Wednesday, July 27, 2016

HUMOR AND CANON LAW DON'T NORMALLY MIX EVEN IN THIS POST BUT I'LL GIVE IT A TRY: I POST; YOU DECIDE!

From the infamous worldwide web:

Inside humor, the whooosh! will have particular resonance with vocation directors who attended a national workshop in San Francisco back in the late 1980's!

And this  bishop makes canon law not humorous because it can't be but interesting. But I should point out that every marriage licitly undertaken by a Catholic is always presumed to be a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church until the person, after a civil divorce and having undergone a formal annulment procedure, receives the final decree from the diocesan tribunal declaring the said marriage to be null and void. No one even with evidence to the contrary should presume nullity without first having received the final decree!




153 comments:

Anna in West Virginia said...

Father, one of our priests...your own...was just savagely murdered. I don't think this is the appropriate time for humor of any kind.

Anonymous said...

Father. You do realize that a priest just had his throat slit while saying Mass. It might be worth a mention. You might want to consider encouraging people to say the rosary for this priest, for the Church, for the world asking Our Lady to come to our aid. It's just a suggestion.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Humor is what kept my mother going when in her early 20's she saw death and destruction all around her after Livorno was carpet bombed time and again destroying her family's apartment and killing many friends and relatives!

Tony V said...

Why is civil divorce necessary? The church doesn't recognise it, surely. What about countries where civil divorce doesn't exist? That was the case in Ireland until recent years, and in Italy till 1970.

Agnes said...

Father, I agree. If we refrained from humor every time something terrible happened we would never smile.

gob said...

I'm pretty sure that there are some here who never smile...even if something awful doesn't happen. (Some of them may respond to this comment.)

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

I like this Bishop Paprocki. And I think his use of video to facilitate his teaching office as Bishop is great. I think this needs to be done more, and these types of short videos circulated more, so that we actually have an opportunity to hear a bishop exercise his teaching office, and receive serious clarification, without politics, of Church doctrine.

Thanks for posting it here Fr. McD. I would never had seen this if you'd not posted it.
Bee

P.S. I don't get the joke of the Drip, drip....whoosh, but that's okay. :-)

Mark Thomas said...

I am not about to cast the first stone at Father McDonald for his use of humor at this so-called "inappropriate" time. I guarantee that Father McDonald prayed fervently (and will continue to pray for) Father Hamel, as well as the "other hostage" (our brother or sister) who is in critical condition as the result of yesterday's attack in question.

Please count me out of the let's-condemn-Father-McDonald business.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

John Nolan said...

Forty-seven years ago when I was in the University OTC we had a Regular training major who could lecture on Queen's Regulations and the Manual of Military Law and have us laughing. Some of the examples he made up to illustrate various offences were hilarious.

Mind you, the MML itself was not devoid of (unintentional) humour, like the example given for disobedience which seemed to come from Queen Victoria's army:-

'Private X of the Blankshire Regiment, when ordered by his sergeant-major to get on parade refused to do so; moreover he divested himself of his waist-belt and declared "You may do as you please, for I'll soldier no more", or words to that effect.'

Regarding the Rouen outrage we should pray for Fr Hamel's murderers but not for him; rather, we should ask him to pray for us. While deploring the manner of his death, we may also rejoice in the fact that in his case a lifetime of devoted service was rewarded with a martyr's crown.

Jusadbellum said...

In this country more and more (mostly Protestant) churches are hiring or creating volunteer units of armed security to mitigate the threat of such would-be mass murderers attacking what is essentially a 'soft target'.

Since 1999 there have been well over 150 violent assaults at Catholic parishes and over 80 people killed by a combination of criminals, the insane, people seeking vengeance against family or friends, and a few genuine sociopaths. Now, granted, there are 19,000 Catholic parishes in the US so 150 assaults over 15 years is a drop in the bucket. It's not common - but it's not unheard of either.

While most of our parishes are 'gun free' zones, I'd hazard a guess that for every 100 families, 1 or 2 are probably packing concealed (purse or pocket) at any given Mass. If pastors deputized 2-3 ushers to bring their validly licensed concealed carry pieces to Mass, they'd do a lot to mitigate or eliminate the potential for a mass casualty attack. After all, what's the current policy? To "duck and cover" while calling 911 so that a 'good man' with a gun will show up and dispatch the bad guy with a knife or gun.

If ushers had concealed carry pieces on them (in deep concealment so no one's the wiser but the pastor) then they'd be the instant 'first responders' who could immediately disarm or dispatch the bad guy(s) before a 911 call is even made.

All these attacks happen within 60 seconds anyway. Unless we empower specific laity to carry the only effective tools for stopping terror or crazed attackers, we'll be planning on accepting a lot of innocent victims as the price for the illusion of safety.

Gene said...

I hate to break it to Fr. MacDonald, but I and several other men and at least one woman always carried concealed at Mass.

TJM said...

Archbishop Hughes of New York in the middle of the 19th Century in response to anti-Catholic violence in NY, placed sharpshooters on the roof of his cathedral and warned the mayor if any harm came to his people or his cathedral he would turn New York into a second Moscow. I'd say we need the good Archbishop's fighting spirit to rise again!

Mark Thomas said...

During the Church's early centuries, did Doorkeepers also serve the purpose of providing security during Mass?
=================================================================================


I don't understand the claim that in France (or, for that matter, any country), it is "impossible" to guard each Catholic parish (church) against physical attack.

Easy solution: Each parish forms a security squad armed with weapons to defend the parish against a terrorist attack. At the very least, the squad(s) would be present during each Mass. Perhaps around-the-clock parish security could be provided.

I am certain that costs, if any, for security squads would be reduced via volunteers. I doubt that there would be a shortage of security squad volunteers.

Terrorists who would rush a church during Mass would, almost certainly, inflict causalities upon the congregation prior to their (the terrorists) being immobilized by the security squad. But at the very least, terrorists would find it difficult to mow down the congregation present during Mass.

Someday, a typical parish may be surrounded by a security wall. Security checkpoints would be established. Metal detectors...explosive-sniffing dogs and/or technology would be deployed to reduce or eliminate attacks against a parish.

By the way, Islamic terrorists aren't the only people who wish to inflict harm upon a parish.

Rome must soon find a way to return millions of lapsed Catholic to the Faith...and bring about millions of conversions throughout the West. Otherwise...

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jusadbellum said...

Catechism of the Catholic Church #2265 explicitly spells out that it's not just a right but a GRAVE DUTY for those responsible for the wellbeing of the innocent to defend against unjust aggression.

Thus, husbands and fathers at a minimum ought to be allowed to possess the means by which to protect their wives and children from unjust aggressors should no other institutional safeguards be employed.

So if the diocese or parish refuses to take practical steps to guarantee the safety of those in their care - whether through off duty police or similar deputized professionals - the 'grave duty' falls on "we the people" to take what safeguards we deem necessary to our own safety.

Of course priests, deacons, and religious are forbidden by canon law (and common sense) from being armed. They ought to be willing to lay down their lives after all. But laity have immediate responsibilities for the innocent in their care. We're not free to run (and thereby abandon the old and the young to wolves) nor are we free to just use our bodies as shields and thus widow and orphan our families as "the plan". The right to life trumps every other consideration here.

Thus the smart, proactive move for pastors is to a) don't broadcast that our churches are 'gun free zones' even if they are and b) discretely and without fanfare contact those ushers and greeters one reasonably suspects may be concealed carry permit holders and authorize them to carry concealed at Mass (as well as get them training in de-escalation techniques, restraint holds, first aid, and similar formation to give them alternatives to deadly force).

That way you provide assurances to the laity that they are reasonably safe and hence won't need to take matters into their own hands.

The alternative is that untold numbers WILL most certainly conceal carry in our churches but in the event of a sudden assault, people will HESITATE rather than immediately engage out of fear/confusion as to whether they can legally/morally intervene on behalf of the common good vs. their own immediate defense.

Most laws will exonerate 'good Samaritans' for defending the innocent but without a policy or tacit permission from the pastor they may still be in hot water - and that might be enough to keep them from immediately responding to 1 or 2 maniacs who open fire or rush the altar with knives.

Arming (and deputizing) the ushers and greeters (discretely, privately) who are paying attention to the entrances and congregation (vs. being distracted by family or silently praying and thus not paying attention to their surroundings) is the most effective (and least expensive) route to achieve a safe space for worship.

Anonymous said...

And when one of these ushers with a deeply concealed weapon shots and kills, unintentionally, a 5 year old child, how is that pastor, who was "the wiser" going to celebrate the funeral mass?

No, more weapons do not bring about greater safety.

rcg said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rcg said...

Those first two posts are not even trolling. They are septic tank bottom feeding coliforms.

Tony V said...

Somehow I don't remember Jesus telling the apostles to carry concealed weapons. He told Peter off for using a sword, and told his followers to expect to be treated badly. And to turn the other cheek.

glob said...

Gosh Eugene....you have a PISTOL? WOW....I'll bet it's a BIG one. (Compensatory?) Are you a real cowboy? How many people have you killed with your BIG pistol? I hope you don't shoot Catholics.

TJM said...

To get back on track. I know Bishop Paprocki personally and he is one the most thoughtful, intelligent, charitable,holy,and fun bishops I've had the privilege to know. In addition to his church duties, he is an avid hockey player, and is fondly known as the "Holy Goalie." Springfield is very fortunate indeed. He should have been appointed appointed Archbishop of Chicago, instead we got a doubleknit dinosaur, hopelessly mired in the zeitgeist of the 60s.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

@rcg: :-)

John Nolan said...

Rightly or wrongly, no western European government would allow untrained civilians who carry guns because they have a fascination with firearms to act as vigilantes.

For a number of reasons the American attitude to firearms is not replicated in Europe.

glub said...

All of our yahoo wannabe cowboys believe they are part of "a well trained militia", it seems...

Anonymous said...

Gene says "I hate to break it to Father MacDonald, but I and several other men and at least one woman always carried concealed at Mass." As a mother with small children this is a cause for great concern. To think that I am sitting in a beautiful church with my children and somewhere in the church are members hiding weapons. I had a close friend killed by his own father with a gun during a hunting accident. I say this also respectfully, based on the anger and racists comments that I have read on this blog it frightens me to know that someone with such aggression sits near me and my children with a hidden gun. Not one Gene says but several. This is a very serious issue. I do not know the solution. You can't search church members as they enter the church. I however have learned a very good lesson today. Im not sure I will go back to St. Joseph. My children and our safety are too important. I am shocked. You would think in Macon that our church would be safe. It is not safe because of the very members who are hiding guns. I am shocked. I won't go back. A Catholic Mom

Gene said...

John Nolan, We do not carry firearms because we have a "fascination' with them. We carry them because it is our Constitutional right as American citizens and because we have good sense. We understand that the world is a dangerous place and that responsible people who love their families should protect them. Honestly, we really do not care about Western European governments, most of which are socialist welfare states who are welcoming Muslims with open arms to slaughter their citizens and corrupt their laws and governments. Our idiot President wants to do the same thing here, but I hope we can turn the tide once he goes back to the 'hood where he belongs. At least, if the Muzzies become too much of a threat, good citizens will be able to shoot them and militias will be formed.

Gene said...

Gob, I have been around weapons and firearms most of my life. I am well-trained in all of the ones I handle and treat them matter-of-factly as tools. No, I never killed anyone with a pistol. I did kill a few with an M-16, however, and slept like a baby the same night unless there was a rocket or mortar attack. I do not, as a rule, shoot Catholics, however, in your case I might make an exception.

Anonymous said...

To Gene: Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Savannah Bishop Gregory Hartmayer issued a decree prohibiting guns and knives with blades longer than 5 inches from parishes, schools, offices and other buildings owned by the Catholic Church.
You sir have broken the law and have upset many family members after posting your comment today July 27 at 2:03. Your comment has been copied and mailed to our bishop in Savannah. A copy has also been mailed to Archbishop Gregory as well as to the pastor at St. Josephs church. Parents have a right to make sure their children are safe in Church. Our church leaders with their ban on weapons appear to agree.

Anonymous said...

Fr MacDonald as the former parish priest at St. Joseph Church and as the author of this blog you have the responsibility to report to your bishop and inform the new pastor of St. Joseph that Church that members are breaking Georgia Law when they take weapons in our Catholic Churches. The Archbishop and Bishop Hartmayer have forbid weapons in any of our churches, or Catholic property. You have a regular blogger who had admitted that he conceals weapons during mass. You have the responsibility along with every other mother and father that read this blog to inform the bishop. This is very serious. It is against the law.

Anonymous said...

Father MacDonald please read the post today at 8:29. You have a Blogger that admits to breaking the law and taking weapons into our church. You have him in his most recent post admitting killing human beings and sleeping like a baby. You have him indicating that he could even shoot a person Gob that he is responding to as well. We have copied this and are tomorrow sending this to the bishop and Archbishop. This is very serious. You must support us and report this to the bishop. This is a very serious matter. We should have 0 tolerance when someone carries guns in church as well as indicates he would have no problem shooting a fellow blogger.

rcg said...

Concealed carry laws in most, in not all US states allow for the establishment to enforce the policy at will as long as the policy is posted publicly. Hence the ubiquitous posters saying no guns allowed. This allows them to request that a person depart if they are suspected or known to carry at that moment. This is because some states require public establishments to allow the public in without exception. This is the heart of homosexual bakery campaign. Additionally, this helps protect the diocese and parish from a law suit if an event such as happened in France occurs in Holy Family Parish and one of our Altar Rosary Society matrons uses her hogleg to banishe him from our presence.

Anonymous said...

Mark Thomas: Did I understand you correctly. Mothers are going to pass security guards as they enter the church each Sunday with their children? That is your solution. What psychological affect will this have on our children. We MUST change gun laws in this country. Do you honestly think we are going to go to church with armed guards at the door? Have you read some of the racists remarks on this blog towards a black president, and people that have different opinions. Have you heard the people that admit to killing and then "sleeping like a baby" What has our church become?

TJM said...

Anonymous, thanks for expressing the terrorist and criminal point of view. God forbid we should be able tp defend ourselves. Archbishop Hughes, a real man and Catholic, could care less what whimpy bishops today have to say. They have done enough damage already. We gave peace a chance. Now let's give war on our enemies a shot. You sound like a gutless coward that wants Big Mama government to protect him. Our Founding Fathers would despise you

Jusadbellum said...

Anonymous.... actually, the archdiocesan policy has exceptions - quite a few of them in fact. Police may carry openly or concealed. Knights of Columbus swords are accepted as are Knights of St. Peter Claver's swords. Knives over 5 inches that are used as cutlery in the parish hall kitchens are accepted. As are archery and shotguns used in our schools sports teams. Pastors can furthermore grant individual ushers or others to carry concealed in their parish at will.

If a man or woman conceal carries you'll never know (that's kind of the point). If you demand to see their weapon on suspicion, they can walk away and you CAN NOT frisk them (that would be a felony). If a pastor asks them to leave until they'd secured the weapon they have the option to do so before 911 is called for a misdemeanor charge of trespassing.

But this is all academic. GA has 10 million people and 750,000 concealed carry permits. Almost none of them have been involved in felony homicides. No one is going to legally purchase a pistol for $500, plus all the accessories, ammo, training, and $80 concealed carry permit fees (easily another $500) and then be careless in how they go about their affairs. Concealed carry permit holders are LESS likely to be involved in crimes. Less likely to engage in shouting or shoving matches.

So this insane fear of law abiding people with guns - who are trained as well if not better than police (who aren't mandated to train that much on pistols as EVERY study of police shooting accuracy and round expenditure shows) - is misplaced.

Gene is more likely to not be involved in a heated altercation than all of these pearl clutching church ladies getting the vapors by confusing a hunting accident (long rifle or shotgun) with concealed carry pistols.

My point stands..... people will concealed carry in churches whether we like it or not because they do have a right to the effective tools to guarantee their safety and self-defense in the complete ABSENCE of any proactive parish plan to deal with an active shooter. So if a pastor was smart, he'd quietly, discretely, reach out to guys like Gene and deputize them.

The law already is PRETTY STRICT for concealed carry holders - no one can brandish a firearm (felony). No one can threaten another with a firearm legally unless there is verifiable fear of their life being in danger. So no one is going to be waving pistols around - just as no one has waved pistols around so far despite the moral certainty that people (including little old ladies) carry them right now.

Jusadbellum said...

Also, unless you can prove Gene carried (past tense) and prove you know who Gene is (again, unlikely) there's nothing actionable for either bishop to do. They might issue an update in the policy but just as we see in the NC bathroom wars: who's going to check for concealed carry guns? Are YOU, anonymous going to set up metal detectors and the volunteer staff to man them? If so, then maybe people would keep their guns home...maybe. But at least there would be more proactive security than exists now.

Short of metal detectors and xray machines...or invasive pat downs, there's no way to enforce a ban on concealed carry pistols in Mass. So the smart move is to discretely deputize the ushers and male greeters (men who are military vets, who have legal conceal carry permits, and who can show to the pastor's satisfaction that they are men of morals and self control.)

Do that and every family will not just FEEEEEEEEL SAFE, they'll actually BE SAFE(R) than they are right now (presuming no one conceal carries which, in GA, 1-2% probably do.

Finally, all modern semi-automatics have multiple safety devices in addition to the trigger. Guns never "just go off". No one "accidentally shoots 5 year olds". If a gun is fired it's because someone pulled the trigger while breaking all the rules of gun safety. No one who owns a pistol is as ignorant about these things as soccer moms who are terrified of inanimate objects.

Anonymous 2 said...

John Nolan:

Based on my experience growing up and living in England as a young man (including membership in the Marylebone Rifle and Pistol Club during my years in London), my sense is that those of a conservative disposition in the U.K. would regard anyone suggesting that citizens should be armed with a firearm as a matter of right as a threat to law and order and, I assume also, as some kind of liberal or libertarian fanatic. By contrast, over here, those who urge what appears to be an absolutist and extreme interpretation of the Second Amendment regard themselves as the conservatives who support law and order and those of us who advocate prudent regulation of firearms consistent with the Second Amendment as fanatical liberals. So, in this area at least, I find things all topsy turvy. It is passing strange indeed.


Anonymous said...

Fellow Bloggers
The laws in Georgia prohibit weapons inside of Churches unless the Church Authority gives that permission. Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Savannah Bishop Gregory Hartmayer issued a decree prohibiting guns and knives with blades longer than 5 inches from parishes, schools, offices and other buildings owned by the Catholic Church.

We have bloggers on this thread that have admitted to taking concealed weapons inside the church during mass.

Gene: "I hate to break it to Fr. MacDonald, but I and several other men and at least one other woman always carried concealed at Mass."

Gene: "Our idiot President wants to do the same thing here (he is speaking of gun control) but I hope we can turn the tide once he goes back to the "hood" where he belongs.

Gene: If Muzzies become too much of a threat (he is speaking of the Muslim faith) good citizens will be able to shoot them and form militias.

Gene: I did kill a few with an M-16 and slept like a baby. (I guess he is speaking of military service)

Gene: I do not, as a rule, shoot Catholics , however, in your case I might make an exception

Another Blogger suggests actually training church ushers to guard the entrance to our church.

Justabellum: "Thus the smart proactive move for pastors is to a} don't broadcast that our churches are "gun free zones" even if they are Justabellum also suggests that our pastors authorize ushers and greeters to carry concealed weapons.

Mark Thomas: This man has an entire list of suggestions for protecting the church including building a wall.

I ask each of you: Is this the type of Church environment that we want to attend with our children. We have had no such problems like this in Macon Georgia. This is hysteria and can cause deep psychological harm.

To all of you who read this you might feel a responsibility to report this to our bishop, priest and archbishop. We should have no tolerance for weapons carried within our church . This is against the law. More people are killed from gun accidents than from any other situation. I also suggest that should you see someone in the Church with a weapon hidden that this person should be reported to the pastor and to the police. Someone is going to get hurt this is horrible. We are not at "war" the "war is only in the mind of people with serious problems that sleep like a baby after killing someone. This is no joke, and it should not be tolerated. Amy



John Nolan said...

Gene, the Second Amendment refers to 'a well-regulated militia' and is linked to a distrust of a standing army. The right to bear arms is enshrined in English Common Law. Americans also noted that the restrictive Game Laws in England had the effect of disarming a large number of British subjects, so it was important to stress the individual's right to bear arms. Be that as it may, it remains a right under the Constitution, and rights once surrendered are rarely recovered.

I'm sure that if you formed your own militia you would train its members well and keep them in good order and military discipline. I'm not so sure that would apply to every ad hoc vigilante group, or that every gun-toting US citizen is as well trained in firearms as you are. Guns, like fast cars, do exert a fascination and for similar reasons. In Germany you would not normally be allowed to carry a concealed weapon but it is legal to drive at 250 km/hr on the Autobahn.

Andere Länder, andere Sitten.



Anonymous said...

Poster at 9:40 It is unbelievable that someone would blame "homosexuals" for a racist that enters a church with a concealed weapon. I for one will step out of the church and call the police if I see someone with a gun. We have laws in Georgia to protect church members from mentally ill church members who hide guns.

This is totally irrational and indicates the mentality of the posters here. They Break the law of Georgia and ignore rules from the Administration of our Church and break the Commandments of God.

Justabellum you miss the point with your attempt to "educate" people here on laws, the safety of weapons etc.... IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO HAVE A GUN IN A CHURCH IN GEORGIA.

The author of this blog just like any other leader of a group has the responsibility to the Catholic Faith to contact his bishop about this situation.

We will change gun laws and we will hold those who turn a blind eye accountable when someone breaks the law and ends in the death of a fellow Catholic. There are some sick people in this world. I just never knew there were so many of them sitting beside me and my children at mass.

Anonymous said...

"You would think in Macon that our church would be safe."

I just want to say, this is the most absurd thing I have ever read. Do you ever watch the news?! Macon is one of the most dangerous cities in the state.

Anonymous said...

"More people are killed from gun accidents than from any other situation."

Actually, firearms accidents are the #7 leading cause of accidental death accounting for around 700 deaths as opposed to:

42,000 Vehicle Accidents
39,000 Poisonings
25,000 Falls
2,700 Fires
2,500 Choking
2,000 Drowning

You are almost 35 times as likely to fall to your death which means we should be outraged by that deep pit around the church...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 8:11
You completely miss the point. It is against the law and church rules to carry a gun into a church in Georgia.

To the Person who states that we do not know the Identity of "Gene": He is a former minister, he is in private business, he has taught RCIA classes and he has personally threatened people on this blog. He is racists, insulting to our president calling him "Obammy " threatens fellow bloggers on this site and insults other faiths, races, women and now thinks he can say "it was all a joke" In the year 2016 we are told to keep a watchful eye and report anything we see as cause for alarm.

To the Person who states that the Bishops won't do anything. We will see how Savannah, Macon, and Atlanta deal with the media reports once this blog and the statements made here are published in the papers and on the local TV stations. We will see then what our govt. officials and bishops have to say.

And you need to read the facts about children killed by guns. You mock and talk about the "deep pit around the church" We will see what TV reporters, and the newspapers, and our Bishops think is and is not funny.

This has gone way too far. This blog promotes hatred and encourages people to break the law. They are encouraged because the statements are allowed to be posted on this site. The author is just as guilty as the posters.

Agnes said...

Anonymous, breathe. Stating something one time is sufficient.

Jan said...

Anonymous, July 28, 2016 at 12:50 AM said, "The laws in Georgia prohibit weapons inside of Churches unless the Church Authority gives that permission. Atlanta Archbishop Wilton Gregory and Savannah Bishop Gregory Hartmayer issued a decree prohibiting guns and knives with blades longer than 5 inches from parishes, schools, offices and other buildings owned by the Catholic Church."

Do you seriously think that militant Muslims are going to be taking any notice of this decree by the Bishops? I am sure the bishops of France had a similar decree but that certainly didn't help the 83 year old priest or the nun now struggling for her life.

How old is this decree from the bishops? I bet it was issued way before the upsurge in Muslim violence and I suggest that the bishops should be looking at security guards to protect churches if the expect parishioners not to carry weapons in self-defense in the present climate.

Jan said...

A Catholic Mom, if you want to remain safe then you are better to stay away from any public area because there are undoubtedly people carry concealed weapons. Also, Catholics had better pray that if there is an attack by Muslims extremists where they happen to be that there are some people concealing weapons who may protect them from having their and their children's throat slit.

Marc said...

While I do not own any firearms, I am certain that members of my parish carry concealed weapons to Mass. That certainty gives me a sense of calm for myself and my family, knowing that my fellow parishioners are ready to defend us, should the need arise.

TJM said...

John Nolan,

You are one of the most thoughtful commentators here but I wanted to point out that the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Bill of Rights which are all PERSONAL to the individual and are not collective rights. I know the reference to a militia is there but that is there by way of example and not limitation. In Colonial times every household had guns both for hunting and personal protection purposes. I write this as someone who does not own a gun and has never fired one.

Best,

Tom

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Well Fr. McD, I think since the troll(s) you picked up didn't get satisfaction with regards to being insulted and upset at the kinds of comments found on this blog, rather than just leaving and not reading here again as he/she/they promised, he/she/they seem to have taken a new tack...namely reporting you to authorities. As he/she/they say, zero tolerance.

You are committing some grave sins you know Father. First, allowing comments on the blog that are altogether uncharitable, second, not making your blog a reflection of the MSM news (you didn't have a posting regarding the death of Fr. Jacques Hamel), third, "allowing" conceal carrying in your former parish.

I think, good and kindly Fr. McD, someone is trying to get your blog shut down.... Could it be because of your love of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, and could it be a parishioner (or parishioners) at your new parish who is/are wholly against any direction toward tradition (and maybe orthodoxy) that you espouse, or could it be even a fellow priest who would like to cause you some trouble?

Or maybe it's that you're too happy.

Something to think about... :-)

God bless you, Fr. McD.
Bee

Jusadbellum said...

Anonymous: the law, and the policy of the two dioceses EXPLICITLY allows for pastors to grant permission to individuals to carry (concealed).

If people are currently without authorization or if they get authorization, the fact remains that to the degree they CONCEAL CARRY for personal self protection, you, the church going family is none the wiser. All this time you think the Church is "safe" because no icky guns are inside? You think a gun free zone makes you safe? EVERY mass casualty shooting since 1999 has happened in 'gun free zones'!

That's why law abiding, good people with wives and children to protect will proactively take steps necessary to guarantee the safety of their loved ones in the absence of any sign that the Church has taken steps to guarantee their safety. A policy and a sign that says "no guns" is not protection. It's not a force field that keeps bad guys or nuts out.

You might as well put up "no shoplifting" signs and see if that'll keep thieves from stealing. All it does is help the LEGAL aftermath. It does nothing to prevent crime in the first place.

As for risk: There are over 50 attacks on Churches per year. Many occur in the sanctuary, in schools, and in the parking lot. Good people with legal carry permits are not the problem. They're not the threat. http://nebula.wsimg.com/1e5669b6897febe85d91f64e9821cae5?AccessKeyId=16B07A2D0672906279DB&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

My SUGGESTION follows the law. It's the ONLY VIABLE solution short of a draconian TSA like screening process. It respects the letter and spirit of the GA law and the letter and spirit of the diocesan policies. It would be EFFECTIVE in an active shooting incident because ushers already wear suits and ties, they're already standing and alert during all phases of the liturgy and so would be the logical people we would hope to intervene to call 911, to intercept a nut, or to put a radical terrorist down.

Most civilian pistol engagements are within 50 feet (15-20 yards). Most are over in less than 10 seconds and most involve less than 5 shots fired. Police shootings on the other hand tend to be at larger distances and involve 3-4x as many shots fired and with 50-75% less accuracy.

Thus from a strictly logical and moral framework, my suggestion addresses the legitimate concerns of the otherwise concealed carrying people as well as the concerns and fears of the pearl clutching magical thinking people who think a sign creates a magic forcefield around churches, schools, or government buildings. (Why doesn't the White House ditch the Secret Service and just post "no gun" signs?)

My idea would allow 3-4 (maximum) men - who have all been vetted, who have all been screened, background checked, finger printed, and trained in gun safety, who are all known and respected members of their church community, known by the pastor, to conceal carry. These men serve us every week and are not lone wolves. They know each other and trust each other with the collection money. Letting THOSE guys be authorized by the pastors solves the problem for all sides. No harm, no foul.

If you ignore my common sense suggestion then the status quo will continue and it'll mean haphazard standards, and willy nilly laity taking matters into their own hands because their right to life trumps any gun control law. Malum prohibitum is not as bad as malum in se. Tens of millions of illegal immigrants break the law all the time for precisely this reason: their right to life trumps our immigration laws do they not? Why wouldn't the right to life for our fellow Catholics not trump some ill considered, irrational law that only serves to disarm the PEOPLE LEAST LIKELY TO CAUSE PROBLEMS IN THE FIRST PLACE?

The logic is irrefutable. But go for it. There's either the status quo - or one workable solution that doesn't cost the parish money, doesn't expose the parish to legal liability, and doesn't spook people who are hoplophobes.

rcg said...

John Nolan, here we have a case of andere zeiten. The militia clause is, essentially, the reason the congress wanted an armed population. There are examples of laws establishing the funding for raising arms that included a bonus in pay and rations for the person that brought his own rifle and could shoot it well, thus saving the Government time and money. They could have declared, as many who try to show other context for the need for arms in the 18th century, that the pepole used it to hunt food. But the Congress was only addressing the possible interests of the Federal Government and was being intentionally blind to those other concerns that were none of its business.

Anonymous at 7:52: get some coffee, take your meds, reread the post. Try doing so out loud a couple of times. That will help you understand it.

Jan said...

I agree with Bee. These latest trolls have only arrived since Fr McD went to his new parish. No doubt he will know who these people are or other parishioners will be able to point them out. But from all accounts Fr McD is too popular a priest for these types to be able to do him any damage. Only themselves when fellow parishioners cotton up to what they are up to and what liars they are as well.

Jusadbellum said...

It might do everyone some good to read this excellent (and short) blog post by a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter who is the artist behind the famous "Dilbert" cartoon. He explains the psychological differences between Hoplophobes and people who don't fear the guns as much as they fear the immoral ambitions of criminals, terrorists and the insane.

One side presumes that laws banning guns will make them magically disappear and create a magic bubble of safety (all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding). The other side sees these well intentioned laws as essentially disarming the good guys and encouraging the bad guys to be confident of success in any attack plan.

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/146307088451/why-gun-control-cant-be-solved-in-the-usa

If you pride yourself on being an open minded, non judgmental, liberal "progressive" (who naturally is super smart and morally superior to guys like Gene and myself) then you owe it to your political colleague to read the blog post. It might just help you exercise your empathy muscles.

You want to feel safe by not seeing icky and scary guns. (guns alone are the evil threat!). We want to feel safe from evil men who may commit evil acts. Both sides can 'win' without a 'winner take all' contest.

Anonymous said...

To all of you speaking to Catholic Moms we will see how African Americans, Muslims in Georgia, Homosexuals, Democrats, Protestant faith based churches in Georgia (especially Macon) and Faithful Catholics who have no idea of the hatred in their church, react when this hits the TV. Our president is called "Obammy", vulgar jokes are posted on this blog, people are threatened, and church members laugh at the law and place themselves above the law by walking into a church with hidden guns. And let me remind those of you here of the comment "I have killed and I slept like a baby" I don't normally shoot Catholics but I might make an exception in your case.... You don't need to be mad at the Catholic moms, you need to be mad at the hatred posted here. And "maybe its that you're too happy" does a Happy person allow such hatred to be posted in the name of the Catholic Faith? This is not about shutting down a blog. This is about being a Christian and not being associated with a hateful group that calls themselves Catholic.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Bee, there was a very small group of very small minded people at St. Joseph when i arrived in 2004 who could not deal in a mature way with the retirement of their beloved pastor of 30 years, Fr. John Cuddy. They still in 2016 haven't gotten over it, unlike most parishes and parishioners who know that pastors coming and going is how things work in the Catholic Church.

These small minded people I am allowing them to hang themselves and allow God to judge their small mindedness and ugliness to me over the years and now. It truly is astounding. But in no way do these small minded trolls, and that is what they are, characterize the vast majority, 99% of Saint Joseph Church's parishioners. They were and have been wonderful to me.

Marc said...

Father, you definitely handle internet trolls more manfully and patiently than I do!

Jusadbellum said...

The FBI's new promotional material for how to handle 'active shooter' incidents is for people to 'run, hide, fight'. The first two are obvious - if someone starts yelling and shooting, one should of course dive for cover. But if one can't escape, all the experts say that fighting back "with improvised weapons" is the only way to avoid total massacres.

But imagine that instead of casting about in a moment of panic for something to "improvise" into a weapon, you had a 9mm or .357 pistol in your purse or concealed holster? As 99% of the people dive for cover and run - leaving the old and the young behind in the stampede, you - the good, law abiding, morally courageous and responsible citizen and Catholic can be the Good Samaritan and save the common good not with an "improvised" weapon but a professionally engineered one.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/07/26/preparing-for-the-worst-how-to-respond-to-an-active-shooter/

Even better, by implementing the idea of deputizing the ushers (or only those who feel comfortable and have concealed carry permits), it never comes to individuals needing to make that horrible split second decision in the middle of chaos, because the ushers - who are always watching anyway - saw the lone wolf come in, saw him raise a shotgun or rifle and before he could squeeze the trigger, dropped him with 2 shots at near point blank range. Murderous assault over before anyone knows what was about to happen.

Now, if that man had been previously authorized to carry, he'd face no charges. If he wasn't authorized to carry but stopped a felony about to happen...he'd still get off AFTER a lengthy trial because both GA law and federal law recognize "Good Samaritans" and the prior right to self-defense against unlawful deadly threats even if it happens in 'gun free' zones (such as Hospitals).

Speaking of which....this sort of thing already happened and a doctor shot an insane man with a gun that he wasn't legally supposed to have in the 'gun free zone'.http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/

The fact is, 99.99% of concealed carry holders never use their guns in an unlawful fashion - less than the general population and less than police. The fact is that those who do use their weapons in self-defense are more accurate and shoot fewer bullets than police. Almost no innocent bystanders get killed by civilians using legal firearms.

We have the right to life that trumps every other law. Unless we can give people reasons to believe they're safe and thus can risk leaving their guns in their cars, we can't expect people to do so in an age of ever more Church attacks, crime and terrorism.

gob said...

Eugene....one of my very best friends is an attorney. We visit often for a cool 5 PM beverage. I have mentioned to him the threat on my life that you recently made. He's thinking it over. You will be informed of any further developments.

Anonymous said...

Fr. McDonald you could be correct that some members were upset at the mistreatment of Fr. Cuddy many years ago when he retired. However, that has nothing to do with people who are concerned about members of our Church hiding guns at Mass and proudly posting on your blog that they have "Killed before and slept like a baby". You only post one side of the story. At the same time you allow insults towards priests, bishops, Our President and on and on.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fr. Cuddy's mistreatment meme is a lie. He was offered much more than you know about but chose as a man has a right to do so the place where he lived. You perpetuate a lie, malign a good and holy priest who knew very well from the get go from his bishop that he like every other priest would need to find other accommodations in retirement. He was offered places in Sanannah and as was is right as an adult mature man, he chose to remain in Macon in his own apartment.
If you have a problem with something posted by a commenter here, you deal with it with your pastor and not on this forum. Subsequent whining from you will be deleted. Grow up!

Marc said...

Gob -- I'm also an attorney. Good luck.

TJM said...

Anonymous at 8:20, you are a good one to talk. You are the racist, your whole being is consumed by race, even voting for the most pro-abortion president in the US who as a state senator in Illinois voted against a law that would have required medical care for a baby that survived an abortion. Have you no shame, have you no decency?

John Nolan said...

TJM

I agree that those who interpret the Second Amendment as referring to individual rights are quite correct. And it is quite permissible to use lethal force in self-defence, provided the action taken is proportionate to the threat.

Law enforcement officers also have a duty to protect the public which may require them to employ lethal force even when they are not personally at risk. However, it is a controlled response and if they get it wrong (and they sometimes do) there are serious consequences.

Some commentating here are suggesting that individuals can take it upon themselves to assume this role. If US law allows this, then it is out of step with the laws of all other civilized countries. Even the military are not entitled to fire on civilians - surely Americans, considering their history, can appreciate this.



Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous at July 28, 2016 at 12:50 AM said..."Mark Thomas: This man has an entire list of suggestions for protecting the church including building a wall. I ask each of you: Is this the type of Church environment that we want to attend with our children."

Here is what I said about "building a wall."

"Someday, a typical parish may be surrounded by a security wall."

That makes sense to me. Someday...someday...someday...

...Should Islamic persecution of Catholics continue to increase.

...Should the collapse of the Faith and Mass attendance in the West continue, which would shrink the Catholic population greatly...which would render parishes even softer targets than they are today...

...Then someday, a parish may be forced to protect itself via a security wall.

Do you find that preposterous? Is it unacceptable to you that a parish take security measures, such as the construction of a protective wall, to protect itself from terrorists?

Or should a parish make it easy for terrorists to waltz into a soft-target church?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous at July 27, 2016 at 10:06 PM said..."Mark Thomas: Did I understand you correctly. Mothers are going to pass security guards as they enter the church each Sunday with their children? Do you honestly think we are going to go to church with armed guards at the door? What has our church become?"

1. What has our Church become? The soft target of vicious attacks in various ways...that's what our Church has become.

Pope Francis: There are more Christian martyrs today than ever

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/06/30/pope_there_are_more_christian_martyrs_today_than_ever/1102363

(Vatican Radio) Pope Francis said on Monday that there are more persecuted Christians in the world today than there were in the first centuries of Christianity.

"There are many martyrs today, in the Church, many persecuted Christians. Think of the Middle East where Christians must flee persecution, where Christians are killed. Even those Christians who are forced away in an ‘elegant’ way, with ‘white gloves’: that too is persecution."

Anonymous, do Catholics have the right to institute security measures to prevent priests and parishioners present at Mass from being assaulted physically? Do they have the right to protect themselves from terrorists/murderers who enjoy cutting the throats of Catholics?

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jusadbellum said...

Anonymous, you must have a good lawyer if you can construe Gene's blog post as an illegal threat.

1) It doesn't read as a specific threat but as a hypothetical
2) you are "anonymous" so he can't possibly know who you are
3) his reference to having killed before is obviously from Vietnam (M-16, rockets and mortar attacks). No one since Desert Storm would refer to their service rifle as "an M-16" (they're all called "M-4s" now).

Furthermore, you can't prove that Gene was being serious about taking guns into St. Joe's in the past. In a court what evidence other than his blog could you bring up?

Can your lawyer present evidence to the judge that Gene wasn't just joking or pot stirring? No. No you can't.

Can your lawyer present evidence that Gene knows who you are and thus could identify you in a lineup? No. No you can't.

Then - as we've seen from the Clintons' there's the whole "intent" question. He said "I might make an exception". That's not "I will with certainty hunt you down and kill you with a pistol".

Big, big difference.

Any lawyer of course can bill you for time and effort, but the blog post in question reads as snark more than threats and there's no actionable means of proving past breach of law unless he was livestreaming his concealed carry piece while carrying at Mass.

Ergo, you have nothing but sour grapes.

Meanwhile you've no solution for the status quo, and you've no idea how many little old ladies are packing because they're afraid of crime. You've no answer to them other than "oh get over it"?

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous at July 27, 2016 at 10:06 PM said..."Mark Thomas: Did I understand you correctly. Mothers are going to pass security guards as they enter the church each Sunday with their children? Do you honestly think we are going to go to church with armed guards at the door?"

Yes. Are there not churches in various parts of the world protected by security personnel? Are there not churches where people are scanned by security personnel equipped with metal detectors?

During Papal Masses, for example, isn't His Holiness Pope Francis (for that matter, everybody present) protected by security personnel who are armed heavily with firearms? Are not bomb-sniffing dogs, metal detectors, and various anti-terror technologies utilized during Masses offered by Pope Francis?

Here is a news story from last December. This is what Pope Francis and the Faithful encountered at Saint Peter's Basilica.

"The most awaited event is planned for around 11 today, December 8, in the morning, when Pope Francis will open the Holy Door of Saint Peter’s Basilica. After the Mass, celebrated in St. Peter’s square with all of the Roman Curia, Bergoglio will approach the large bronze door opening up the completely empty basilica: the event will be filmed and broadcasted worldwide in 4K Ultra HD, the most innovative television technology ever tested.

"Security measures in Rome and around the Vatican in particular, are exceptional, vehicles in the surrounding areas have been towed; police, bomb-sniffing dogs and metal detectors are everywhere. The gates for the public will open at 6:30 am in order to allow for an orderly flow of people."

That is what our Church has become...actually, the above has been in place for a long time.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous,

Catholic churches, to defend against Islamic terrorists, have, for years, utilized the following.

Example: http://www.charismanews.com/world/34678-islamic-group-reigning-terror-on-christians-in-nigeria

Islamic Group Reigning Terror on Christians in Nigeria

"A suicide bomber drove a vehicle packed with explosives into a Catholic church in northern Nigeria, killing at least three people and triggering reprisal attacks that killed at least two more, witnesses and police said."

"As Reverend Father Bonni Bazah was about to commence Holy Communion at St. Rita’s Catholic Church, an SUV plowed through the walls of his church."

"Many Christians in the Middle Belt region are living in a constant state of fear and taking measures to protect themselves as they gather for worship.

"Churches are installing metal detectors to ensure weapons and explosives are not brought into worship services by members of Boko Haram."

"Fortunately, the security measures taken by some churches have saved many lives. At St. John’s, security measures taken by the church saved the lives of many of their parishioners when they were attacked on Sept. 23."

"In a statement to the press, Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama of St. John’s said, "There would have been more causalities but people are now more security conscious."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

TJM said...

This is for the fake catholics who post here:

In comments this week to CNN and Bloomberg News, the Clinton campaign has signaled that Kaine now had indeed checked it out and stands with Clinton on public funding of abortion. "He has said that he will stand with Secretary Clinton to defend a woman's right to choose, to repeal the Hyde Amendment," Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook told CNN.

So if you vote for Clintoon/Kaine, you've excommunicated yourself!

Mark Thomas said...

Anonymous,

In regard to your replies to my comments about surrounding churches with walls designed to defend against Islamic terrorists:

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2010/12/15/concrete-walls-put-up-around-iraqi-churches-to-prevent-christmas-attacks/

Concrete walls put up around Iraqi churches to prevent Christmas attacks

2010 A.D. Catholic Herald

Government is scrambling to build 10ft-high barriers to stop a repeat of the Baghdad massacre in October

"Concrete walls are being hastily erected around churches in Iraq in the fear that al-Qaeda terrorists will try to slaughter congregations during services on Christmas Day.

"The Iraqi government is scrambling to build the 10ft-high barriers to prevent a repeat of the massacre of more than 40 Christians at Our Lady of Salvation Cathedral in Baghdad in October.

"Churches in Baghdad and Mosul will not only be barricaded but will be accessed only through gates manned by armed guards and police with scanning equipment."

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Jusadbellum said...

Here's the relevant GA law, House bill 60: http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/20132014/144825.pdf

218 "(2) Any license holder who violates subsection (b) of this Code section in a place of worship shall not be arrested but shall be fined not more than $100.00. Any person who is not a license holder who violates subsection (b) of this Code section in a place of worship shall be punished as for a misdemeanor."

So in terms of GA law, the most that Gene could face is a fine as we presume he has a valid concealed carry permit already.

Here's the Diocese of Savannah's policy: http://www.thecompassnews.org/2014/07/georgia-catholic-dioceses-ban-guns-knives-church-facilities/

BOTH GA law and the church policies make exceptions for pastors to authorize individuals to carry in churches, schools, and otherwise prohibited places should the pastor so choose.

Which AGAIN backs up my other posts' suggestion about a viable and immediate alternative to the status quo.

Now, it's entirely possible that even with deputized ushers, little old ladies or young Army wives or military veterans may continue to concealed carry in Mass. But since they've been doing that already for decades without a single incidence, I don't see the cause for gob or anonymous' alarm. If you have that much hate and distrust of fellow regular Mass goers, then you'd agree with me on having the ushers armed if only to counter balance the armed congregation.

But what's not going to happen is a wholly disarmed congregation based on a piece of paper or a sign at the door. Not in this climate of increased crime and terrorism and not here in the deep south.

Flavius Hesychius said...

Marc, how do you handle trolls?

Anonymous, unless you've served in combat, I really don't think you're in a position to judge those who have. How one handles it is, quite simply, none of your business. It doesn't bother Gene. Get over it. You seem to prefer the opposite happen: homeless vets jumping at moving shadows and loud voices, unable to cope with their past, existing without a future. I've seen what combat in the Middle East does to people, and, as far as I'm concerned, Gene's better off not being affected by it.

(Gene is capable of defending himself, but I'm not going to listen to you act as though you're some moral guardian. Get off your pedestal.)

Anonymous said...

So Fr. McDonald if that is a lie do you forgive me?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

It isn't if it is a lie and if you can confess it to me or any priest, you will be forgiven. I'm in Richmond Hill, Confession are 4:30 to 5:15 here on Saturday. But worse yet, the small cabal of people like you at St. Joseph who couldn't deal with change in pastors really discredited all the good work of Msgr. Cuddy in your ugliness to me and the new situation, so toss that into the confession too.You'll be forgiven if you are actually sorry. you might apologize to Msgr. Cuddy too.

Mark Thomas said...

To those who are repulsed at the notion that we should protect ourselves at Mass...

Do you protect your financial assets? Do you have safe deposit boxes? Do you defend your homes from burglars/invaders?

Does the massive security deployed to protect His Holiness Pope Francis offend you?

Thank you.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Anonymous said...

P/S I don't have to confess to you or any priest. I am not a Catholic Thank God. I can speak freely to Jesus on my own.
Thank you. And really this is good bye. This troll won't bother with this blog again. You can all go back to insulting the Pope.

Jusadbellum said...

Hoplophobia is a real thing. But there is help available. It involves exposure to firearms at a safety range, learning how the gun is not capable of autonomous behavior, how it's an inert metal and plastic tool and thus as safe as a paper weight until someone intentionally disengages the safety mechanisms.

There are safety rules pounded into the head of anyone who purchases them which further reduce or eliminate the possibility of accidental discharge.

If we wish to live in peace - in a fallen world - we must always be prepared for war. But this doesn't mean everyone packing heat and it doesn't require overt defenses. Any parish already has the means and men involved to become as reasonably secure and safe a place as any on earth by simple measures as the above outlined - and no one but the pastor and individuals involved will be the wiser.

Gene said...

Anonymous @ 8:30, I am licensed to carry concealed. There are no signs at St. Jo's saying no firearms. In Ga. signs and statements such as the bishop made do not have the force of law. That means all they can do is ask me to leave if they know I am carrying. If I do not leave when asked, then I can be charged with trespassing. Nice try.

Gene said...

Boy, this thread really brought the nut cases out of the woodwork. Fr, most blog and forum owners ban trolls. You may want to consider it.

TJM said...

And don't forget, the Dems who are adamantly opposed to a wall along the border with Mexico, constructed a 4 mile wall around their convention center in Philadelphia. If we didn't have an evil, corrupt, pro-Dem media, they'd be laughed out of town.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Fr. McD, thanks for your good example of patience in the face of ugly harassment. It always encourages me when someone, but most especially a priest, is able to bear vitriol with magnanimity. This is the example I try to follow in my own life, and at times find difficult, but in the ensuing battle with myself I have so far succeeded. When the ugliness escalates, it gets harder. Knowing you are being patient, letting people attack and threaten you on your own turf is very Christ-like, in my mind, and gives me courage in those situations I face.

Thank you for spelling out a little bit more of the backstory and letting us know that your actions are a part of your Christian response.

God bless you, Father.
Bee

Jan said...

I think Mark Thomas is absolutely right that there will be walls around churches if things get worse. It make common sense to do so. No doubt the anonymous complaining on this blog has a wall around his/her home for protection and would be the first to complain if something happened to his or her children at Mass. Nobody wants to live or attend Mass behind a wall but the way things are going it could be a reality in the near future.

Anonymous at 3:57 PM When called out you suddenly become a Protestant who doesn't have to go to confession and declare once more that you are not going to post on this blog again. How many times now have we heard that? It seems to me Fr McD has a good idea of who you are. He also could no doubt track you through your IP address if he wanted to - at a minimum he can know that it is the same person posting who claims to be different anonymouses, but I'm sure that he has far more important things to do and good people to see. I pity the new pastor at St Joe's who has to contend with the likes of yourself, and I'm sorry that Fr McD had to deal with such a whining bunch but we look forward to seeing you interviewed on TV.

Jan said...

TJM at 2:15 PM - I absolutely agree and Fr Thomas Petri makes the case loud and clear that Kaine won't receive communion from him because of his pro-abortion stance and ticket:

"A Catholic priest asked that pro-abortion Vice Presidential nominee Tim Kaine “do us both a favor” and not show up in his Communion line.

“I take Canon 915 seriously. It'd be embarrassing for you & for me,” tweeted Dominican Father Thomas Petri, the vice president and academic dean of the Pontifical Faculty of the Immaculate Conception at the Dominican House of Studies.

Senator @timkaine: Do us both a favor. Don't show up in my communion line. I take Canon 915 seriously. It'd be embarrassing for you & for me
— Fr. Thomas Petri, OP (@petriop) July 24, 2016

Canon 915 of the Code of Canon Law instructs that those “persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion.”

Billy the Kid said...

Jan, I love it. A Priest with a spine.

Mark Thomas said...

Jan said..."No doubt the anonymous complaining on this blog has a wall around his/her home for protection and would be the first to complain if something happened to his or her children at Mass."

Yes. I don't understand Anonymous' opposition to parish security. Anonymous would bring his or her children to Mass at sitting-duck parish, but would find it revolting should a parish protect itself against Islamic murderers?

Anyway, there are churches protected by walls and security personnel. But Anonymous would prefer that churches remain unprotected against Moslems who slam explosive-laden cars/trucks into churches. (Perhaps Anonymous isn't serious.)

Pax.

Mark Thomas

gob said...

How about this...have big baskets full of loaded pistols at each entrance to the church. (Maybe the NRA could help in getting bargain "Saturday Night Specials.") Encourage...maybe even require everybody over age 18 to pick one up as they enter. After all, it's their Constitutional right. Drop....no "place" them back in the baskets as they exit...There could be firearms training every Saturday right after confessions...Easy-peasy....safety first...

John Nolan said...

Most churches in urban areas front onto the street, so you can't put security walls around them. At times of terrorist threat it's important not to get rattled and over-react. Keep calm and carry on.

When war broke out in 1939 the first reaction of the authorities faced with the threat of aerial bombardment was to close the theatres, cinemas etc. They soon realized that morale was best served by keeping them open.

peace said...

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition....

TJM said...

gob, knock off the faux sophistication and feeble attempt at satire. You may get lucky someday when some redneck with a gun saves your sorry life from one of the liberals favorite minorities: Muslims, Occupy Wall Street or Black Lives Matter terrorist. Grow up, it's a dangerous world out there made more dangerous by clueless, multi-cultural dweebs like you.

George said...

Jan:
"No doubt the anonymous complaining on this blog has a wall around his/her home for protection."

A wall around a home is usually not something you see that much of in the U.S., even in upscale neighborhoods. Fences,yes - walls, no. Residents here, other than the very wealthy, do not at this time feel a need to construct walls around their homes, although we do have our gated communities in some areas.

Jan said...

Gob, just having you stand at the church door should be more than enough to scare off the most radical of Muslims.

Where were you, Gob, when this happened in Las Vegas in December. A warning of how easy it is for people to enter churches during Mass.

http://www.ktnv.com/news/protesters-disturb-mass-at-catholic-churches-across-valley

Anonymous 2 said...

Yes, John, we seem to be doing much of the terrorists’ work for them, (over)reacting exactly as they want us to do. This includes running into the arms of the Great Savior, aka The Donald. I can’t quite put my finger on it, but it all seems vaguely familiar somehow. . . .


Jan said...

Anonymous 2, you may have forgotten what the Democrats said about Ronald Reagan - that he was nothing but a two bit Hollywood actor who was a war monger. He turned out to be anything but. The Catholic Church has been very badly treated over the last eight years under Obama. As Crisis magazine reports:

" Barack Obama, then running for the IL State Senate, typed and signed his responses to a questionnaire sent him by a Chicago gay and lesbian newspaper. He declared: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages” (Windy City Times, Jan 14, 2009). Fast forward to Barack Obama, Presidential candidate in 2008 who, when asked to “define marriage” by Rick Warren at the Saddleback Civil Forum, said: “I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman (applause). Now, for me as a Christian—for me—for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.” David Axelrod, political strategist for Obama’s 2008 campaign, wrote in his recent book Believer (2015) that Obama purposely misled the nation on this issue in 2008. Obama had always favored same-sex “marriage” and later feigned “going through an evolution on this issue” as president (ABC Interview, R. Roberts, May 9, 2012).

This might appear to be political opportunism, or simply lying, but it is much more. A liar simply lies, but an ideologue enlists the aid of other “enlightened ones” and sends them out into the public forum like “talking heads,” all with the same fabricated “sound bite.” Obama’s Gnosticism is still further illustrated by his recently authorizing the erection of the first National Monument to the Gay Rights Movement at Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village (June 27, 2016). Politically he had little to gain by doing this, but it did further solidify his gender ideology as social policy in the United States once he’s gone.

...

PART 2 FOLLOWS

Jan said...

part 2

Obama’s gender ideology shows little regard for God (God’s not in the mix), for marriage and the differences prevailing between the sexes, male and female. His revolt has reinvented society, pursuing laws to ensure and protect newly erected structures for marriage, restrooms, the military, public schools (sex education), the family tax and benefits code, and many others, all in less than eight years.

...

The disregard for marriage also suggests a devaluation of matter. This Gnostic quality rears its ugly head particularly in Obama’s radical position on abortion: the “choice” of a woman creates value for the child in the womb. State Senator Obama (1996-2004) voted against the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act four times (2001-2004), effectively favoring failed-abortion infants born alive to be left untreated to die; the child is unwanted by the woman and so has no value. During his 2008 presidential campaign, then U.S. Senator Barack Obama spoke of his two daughters when asked about HIV/AIDS and STDs among young girls: “I’m going to teach them first of all about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.” This statement goes beyond devaluing children in the womb (mere “blobs of flesh”). Now a baby born through a “mistake” is viewed as “punishment,” a degrading caricature approaching justification for infanticide.

There’s also an arrogance evident at times in the president, suggesting an elitist mindset.

In 2009 President Obama appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, telling Leno how he recently scored 129 in bowling. Leno replied, somewhat tongue-in-cheek: “That’s very good, Mr. President” to which Obama responded, laughing: “It’s like—it was like the Special Olympics or something.” The incident blew over in the press as a mere faux pas, nothing more than a joke in bad taste. But what about Obama telling voters at a Boston fundraiser in 2010 that Democrats have hit hard times “because we’re hard-wired not to always think clearly when we’re scared”? Obama “knows” better and so will voters once they calm down and “know” the facts. Obama’s 2008 campaign slogan was: “Change Can Happen.” What kind of change? We now “know.” One by one the barriers have fallen to President Obama’s “gnostic revolt,” and few dared challenge him for fear of being called “racist.” But Obama’s race does not account for his revolution; it is ideology, fueling his revolt against “God and man,” remaking God and the practice of religion, remaking man, woman, society, and its institutions, even if it means disregard for the U.S. Constitution and its limits on executive power. It is Gnosticism."

http://www.crisismagazine.com/2016/gnosticism-barack-obama

TJM said...

Anonymous 2, and out of fear or ignorance,you are running into the arms of Hildabeast. an evil, craven, and greedy woman, whose mission in life is to amass WEALTH from her days as a "public servant" and POWER, so she can repeal the Hyde Amendment. IF fake catholics vote for her, she may win, but I doubt it, because embodies everything wrong with Amerira's ruling class.Harry Truman would spit her out.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

As I have made clear in a post just submitted to another thread, I am not running into the arms of anyone.

The saddest thing about this entire sorry process is how it sets good people against one another. I have even heard, for example, that erstwhile friends have ended their friendships over this election. Political and ideological differences are really not that important in the scheme of things. Our relationships are much more important, as the friendship between Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump or between Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the late Antonin Scalia testifies. (Relationships among national politicians used to be like this too until the rot started to set in a couple of decades or so ago.) Related, I really do not believe we will be held to account for our political choices—unless of course we vote for a candidate who supports an intrinsic evil in order to promote that intrinsic evil, as the U.S. Bishops explain.



TJM said...

Anonuymous 2,

you are not a good person if you vote for a pro-abortion candidate and are most definitely spiritually sick. Nancy Pelosi is not a good person, for example, and has become over time, due to her pride and thirst for power, a spawn of Satan who should be shunned. Relationships among people are secondary to one's relationship with God. Maybe you should read what St. Thomas More had to say on the subject. It may enlighten you.

TJM said...

ps: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a truly sick woman,actually said she was glad Scalia was dead. What a great friendship!

Anonymous said...

"Hildabeast". Oh, please.

You can't even make a simple play on words worth spit.

The animal is a wildebeest, not a wildabeast.

If you're gonna play with words, it should be Hildebeest.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

On Ginsburg and Scalia, is this what you are talking about?:

http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/07/11/ruth-bader-ginsburg-glad-antonin-scalia-dead/

I’m sorry, but I think one has to be really twisted to read into her observations a general sentiment that she is glad Justice Scalia is dead, let alone the scandalous and unwarranted inferences the article draws about liberals. The headline is misleading at best, dishonest at worst (there is a single quote from Ginsburg and the rest is reported speech by the NYT author, which the author likely got wrong anyway). Such blatant manipulation is disgusting, of course, but par for the course (or should I say gutter) nowadays!

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

On St. Thomas More, yes, I would love to know what he would have to say about us. I bet it’s not what you think. We might get quite a surprise.

Also, I am tired of being on the defensive here because I cannot support The Donald. So let me ask you to engage in a little thought experiment. Imagine that Hillary and the Democrats were the pro-life Party and pro-religious freedom, anti-gay rights Party and The Donald and the Republicans were the pro-choice and pro-gay rights Party. Everything else in the platforms stays the same—on the economy, on the environment, on immigration, terrorism and ISIS, etc,. etc. Would you now vote for the Democrats?

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, a very easy answer: Yes, I would vote for Hillary if she and the Democrats were the pro-life party. That is what I have done all my voting life. I do not support any particular party or person that promotes abortion.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2, you posit a silly scenario because if the Dems supported life that would mean they had recovered their sanity and they would also reject the global warming scam which will make the poor poorer, unfettered, illegal immigration which has brought lawlessness and made the poor poorer, and they would defend the Faith and the defenseless by fighting terrorism and ISIS. Thanks for the laugh

George said...

I'm with Jan:
I don't go with the Party above all else. I look at the platform. Not everything
in a party platform may be to your liking, but whatever is in there that you don't agree with should be of minor importance versus what it says about public funding for,
and reduction of abortions and other life issues such as Euthanasia.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

I would expect no less of you. I was impressed, and moved, by your recounting the history of your involvement in the pro-life movement on another thread. Unfortunately, however, I don’t believe you have a vote because, as best I can tell from your posts, you are not a U.S. citizen.

I posed my hypothetical thought experiment because I suspect that for most of the Trump supporters (and Republicans) who contribute to this Blog and who do have a vote, it is very easy for them to vote for the pro-life candidate because the rest of the ticket lines up with what they support anyway. I am trying to do two things with the hypothetical:

(1) Encourage people to confront their true motivations with clear-eyed honesty, and

(2) Help them empathize with those of us for whom voting really is dilemmatic, posing difficult, indeed agonizing, choices for which we need, and use, the Bishops guidance in the document “Faithful Citizenship.”

Billy the Kid said...

Pro life, anti-gay, free enterprise/Capitalism, trickle down economics, strong Second amendment advocacy, strong on defense, anti-Muslim, anti-illegal immigration, corporate tax breaks to get industry back (if it will). That is the platform I vote for, or as close to it as I can get. If Hillary said she was pro life tomorrow, I still would not vote for her. She is a snake, a sleaze, a political whore.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Okay, you have had your laugh. Now please stop the evasion and answer the question.

Anonymous 2 said...

Billie the Kid (or is it Billie the Gene):

My hypothetical posited that the Republicans are the pro-choice and pro-gay rights Party. Does this affect your answer? Or do you still not vote for Hillary?

George said...


I posed my hypothetical thought experiment because I suspect that for most of the Trump supporters (and Republicans) who contribute to this Blog and who do have a vote, it is very easy for them to vote for the pro-life candidate because the rest of the ticket lines up with what they support anyway. I am trying to do two things with the hypothetical:

When a candidate is pro-life, which at a minimum means he or she opposes tax funding of abortion and embryonic stem cell research, then other positions of that candidate by and large line up with the positions of others who are pro-life. Generally, I have found that to be true.
I have always considered myself to be an Independent which is why I look at what's in the platform of candidates and what pro-life groups who keep up with this are saying.

Anonymous said...

Fr. MacDonald @ 1035 am After Church today I decided to post one more comment here. (with no hard feelings) I want you to know that I am indeed one of the 1% of the parish at St. Joseph that had a hard time when Fr. Cuddy retired. With that said I want you and everyone here to know (in case it matters) that I was never ugly to you or mistreated you in any way. My family simply joined another church. We are no longer Catholic and that Is why I responded that I did not need to go to confession. We do not have confession in my current church. I never went back to St. Joseph after your first mass. I have not been back in the church in 12 years. I just wanted you to know and I hope you post this that I never mistreated you. I could not have done that because I was gone. If there were lies told to me about Fr. Cuddy and his retirement then I am so sorry that I believed them. I have to admit that I did believe them because I possibly listened to people I should not have listened to. God does tho work in wonderful ways. I was not taught all that I needed to know about the Catholic Faith when I joined. It is a beautiful wonderful faith and no church was more beautiful than St. Joseph but it was not the correct church for me. Socially, politically and morally I have trouble agreeing with the faith. Had I have known some of these things I never would have joined. We thought about going back and I was in a group of women who also wanted this Im not sure how they all decided but I am not a Catholic. I love all of you that are. I feel peace in my soul. I promise tho that I never mistreated you because I was not even in the church.

Anonymous said...

Fr. MacDonald @ 1035 am After Church today I decided to post one more comment here. (with no hard feelings) I want you to know that I am indeed one of the 1% of the parish at St. Joseph that had a hard time when Fr. Cuddy retired. With that said I want you and everyone here to know (in case it matters) that I was never ugly to you or mistreated you in any way. My family simply joined another church. We are no longer Catholic and that Is why I responded that I did not need to go to confession. We do not have confession in my current church. I never went back to St. Joseph after your first mass. I have not been back in the church in 12 years. I just wanted you to know and I hope you post this that I never mistreated you. I could not have done that because I was gone. If there were lies told to me about Fr. Cuddy and his retirement then I am so sorry that I believed them. I have to admit that I did believe them because I possibly listened to people I should not have listened to. God does tho work in wonderful ways. I was not taught all that I needed to know about the Catholic Faith when I joined. It is a beautiful wonderful faith and no church was more beautiful than St. Joseph but it was not the correct church for me. Socially, politically and morally I have trouble agreeing with the faith. Had I have known some of these things I never would have joined. We thought about going back and I was in a group of women who also wanted this Im not sure how they all decided but I am not a Catholic. I love all of you that are. I feel peace in my soul. I promise tho that I never mistreated you because I was not even in the church.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

It's a ridiculous question for the reasons I explained. But I know you will vote for the Abortion Party (formerly the Democratic Party) even if they were against the global warming scam, etc. It's just who you are.

Anonymous said...

"Global Warming Scam" Somebody needs to educate themselves. Science does not lie.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Jan, George, and Billie the Gene seems to have no difficulty answering the question (although B the G's answer was a little equivocal).

But I think you have already answered it, and that’s fine. It is not meant as a “gotcha” question, just one to make people think and cultivate a bit of empathy. I hope it has done that for you, even just a little bit.

And, no, voting Democrat is not who I am. I have already explained who I am. I am neither Democrat nor Republican. First and foremost, I am Catholic, and I try to follow the USCCB guidance in Faithful Citizenship regarding my participation in Caesar’s games..

Anonymous said...

I am a Democrat and I am liberal. I do not judge you and you should not judge me. This is America and we have freedom to vote as we please.This is what changed me. It was a sad day when there were no longer prayers allowed in the public schools. Our superintendent thought it was a good idea. I asked him how he could say such a thing. He said if prayers were allowed in public schools then All prayers would be legal even if the students wanted to pray to Satan.

I believe that the government has no right to tell another person how to live. I am pro life but I look at ALL life. For me it will never be a mortal sin to vote for someone who I feel can run this govt without giving Russia permission to hack into our systems. That was treason. All life matters, not just the unborn. We have to make sure the person with the atomic codes is not best buddies with dangerous people. And our president needs to be a person that can hold his or her temper during serious times. You don't have to agree with everything. Just ask who will keep your children that are alive right now safe. Not someone who is friends with Russia.

Anonymous said...

Jan that was a sad remark about the fallen soldier's parents. No parent with a dead child uses their child as a political football. I hope to God you never have to bury a child. It is the most horrible event in a parents life. It ruins their life. The point the parents were trying to make is that their son died as a hero and he was of the Muslim faith. This country accepts all faiths even the faith that we belong to is not in my opinion the only way God reaches people. A parent who buries a child has nothing to gain they have already lost everything. I know because it happened to me.

Jesse James said...

RE: Global Warming. The issue is that, if there is, indeed, "global warming," is it a natural cycle or man-made. There is no consistent, verifiable evidence that it is man-made. This is a political mantra of the Left and should be ignored.

Jan said...

Anonymous 5:36, to me the saddest thing was that those two parents allowed their son to be used in the political campaign of Hillary Clinton. But now I find it is not surprising given the links Khan has to the Clintons.

Breibart reports:

"Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father that the mainstream media and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have been using to criticize Donald J. Trump, has deep ties to the government of Saudi Arabia—and to international Islamist investors through his own law firm. In addition to those ties to the wealthy Islamist nation, Khan also has ties to controversial immigration programs that wealthy foreigners can use to essentially buy their way into the United States—and has deep ties to the “Clinton Cash” narrative through the Clinton Foundation."

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/01/clinton-cash-khizr-khans-deep-legal-financial-connections-saudi-arabia-hillarys-clinton-foundation-connect-terror-immigration-email-scandals/

I think it is amoral of them to take the stage using their son's death as a political tool, particularly in the light of what they are involved in. Have they no shame?

Jan said...

Anonymous, Breibart have further reported on the lack of responsible journalism in not looking into Khizr Khan. That is why you and other Americans have been fooled into thinking this was just a story of bereaved parents when it is a story of bereaved parents making political and possibly financial gain our out their son's death. Despicable I think.

"Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.

All of this information was publicly available, and accessible to anyone—including any of these reporters, and Breitbart News—with a basic Google search. Anyone interested in doing research about the subjects they are reporting on—otherwise known as responsible journalism—would have checked into these matters. But clearly, none in the mainstream media did—probably because, as Fox News’ Chad Pergram noted, Democrats “sense blood in the water over” the whole Khan controversy."

TJM said...

Anonymous, even the head of the UN commission on Global Warming admitted it isn't science based, but it is all about power and wealth redistribution, handled of course, by the "brilliant" bureaucrats at the UN. The "science" on global warming is not settled. As a matter of fact, science is generally never settled but open to new facts and data. Left-wing loons like yourself claim it is settled, for political gain and has nothing to do with science. Funny, as the viability of the unborn is enhanced with every neonatal advance, the political left chooses to ignore science, to justify allowing the unborn who survive abortions to die, just as Illinois State Senator Obama did when he voted to reject legislation which obligated providers to save the unborn. Have you no conscience, have you no decency?

TJM said...

Anonymous, as a Catholic you do not have the approval of the Catholic Church to vote for a politician who promotes, or acquiesces, to abortion. IF you do, you earn excommunication, latae sentitiae. So quit the nonsense you are spouting. Satan would approve, however. Non Serviam. You are hardly liberal.You are a hardened, left-wing ideologue, someone who has nothing to do with classic liberalism.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jesse James:

Even if (a big “if” perhaps) it is an entirely natural cycle, shouldn’t we also ask the following questions?:

(1) What will the consequences be?

(2) What, if anything can, and should be done to address/mitigate the negative ones?



Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous:

I am so sorry that this happened to you. Having children of our own and also having friends who have suffered the same tragic loss, I can imagine how dreadful it is to lose a child. You may want to post your comment on the thread with the comments to which you are responding—Is It Moral Not to Vote Out of Disgust?

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, yes, I agree, it is a great sadness for parents who lose a child. My cousin and his wife lost their son through a car accident when he was just 16. They were devastated and their lives have never ever been the same since. However, I can never imagine them ever using that terrible loss to advance a political agenda. Really, the father has tainted his son's memory - that is the truly sad thing. At least I'm sure his mother will regret that they did it. I feel that's why she didn't have anything to say. She was in the difficult situation of having to support her husband, who is the one tied in with the Clintons, and she didn't look happy about the situation - maybe he owed Hillary?

Jesse James said...

Anonymous 2, Yes, but things become sticky when one political faction or the other appropriates the issue and uses it as a political weapon. This is the problem..."science" has become so politicized on both sides that it is hard to find the line between truth and propaganda.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Well, it did not take very long for the Trump smear campaign against Khizir Khan_AND_his fallen son to get underway and for the IRresponsible journalists like Breitbart to propagate it, did it? Google “Khizr Khan Smear Campaign” and you will see what I mean. Did you even bother to check out the allegations, Jan, or did you just lap them all up as usual? Here is a link to help get you started:

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Khizr+Khan+smear+campaign

How low can we go?

Anonymous 2 said...

Anonymous:

TJM has apparently set himself up as the authority to tell you how to vote. He is not the authority. The U.S. Bishops are. Here is a link to the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship”:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/

What you cannot do as a Catholic is vote for a candidate who supports abortion if your intention in so doing is to support abortion yourself. But there is no blanket prohibition against voting for a candidate who supports abortion.


Jan said...

Anonymous 2, Breibart is in fact the only media that appears to have done any fact checking of Khan's tie in with Clinton. You have not disproved it.

"Mainstream media figures from the New York Times to the Huffington Post to CNN are apoplectic Monday as their latest attack on Donald J. Trump, the Republican nominee for president, has crumbled yet again under the slightest bit of scrutiny.

Specifically, the newest line of attack to fall apart is the criticism of Trump over Khizr Khan, the Muslim Gold Star father who spoke at the Democratic National Convention last week.

Over the weekend and for the past few days since Khan spoke alongside his wife Ghazala Khan about their son, U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan, who was killed in Iraq in 2004, media-wide reporters, editors, producers, and anchors have tried to lay criticism on Trump over the matter. They thought they had a good one, a specific line of attack that pitted Trump against the military—and supposedly showed him as a big meanie racist in the process.

But, as Breitbart News showed on Monday midday, that clearly was not the case. Khizr Khan has all sorts of financial, legal, and political connections to the Clintons through his old law firm, the mega-D.C. firm Hogan Lovells LLP. That firm did Hillary Clinton’s taxes for years, starting when Khan still worked there involved in, according to his own website, matters “firm wide”—back in 2004. It also has represented, for years, the government of Saudi Arabia in the United States. Saudi Arabia, of course, is a Clinton Foundation donor which—along with the mega-bundlers of thousands upon thousands in political donations to both of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2016—plays right into the “Clinton Cash” narrative.

All of this information was publicly available, and accessible to anyone—including any of these reporters, and Breitbart News—with a basic Google search. Anyone interested in doing research about the subjects they are reporting on—otherwise known as responsible journalism—would have checked into these matters. But clearly, none in the mainstream media did—probably because, as Fox News’ Chad Pergram noted, Democrats “sense blood in the water over” the whole Khan controversy."

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/01/just-joking-media-apoplectic-khizr-khan-attack-donald-trump-goes-flames/

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Your earlier post at 5:50 a.m. was not on my screen earlier this morning, or at least I did not see it there. I am very sorry to hear about your cousin’s son. The possibility of such a tragic car accident is one of my main worries as a parent.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

As for the Breitbart story, there is a lot of innuendo there. Khzir Khan worked at a “mega law firm.” I would have to check but there were probably hundreds of lawyers there. The story does not claim that Khzir Khan himself worked on any of the Clinton files. In fact, it says he was not acting as a lawyer there but in some technological type position. Moreover, the fact that he now practices immigration law means little. I teach immigration law. Many business immigration attorneys use the E-2 investor nonimmigrant visa category and the EB5 permanent resident visa category. It is one of the business immigration attorney’s tools in the toolbox and a lawyer would be professionally irresponsible if he did not consider it as an option when available to help his client. So, again, what is the point here?

Of course, others have smeared Khzir Khan by suggesting that he has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and that he wants to introduce sharia law because he edits a journal about Islamic law. And they have also made horrible allegations besmirching their son’s memory. Now,_that_is disgusting. But we know this is how Trump rolls.




DJR said...

Anonymous 2 said... What you cannot do as a Catholic is vote for a candidate who supports abortion if your intention in so doing is to support abortion yourself. But there is no blanket prohibition against voting for a candidate who supports abortion.

That's why it is okay to support Nazi Party candidates even though one of their unfortunate side issues is the extermination of Jewish people, among others.

As long as one votes for the Nazi Party candidate with the intention of supporting the good things he does (fighting unemployment, opposing communism, et cetera), but not with the specific intention of acquiescing in the snuffing out of Jewish lives, it's fine.

Billy the Kid said...

The whole thing with Khan was a Democtatic set-up. I don't even think Muslims should be allowed to serve in the US armed forces, anyway. How dumb can we get?

Jan said...

Anonymous 2 - so it is just a big coincidence:

Khizr Khan - works for Hogan Lovells - Hogan Lovells acts for Hillary Clinton and her trust and for Saudis - Khizr Khan involved in business immigration and ties with Saudis - attends Democrat Convention - condemns Trump.

Most Americans reading that would doubt the veracity of Khizr Khan and think, like me, that he is nothing more than a willing Clinton Tool. Although others claim he was used by the Clinton camp, I doubt it.

The open letter of an active duty soldier to Khizr Khan confirm what I thought right from the start:

"http://100percentfedup.com/mother-of-active-duty-soldier-d…/

"While your son is a hero, you Sir, are NOT. My son has served three tours of combat in the countries you and your family came from. Iraq and Afghanistan were his introduction to adulthood and service to something bigger than our individual selves. He was blown up by an IED set by your countrymen. His Purple Heart is a testament to his love of America and our freedoms. I have suffered through his multiple combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan….never knowing from moment to moment if he would return home in a flag draped coffin. It is torture when a mother wakes up to this day after day and sees the atrocities happening over there on the news and being helpless to change a thing. My comments to you will probably offend you. I do not apologize. These things need to be said. Unlike you, I could NEVER use my son’s death as a pawn piece in support of a woman that left “America’s treasure” (Hillarys words) to die unaided in Benghazi."

Jan said...

DJR, excellent summing up!

Anonymous 2 said...

DJR:

I think you know that my statement was an abbreviated one intended to respond to TJM’s (in my view) continual misstatements asserting blanket prohibitions. As you should well know from my many other posts on this subject, one has to go through a very conscientious process of deliberation before one arrives at a decision to vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights or indeed for the Nazi Party. Do I really have to set it all out again? You can read the USCCB guidelines yourself surely. And you would have to ask yourself two questions in applying the Guidelines as you deliberate about your decision in your implied hypothetical about the Nazi Party:

(1) How, if at all, is voting for the Nazi Party distinguishable from voting for a candidate who belongs to a party that supports abortion rights (are we talking about voting for the Nazi Party in pre-War Germany or now in the United States, by the way?)?; and

(2) To the extent the situations are indeed comparable, are there nevertheless certain circumstances in which it might be permissible to vote even for the Nazi Party?

What you_cannot_do, however, is to leap immediately to the facile conclusion that voting for a pro-choice candidate is equivalent to voting for the Holocaust. Although in one sense your implied hypothetical is a thought-provoking one, in another sense it represents yet another playing of the Hitler card that tries to trick us into ignoring all the relevant variables in a rhetorical sleight of hand.



rcg said...

John Gotti bought his daughter a pony. Still, he was not a good father. There are some aspects of behaviour, flaws, that overwhelm the package. We have established that the facists make the trains run on time. But what shows up every quarter hour on the nose is so undesirable that we would be better off walking. There is a display of Nazi memorabilia in the infantry museum on Fort Benning. The personal effects of Herman Goering include some field sporting equipment, finely made German items that he carriered birding and relaxing in the country. I felt an actual aura of evil from that display, more real than any weapon on display. The emmense effort and level of craftsmanship devoted to these casual, even pastoral, items proved a mind and soul completely dedicated to evil. Such a person can devote himself to these endevours so completely undistracted by the deeds of the previous day, or the plans for the next, that he could excell in these pleasant tasks.

If we must find arguments to rehabilitate the Nazis to justify picking just one of the major candidates, any candidate, from this Fall's campaign then we are truly in a bad way. Abraham would have simply sat down on the side of the road to watch the fireworks. We have packed the house, from floor to ceiling, with superbly selected incompetents. It is a bumper crop. America has failed the world such that the line of succession leads only to more barren earth. A nuclear attack on Washington by Putin would raise the national IQ twenty points. And balance the budget.

It does not matter if I vote. I intend to obey the law in toto until I decide not to. But I won't do it in half measures. If the local tax levy passes and I vote againt it, I will pay it. The same goes for the whole body of law including the wretched person we place in the oval office. Is this the end of the Experiment? Is humanity so flawed that the end of the run is always a Moorlockian mess? It would be a shame to cash out now, when the market is so low.

DJR said...

Anonymous 2 said... What you_cannot_do, however, is to leap immediately to the facile conclusion that voting for a pro-choice candidate is equivalent to voting for the Holocaust.

I see no reason why a person could not do what you say cannot be done.

The fact of the matter is that abortion is a holocaust of epic proportions, greater than THE Holocaust by a factor many, many times over.

If you don't believe that, then there is no hope for you. By voting for a person who advocates the biggest holocaust in the history of humanity, you are enabling the holocaust.

Although in one sense your implied hypothetical is a thought-provoking one, in another sense it represents yet another playing of the Hitler card that tries to trick us into ignoring all the relevant variables in a rhetorical sleight of hand.

Obviously it hit a nerve.

And the reason it hit a nerve is because you can readily see that the argument you make in favor of your position can be turned against you in a way that you don't want to admit.

Anonymous 2 said...

Rcg:

Perhaps we can entertain the (quixotic?) hope that both The Donald and Hillary will self-destruct and that both the Republicans and the Democrats, suitably chastened, will have to go back to the drawing board to find more acceptable candidates.

Billy the Kid said...

I was remarking to my wife last night that it is a sad commentary on the American people that these two people are the only viable candidates for election. The stupid Dems could have won over a lot of unhappy Republicans a few years back if they had had the sense to run Sam Nunn or Georgia's Zell Miller, but they chose to go hard Left. The country has been hopelessly divided ever since.

rcg said...

A2: When planning a field operation you ask yourself two questions: what is the most likely thing that can happen; what is the most dangerous thing that can happen. Then you prepare to deal with the answers to those questions. If you cannot answer them both, then, as my daughter says, you are actually preparing to fail. Hope is not an option here and it is a fool's errand to try and pick the best, or least of two evils, etc. We must prepare for the election of each and hope that some of the same bandages and ammunition that works for one will work for either result.

Anonymous 2 said...

DJR:

I have been familiar with the analogy drawn between abortion and the Holocaust for many decades now, at least since becoming aware of the book “Abortion: The Silent Holocaust”:

https://www.amazon.com/Abortion-Silent-Holocaust-Joseph-Powell/dp/0895050633

Although there are many philosophical distinction that can be drawn between the Holocaust and abortion I do think most of them break down on closer analysis. This is why the analogy is such a powerful one.

This said, the distinction that weighs most with me draws on a point made by that eminently sensible and wise commentator on this Blog, Rcg. I will not take the liberty of reproducing his comment here. Instead I just refer you to it. See his comment at 9:23 a.m. on July 30 on the thread “Is It Moral Not to Vote out of Disgust.” I read what he says there as quite consistent with the guidance given by the U.S. Bishops in the “Faithful Citizenship.” Rcg conveys the main point far more eloquently and succinctly than I have been able to do.

Rcg: I trust that you will correct me if I have misunderstood the import of this comment by you.

DJR said...

Anonymous 2 said... This said, the distinction that weighs most with me draws on a point made by that eminently sensible and wise commentator on this Blog, Rcg.

All I did was take your previous point to its logical conclusion: "What you cannot do as a Catholic is vote for a candidate who supports abortion if your intention in so doing is to support abortion yourself. But there is no blanket prohibition against voting for a candidate who supports abortion."

The fact is that there are disqualifying issues that render a candidate/party unworthy of a Catholic's vote. Abortion is one of those issues.

When your basic underlying premise is applied to other situations, you would not agree with your own statement, the Nazi Party example being the easiest to apply.

You would never... ever... advocate the voting for a Nazi Party candidate if 99.9% of his platform were completely moral, good, and in accordance with Catholic teaching but that little .1% included the gassing of Jews.

Nor would you ever publicly advocate such a position.

Nor would the bishops, some of whom vote Democrat.

If you were to do so, it would make national news at least, you would be drummed out of academe as an anti-Semite, and your reputation would be completely ruined.

So, what we are faced with is a hypocritical double standard. In one instance, people would avow your statement; in the other, they would disavow it.

The reason?

The unborn are defenseless, invisible, and the majority of people don't care about them; Jewish people are quite visible and, generally speaking, have some clout.

rcg said...

Anon2: thank you for the compliment. If my thoughts reflect the guidance of the bishops then it is my good fortune and reason, perhaps, that I should reconsider my position. Seriously, we have the wisdom of the Church concerning war and killing such that it is possible to be in a predicament where the human condition, our fallen state, gives us only evil choices.

I also don't want to overstate our position. There have been some pretty bad presidents and incredibly corrupt administrations and civil servants in the history of the Republic. Whatever got us through that is available to get us through this if we can resist sentimental distractions. I still am embarassed that we took so much for granted and fell down in our responsibilities to the rest of the world to be a good steward. Reminds me of the state of the Church, in many ways.

Anonymous 2 said...

DJR:

Stated in the way you do, yes, of course, the analogy seems irrefutable, which—again—is why it so compelling. The problem is, it cannot be stated in that way. To make the gassing of the Jews more accurately analogous, you would have to vary it as follows:

(1) The Nazi regime is not gassing the Jews directly; it is permitting private individuals to kill Jews if they choose to do so. This enables those defending Jews to seek to persuade their neighbors not to kill Jews—to battle for their hearts and minds.

(2) The other party in the election says that they would repeal the national law that allows this awful persecution of the Jews. However, they have said things like this in the past and when in power do not seem to have been successful in bringing about this change, for whatever reason.

(3) Moreover, even if they were to repeal the law, it would not end the permission to kill the Jews. The matter is within the jurisdiction of the different state governments within Germany. Some states would still permit the killing of the Jews; others would prohibit it. Even in those states that prohibit it, the killings are expected to continue clandestinely; and people from those states that continue to permit it will kidnap Jews from protected states to take them back to their own states and kill them there.

(4) The candidate heading up the other party in the election is so untrustworthy that one cannot be at all confident that he would in fact seek to repeal the national law permitting the killings, and he is so volatile and unpredictable that he might well be expected to perpetrate other tyrannical actions at home and abroad in the name of “national security.” Indeed, he has said as much.

(5) The voter belongs to a huge and influential organization that publicly opposes the killing of the Jews and seeks every_realistic_opportunity, as do other members of the organization, to prevent the killings, including through public relations campaigns, education and persuasion in private interactions with neighbors, etc.

So, these are just a few relevant and material distinctions to consider for starters. Doesn’t the choice in the election already look rather different now?





Jan said...

Anonymous 2, to me, all that you have stated above - in a convoluted manner - simply boiled down means that you are going to vote for the Democrat's full steam ahead abortion platform despite the fact you are a Catholic.

George said...


Anonymous2:

"This said, the distinction that weighs most with me draws on a point made by that eminently sensible and wise commentator on this Blog, Rcg. I will not take the liberty of reproducing his comment here. Instead I just refer you to it. See his comment at 9:23 a.m. on July 30 on the thread “Is It Moral Not to Vote out of Disgust.” I read what he says there as quite consistent with the guidance given by the U.S. Bishops in the “Faithful Citizenship.” "

I didn't read it in the same way, but rcg can clarify if he did mean it in that way.

I did disagree with his comment that "Catholic justices led the Court to impose Roe v Wade."

Not true. When Roe was decided, only one of the Justices was Catholic, and that Justice was William Brennan.

What can be said is that some of the Catholic justices on the present Court (Kennedy and Sotomayor) have, by their votes, allowed the status quo to remain as it is.

My position is that I oppose any candidate who wants to use tax money to subsidize and pay for abortion and abortifacients and also embryonic stem cell research.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Well, of course, you would say something like that. Often you either will not or cannot understand what people are saying.

What I wrote isn’t convoluted. It’s called reasoning. You should try it sometime. =)

I was continuing the thought experiment begun by DJR, in order to defend the USCCB Guidelines and those who may decide to vote Democratic, specifically for Hillary.

I have already made my position as clear as I can at this point. I care for neither The Donald nor for Hillary and may end up voting for neither. I_do_know I will never vote for Trump. If voting for Hillary were the only way to stop such a disaster, I might be compelled to vote for her. But I hope it will not come to that and that he will self-destruct. Come to that, as I have already said, I hope she does too, and that both parties will select more suitable candidates.

Anonymous 2 said...

George:

I would be happy for Rcg to clarify his comment. The last thing I want to do is to misappropriate or misrepresent someone’s thinking—which is why I asked him to correct what I said about his comment if needed.

Your position is perfectly understandable and legitimate. So, I believe, is mine. That is the point. There can be more than one. =)

George said...

I will add to my comment @ 7:31 that I will also consider the potential judicial appointees of a candidate, should he or she be elected. This is very important, since on so many issues we are losing in the courts.

rcg said...

I will concede the lack of plurality of Catholic Justices in the specific decision but maintain my point that Catholic justices as a group have maintained and supported it. I do not, by the way, expect the Catholic justices to interpret law through a Catholic lens, but I do expect them to include that viewpoint in the context of created law, which is what Roe v Wade is. The Constituion would allow for the consideration of abortion law but if during discussion the law acknowledges that another person besides the mother is always involved then the Catholic justice must ensure the other person's position is presented. I am not convinced that the abortion debate is the same civil rights question as slavery except on this point: the Catholic justice is obliged to ensure that person is given a voice before the law.

Again, I do not think we need to attempt to resolve the false dillemma by picking flyspecks from Nazi pepper. Damn their trains! If they are on time it only makes my flight planning easier. Neither is it a dillema that we must protect women's health by killing her baby. Killing Jews and killing babies is simply cynical politics. The fact that it would be prominant in a political platform and considered on par with balancing the national budget seems indicative of mental illness. My to do list today: balance the checkbook, mow the lawn, drown a kitten. Whatever we may think of the rest of the platform the Democrats do not demonstrate an ability to prioritize values. If Trump wants to build a wall along the border with Mexico it does not give us leave to ignore the primacy of abortion to the Democrats.

rcg said...

Perhaps this was the point that got the attention of Anon 2: that is will follow the law as completely as possible until I decide to deliberatley disobey it. That does sound like a bishop. I use the example of the tax referendum that I vote against but pay when the vote goes against me. This is a frequent and disturbing real world example. I am VOTING not choosing a team. I pay the tax and intensly dislike it. I support and demand the law be enforced that everyone in the precinct should pay it. I hope to convince people to not renew it and work against that renewal, all the while paying it. Here is the key to my resistance: if I can avoid paying the tax by an alternative behavior, I will.

If the law involves killing someone as a government policy I will work more vigorously against it to include avoiding it by helping the target victim avoid being killed. The degree to which the policy, law, government, and society can be severed from each other as actors in this evil act determines how I can justify my actions. Islam suffers from the inability to discriminate. Mohammad, contrasted with his ancestor Abraham, would argue with God to kill everyone in a town along with the one sinner. We must work to save the sinner when possible while accepting the justice of God.

When do I abandon this country, or alternatively, take arms against it? Probably when I have exhausted all hope that I can be reconciled to it or that the threat it poses is too great to be allowed to continue. That is latter is a long way off.

Anonymous 2 said...

Rcg:

Thank you for your response. Actually, what struck me as particularly to the point was your comment at 9:23 a.m. on July 30 on the thread “Is It Moral Not to Vote out of Disgust.”

Specifically, if I may now quote you:

“My previous, and greatly respected pastor, advised me that the choice four years ago was to stop clearly evil intentions. So I reluctantly voted. In this election there is bait for Catholics in the form of Supreme Court nominations to overturn Roe v Wade. This is a fools errand. The nested probability of the right sequence of events occuring and the right people being in place and in majority and making the right decision is infinitesmal. Catholic justices led the Court to impose Roe v Wade. The Catholic justices appointed by conservative administrations since then have been terribly unreliable save one, recently deceased.”

As I read this comment, it his resonates with the USCCB guidance in paragraph 34 of “Faithful Citizenship”:


“37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue. In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic, guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”

Anonymous said...


“37. In making these decisions, it is essential for Catholics to be guided by a well-formed conscience that recognizes that all issues do not carry the same moral weight and that the moral obligation to oppose policies promoting intrinsically evil acts has a special claim on our consciences ( Abortion - embryonic stem cell research - same-sex marriage) and our actions. These decisions should take into account a candidate’s commitments, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue (in what way, through his commitment and influence, did our current President, on major moral issues such as abortion and same -sex marriage, in whatever he did, conform to Catholic teaching?) . In the end, this is a decision to be made by each Catholic, guided by a conscience formed by Catholic moral teaching.”

rcg said...

" Perhaps this was the point that got the attention of Anon 2: that is will follow the law as completely as possible until I decide to deliberatley disobey it. " If a law is truly unjust and immoral, then you do not have to follow it ( which is why groups such as the Little Sisters of the Poor are fighting in court against the Obamacare mandate)

"I am VOTING not choosing a team." ( for the tax issue you used as an example, that is true. When voting for President and Vice President we are in a way choosing a team).

" Whatever we may think of the rest of the platform the Democrats do not demonstrate an ability to prioritize values. If Trump wants to build a wall along the border with Mexico it does not give us leave to ignore the primacy of abortion to the Democrats." (That does not sound like you are agreeing with Anonymous2)

Anonymous 2 said...

Rcg:

Please accept my apologies for dragging you into this. I mentioned you simply because you articulated one particular point on which I rely in a very effective and clear manner. The context for your observations was in a comment in which you agreed with John Nolan that it is not a mortal sin not to vote. So, you may well have been articulating your observations to support the legitimacy of non-participation and not to suggest the legitimacy of voting for the Democratic candidate. Even so, this does not detract from the point I understand you to be making about the bait being held out to woo the Catholic vote and about it being a fool’s errand to take the bait.

rcg said...

Anon 2: actually, please accept my gratitude for the discussion and interactive examination of this real world dilemma. It seems people understand my opinion of the situation and the exchange has been open and respectful. I Do think this horse is about finished.

Anon 8:27 - Good point about the team. What I was trying communicate is that I am not committing to keeping any given party in power, or perpetuating elected offices as careers.

I can't just quit because I don't like either choice. Neither do I have to pick a particular pack of fools to join. Success for my country will be difficult with either candidate so now I have to focus on what I can do to overcome the problems they will cause us.