When Promiscuity is Your Sacrament, and You're Terrified of Normalcy

I guess it's to be expected that those omalophobic souls who make a cult of despising virtue, or chastity, or even such a bourgeois habit as commitment, would be screaming on Those Interwebs about that strange, evil guy who, you know, does strange, evil things and set himself strange, evil rules of conduct, because he has these strange, evil notions about a strange, evil institution called marriage, and has this strange, evil superstition that there's such a thing as temptation, and he loves his strange, evil wife enough that he wants to avoid both it and the chance of giving people who delight in that sort of thing excuses to gossip, (not that the previously mentioned omalophobia sufferers have any particular affinity for dishing...)

Do you REALLY see in another person's fidelity or continence an inherent reproach to the way you've chosen to live your life?
Are ya maybe... projecting?

I wonder if there's the odd chance that any of such screamers read today's lectionary?

The wicked said among themselves, thinking not aright:"Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us;he sets himself against our doings,Reproaches us for transgressions of the lawand charges us with violations of our training.He professes to have knowledge of Godand styles himself a child of the LORD.To us he is the censure of our thoughts; merely to see him is a hardship for us,Because his life is not like that of others,and different are his ways.He judges us debased;he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.

Nonsense, John Halpin

This strikes me as spin. Trying to spin gold out of not dross, but BS.
Emails out of context, fine.
Larger point, fine.
Rupert Murdoch's a bad guy, fine.
Explain this phrase, fine.

This is so typical of what's put out there by the conglomerate of agenda-driven media and political hack spin-meisters, lots of words explaining away everything EXCEPT  WHAT  PEOPLE  ARE  REALLY  OFFENDED  BY.

“It’s an amazing bastardisation of the faith."

Maybe it is. I don't know Murdoch, I don't know what he believes. He strikes me as an insincere opportunist, but he didn't convert, he merely allowed his children to be perhaps raised in the Faith, so he can't be all THAT attracted to it....

"They must be attracted to the systematic thought"

See above. (Though it must be asked at this point, is there something attractive about unsystematic thought that I'm missing, which makes attraction to the systematic objectionable?)

"and severely backwards gender relations and must be totally unaware of Christian democracy.”

Okay, there we are.
Can a reference to the Church's Severely. Backward. Gender Relations. when expressed by an activist for a political movement that seeks to, (and so far has been pretty damned successful at it,) redefine marriage, masculinity and femininity ever really be "simply a fleeting reaction from within the Catholic tradition to something [he] read"?

How can it be anything OTHER than, I would agree, not "an expression of contempt for people of faith" as he maintains, but an expression of contempt for the Faith itself, (his faith, putatively) which is the source of the outrage.

This is so common from both sides - someone says, or does something awful, someone else expresses outrage, first person refutes accusation no one was making, first person's allies say, "see?"

It doesn't wash, John Halpin.

Neither Hillary Nor Donald Likely To Have Been At Mass This Morning, But...

I try to read the Mass lectionary before I attend, sometimes several days, even a week ahead, sometimes my resolve falls through the cracks.
I've been a bit scattered lately, hurricane, laziness, family obligations... I can always find an excuse, not always for what I've done, but certainly for what I've failed to do.

Anyway, hadn't noticed this, but pretty sure I'm not the only one who boggled at the Gospel today

Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees – that is, their hypocrisy. Everything that is now covered will be uncovered, and everything now hidden will be made clear. For this reason, whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in hidden places will be proclaimed on the housetops.

Haven't decided who I'm voting for yet, honestly, but this picture made me laugh...

I've always been fond of the "dead stare."
Teachers and Moms can use it to terrifying effect. TV cops deploy it in interrogations.

It's as if she's asking us, telepathically,

"Are you listenin' to this guy? Seriously, America? SERIOUSLY??? ARE  YOU  FREAKING  LISTENING??!??!??!?? "

Deplorable and Deplorabler

Poor Fr. Fox.
For saying that a Catholic can, in good conscience, vote for either the lesser of two evils or abstain from voting, he is ripped by a crazy woman, (who makes her choice quite clear.)

evShe uses a tactic I am seeing more and more, not just from crazy commenters, and careless on-the-fly bloggers and conversationalists at parties, but from actual "journalists," and that is to repeat over and over the accusation that ones target has said something "amounting" to something deplorable, but steadfastly refusing to supply actual quotes, even out of context.
The tactic is used by both sides, of course, the Trumpite right winger against Fr Fox, the liberal Twitter over-lord against a Breitbart gadfly.
Too much reading of Jane Austen, and her free indirect speech!
All I need to do is vaguely describe what I want people to think you said, and damn you for my words, I needn't actually quote you and be honest about it.

You'd think Catholics especially would balk at such dishonesty deception, lies, this method having been used against the Church for.... well, forever.
(Soon to be saint,) Fulton Sheen, anyone?

“There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

The devil's having a grand old time this election.

Same Old Same Old?

The fringe on the left oft circles around and is discovered to be not all that different from the fringe on the right, have you noticed?


"We’re very interested in revealing the truth...and yes we have some material... that will be published"


"I have in my I have here in my hand a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department"

Hate giving them clicks, but I feel compelled to follow links with damning headlines shouting that "so-and-so said/confirmed/claimed that....!" only to find (usually,) that any actual quotes from said person in the know, as opposed to the wishful-thinking gloss of the author, says/confirms/claims nothing of the sort.

I'm not even really disappointed any more, even when it's someone on "my side" doing the prevarication lying.

I admit, it's a little different, it's still painful when the selective quoting and dissembling comes from certain quarters.

The Catholic Fringe Unraveling On Both Selvages, and Overplaying One's Hand

A bit of hubbub of late over some ordained persons' calling out of some unordained persons, in some cases by name, (one of said ordained persons being in the habit of threatening unordained persons with civil lawsuits,) following the unordained persons having called out other ordained persons by name, some consecrated persons by name, and even, in several cases, an installed person whose name is... well, known to virtually the entire world.
Some of all of this is deserved, other instances are unfair, some of it is bullying and clericalist, some of it is barking mad.
Hardly is anyone in these wars ever 100% wrong, there are often good reasons, up to a point, and very often, perhaps usually, good intentions. (We must assume that last, until the assumption is proved wrong.)
Even the ill-intentioned will begin with the reasonable and kind and inarguable.
Sometimes people give themselves away, of course, frequently by overplaying a hand,
Ah ha, the observer says to himself, I was with you up till now, you first point was undeniable and laudable but I see now that that was merely a set-up to this balderdash, an attempt to lull us into amiability so you could sneak in some poppycock.
Man cannot keep himself from Going Too Far.
Been discussing the failed 1998 translation a great deal with a friend lately,
While I admit there are some clunky moments in the one in use today, I overall drastically prefer it to the rejected one.
But there are other words and phrases spurned by TPTB that I would have endorsed, and more, endorsed the agenda behind them - but the reformers, as so often, went too far.
They knew, they had to know, that eventually, when push came to shove the Catholic Church was not going to allow the Anglophone Catholic Church, no matter how many of us like to think of ourselves as an autonomous sect, NOT to say, "I believe," and "and with your spirit," and "for you and for... many," (I actually think they could have sneaked that one in with "THE many.") Perhaps not on this go 'round, but eventually, and couldn't we finally have a few decades of liturgical calm now?
(Oh, and for the record, sometimes clunky is waaaaaaay better than curt.)
I digress.
Anyway, the Rad-Trad fringe has a lot of right on its side, and honest, it is possible to decry the feminization of ministry, and see it as a wedge issue for the impossibility that looms so large in the spiralist agenda*, the ordination of women, without despising women. (I promise you, I am not a self-hating gyno-American.)
But likewise, it would be easier to believe die-hard traditionalists oppose women in Holy Orders on loving theological grounds is so many of them did not openly display such contempt for women. Protestations that no, of course not, women are not held in less regard by the Church would be so much more credible if Aquinas hadn't said we were “deficiens et occasionatus”, if so many functions besides the confection of the Eucharist were not reserved to priests, and oh, yeah, the priesthood is reserved to men.

A contributing factor in the social recognition of the role of women is a greater appreciation of their responsibilities in the Church: their involvement in decision-making, their participation in the administration of some institutions and their involvement in the formation of ordained ministers.

Well, yeah.... it could be.
And it could have been.
For centuries.
And the longer it took the Church, it still takes Her, to come 'round, the harder it is to believe that Her denial of the presbyterate to women isn't just part and parcel of Her denigrations and ignoring of other charisms woman might have to offer Her and all of mankind.
Anyway, among the much criticized bloggers, there's a fellow who in a newish thread is arguing against "sacramental trans-genderism,"
Good for him, good turn of phrase, and he's right, mostly.
But he can't let a side comment go without answering it with this stupidity:

universal suffrage was one of the worst ideas in human history. Personally, I'm all for head of household landowners being the only ones allowed to vote. They have the most skin in the game.

That's right.
Not everyone who is entitled to vote knows what he's dong, so let's limit it.
Oooh. Interesting.
How?
I.Q. test?
Determining the potential voter's logical acuity or moral fiber?
No.
By wealth and ownership of material goods.
And he caps it off with the inanity about "skin in the game."
Um, no. LITERALLY wrong.
His ideal voter may have capital staked, he may have money on the game, but we each of us, literally, have one, our own, skin in the game.
His idea is as contemptible as the idiot's in the UK who think young people's votes should count more than that of their elders in the BREXIT referendum, since they'll probably live longer with the consequences.
-------
(*Those who hold it might prefer the phrase "progressive agenda," but it aint' progress when you're going around in circles.

"[Candidate X] has never changed his mind on anything. Changing your mind is a sign of weakness in a leader."

I didn't actually hear this, but I understand a supporter spoke these words in praise of her candidate on camera for CNN.

Nothing about this particular candidate, and I'll stipulate that choosing ones current position according to poll numbers is a sad and sorry way to operate, but only the dead or the brain dead never change their minds.

When did we become a society that doesn't want anyone to ever absorb new information and insight in such a way as to perhaps change his mind?
What kind of a person thinks he has never made a mistake in his life, has nothing to regret, nothing for which to apologize, nothing he would have done differently had he known then what he knows now?
And what kind of person refuses to ever know any more than he does now, thus making for a future self that is smarter/wiser/better informed?

I see the same idiocy at work in the mockery of someone who professes religious or ethical or moral ideas which he has transgressed.
Sometimes, even if the transgressions occurred before the conversion.

The righteousness and rightness of a law, whether of God or man, is not dependent on its being broken or followed.

"Christians Do Not, Like Some, Proclaim Themselves the Advocates of Any Merely Human Doctrines"

Flailing in the morass that is US politics as we Americans find oursleves, in a year when questions such as, Can a Catholic really vote for....? and, Is by statute or civil legislation the best way to accomplish....? and, Doesn't Catholic social doctrine require the position that....? and of course, the ever-popular, Is your head up your....? the second reading from this mornings Office of Readings was a tonic.

From Mathetes' Epistle to Diognetus:

The Christians are distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity. The course of conduct which they follow has not been devised by any speculation or deliberation of inquisitive men; nor do they, like some, proclaim themselves the advocates of any merely human doctrines. ...
They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives. 

Father, Thy will be done.

The Lectionary and the American Elections

I'm doing my level best to annoy the nitty-gritty petty viciousness of political news, but I'm the lay reader at Mass today, and this just, well.... see for yourself. I cannot be the only one to laugh ruefully, (I'll get it out of my system before Mass.)

I hear the whisperings of many:
“Terror on every side!
Denounce! let us denounce him!”
All those who were my friends
are on the watch for any misstep of mine.
“Perhaps he will be trapped; then we can prevail,
and take our vengeance on him.”

Call it Genocide!

I keep reading, (from both sides of the question, and in fact, both political parties, and finally both ends of the spectrum of governmental philosophy,) about the legal ramifications that would result from the Obama administration's and Sec. of State Kerry's making a declaration that the ongoing slaughter by ISIS/Daesh/ISIL of Christians, Yazidis, Muslims from other branches, and other religious and ethnic minorities is "genocide."
The White House press secretary said that,

"that word involves a very specific legal determination."  

And a few days later,

"The decision to apply this term to this situation is an important one.  It has significant consequences, and it matters for a whole variety of reasons, both legal and moral.  But it doesn’t change our response.  And the fact is that this administration has been aggressive, even though that term has not been applied, in trying to protect religious minorities who are victims or potential victims of violence.....
there is an independent determination that needs to be made based on a very specific legal definition that our lawyers are considering right now.  And while that legal consideration and while that legal definition is important, and I certainly wouldn’t downplay the significance of the use of that term, we have been quite aggressive in both speaking out against but also taking tangible steps to try to protect religious minorities who are the victims of persecution."

That seems smarmy in the extreme, to me, we're doing everything we would do already anyway, so it's just semantics. Then why not?
The moral obligation is obvious, and not accepting them by refusing to use the term seems heinous to me, but what of these supposed legal obligation?
Are their obligations enshrined in US law?
Because the U.N.'s "Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide" to which we are signatories places a very light burden indeed.
Read them, they are startilingly lacking in rigor. Penalties in keeping with a country's constitution, and extradition, that's pretty much it.
And Obama and Kerry surely don't share the right-wing hesitancy to place ourselves under the direction of the UN's rules.
You know, 'cause the UN is a bunch of commie third world-types trying to establish a one-world government. You know, under The Beast.

And what is this "very specific legal definition" with which the White House is trying to align? And where?
Not, again, in the UN's convention.

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The reluctance to call the bloodbaths and extermination in Syria "genocide," smells to me very like the diplomatic diffidence regarding Turkey's massacres of Armenians - oh, no, we mustn't pin an offensive label on anyone off of whom we might later wish to make money.

It smells like it, and it stinks.

"Make Hell Great Again!"

You know he's winning, don't you?
No, not Trump. And not Cruz, and not Clinton, and not Sanders, and not Rubio, and not....
Well, no one who is running for anything.
Who's winning?
That's right.

And he's mighty happy about it.

You know why he's winning? you know why he's happy?
Not because me, or my candidate is for or against socialism, or immigration reform, or universal health insurance, or free trade, or protectionism, or nationalism, or free higher education for all, or lower taxes, or higher taxes....

He's winning because every time he gets a candidate or a protester to say something hateful, he has a really good chance of getting one of us to hate the speaker.
Not whatever the speaker said, but the speaker. Another human being. Made in the image and likeness of God.

Oh, sure, the father of lies is pleased enough when he gets us to despair, or to question how there can be a good God who allows evil, because hope and faith are important, so when we lose hope, or lose faith he's got a foot in the door -- but they're small potatoes compared to the real prize.

When he gets us to hate? to lose love, to abandon charity, to stop desiring the good of others, even others we don't like, maybe especially those we don't like - that's the whole shebang.

He has all the delegates he needs.

"Does a swimmer say 'I’ve never gotten wet'?”

I...
I don't know.
I really had nothing to say about politics.

In the coming presidential race, I honestly did not know who I might support, at one point I couldn't even say which party's nominee would more likely get my vote.
I still can't - at least with any real certainty.

But I have, not to be too melodramatic about it, a feeling of impending doom.
Is that boor's presidency a real possibility?
Is the media to blame for initially not taking him seriously as a political figure, while all too ready to take him seriously as a ratings generating entertainment powerhouse? and now, too late, trying to shine a spotlight on the monster they helped spawn?

Am I to blame, as one of a hoard of a snarky, mocking, prideful, It-Couldn't-Happen-Here grasshoppers, to blame?

Unlike some... (unlike ME! I have always pooh-poohed Himself's Chicken Little tendencies!) I think the World's soul is in peril from more than politics and war, I really do.
I am starting to see many things... Coming To An End.
People who should be worried, should be helping, should be taking things in hand are tuning up their Strads.

Forgive us, Lord.

I wrote this article  and sent it to [his] team in hopes that they would respond. But they never did. I cannot imagine what their world must be like. Who knows? It probably got lost in some email basket out there. But I tried because I felt that that would be more appropriate to do.

It’s a high stakes thing from my perspective because people make decisions about Christ on the basis of Christians and how we behave. If he’s going to call himself a Christian one day and call someone a bimbo the next or make fun of somebody’s menstrual cycle, it’s just beyond reason to me.

There was one occasion he held up a Bible. On another occasion, at Liberty University, he read from Scripture. On multiple occasions he’s said “Of course I’m a Christian.” There was a time in Iowa when he said “I’m a Christian,” and somebody asked about forgiveness and he said “I’ve never asked God for forgiveness.”

I can’t imagine that. I’m just shaking my head going “How does that work?” Does a swimmer say “I’ve never gotten wet?” Does a musician say “I’ve never sung a song?” How does a person claim to be a Christian and never need to ask for forgiveness?

Wait.

A correction, a little edit.

Forgive me, Lord.

The Enemy of My Enemy's Enemy's Enemy Is My... SQUIRREL!!!! And what in the world is "Sutdugoo"?

I imagine we have all been embarrassed by finding ourselves in agreement with someone whom we find loathsome - or lest you think I am attacking anyone ad hominem, whose ideas, words, opinions, attitudes, or actions we find loathsome.

And of course, the interwebs are just that, a web, a tangle, a great time-sucking morass of claims, counter-claims, self-contradictions - after a bit, of trying to understand the scorecard, I just get distracted.

I'm weak minded that way.

What brought on my present crisis of faith in my own judgement and "alliances" is two-fold. Or maybe three?

First there is the absurd vortex of militant feminism, militant islam, militant atheism  or anti-christian sentiment, (never can quite make up my mind,) and militant misogyny.
I'm not going to link to any of these loonies, suffice to say I offered sympathy to someone whose attacker seemed either evil or unhinged, (mocking, laughing and singing jovially about the death by suicide of a sibling,) as caught on video.
Supporters of that attacker claim that attacker was attacked via tweet by an attacker linking a satirical attack on the first attacker who is therefore now an attackee and also another attackee, both of which attackees are apparently frequent attackers themselves, and both actual persons identifiable in the satire but only one of whom the supporters of the initial attacker feels should be spared attack, as they don't like the other attackee in the satire, so tough beans for him.
Got that?

"Does [attacker via tweet] have any conception of just how much abuse [persons] like [attacker who mocked suicide of relative of soon-to-be-an-attacker-himself] get?"

Imagine that.
People who behave badly experience retaliation.
Because it's all a matter of the new hobby that's sweeping the globe! It's  SUTDUGOO, ("Selective Umbrage-Taking Dependant Upon Gored Ox's Ownership.)

Oh, I said two- or three-fold, didn't I?
Well, I've gone on long enough for now.

"God Loves a Cheerful Giver," and If the Giver Can Get a Little Somethin' Somethin' Out Of It For Himself....

Hey, it's a win/win, right?

One of the presidential candidates made a big deal about not taking part in a scheduled debate, and holding an alternative event to raise money for our wounded and needy veterans.
Bravo.

But any donations made on the "Trump for Veterans" page actually went to something called "The Donald J Trump Foundation."

What exactly is that?

The page on the Trump organization's website dealing with charities speaks of the Eric Trump Foundation which raises money for St Jude's Children's Hospital, Girl Up which works with the UN, the New York City Police Foundation, and the Police Athletic League.

Four charitable endeavors, none of which are "the Donald J Trump Foundation.

This non-profits website indicates it does exist, but  it is odd that the Trump organization itself has no mention of it, or what it does.

It may be all perfectly above board, but I think its fishy enough that it would be better to donate to something a little more stable for the time being, don't you?

So, These Two Corinthians Walk Into a Bar...

... and the first Corinthian says --

Com'on, I can't have been the only one whose thoughts that way ran, upon hearing Donald Trump trying to sound as if he had more than a glancing interest in and knowledge of Christianity.

So, this first Corinthian says, "I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."

Actually, that's rther apt in light of current politics in this country....

Guns, Babies, Free Speech and Mandated Speech Contrary To the Speakers Interests and/or Beliefs

California, the cradle of a free-speech movement back in the day, has a law that pro-life crisis pregnancy centers must prominently post a sign in 48 point type on a sheet the size of letterhead, not just reminding women that abortions are legal, but telling them how to find an abortionist at little or no cost.

I wonder what the reaction of those who favor this mandated speech would be if "gun-free zones" were required by law to post in a similar manner reminding people of their second amendment rights, and informing them where to go to purchase a pistol, apply for a license, do a little target practice, and, where legal, get themselves a concealed carry permit.

As it happens, I am far right on the issue of the private murder of the unborn, and far left on the issue of keeping weapons out of the hands of those on terrorist watchlists, toddlers whose caregiver's IQs are in the middling double digits, and loners who aren't playing with a full deck.

I am just non-plussed by the complete lack of principles that are brought to bear on so many contentious issues, the inconsistency.

But back to the crisis pregnancy centers, if I were they, I'd comply with the law, and make the dang sign REALLY prominent and eye-catching, by using a larger font, and framing the notice with images  of the "products of abortion" such as the Planned Parenthood "sting" videos gave us, with neon arrows pointing to them, comme ça:

California has public programs that provide immediate free or low-cost access to Abortions for eligible women. 

 

You know, Abortions Like This!!!!

Dear King Richard III...

The New Yorker has a political advice column penned by the long dead but recently re-discovered, skeletally and genetically identified, and buried with fitting pomp and reverence albeit by protestants whom he would have had executed, non-nephew killing, much slandered monarch, Good King Richard.

Well done. (The handsome Duke of York was an early crush of mine, and the facial reconstruction proves he was quite as noble-visaged as I imagined him. So there..)

Dear King Richard -

Have you ever seen someone dominate an election like this? I would have curb-stomped Reagan. I am more popular than Mussolini ever was. I am significantly taller than Jesus. I’ve made a huge amount of money, and I’m not going to apologize to anyone for that. China is scared of me. My question is: How are you?

Sincerely,
Talking Loudly Inside Trump Towers

Thank you for writing. I am fine, though afflicted by a certain melancholy for, as I understand it, most of you think I am the ruthless caricature created by that cretinous ass William Shakespeare. Do you people really think I was in my mother’s womb for two years and born with fangs? That not only did I kill my own brother’s sweet sons but I also found time to kill Henry VI, his son Edward, and my own beloved brother George? That I murdered my wife so that I could marry my niece? Calumny. Oh, and Donald? You are like poison that screams its victim to death. You belong in a dungeon.

Royally Yours....

A Faithful Citizen had Two Sons, Second Draft

“What is your opinion?
A faithful citizen had two sons.
He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work to respect the dignity and life of every human person from conception until natural death..’  He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and did in some ways, but was more interested in peripheral causes.
The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but when it came down to it, really, isn't burning fossil fuels as bad as dismembering babies in the womb? isn't  refusing to give a guy a job worse than giving him poison when he's going through depression?
For which of the two should his father vote?"

A Faithful Citizen had Two Sons, First Draft

“What is your opinion?
A faithful citizen had two sons.
He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work to respect the dignity and life of every human person from conception until natural death..’  He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and did in some ways, but was more interested in peripheral causes. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but when he had the chance didn't do much so that he could keep that issue in play to fire up his base.
For which of the two should his father vote?"