the cleric manifest, that is to say, done publicly, and are they objectively gravely evil? Are they leading many, many Catholics, the sheep of the flock which bishops are called to tend, into objective, grave evil?

    The answers here are “yes,” and emphatically so. Colloquially speaking, these men are wicked.

    For too long, because we try to be docile, we Catholics have made excuses for our hierarchs. Those excuses gave wide room for pervert priests and bishops to rape their way through Catholic lay children. We layfolks are not generally guilty of their great crimes, like the perverts are, but if we do not learn from that error and become less reticent to name evil when we see it, then we become guilty of the next crimes committed by these men.

    It is not judging their souls to say that they are wicked men doing wicked deeds when they do what is manifestly, gravely evil.

    And recall basic moral theology: subjective conditions can mitigate moral culpability on the part of a moral actor, but it cannot make an intrinsically evil action not evil. Prudence can never justify mortal sin. It is possible that this or that bishop may be subjectively less culpable for his crimes against God, the Church, and His people, but the bishop has still committed wicked deeds.


    sitetest

  • Pope Francis is Irritated -- with a Pro-Marriage Book Published by Ignatius Press

    09/18/2014 8:28:07 AM PDT · 54 of 64
    sitetest to SpirituTuo; Arthur McGowan
    Dear SpirituTuo,

    It comes down to manifest evil, doesn't?

    We can't judge anyone's soul. But we CAN call someone "wicked" who publicly commits manifest evil.

    As Arthur McGowan states, it's one thing for a priest to say, “I can't know the internal state of each soul as he comes for communion,” it's another for a bishop to declare AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE that he will give communion to someone guilty of publicly manifest, evil.

    As a three-time Past Grand Knight of my council, I've seen in the trenches the effects of this episcopal attitude. In trying to rally laity of my own council to the cause of life, I've encountered the direct effects of the official attitudes and actions of many in the episcopacy. Their publicly-announced attitudes and actions lead large number of pew-sitting, church-going Catholics into the pit of complete acceptance of the Culture of Death. I've actually known Catholics who, when confronted with the Church's teachings on life, especially abortion, say, “The Church SAYS those things, but they don't really MEAN them. After all, if the bishops were serious about the teaching on abortion, they wouldn't let pro-choice politicians receive communion.”

    Folks like Donna Wuerl are leading many Catholics directly into objectively, gravely evil attitudes and actions. And he's doing it as a matter of principle. Is that manifestly evil enough for you?


    sitetest

  • Pope Francis is Irritated -- with a Pro-Marriage Book Published by Ignatius Press

    09/17/2014 8:24:21 PM PDT · 39 of 64
    sitetest to SpirituTuo
    Dear SpirituTuo,

    “... but shy away from calling cardinals ‘wicked.’”

    Would you “shy away” from calling one of the homosexual clergy (including some cardinals) who molested adolescent males “wicked”?


    sitetest

  • Irish Muslim convert defends execution of aid worker David Haines

    09/16/2014 6:26:16 PM PDT · 4 of 14
    sitetest to markomalley

    The Moslem needs killing.

    Islam must be destroyed.

  • Ottoman Caliphate of 1915-19 Exponentially Worse Than ISIS

    09/16/2014 11:31:14 AM PDT · 4 of 21
    sitetest to Mount Athos

    Moslems are the eternal savages, the forever beasts of humanity.

    Islam must be destroyed.

  • What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

    09/15/2014 12:50:13 PM PDT · 24 of 25
    sitetest to Brian Kopp DPM
    Dear Brian,

    Well, he had his opportunities. I don't know why he did or didn't do whatever he did or didn't do. There were other things that surprised me during the papacy of Benedict XVI. I remember the forceful letter he wrote to the American bishops, transmitted through McCarrick, that he wrote as head of the CDF. But as pope, we saw no follow-through on the substance of that letter.

    Perhaps he was constrained by factors out of our sight. Perhaps his mind or heart shifted in some way.

    So, what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that Pope Benedict XVI did not implement at least raises the question of whether his views had shifted to one degree or other.

    Nonetheless, if it were up to me, the Mass would be said ad orientam. This is an obvious change.

    Preferring the new rite to the old AS IT IS ACTUALLY PRACTICED neither means that one thinks the new rite is just right, nor that the old rite is bad or that those who adhere to it deserve any sort of opprobrium merely for that adherence.

    But vice versa, too.

    In my own thinking, I would prefer a Mass closer to the old rite (having read the text of the old rite), in the vernacular, spoken aloud, with the congregation providing the responses.

    In multi-ethnic parishes where no vernacular language predominated, I'd pretty much require the Mass in Latin.

    But, I don't want to go to Mass and not be able to hear what the priest is saying. I love the prayers of the Mass, and I love to hear them out loud. I especially love to hear the beautiful words of the Eucharistic Prayer, especially if I am fortunate enough that the priest uses the first Eucharistic Prayer. Perhaps I emphasize too much the psychological experience of it, but I find listening to it to be profoundly affecting.

    As the old rite is apparently typically said sotto voce, I would dearly miss that.


    sitetest

  • Florida mom lets her kids try booze in controlled setting, gets arrested...

    09/15/2014 10:37:16 AM PDT · 6 of 57
    sitetest to GeronL
    Dear GeronL,

    Which part is the bad parenting? Letting them have a sip of alcohol, or posting a picture of it on Facebook?


    sitetest

  • Marriott hotels placing envelopes in rooms to guilt guests into leaving gratuity

    09/15/2014 10:35:08 AM PDT · 44 of 176
    sitetest to CorporateStepsister

    I’ve been seeing envelopes in hotel rooms for many years, now.

    When there is no envelope, and one still wishes to tip, just take a piece of stationery, write a short note, like, “Thank you for taking care of our room while we stayed here,” and wrap the tip one wishes to give in the piece of stationery.

  • What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

    09/15/2014 9:12:07 AM PDT · 22 of 25
    sitetest to Brian Kopp DPM
    Dear Brian,

    We are friends, I won't belabor the point. To the degree that any apology is owed, I accept.


    sitetest

  • What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

    09/15/2014 8:38:53 AM PDT · 20 of 25
    sitetest to Daffy
    Dear Daffy,

    I've actually done a side-by-side comparison of the old rite to the new rite. I'm not particularly willing to re-hash old FR intra-Catholic liturgical wars. If you wish to see the substance of those fights, FR has extensive archives. This is me saying, “I'm not getting drawn into that debate, having had it many times, over and over, years ago.”

    But for informational sake, to my eye, the two rites looked more alike than not-alike, especially given an improved translation for the Latin typical edition of the new rite. Anyone who wishes to criticize the previous translation is on the money, in my view.

    For at least some folks, the old rite would be improved if the priest were to speak it aloud, so that everyone in the congregation could hear it, and then the congregation would be able to answer the responses. Perhaps that is done in some places.

    I haven't ever gone to an old rite Mass in recent years. Obviously, I was born before the new rite came out, but even there, when I was very little, the Mass I remember was what I surmise was called a “dialogue Mass,” and it was the old rite in the vernacular. I remember vividly the change when I was 9 or 10 from the old rite in the vernacular to the new rite in the vernacular. Did not like it.

    But myself, I'd prefer the new rite, even the unreformed, poor translation, to a Mass where I can't hear what's going on.

    My older son has been to the old rite on a few occasions. He was looking forward to it, as he is actually fluent in spoken (as well as written) Latin. He didn't realize that the priest prays most of the Mass sotto voce, and thus, he was unable to hear much of anything, which, of course, makes it a little more difficult to know just what's going on.

    So, all theological reasoning aside, one may prefer the new rite merely for the fact that one may prefer to actually hear the Mass as it goes, even if it's in a language that one doesn't understand, although I'm betting that any faithful Catholic who attended the Mass in any particular language on a regular basis, upon hearing the Mass many times, would come to understand most of it.

    In any event, you confirm my suspicion superabundantly. You describe those who prefer the new rite as “anti-Catholic Protestants, organized atheists, Muslims (of course) and some Jews.”

    No mention that some folks might prefer it because it's regularly celebrated OUT LOUD.

    By the way, I doubt that there are many serious Muslims who would prefer the Mass, new rite or old. I went to Mass yesterday, and we invoked the Trinity, called God our Father, affirmed the deity of Jesus, heard about the crucifixion, heard the priest talk about the gifts of bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus. All these are anathema to serious Muslims. To Jews, as well, although I don't know any Jews who are running around chopping people's heads off for refusing to renounce these beliefs.

    Anyway, I will make a mental note: Many adherents to the old rite still view those who prefer the new rite as their enemies, as insufficiently-Catholic, and even as stupid.

    Got it.


    sitetest

  • What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

    09/15/2014 8:17:53 AM PDT · 19 of 25
    sitetest to Brian Kopp DPM
    Dear Brian,

    Be humorous; humor is a good thing. But if I ask, do folks in Set A still look down upon folks in Set B, it's a little tricky if you respond, as someone from Set A, with a put-down of the folks in Set B. I'd be careful about doing that in person (where, if it is my intention, I might be able to communicate self-mocking irony). Not sure I'd even attempt it via this medium.

    If Cardinal Ratzinger were explicitly remarking on the stupidity of folks who prefer the new rite to the old, he'd have completely shot off three or feet.

    Noting the imperfections of something doesn't mean that those who prefer it are imperceptive. It means the thing is not perfect. Note that Pope Benedict did not make the old rite the Ordinary Rite and the new rite the extraordinary. The new rite retained pride of place.

    As well, Pope Benedict has reformed the new rite since he said those words about the new rite's defects. I would imagine that since he was the supreme legislator of the Church, he likely remediated many (most? all?) those defects he had in mind. Thus, his comments about the new rite and its defects are probably not quite as true as when he made them.

    “So why question lay people simply because they agree with Cardinal Ratzinger?”

    Because implying that folks who prefer the new rite are stupid isn't “agree[ing] with Cardinal Ratzinger.”


    sitetest

  • What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

    09/15/2014 8:04:02 AM PDT · 18 of 25
    sitetest to cloudmountain
    Dear cloudmountain,

    For whatever reasons, you seem to have missed the import of my original question for Brian.

    The conversations between folks about the new vs. the old rites were often quite bitter and acrimonious, with many advocates of the old rite hostile toward those who preferred the new, even toward those who had a live-and-let-live attitude.

    That's what my question was about.


    sitetest

  • What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

    09/14/2014 9:01:22 PM PDT · 14 of 25
    sitetest to Brian Kopp DPM
    Dear Brian,

    The denotation of your words means one thing, but the connotation another.

    “It might not be very perceptive on their part, but it ain’t opposition ;-)”

    So those who prefer the new rite are not, in your view, opposed to the old rite, but are just stupid.

    Brian, you're a foot doctor. You know you only have two feet. Try not to shoot 'em both.


    sitetest

  • What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

    09/14/2014 8:58:49 PM PDT · 13 of 25
    sitetest to cloudmountain
    Dear cloudmountain,

    You are relatively new here. I am not. I remember folks who departed from FR long before you ever arrived here who were rather hostile toward people who didn't warmly embrace the old rite, but rather, while preferring the old rite, had a live-and-let-live attitude about the whole thing.

    I'm not sure there are many left here, but there were some folks who bordered on condemning the new rite as not even valid, and its adherents as bad Catholics.

    For a significant number of traditionalists, preferring the new rite = opposing the old rite.


    sitetest

  • What Does Opposition to the Traditional Mass Really Signify?

    09/14/2014 10:10:56 AM PDT · 6 of 25
    sitetest to Brian Kopp DPM
    Dear Brian,

    It depends on what is meant by “Opposition to the Traditional Mass” means.

    Some folks just don't prefer the old rite. Is that “opposition”?


    sitetest

  • Senate showdown: GOP frets over Harkin seat

    09/14/2014 6:03:42 AM PDT · 7 of 12
    sitetest to cotton1706

    Mr. Braley appears to be a moderately inept candidate. Outspending Ms. Ernst roughly 5 - 4 is not going to make the difference. This is a probable Republican pick-up.

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 5:09:13 PM PDT · 293 of 306
    sitetest to xzins
    Dear xzins,

    I'M fine. I didn't take the brunt of the abuse. The oldest and the youngest of us did. My other brother and myself, in the middle, saw all the hurt and damage, but mostly escaped from being victims.

    My older brother is dead, now, dead at 62. He was married and divorced three times (I wonder why he always picked such flawed, mean, abusive women??), flunked out of community college, tried many different careers, never really achieving stability or happiness, had significant health problems, drank hard in his youth and smoked hard till he died, and threw away his faith. A couple of bankruptcies along the way. Not a pleasant or easy life. His kids turned out nearly as badly as he did.

    My younger sister had a failed marriage, she was separated the last five or so years of her husband's life. She flunked out of college, has led a wretched life, her husband was physically, verbally, and psychologically abusive (I wonder where she learned to tolerate that??). Throw in a bankruptcy or two, foreclosure & homelessness, episodic severe mental illness, and two sons who are even worse off than she is.

    Both my parents are dead. My own relationship with my mother was strained, in that her abusive “discipline” emanated from a personality that just wasn't very nice. To go along with the beatings, she also had an acid tongue. I remember one time, after I was married, going over to my parents to help them move furniture around.

    The conversation meandered until she said, “Face it, sitetest, you're just a parasite.” I said, “Mom, the least you could do would be to wait until I'd moved the furniture before you insulted me.”

    But I stayed and moved the furniture. Maybe I was “enabling” her by not telling her off and leaving, LOL.

    She had her good points, I guess. She did love her family in spite of it all, and she was very devout and helped pass on her faith to me, for which I will be forever grateful. I pray for her and my father every day.

    But my older brother and my sister had an extremely poor relationship with my mother until she died. For years, my older brother wouldn't even talk to her, and would tell my father to divorce her. He was extremely bitter for the treatment he received at her hands.

    I really don't believe in beating kids. It doesn't seem to produce happy, good, or decent people. The few times I was beaten only made me fearful and closed-in, and alienated from my parents. I never, ever discussed any of my problems with my parents. They were untrustworthy, especially my mother.

    Conversely, when my sons were young, sometimes when they did something wrong, they'd come confess it to me or their mother, and even recommend a punishment, which was usually more punitive than anything we'd actually impose. Both my son are conscientious men of God, striving to do His will.

    I've told you about my sons in different contexts, here. If we did spare the rod, apparently, we did not spoil the child. I could not ask for better sons.

    You can have a close, effective relationship with your kids if you don't beat them bloody.


    sitetest

  • Cardinal O'Malley Reveals More of Pope Francis Plans for Catechesis (or lack thereof)

    09/13/2014 4:44:48 PM PDT · 16 of 31
    sitetest to ebb tide
    Dear ebb tide,

    I've told you before what I think of Francis. I'm not too worried if he doesn't agree with me on this issue.


    sitetest

  • Cardinal O'Malley Reveals More of Pope Francis Plans for Catechesis (or lack thereof)

    09/13/2014 12:48:14 PM PDT · 3 of 31
    sitetest to BlatherNaut

    “’I’m going to resist being called a conservative Catholic,’ Glendon replied.”

    Ms. Glendon is right. To adopt the moniker “conservative Catholic” is to cave into the language of the left, and of the heterodox.

    There is Catholic. There is non-Catholic. One may admit of “lapsed Catholic,” or “bad Catholic,” or possibly “heterodox Catholic” (although that’s almost tautologically an oxymoron). But there is no such thing as a “conservative Catholic,” only a Catholic, and there is no such thing as a “liberal Catholic,” only a bad or lapsed Catholic, or even “no-longer Catholic.”

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 10:08:37 AM PDT · 283 of 306
    sitetest to xzins
    Dear xzins,

    “It sounds to me like you’re looking at a side of life that you are unfamiliar with.”

    Actually, my friend, I'm looking at a side of life with which I'm all too familiar. My parents were too thoroughly modern to use a tree branch. My parents also differed in how they administered corporal punishment.

    My father, even if angry, was usually quite controlled, and hit us in ways that naturally limited the physical impact. A belt to the clothed buttocks. A simple slap across the face. That pretty much sums it up.

    My mother was often an out-of-control nutjob who would beat her children with any weapon at hand. Sticks, hair brushes, wooden hangars, her hands, her feet (yes, she would sometimes kick), even a baseball bat, once, though I intervened and would not allow her to hit my sister with it.

    I received the least of these things from either of my parents, but even I became a secretive, closed-in person unwilling to share my faults or failings with my parents for fear of a good beating. And I saw the permanent psychological damage that this sort of physical abuse did to my oldest brother and my sister. I wouldn't treat a rabid dog the way my mother treated them. It was wrong, immoral, and should have sent her to jail for a bit of heel-cooling. But in that day, it wasn't considered child abuse. If the kid didn't wind up in the emergency room, it wasn't abuse. As they say in the NBA, no autopsy, no foul.

    Like I said, if you can't avoid general injuries across a child's body when you punish him, you're probably doing it wrong. And in this case, there is a prima facie case to be made for criminal child abuse. I'm more than willing to see what evidence is actually brought to light before I make a final decision as to guilt or innocence, and if guilty, and appropriate sentence.

    But at the very least, I'd suggest at least temporary termination of parental rights.


    sitetest

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 9:53:23 AM PDT · 281 of 306
    sitetest to the OlLine Rebel
    Dear the OlLine Rebel,

    “I say failure to be *willing* to use the ‘hit’ is indeed the same.”

    I'd be more inclined to agree with that. I'm a little iffy, in light of my own experiences, but we actually started out with that. Our kids knew that the “nuclear option” was not off the table.

    We just never needed it.

    We found that the secrets to discipline included:

    1) Creating conditions that didn't work against our disciplinary and general child-rearing efforts and goals. So, that's why we restricted TV, had no video games, etc. It also was part of the reason for homeschooling for primary school.

    2) Making clear what the offense was, why it was an offense, and making clear what were expected ranges of punishment. We tried to do a lot of this BEFORE an offense was committed.

    3) Consistency in application of punishment. An important part of this was my wife and I were always on the same page. Neither of my sons ever SUCCESSFULLY played one of us against the other, not they never tried, LOL.

    4) Application of mercy when true remorse was demonstrated.

    5) General explanation of the source of our authority to govern our children: God made us your parents, and therefore, we have the right and the obligation to discipline you, including up to and including a good spanking.

    And most importantly 6) Much, much prayer. Many times daily.


    sitetest

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 9:27:58 AM PDT · 276 of 306
    sitetest to xzins; the OlLine Rebel
    Dear xzins,

    Failure to hit your children is not the same as lacking in firm, strict, and consistent discipline.


    sitetest

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 9:26:13 AM PDT · 275 of 306
    sitetest to xzins
    Dear xzins,

    I agree with your comments about the physical nature of using a tree branch to hit a child. However, that makes it all the more incumbent on the assailant to be extraordinarily careful to limit the scope of the assault. Else, it is merely wanton cruelty.

    It is clear that boy was stripped or nearly so when the tree branch was applied to him. If one is familiar with the action of a tree branch when using it to commit assault, and one is NOT trying to commit child abuse, one might have the child uncover only his rear end, rather than the entirely of his legs, arms, etc.

    To fail to take these protective actions suggests that the punishment was meted out as an act of unthinking rage rather than a carefully-considered punishment of limited duration and harm. If this is the case, then Mr. Peterson is guilty of a form of child abuse that ranges more toward child endangerment, failing to provide a safe environment during the punishment.

    If he was fully aware of the potential effects, and was NOT acting out of rage, but rather was engaged in a premeditated beating of a nearly-naked four year-old, that he had constructive knowledge that he would injure the boy across his entire body, including his genitalia, this suggests that perhaps Mr. Peterson is a hardened sadist who might be best served by a sufficiently-long prison sentence that he will not be released until the boy is old enough and strong enough to fight back when his father next assaults him.

    Beating a four year-old pretty much across his entire body is not appropriate discipline. Sorry, but this just falls into the category of, "Things a Two-Hundred Lb-Plus Man Doesn't Do to a Four Year-Old."


    sitetest

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 8:32:35 AM PDT · 265 of 306
    sitetest to xzins
    Dear xzins,

    First, I didn't comment on what Mr. Peterson did or didn't do to his young son. I merely mentioned that harsh punishment in my own family correlated with failure in life, and milder punishment seemed to correlate with general life success. I then noted that my own sons, although raised strictly and with discipline, were never hit. And managed to turn out pretty well.

    In terms of the present case, I believe the father engaged in criminal child abuse, and prison would not be out of line. I hope that, if convicted, the judge has significant discretion, as it will be the details of the case that determine whether or not incarceration is appropriate or needed.

    However, my own view is contingent on seeing what evidence is presented at trial. I'm willing to accept that perhaps he is not guilty of criminal child abuse.

    What leads me to believe that this was a criminal act are the following: the punishment seems to be an act of rage, not a measured dose of discipline. Apparently, much of the boy's body is marked, including his genitalia. When my father belted us, it was one, two, three shots to our rear ends. Usually with our pants on. We didn't get belted all over our bodies, including between our thighs. The leaves in the mouth suggests to me an intentional cruelty related to the out-of-control rage. Finally, the kid is four years old. The punishment given is out of proportion to the person to whom it was directed. At four, I might have gotten a spanking by my father with his open hand, or perhaps with a belt. Once, maybe twice. I might have gotten an open slap across the face. But my father never thrashed me at age four.

    The punishment here, to me, does not suggest a measured response to the actions of a four year-old, but rather the violent, cruel, out-of-control actions of someone large enough to readily kill a young child. Mr. Peterson is responsible for himself, and must realize that his size and strength are, themselves, a hazard to the health and well-being of others whom he chooses to assault.

    But, if it is shown at trial that the young tyke is a fire-setting, foul-mouthed, manipulative, narcissistic little psychopath, then I'd consider that as a significant defense.

    Otherwise, Mr. Peterson should be held accountable.


    sitetest

  • Minnesota Vikings Running Back Adrian Peterson Indicted on Child Abuse Charge (switched his child)

    09/13/2014 6:54:51 AM PDT · 254 of 306
    sitetest to 1010RD

    We never found the need to hit our kids, either.