Why isn't it National "Catholic" Reporter

I'm thinking the National Catholic Reporter must be some sort of parody or false flag operation run by Fundamentalists or something.

Case in point, Fr. Thomas Reece is purportedly a Jesuit priest and a Senior Analyst for what  Fr. John Zuhlsdorf calls the National Schismatic Reporter (aka Fishwrap).  But he and his readers consider themselves more Catholic than the pope, or at least the American bishops. He is certain that the mark of true Catholic charity is to be found in tut-tutting doctrinal orthodoxy and tsk-tsking those benighted spirits who don't share his enlightened (read politically Progressive) views.

http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/will-bishops-follow-pope-francis-new-orleans

Fr. Reece sees the Church in the world through an unfortunately bifurcated lens. In charity, I will say that his concern for the poor and for Progressive causes has blinded him to the real meaning of “the consistent ethic of life.” That blindness leads him to say things like this: “The last thing troubled families need is bishops quoting papal encyclicals to them.” I could say that he appears to believe that troubled families need access to abortion, birth control and divorce more than they need the pastoral teaching of the Magisterium to show them what is truly true and beautiful and good. Perhaps he would have the bishops do away with Jesus’teaching as well that “what God has joined let no man put asunder.”etc. Frankly, there are trillions of tax dollars and billions of corporate and private charitable dollars going to help the poor. Somehow, they are not having the desired effect. Perhaps Fr. Reese should spend some time thinking about why the Progressive program to help the poor has failed so miserably. At the same time, there are precious few who are willing to defend the Truth in regards to the Family and sexual ethics. Does the proud Father consider that the bishops’ voices appear louder on those subjects because there are so few other voices? Fr. Reese’ is missing from the pro-family chorus. And I have the sorry sense that he wished the bishops would be silent too – or worse, join the amen chorus of Progressives who cheer the re-definition of marriage, the dissolution of the family, the misdirection of an individual’s sexual powers, the intentional sterility of the womb and the death (when “compassion” demands) of the unborn.

A Modest Proposal

Ross Douthat has “A Modest Proposal” that entails giving wealthier people more money will never float with the egalitarians. Rather, they've already voiced their preferences for Jonathan Swift’s version in the form of funding Planned Parenthood with federal, state and insurance dollars to kill the extra children that they find inconvenient.

Why I'm Not a Leftist (one reason among so many)

Things Leftists think are bad: “To find the Tea Party throughline in this election cycle, you have to look past the ballot counts and toward the policies – the radicalism of which the GOP establishment refuses to recognize, much less censure: voter ID, ratcheted down abortion access, bigotry masquerading as "religious freedom", concealed carry.”

Progress? From what? To where?

""The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. " GK Chesterton From the Illustrated London NewsApril 19, 1924

Will the bishops follow Pope Francis in New Orleans?

Thomas Reese  |

Fr. Reece sees the Church in the world through an unfortunately bifurcated lens. In charity, I will say that his concern for the poor and for Progressive causes has blinded him to the real meaning of “the consistent ethic of life.” That blindness leads him to say things like this: “The last thing troubled families need is bishops quoting papal encyclicals to them.” I could say that he appears to believe that troubled families need access to abortion, birth control and divorce more than they need the pastoral teaching of the Magisterium to show them what is truly true and beautiful and good. Perhaps he would have the bishops do away with Jesus’teaching as well that “what God has joined let no man put asunder.”etc. Frankly, there are trillions of tax dollars and billions of corporate and private charitable dollars going to help the poor. Somehow, they are not having the desired effect. Perhaps Fr. Reese should spend some time thinking about why the Progressive program to help the poor has failed so miserably. At the same time, there are precious few who are willing to defend the Truth in regards to the Family and sexual ethics. Does the proud Father consider that the bishops’ voices appear louder on those subjects because there are so few other voices? Fr. Reese’ is missing from the pro-family chorus. And I have the sorry sense that he wished the bishops would be silent too – or worse, join the amen chorus of Progressives who cheer the re-definition of marriage, the dissolution of the family, the misdirection of an individual’s sexual powers, the intentional sterility of the womb and the death (when “compassion” demands) of the unborn.

Of course, this story only presents one side of the argument; because that is the side NCR supports. But it leaves to be assumed that NCR prefers that the pope redefine truth and reality and will be disappointed if the Vicar of Christ uses the data to infuse the New Evangelization in order to teach the Church what is true and beautiful and good about human sexuality, marriage, children and the family.

Dave Brat, Watergate Conspirator? Politico would like you to think so

This partisan piece in Politico is unsurprising. Sometimes for what it says, sometimes for what it doesn't say. It doesn't say anything about Democrats possibly taking the House. Politico presumes Republicans will retain the majority there. A really cute line attempts to subliminally link Brat with Watergate,

“It’s perhaps no accident that Cantor was defeated by an insurgent named Brat, an upstart conservative Roman Catholic who received a master’s degree from Princeton Theological Seminary, the alma mater of Watergate conspirator Jeb Stuart Magruder. Brat’s platform: Washington is awash in corrupting cash, and it’s time for a change.”

1. Let’s make fun of his name, mature.
2. “insurgent,” “Brat,” “upstart,” “conservative Roman Catholic,” “Watergate conspirator.” Loaded language much?
3. “conservative Roman Catholic” Didn’t that sort of anti-Catholic bias die with JFK? No, only if you are an ‘enlightened Catholic’ like Mario Cuomo, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, etc. But a ‘conservative Roman Catholic’ can only mean that Brat hates women and is in favor of pedophile priests, right?
4. And since Brat attended the same college as Jeb Stuart Magruder (wait, don’t they only use all 3 names for serial killers? Unless I missed the subliminal between Brat and the Civil War general – of course! Brat also wants to sent African Americans back to the plantation!), of Watergate fame, Brat is also as tricky as one of Nixon’s henchman.
5. It mentions Dave Brat, the man who soundly defeated Eric Cantor only once. It gives his last name once. Seems to me that the first person to defeat the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives  in a primary since the Nineteenth Century deserves to at least have his name mentioned in a Politico hit piece.

It should be noted that Politico is one of the few places where readers might possibly know who Magruder and Stuart were or what Watergate was about. I’d wager that the majority of people who vote for Brat’s opponent in November will not know at least 2 out of 3 of those facts.

Can you believe this Anti-Christian bigot?

A huffpo blogger asks a loaded question: "Is Every Christian Who's Against Gay Marriage Necessarily a Bigot?"

Rhetorically, of course. He and every Huffpo reader (but one, I read the post too) already knows that anyone who doesn't swoon at Ellen Degeneris' bravery and demand "gay marriage" and all the rest is ipso facto, a bigot. But must all Christians be bigots?

Actually, he lies. He says, "You, anti-gay Christian, have the God-given freedom and the American right to believe whatever you want, and to worship and congregate with anyone and everyone who shares your beliefs. What sane person would argue against that?

For all practical purposes (and for such concerns, what else matters?) it is not beliefs that make a bigot. It's actions."

Well, except for a group of Christians, if there was one outside of Westboro Baptist, who refused to congregate with homosexuals (or should I say LBGTQ...). Or, more realistically, a Christian baker, photographer or florist who declined to participate in a "gay wedding." Nope, I'm pretty sure our bigoted blogger would argue with that.

But I suppose Christians should be grateful that he permits them to believe, worship and congregate.... so far. Insofar as the worship might entail reading the Bible (Cf. Gen 191-29; Rom 124-27; ⇒ 1 Cor 6:10; ⇒ 1 Tim 1:10) or giving a sermon, I suspect Mr. Blogger may become a bit less generous with his tolerance. Don't even try to go beyond the limits he has set by perhaps obeying the precepts of your faith outside of your church building, by offering charity, adoption services or education to those in need - or even whispering in the dark ("If, in private, you intimate to your dearest friend that you don't think gay people should be allowed to get married, you are a bigot.")  Nope! Once you step outside the Church, you are a bigot unless you sign-on to the entire ''gay rights'' agenda. Just ask Catholic Charities and more than a couple Catholic schools.

So, basically, this guy hates anyone who doesn't act exactly like he wants them to act. What a bigot!

I Don't Usually Read Paul Krugman.....

.... but when I do, I wonder how he can hold such illogical thoughts.

And this article is no exception.

Krugman says, "I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the power of doctrines — how support for a false dogma can become politically mandatory, and how overwhelming contrary evidence only makes such dogmas stronger and more extreme. For the most part, I’ve been focusing on economic issues, but the same story applies with even greater force to climate."

Of course, Republicans and anyone else who disagrees with Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman and his fellow NYT elect are victims of this syndrome on the issue of, well, everything.

While Krugman and his fellow travellers have no false doctrines or dogmas but rather bask in the hard light of Reason and Science.

Except not.

In fact, if you were to take Krugman's column into a word processing program and do global find-and-replace for a few words; find Republican and replace it with Democrat, find climate change (or cooling or disruption, whichever is the sophistry du jour) and replace it with marriage equality, abortion rights or well, global warming, you'd discover that one of the doctrines that most bests the Left is that their doctrines are always right and that conservative principles are always wrong.

Let's give it a try:

Krugman: " And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the G.O.P.’s extremist fringe asserted that global warming was a hoax concocted by a vast global conspiracy of scientists (although even then that fringe included some powerful politicians). Today, such conspiracy theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against scientists reporting evidence of warming have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about climate science is turning into hostility toward science in general."

Krugman corrected: "And truly crazy positions are becoming the norm. A decade ago, only the Democratic Party's extremist fringe asserted that the idea that Christians who opposed "gay marriage" should lose their civil rights. Today, such theorizing is mainstream within the party, and rapidly becoming mandatory; witch hunts against Christians acting according to their religious faith have become standard operating procedure, and skepticism about religious liberty is turning into hostility toward Christianity in general."