Monday, July 25, 2016

OH, THE GLORY!

Yesterday (Sunday) following my two Ordinary Form Masses at Richmond Hill, I drove 20 miles north to downtown Savannah to celebrate the Extraordinary Form High Mass at the Cathedral which celebrates it each Sunday at 1:00 pm.

Fr. Dan Firmin, Vicar General and in residence at the Cathedral, normally celebrates this Mass. He along with the retired former rector of the Cathedral are the only two priests in the entire Savannah deanery who celebrate this Mass, until now since I arrived last month. The retired priest celebrates it rarely now.

One tidbit of interest, at least to me, is that Fr. Firmin was an altar boy for my parish in Augusta when I became pastor there in 1991 after having been at the cathedral for six years. I think he was a 6th grader. Eventually he studied for the priesthood at the NAC in Rome and was ordained in 2004.

I was made pastor at St. Joseph in Macon in 2004 and Fr. Firmin was my first parochial Vicar. Two years later he was sent to Catholic U to study canon law. Eventually he became chancellor and then Vicar General.

Priests, be nice to your altar boys because they could become your vicar general or worse yet your bishop!

The Mass was splendid with a wonderful female schola which sang acapella and flawlessly. Then use a setting of the Mass I was unfamiliar with but quite chant able once one becomes familiar with it. I don't know which one it was.

There must have been 300 there for the Mass. The cathedral seats about 1,000 uncomfortably.

I was impressed with the number of young people and children in attendance.

This was the first time I was the main celebrant and homilist the at the cathedral since I left in 1991.

John Nolan will be happy to know that the cathedral has a wonderful MC who is a lay person for the EF Mass.



101 comments:

Dialogue said...

"I was impressed with the number of young people and children in attendance." In my experience, the resurgent EF phenomenon is mostly driven by young, fruitful families. If the pope and local bishops continue to discourage a return of reverence to the OF Mass, then the EF Mass will become the way of the future.

Anon-1 said...

Thank you Father for saying the EF. I live very far from your parish even so, I think every TLM Mass no matter where helps the ancient liturgy to remain the hope of serious Catholics everywhere.

TJM said...

Dialogue, this is so true. I have experienced this as well, but the bitter old lefties are in denial. I guess when you spent your whole life screwing up the Liturgy, what else can you do. Lefties are very, very rigid. Father McDonald should be very proud of his efforts which undoubtably inspired Father Firmin's vocation.

Joseph Johnson said...

Father McDonald,
The Savannah EF Mass is the one that I usually get to attend these days but it is a full day trip from where I live in Waycross so it's not that often. I'm glad you got to experience that choir and meet my good friend, Dr. Maher.

According to what I know, you, Fr. Firmin, and Msgr. O'Neill are the only regular celebrants of the EF Mass in the Savannah Diocese. I know that there are several other younger priests who have learned how to celebrate this Mass (some of your former parochial vicars in Macon, as examples). What is it going to take to get the EF Mass offered on a regular schedule in other parishes/deaneries in the Diocese of Savannah? I'm willing to do whatever I can to support any priest who is willing to offer the EF Mass on any kind of regularly scheduled basis (even monthly--if not weekly) in the Valdosta/Brunswick Deanery. Dr. Maher and Fr. Firmin are well aware of my sentiments and willingness to help (I can serve this Mass and can train servers, for example). What do you think or what do you suggest?

Jenny said...

I'm sure you know that Fr. Firmin celebrated a lovely EF Mass in Augusta last Sunday at St. Mary's on the Hill. Despite it being held at 3 pm, it was well attended given that the hour was not very accommodating for young families needing dinner + nap time; I was very proud of the young families who did make it. It was truly outstanding and a tribute to locals who have spent all these years since the Summorum Pontificum (is it really nine years?!) faithfully working with the powers-that-be to bring this about for us.
Fr. Firmin promised another EF Mass here in November, TBTG!

Jusadbellum said...

Church history is full of reformers and saints being persecuted the most by fellow Catholics and the hierarchy. I think it's a purification of our intentions and perhaps an unintentional occupational hazard of all bishops and pastors who after all are told to 'discern spirits'.

With so many people proposing so many ministries and reforms, it can be hard to know who is legitimate and who is "on the take' or who is just nuts. So one way to proceed is to be suspicious of everyone and make things difficult. Only the genuinely humble who feel convicted by God will overcome the human roadblocks thrown up to the reform proposals. Eventually, if X reform is of God, we will see the fruits bloom in the unlikeliest places or people.

So it goes with the Mass. EF Masses might have 10 families...but each family has 5+ children compared to the normal Mass with 4 families with 2 children each. Eventually vocations will come from the EF families, and the ones who marry will themselves have large families and demographics will take over where missionary/conversion failed to make inroads.

John Nolan said...

An attendance of 300 at the very inconvenient time of 1 pm on Sunday is very good indeed. Two of the Sunday EF Masses I sing at are at 12 noon, and that's rather late. The third is at 8 am which is too early (especially when it's 40 minutes' drive away).

Ideally the principal Sunday Mass at, say, 11 am, with the full musical resources, should be in the EF, at least in cathedrals and larger parishes, even if this means replacing an existing OF Mass. This would leave room for an earlier 'family Mass' with hymns, and possibly an earlier English Mass with no music; the Saturday evening Mass would be likewise.

It is often forgotten that the moderate 20th century liturgical reformers did not have a problem with the Sung/Solemn Mass - it was the lack of participation in the Low Mass which they felt, rightly or wrongly, needed to be addressed.

A mature Catholic should be able to accept either form (provided that the vernacular mass is abuse-free). Unfortunately for too many the Mass has become such a subjective experience that the essentially objective nature of the liturgy is alien to them. This is a sign of immaturity which is reflected in the fact that the average parish Mass rarely rises above the level of a junior school assembly.

Even an accurate translation of the Novus Ordo (and before Fr Kavanaugh takes me to task the 2011 version isn't perfect, although it is infinitely superior to what went before) caused howls of anguish from many of the commentators over at PrayTell. I'll never forget the comment of one woman who wailed 'they've taken away my Mass!' You'll never get through to these people. Malcolm MacMahon, then Bishop of Nottingham and now Archbishop of Liverpool jocularly suggested that they could always apply to Rome for an indult!

Paul C said...

AMDG.

Less emphasis on service to man;
More to the greater glory of God.

All my deeds God.

Some Jesuit boys and men remain loyal.

Paul.

Anonymous said...

Wow Michelle Obama, what a great speech for our Children of America to Hear.

Anonymous said...

Wow Elizabeth Warren, What a speech for all Americans to hear.
Black, White, male, female, rich, poor, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish AMERICAN

gob said...

Did everybody watch the convention tonight? Michelle Obama was GREAT....

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

They and the Democrats support and endorse abortion on demand to include late term and partial birth abortions. Maybe the blood on their hands inspires them to give a good speech on some good things but overall the democrats have become demonic in promoting the culture of death all the while singing kumbaya!

rcg said...

Way to go, father. FWIW, our Latin parish is an interesting mix of young and old, too. We have some large, young families as well. You might see if you can figure out the education and employment. We have an interesting mix of that, as well.

Gob, you should run for office. We need more transparency in government. I

Dialogue said...

Anonymous,

What does that have to do with this post or even with this blog?

Joseph Johnson said...

The Democratic Party's consistent support for abortion "rights" is a major stumbling block for me---I can't find it within myself to listen with an open mind to anything else they have to say.

Because of this, I have never voted for a Democrat for President and I can't imagine a situation in the future where I ever would . . .

TJM said...

gob reinforces his fake catholic bona fides. Michelle Obama is a fire breathing racist who was never proud of her country until her husband was the candidate, this from a lady that got a free ride to college compliments of "racists."FYI, Obama has done NOTHING for blacks. They are worse off economically than they were under Bush and the south side of Chicago is still a killing zone of Democrats shooting Democrats (although dead, I am sure they will vote for Hillary. The Dems want to repeal the Hyde Amendment so taxpayers are forced to pay for abortions. So if you are a Catholic voting Democrat, you've excommunicated yourself.

Jenny said...

Thank you, Fr. Allan, for the response at 4:10 to the Anonymi and gob posts! All it takes for evil to prevail and multiply is for good men to do-/say nothing...perhaps most especially clergy who teach and lead flocks in moral formation. Thanks for ALL the good you do.

gob said...

Sometimes posting here is like playing an old-fashioned "juke box". I press a button and I know exactly what tune is gonna play.....

John Nolan said...

For outsiders like me, who find it difficult to distinguish US politics from show business, and who were sure that Bill Clinton, a complete sleazeball, would be impeached - after all, he makes Richard Nixon seem a model of probity and honourable conduct - it is astounding that Hillary, who has trailed a miasma of corruption and criminality behind her since Whitewater in the late 1980s, should even be in the running for President.

I think the rot set in with the Kennedys; a family whose greed, corruption, naked ambition and sexual depravity outdid the Borgias and yet were fawned on by the media and the Catholic hierarchy. PJ O'Rourke had it right when he lamented that the two who were shot were shot in romantic circumstances rather than after due process of law.

I don't have a lot of time for our own politicians, but does anyone imagine that Theresa May would still be a minister, let alone Prime Minister, if a few weeks previously she had been interrogated by Scotland Yard over serious allegations of misconduct in public office?

Anonymous probably naively supposes that Michelle Obama writes her own speeches. It was a priceless moment when the world suddenly realized that La Trump had employed the same speechwriter. Don't get me wrong, they are both attractive women, but why anyone should pay any attention to their public utterances is beyond me.

Jusadbellum said...

The Democratic party has done more to destroy the Black family, create failing schools and a dysfunctional inner city culture than anything else. They are the party of the KKK and Planned Parenthood and the sexual revolution. They're the party who hires the police who arrest or harass black people (and Hispanics)... they're the party that encourages social pathologies, that creates division between the ethnic groups, men and women, etc.

They excel in gaslighting, in accusing others of the very crimes they commit.

Name one "social program" that hasn't spawned more problems or institutionalized the problems it claims to address. Social security? It's reduced the rate of savings across the board and has managed to become insolvent. Medicare? It's eating up more and more of the federal budget AND has contributed to the ever increasing rise of healthcare costs for everyone (subsidize something and the price goes up).

You name the Democratic law or policy and the results are always bad for women, minorities, and the country at large. But it makes them FEEL good about themselves. It makes them FEEL like they're "progressing". Oddly, no state run by Democrats is solvent. Not a single city run by Democrats has a fully funded civil servant pension plan. They're all in the red. CA and IL are teetering on the edge of complete bankruptcy as they owe more to their pensioners than their state taxes can cover.

I relish the opportunity to debate anyone on the merits of this infernal party's claim to intellectual and moral superiority. It has neither.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

John - Long, long before the Kennedys there was "rot" in the highest echelons of US politics, executive, and legislative and judicial.

Andrew Jackson was a bigamist, although he "thought" his fist marriage had ended in divorce.

Vice President Schuyler Colfax was involved in a massive stock fraud.

US Grant protected his personal secretary, Orville Babcock, who was involved in a theft of whiskey tax revenues.

Grover Cleveland had an illegitimate son from an affair - he paid child support.

FDR and Lucy Mercer Rutherford were a pair. Ms. Rutherford was with FDR when he died at Warm Springs, Georgia.

Jusadbellum said...

Fr. K continues to claim that he votes for individuals and not parties and that the party's platforms are just fluff. But that can't possibly be an adult assessment of the situation. We are in a 2 party system. A system that grants vast power to whichever party has a majority in the various branches. So if one ignores party and votes for the best individual, one may end up putting the enemy party in power.

Suppose a pro-life democrat existed (I know, but still...) and your vote would put him or her in the House or the Senate, but also given the numbers, swing the entire House or Senate to the Democratic party which is absolutely pro-abortion. How could one justify one's vote? The lone pro-life unicorn would only cement the abortion franchise into the body politic via the dominance of the party.

Or we're told that so long as SCOTUS is liberal, it doesn't matter who is elected to POTUS or to Congress....and yet....and yet where do we get SCOTUS judges from if not the POTUS and Senate? If you never ever vote for pro-life candidates you're tacitly admitting to never want the means by which to change the status quo when it comes to Abortion (or sodomy or anything else).

If I were cynical I'd think that most Catholic clergy and religious are Democrats first and foremost and only Catholics second inasmuch as they've presided over a 50 year trend of ceding to the central government education, healthcare, retirement, and aid to the poor which used to be the mainstay of Catholic social ministry and not something the government was encouraged to get involved in.

So they surrender to the secular progressive world vision, cede ground on all fronts, silence any laity that might jump into the breech and attempt an 11th hour defense of morality and liberty....and then when the inevitable rise in secularism comes they throw up their hands in mock horror and say "oh, well, resistance is pointless".

Land o Lakes came along and the Bishops surrendered. Humane Vitae came along and the Bishops surrendered. Abortion came along....and the Church was caught flat footed....and didn't mobilize to get the Human Life amendment passed when it stood a fighting chance. Their heart wasn't in it. Ditto with the long telegraphed move towards normalizing the sexual revolution and sodomy in particular as something OK for our culture.

It's not that we suffer homilies in support of the Democratic or sexual revolutionaries' causes. It's that we hear next to nothing about controversial topics at all. We're left without shepherds, without someone blowing a clear trumpet.... or we're treated to tut tuting that we, the laity, are tin-foilers for worrying about clear trends of secularization....and then condemned for reactionary rhetoric when the trends come true.

This is why I believe war is coming. Why I believe bloody persecution of Catholics by the state and paramilitaries is almost inevitable. It won't be pastors though (unless it's the young ones) on whom the hammer falls. It'll be the laity. The ones who refuse to submit to the secular anti-Catholic ideology. And we'll beg for support or a blessing and be told that we need to just take our medicine.

Show me where I'm wrong in this assessment.

Jusadbellum said...

Look at the religious freedom push by the bishops: feckless. There is next to no explanation in the pews about how our religious liberty is threatened, why this is bad, and how to put pressure on our elected representatives to back off. A few bland words. Their heart just isn't there and it shows. But let the topic be encouraging more illegal immigration/open borders/importing Muslim refugees (rather than creating safe zones in Syria or Turkey) and suddenly there's fire in the belly and passion.

Let the topic be gun control and there's fire in the belly. If it's "help the poor" again, there's passion. Somehow me voting for other people to be taxed more is to be counted as my personal charity for the poor?

The LGBTQ movement is aggressive and secularist and yet we're brow beat into distinguishing man, motive, and movement (as though we don't already) and then encouraged to not do anything concrete to simultaneously encourage gay friends or relatives to be chaste, to reform their lives, and to get therapy for their trauma or resist the movement's drip drip drip approach to moving the Overton window away from Catholic morality and towards a secularist view which cannot accept a live and let live status quo. It must insist on branding Catholics as we brand racists and hounding us out of public society with punitive measures.

If pastors cared about these topics, if they showed passion, they've only to blow a clear trumpet and men will follow. Instead we're lulled into standing down and being inert and passive.

Let anyone attempt to hold private or public gatherings to discuss the USCCB document on citizenship and that'll get shut down too. No dots are to be connected. The clergy won't do it and they won't encourage anyone (except Democrats I suppose) from doing it.

TJM said...

Father K, at least get your facts right. Andrew Jackson was never married before he married Rachel Donelson Robards. In good faith she believed her marriage to her first husband had legally ended. Although Franklin Roosevelt had a mistress or two, nothing compares to the satyrs otherwise known as Bill Clintoon and Jack "fake catholic" Kennedy. I thought you had a sense of proporation. Or at least that is what you always claim.

Anon-1 said...

Jusad...

Silent apostasy (forgot who coined the phrase) is why the visible Church is suffering -at least in the US- but not only here. We are lead from behind into certain decline by eminent church officials. Even our soldiers, once the shock troops of the Counter Reformation, switched sides. So, we are taking "friendly fire" more devastating than what we must endure from our enemies.

Paul C said...

John, you remind our family of a long range bomber.

Gene, you remind us of 2 or 3 bursts of....

But what would I know?

Our NRA type leftist media could translate accross a bigger pond as:

No Republicans Allowed.

Oh, but to get back to my original point or parallel, almost all my extended family down here as law abiding citizens handed in their guns as demanded by Howard govt after Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

P.

Postal script.

As for any of our big extended family branch in Canada, I am not so sure?

John Nolan said...

Gob, at least you admit to being a troll. I know one isn't supposed to feed them, but your comments are so representative of a certain faction that swatting you has a wider significance. Presumably this is why Fr AJM doesn't delete your comments.

Anonymous said...

John Nolan has nothing in life to do but argue.
He is not even an American and wants to tell people here how to vote.
What a joke he is.

Anonymous said...

Yes I am a troll and I will be contacting the Bishop about this Blog.
You don't see anyone from St. Josephs church posting here do you?
Perhaps they were glad to get a new priest.

Gene said...

Paul C, Law abiding citizens here will not hand in their guns because it would be an un-Constitutioinal law. Current social fads and liberal hysteria do not trump the US Constitution. Neither do rogue administrations such as the Obammy one, soon to pass into richly deserved oblivion.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

TJM - Yes, thank you for the correction. I got my presidential scandal info turned around.

rcg said...

Anonomouses: there have been several parishoners post here and all that I recall were pleased with FrAJM's leadership. Don't you have a convention to attend?

Just to show how things have not changed very much in 1471 a priest died in the middle of a Europe torn by war. His name was Thomas a' Kempis. He died peacefully, I believe, unlike Fr. Jaques Hamel, may he rest in peace. Throat cut while kneeling in front of the altar. I suppose it is pretty certain Fr. Hamel is a Holy Marter.

Anonymous said...

Oh yes Gene you are going to hand over your guns. You are going to give them to Hilary. LOL
The constitution can be changed. Don't you know that? You need some education in political science.

Anonymous said...

Jus Pastors can't blow trumpets if they are to be respected. This is the United States of America. We have a separation of Church and state. Most came to America to escape Catholic persecution (remember they tortured people to death?) In this country we are free to vote as we feel and not be bullied by a pastor with his own agenda. Pastors that insult one party and bully people to vote their way do not deserve to be a pastor. Most pastors select one issue and ignore all of the horrible other ones. We really don't heed any more preaching from you. You are right. You are no expert.

Anonymous said...

TJM So when did God appoint you judge? Pitiful man.

Stephen Conner said...

Yes...hello, Anonymous troll! St. Joseph parishioner here! I will always be grateful to Father McDonald and for all he ever did for St. Joseph, as a parish, and for me and my family. St. Joseph would not be the glorious, reverent parish it is today without Father McDonald's twelve years of solid pastoral leadership. I returned to the Church because of him and his leadership after being a "none" for almost 13 years of my life. I truly love Father McDonald and always will! With that being said, St. Joseph has been incredibly blessed with another wonderful servant of God, Father Scott Winchel. Each priest has his own special gifts and talents to share. I despise anyone, such as yourself, Anonymous, who tries to pit one priest against another or speak ill of any priest. I suspect your comments were a pathetic attempt to get St. Joseph parishioners to stand up for one priest and bash the other (Father McDonald v. Father Winchel). Guess what, pal? As a parishioner of St.Joseph, in Macon, I can honestly say that our parish is a much better place to worship and serve the Lord because of BOTH Father McDonald and Father Winchel. May God bless them both! And by the way, if you are a St. Joseph parishioner, why don't you take your divisive, negative energy and get involved in an active parish ministry. You would even serve yourself and our Blessed Lord better by spending time in the Adoration Chapel, in prayer, instead of stirring up trouble and pushing your liberal, secular nonsense, here on this blog.

John Nolan said...

Gobshite, if you were paying attention, you will have observed that I have not suggested how people should vote; I merely regretted that the system should have thrown up such rotten candidates.

Like it or not, the US President is the leader of the free world and the USA is the world's only superpower, so who holds the highest office is of concern to all of us.

John Nolan said...

Gene, Obama visited England in April and told the electorate to vote to stay in the EU, with veiled threats of the consequences should we vote to leave. Although he was prompted to do so by David Cameron, there was considerable resentment over here and his intervention probably did more than anything else to secure victory for the Brexit campaign.

So we, at least, have something to be grateful to 'Obammy' for.

Joseph Johnson said...

As many of you know (maybe anonymous doesn't) the term "separation of Church and State" does not appear in the text of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution only provides that the government may make no law respecting the establishment of any particular religion (the "Establishment Clause"). It also guarantees freedom of worship. In other words, there can be no state Church (as in the U.K) and the government can't tell you how to worship or to worship at all. The term "wall of separation" which began to be incorporated into Supreme Court jurisprudence in the 1940's comes from Freemasonry--not the U.S. Constitution's text.

The notion that pastors must be muzzled and censored as to political preferences (for fear of loss of a church's tax exempt status) which have a bearing on morality/doctrine only dates back to the 1950's with LBJ's infamous "Johnson Amendment" which is current U.S. law. Though I am not so sure if it will "fly" politically, I am glad that the GOP has finally taken the position this year that the Johnson Amendment needs to be repealed.

rcg said...

S. Conner, well done. I like the way you used 'pal'. That is as close to looking-in-the-eye-sotto-voice-close-enough-to-smell-his-breath as the internet currently allows. Yes, well done.

Gene said...

An aptly named amendment...

Anonymous said...

John - "Obammy"? I thought you were a better man.

Gene said...

John was just quoting me regarding "Obammy." He is far more charitable than I am.

John Nolan said...

Note the inverted commas. I think it's quite a witty nickname, but then I don't suffer from a liberal guilt complex. Already the new UK Prime Minister is being referred to as Mother Theresa and her German counterpart is 'Mutti' Merkel. I don't now what the French call Hollande - it's probably unprintable.

Anonymous said...

"Witty"? No. Racist? Yep. And it doesn't take a "liberal guilt complex" to know that.

Joseph Johnson said...

Gene,
I hope you mean that the Johnson Amendment was "aptly named" for its sponsor, Texas Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson (not me---I wasn't even born yet when it was passed in the 1950's and I claim no relation to LBJ!).

Another thing in this world that I consider undesirable with the name "Johnson" is Johnsongrass (those tall sea-oat like stalks that grow in clumps along the highway ditches). My dad used to say "If you get Johnsongrass on your property it's time to move!" It is very difficult to eradicate, once established---just like liberal Supreme Court decisions (e.g. Roe v Wade) that have no textual basis in the actual U.S. Constitution . . .

Jusadbellum said...

Having Bishops blow a trumpet - TO OTHER CATHOLICS is no breach of the fake "wall" between Church and State. For starters, there's no separation between Church and Citizen is there? No. Not a bit. The Church can - and should - communicate its full message to any citizen who wants to hear and if these citizens choose to convert that message into legislation that's our right. I don't buy (and have never seen the argument) whereby Citizens can't decide to pass laws or amendments (or, as judges or executive branch minions) that reflect their viewpoints simply because said viewpoints come from religious sensitivity.

I agree about the 'friendly fire'... laity have few clergy and religious to guide our struggles as most are either silent in the face of the culture war...or they side openly with the culture of death side of this war.

I fully respect that pastors have to minister to everyone who comes to Church and that consequently it's wise to NOT register as a member of a political party. But in contests where the moral stakes are such that one party has a litmus test for any national office which includes the support of half a dozen intrinsic evils while the other party has no such litmus tests, how could a pastor fail to make the case that to advance OUR GOSPEL, to advance the culture of life, a Christian culture whereby we care more for Jesus and His commandments than the opinions of a small atheistic elite, we ought to support the side most in conformity with a culture of life?

If Catholics became a 60/40 bloc, we would be the 'swing' voters in every election. It wouldn't take long for the entire US political Overton window to swing towards a more Catholic view of the world. Towards solidarity and subsidiarity, towards support of heterosexual, monogamous marriage as the bedrock of the family and society. Of a conception that the best government is limited government which energizes people to take initiative and be responsible for their own families and exercise solidarity with their local communities rather than become passive and inert while ceding everything to faceless bureaucracies.

To advance the cause of Christendom, we need bishops and priests and religious actually acting - as citizens - to promote our vision rather than the vision of secularists and globalists.

As it is, we divide ourselves 48/52 every time - essentially cancelling our influence out. Thus the GOP and the DNC (the majority of each party being run by non-Catholics) are free to seek their own ends at our expense and the expense of the untold innocents left in the wake. Can our pastors not see this? Or do they genuinely believe "progress" as the DNC sees things is the path to the Kingdom?

Dialogue said...

John Nolan,

Here in the Southern USA, that particular usage is indeed well outside the parameters of respectability.

John Nolan said...

Dialogue, I have referred to Bill Clinton as a sleazeball, Hillary as a crook, and Trump as a buffoon, without benefit of inverted commas. These are surely worse epithets than the mild condescension implicit in Gene's sobriquet for the POTUS (which, incidentally is a Latin adjective meaning 'drunken').

However, I am aware that the relatively recent treatment of black Americans in the Southern USA still makes people uneasy. That's your problem, not mine.

Anonymous said...

We once had a Priest that told people in a homily "if you voted for Clinton (Bill) you have blood on your hands" He is the only Priest I ever had that I would really call a pastor. He cared about peoples souls. Even from the relatively good, young priests we don't hear this kind of straight shooting often enough. Pray for our priests and bishops to get some backbone and quit hiding behind the skirt of Prudence.
Saint Michael the Archangel defend us in battle...

Gene said...

Joseph Johnson, No, I was referring to the colloquial usage of "johnson" as a reference to the male sexual organ.

TJM said...

Anonymous at 6:09 , you are obviously a different Anonymous than the Obama Drooler who posts regularly here as Anonymous. I agree with the pastor. Unfortunately we have bishops and cardinals who vote that way. They are a disgrace and in my humble opinion have incurred excommunication for promoting scandal and an intrinsic evil. I'd like a few minutes in a locked room with them, but they're not man enough.

Anonymous said...

John - No, Gene's and now your usage of "Obammy," with or without the benefit of inverted commas, is a racist slur.

Gene meant it that way, and we have his history of calling the President a N----R to show that. You are aware of Genes' past racist postings.

Using racial slurs is a "problem" for the one who uses them.

Jan said...

Trump's most recent claim:

"Hillary is so crooked that she needs a Kaine to keep her upright".

TJM said...

Jan,

That's a good one!

TJM said...

Anonymous, since you are part of the cognoscenti, please explain how Obammy is a slur? I certainly do not recall Gene calling the president the "n" word, although that term is in widespread usage in the African-American community. By the way, did you know Obama's half-brother is voting for Trump. Does that make him a racist?

Gene said...

I did not call the President a n***er. I referred to him as the HNIC. There is a difference.

Anonymous said...

There is no difference. You can say I work for NASA or OPEC of that you live in the USA and the entire world knows precisely what you mean.

Jan said...

Thanks TJM, I must say I thought the following was a goodie too:

'Crooked Hillary and Corrupt Kaine'

rcg said...

Elvis Costello loved Ray Charles. Those Brits will say anything....

TJM said...

Anonymous at 7:31,I am still waiting for your erudite explanation.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan, Can I play too?

Donald is so bankrupt, he needs all the Pence he can get.

John Nolan said...

Let's get a sense of proportion here. 'Racialism' is the belief that some races are inherently superior to others; it is also a generic term for race-hatred. Karl Marx was a racialist - he believed the negro race was too backward to be revolutionized. Social Darwinists and eugenicists were racialists, as (to an extreme extent) were the Nazis.

'Racism' on the other hand is one of those neologisms (another being 'sexism') which means what anyone with a grievance, real or imagined, wants it to mean. Thus the official (UK) definition: 'A racist remark is one that is perceived to be so by the person to whom it is addressed or by anyone who hears it'. Make of that what you will. The ultimate absurdity is that you can even be 'racist' with regard to your own race - an Irishman telling an Irish joke, for example, risks being hauled in front of the Board of Political Correctness and duly censured.

Back to 'Obammy'. Barack Obama was born in Honolulu to a Kenyan father who was a British subject and 'Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies', as it used to say on our passports until 1980. His mother was a Kansan of English descent. He's therefore half black and half white, and it's only ingrained racial prejudice which automatically classifies him as black. In the 19th century 'quadroons' and even 'octoroons' could not claim to be white. 'Obammy' is funny precisely because Obama is far removed from the Al Jolson caricature of the plantation negro which the expression conjures up.

In his early days at the White House he was perceived to be anti-British. It was said that his grandfather had been detained and mistreated by the colonial authorities during the Mau Mau emergency (1952-1956). This story has since been discredited. At the time of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (2010) he repeatedly referred to the multinational oil giant BP as 'British Petroleum', as if to hint that Perfidious Albion was behind it all. However, since then he has had quite a good press over here. There was a blip when Parliament refused (wisely as it turned out) to arm the anti-Assad rebels in Syria and the French temporarily became flavour of the month - but then wiser counsels prevailed in Washington, too.

Obama has criticized the Europeans for not spending enough on defence, and I agree with him. Token support for the war on ISIL is not enough. Britain and France wake up!


Billy the Kid said...

Hillary is so ugly she'd make a Pit Bull scale a plate glass window.

Billy the Kid said...

They asked Hillary what was her policy on Red China. She said, "As long as it matches the drapes."

Anonymous said...

Using lots of words as a rationalization for racism don't change a thing, John Nolan.

And introducing "racialism" is nothing but a smoke screen.

Racism isn't whatever one wants to make it to be. It is "discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race."

"Obammy" is a racist term. You knew it and you used it anyway.

Put that in your Mau-Mau and smoke it.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, I think it would be better to have a bankrupt president than a crooked one, and even a Kaine won't help Hillary win this election. Certainly Pence is on the right track:

"GOP vice presidential nominee Mike Pence on Thursday predicted that Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion, would be overturned if Donald Trump is elected president.

“I’m pro-life and I don’t apologize for it,” he said during a town hall meeting here. “We’ll see Roe vs. Wade consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs.”



Billy the Kid - Hillary usually looks as if she is wearing the drapes, or some describe it as maternity wear, but tonight I could have sworn her convention outfit had been borrowed from Ellen Degeneres and I thought she made Donald Trump look decidely younger!

http://images.fashionnstyle.com/data/images/full/24839/rtr3fy2k-jpg.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/fashion/2016/07/29/104322427-hillary_clinton_EPA-xlarge_trans++aDnIKI3Q0aQre1cqAkdPGU3hE075SqS4iGLmlaa-LAU.jpg

TJM said...

Obama's half-brother is voting for Trump. Does that make him a racist Anonymous? You are very tiresome. Why not go over to Pray Tell and impart some of your "wit and wisdom" there? THey're lefties, so they will be all agogue if you let them know you're Black

Billy the Kid said...

Anonymous @ 8:30 am...that is not a very good definition of racism, a much over-used term. The classic definition is the belief that your race is superior to all others and, therefore, entitled to rule or receive special treatment. One may act abusively or in a discriminatory fashion toward members of another race without being a racist. I could call the President Sambo, Snowball, Junior, Leroy, or Spear Chunker and still not be a racist. All members of his race are not defined by any of those terms or the term in question.

John Nolan said...

Anonymous @ 8:30

My comment was for the benefit of those who are a)literate and b)intelligent. It's hardly my fault that you fall into neither category.

rcg said...

This is thread is nuts and shows a very distinct problem with race that is a worldwide phenomenon but seems promenent in the US: people have to pretend that the other person is not different until that person transmits the code of how that difference may be acknowledged. So black Americans may say n****r with each breath and everyone else must pretend it does not happen while waiting patiently for the acceptable gambit to be revealed. This is a simplistic political move to keep citizens of the same nation and different ethnicities Balkanized.

The term "Obammy" conjurs up some unpleasant images but they definately match the surrogate mothering we endure from the POTUS and our Government.

I am always shocked by the absolute bare-knuckle speech I encounter in the UK. And I am always refreshed because they can laugh and hand it back with a smile. I am sure it hurts at times, it seems 'Paki' is frowned upon, but generally they seem to have adapted to it to remain intellectually engaged. They seem comfortable in their own skins.

Joseph Johnson said...

I'm a big fan of Al Jolson and have been for many years (in fact, just recently, I got my first I-phone and I have some of his music stored on it for my listening pleasure). Does that mean I am a racist? 'Just wondering . .

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

I thought we were playing a game.

But if you want to be serious, I was not thinking so much of Donald’s financial situation (with which I assume Mike Pence cannot help him very much) but of his intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

On Roe v. Wade, I am not yet convinced that overturning the decision (and returning the issue back to the states) would reduce the number of abortions. Therefore, for me, the real battle that must be fought is not so much the legal one as the moral and spiritual one for hearts and minds. Like you, I would like to reduce the number of abortions to zero. As I suggest on another thread, the real problem concerns not the shared end but the most effective means to achieve it.

Anonymous said...

Of course, anyone who disagrees with the Great and Powerful John is illiterate and unintelligent.

How could I be so foolish......?

Marc said...

A2, the democrats are not trying to reduce the number of abortions. They are trying to destigmatize the practice of abortion. That is why they had a speaker at their convention tell her abortion story on national television. Perhaps you would agree that an effective means to achieve the goal of reduction in abortion numbers to zero does not involve normalizing abortion. Surely you would agree that taking away the stigma does not advance the moral and spiritual battle for hearts and minds on this issue.

So while you might like to reduce the number of abortions to zero, the democrats do not appear to share that goal.

Billy the Kid said...

Anon 2, How can you even mention "intellectual and moral bankruptcy' in reference to Trump while completely ignoring the more than moral bankruptcy of the Clintons, whose faux intellects are nothing but demagoguery. She is thoroughly corrupt and her husband is a serial abuser/rapist. Trump is not morally bankrupt...that is just your's and the Left's mantra to try to justify voting for
the most corrupt, evil, and sociopathic couple in recent history. You are a disgrace, as are any who would vote Democratic. Compared to the Clinton's, Trump is a saint.

Billy the Kid said...

Anonymous @ 3:41, re: "How could I be so foolish?" You have had a lot of practice.

John Nolan said...

rcg

It appears illogical that 'Aussie' is acceptable and 'Paki' is not, but what constitutes 'racism' has nothing to do with either logic or common sense.

An American blogger (not on this site) thought the word 'Brit' was a racial slur. Apart from the fact that we use it to describe ourselves, it is impossible to racially insult an Englishman since he doesn't give a damn what Johnny Foreigner calls him (they're only jealous).

A Frenchman, thinking to be complimentary, once said to Lord Palmerston: 'If I were not a Frenchman, I would wish to be an Englishman.' Back came the reply 'If I were not an Englishman, I would wish to be an Englishman'.

Some years ago a black American activist called Jesse Jackson said on television that 'the British invented racism'. Did he get this idea growing up in segregated South Carolina in the 1940s and 1950s? He's recently appeared as a character witness for Hillary, having performed a volte-face on abortion and gay marriage and renounced his earlier anti-Semitism. For a Baptist minister he doesn't take the Bible too seriously, particularly the inconvenient commandment concerning adultery (rather like Martin Luther King, another Baptist minister). He once accused Barack Obama as being 'too white' but this can't be a racial slur, can it?

John Nolan said...

Anonymous

'How could I be so foolish ...?' Well, you can stand in front of the mirror in your cap and bells and admire the result. Or simply keep posting in the same vein.

Melius est a sapiente corripi, quam stultorum adulatione decipi; quia sicut sonitus spinarum ardentium sub olla, sic risus stulti. [Eccles. 7:6-7]

George said...


Anonymous 2
"Donald is so bankrupt, he needs all the Pence he can get."

Can I play too?

It seems that Hillary is stuck with the bill she can't afford.

Anonymous 2 said...

B the K:

Well, I suppose you are entitled to think I am a disgrace. But you seem to have no sense of humor when it comes to politics.

Thus, it appears that the following are doubleplusgood

"Hillary is so crooked that she needs a Kaine to keep her upright" (The Donald)

“Crooked Hillary and Corrupt Kaine” (Jan)

“Hillary is so ugly she'd make a Pit Bull scale a plate glass window” (You)

“They asked Hillary what was her policy on Red China. She said, ‘As long as it matches the drapes.’” (You)

“Hillary usually looks as if she is wearing the drapes, or some describe it as maternity wear” (Jan)

But when I dare to play as well and quip:

“Donald is so bankrupt, he needs all the Pence he can get” (which, by the way, I thought was rather clever =))

And in addition dare to elaborate that The Donald is morally and intellectually bankrupt, it is doubleplusungood.

The moral bankruptcy of the Clintons seems to be pretty well covered by other commentators here, and therefore I did not need to address it. I was just evening things up a little, by also engaging in some political satire aimed at The Donald. Even though neither The Donald nor Hillary is particularly appealing to me, clearly I must be careful in future to be politically correct on this Blog, even with humor. You seem to be as thin skinned as The Donald himself.

If you cannot take it, then perhaps you should not dish it out. It may help, though, if you look on all of it as a kind of irreducible fish slapping dance. =)

Anonymous 2 said...

Marc:

I did not watch, or listen to, much of either Convention—I have more pressing things to do with my time than go to the Circus (with or without Bread)—and therefore did not see or hear the speaker in question. But it is beside the point. I was making a quip and then a critique aimed at The Donald, not praising Hillary or the Democrats. Although (as I have explained before) in Britain my political affiliation is with the Conservative Party, over here I am an Independent and not affiliated with any Party.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, I never support anyone who is anti-Catholic, even in a joking manner and I think it is impossible to try to balance someone like Hillary Clinton who was either so inept at her job or someone who was plainly negligent who some say deserves prison for ignoring at least four requests from Chris Stevens, the US Ambassador to Iraq so that he was left defenseless at the mercy of terrorists, and who then blatantly lied about it. Emails provided on Wikileaks prove that both Obama and Hillary Clinton knew this was a terrorist attack and they lied to the American people. As far am concerned, Donald Trump is a saint by comparison to what Hillary has done and also how she shut up Bill's women not out of love for Bill but because of her naked ambition. Kathleen Wiley - a volunteer at the Whitehouse who claims to have been sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton - is one such woman who has spoken out about the intimidation that women have had from Hillary Clinton and that she is unfit to be President of the US.

As for Benghazi the Select Committee report:

"The report reserves its strongest words for the conduct of the Democratic presumptive nominee for the White House.

It says that her decision to keep her emails on a secret 'homebrew' server and then to select which ones to hand over stopped them knowing the full truth about Benghazi.

Her email arrangements only came to light because of the investigation into the deaths.

It says Clinton's attorney deflected demands to turn over emails by referring it to the State Department, and accused the department and Clinton of being involved in an attempt at obfuscation.

'This "who’s on first" routine orchestrated between the Secretary’s private counsel and the State Department, which is ostensibly an apolitical governmental diplomatic entity, is shameful.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3663919/Hillary-Obama-administration-lied-Benghazi-video-story-turn-just-8-weeks-election-says-GOP-congressman-Republicans-release-scathing-report-2012-terror-attack.html#ixzz4FtUE9Y4N

Because of lying and deleting emails to cover her backside this to me makes Hillary Clinton a most unfit candidate to stand for the office of President let alone for the US senate.

rcg said...

@John N.: A speech writer for George W. Bush once penned the phrase, "the soft bigotry of low expectations." That captures the media attitude toward the Reverand Jesse Jackson and his preposterous ejaculations.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

I am not going to litigate the pros and cons of these two undesirable candidates on this Blog. It is futile. I would urge you and others, however, to set aside partisan biases and apply the same level of scrutiny and skepticism to The Donald as you apply to Hillary. This means not remaining in a partisan bubble but exposing yourself to negative material about The Donald as well, inconvenient and uncomfortable though that may be for partisan types (as I have explained, I am an Independent). Over here, for example, it means exposing yourself to more than FOX News or similar sources. In your case Jan, it means reading more than The Daily Mail.

Talking about FOX News, by the way, I may have missed it, but where is the outrage over the alleged reprehensible behavior of Roger Ailes towards the female employees at FOX? Not a whisper, as far as I can recall. Indeed, has it even been reported on FOX itself? I would be happy to be proven wrong on this point, however.

Just as a personal aside, when The Donald mocked a person with disability at one of his rallies, I was finished with him. It was the final straw. I do not want a character (or lack of character) like that in the White House. And, as I also find Hillary quite unpalatable for several reasons, I may very well end up not voting in the Presidential election or doing a write in. I am quite disgusted with the corrupt political process. Although I have a lot of sympathy for those who reject the tyranny of the Establishment and the arrogance of the political elites in the United States (and elsewhere), I am pretty sure The Donald is not the answer. He is part of the problem.



Jan said...

Anonymous 2 - yes, I read more than the Daily Mail but I like the Daily Mail because usually you get the full facts of the entire case - not like CNN and others where you get a headline if anything at all.

You mention Trump's mocking, well, what about the mocking by Obama in his Special Olympics quote I think that was far more serious and more pointedly against the disabled. I don't see you objecting to that.

Donald Trump comes from an age where people made politically incorrect jokes without meaning anything seriously hurtful against people. But mocking someone, although certainly not an admirable trait, really cannot be compared with someone who, as Secretary of State, ignored pleas for help from an ambassador in a country like Iraq. I don't see you complaining or highlighting that and then lying to the American people about it. I don't see you highlighting that.

Hillary Clinton has also intimidated Bill's women so that they won't speak out and damage her chances at election - I don't see you highlighting or complaining about that. Not to mention the shocking way she is said to treat her staff.

Hillary Clinton has proved that she is not fit for office. Donald Trump - if the liberal media has there way - will not get a chance. However, from all that I am reading, many pundits think he will be your next president despite or perhaps because of the bias that is being showed in the media against him.



Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Pure smoke. Nice try but sorry, no cigar. Hillary is irrelevant, Obama is irrelevant. Trump supporters don’t need educating about them—well, they might, but I am going to assume their perceptions and opinions about them are pretty much set. No, they need educating about The Donald. That is the point and the sole focus for discussion here.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, it is you who needs educating about Hillary. Although I think you, like most Democrats, completely overlook what she has done while in office because you want a Democrat in the Whitehouse. Well, I don't think it is going to happen this time because, from what is being reported, Trump is reading the mood of the people better - better than the Democrats and better than the Republicans this time around.

Jan said...

Anonymous 2, and I don't think you should be reminding people of cigars when discussing the Clintons ... just sayin

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

“Although I think you, like most Democrats, completely overlook what she has done while in office because you want a Democrat in the Whitehouse.”

I have said above that “I am an Independent”

I have referred to “these two undesirable candidates”

And I have explained that “as I also find Hillary quite unpalatable for several reasons, I may very well end up not voting in the Presidential election or doing a write in.”

Which part of this did you not understand?



rcg said...

Anon 2: restricting the discussion to only one candidate is a tactic used to decrease the ranks of that candidate's supporters to the benefit of the other. It is the same as moving Republicans towards Libertarian or Democrats towards Green Party candidates. In an election of this sort the contrast between the two candidates based on their will, ability, and intent to accomplish what needs to be done is best served by ensuring both are on the table at all times.

Anonymous 2 said...

Rcg:

I am unsure whether you are supporting me or criticizing me. Anyway, I quite agree with you, which is why some criticism of The Donald is also called for among the comments on this Blog. Criticism of Hillary is already well supplied by others. But as I said on another context, balance is in the eye of the beholder. =)

Jan said...

Sorry, Anon 2 if I misconstrued you. As all your posts have been supporting Hillary I naturally assumed you are a Democrat.

rcg said...

A2: actually I was responding to your comment that Trump is the sole focus of this discussion. One good thing about blogs of this sort is that the participants can't set the agenda and that even if the topic was Trump he is only the topic because he is running for president against Clinton. It is only comparison that matters.

Anonymous 2 said...

Rcg:

Thank you for clarifying. I was pushing back against what seemed to me an attempt to divert discussion from necessary criticism of The Donald.

Anonymous 2 said...

Jan:

Perhaps you problem is binary thinking (something certainly not discouraged by the de facto two party system)—if there is a choice between eating apples and or eating bananas, then if a person rejects eating apples that person must be wanting to eat bananas. No, in the interests of promoting better understanding and a more informed decision by everyone, the person can reject apples, point out the weaknesses in the reasons given for eating apples and/or for rejecting bananas, and still make a third choice to eat neither himself or herself and/or request that pears also be offered.

Billy the Kid said...

Hey Anon 2, I can think in binary:

01000110
01010101
01000011
01001011
01011001
01001111
01010101

Have a nice day!

Anonymous 2 said...

P.S. I don’t know what happened when I was editing my last post and inserted “himself or herself” but eating oneself was not intended to be an option on the menu. =)



Anonymous 2 said...

B the K:

That must be why we are always dualing on the Blog.


Jan said...

Anonymous 2, well then Bernie Sanders must be a binary thinker as he is urging his supporters not to vote third party but to vote Clinton because he knows third party is a wasted vote.

And I am interested in you proving that you're not a binary thinker by posting what you see to be Clinton's negatives and why you won't be voting for her this election ...

Billy the Kid said...

Anon 2, A singularly clever response...it would be a shame for the blog to become one-dimensional, with monochrome responses.