Thursday, August 11, 2016

CATHOLIC PROGRESSIVISM IS MORE POLARIZING AND DEMORALIZING THAN CATHOLIC CONSERVATISM/TRADITIONALISM

Three years ago when Pope Benedict resigned the papacy, abdicated if you will, St. Joseph Church in Macon had a special Mass of thanksgiving for his papacy the day that his papacy ended. It was at 12 noon and it was packed.

The papacy of Pope Benedict, while marked by some controvesy and the antipathy of the liberal media against him, was appreciated by most rank and file Catholics. What was most appreciated was the recovery of things Catholic, our Catholic culture and that we didn't have to be ashamed of our pre-Vatican II heritage as though that aspect of the Church was the cause of all the ills that afflicted the Church and world.

Catholics were proud to be Catholic again, to have the traditional liturgy again and hopeful that the reform of the Mass would be in continuity with the 1962 Roman Missal graciously returned to the Church by Pope Benedict.

What Pope Benedict modeled but did not mandate was a recovery of the small "t" traditions of the Mass in terms of priestly vestment, kneeling for Holy Communion and ad orientem.

A small minority of 1960's type Catholics, especially bishops and cardinals and the theologians that informed them where aghast at this restoration of Catholic small "t" customs and heritage. They were aghast that the Church was becoming a culture warrior rather than acquiescing to the ways of the secular world and its "magisterium."

Today we have a return with a vengeance, that God willing will be short lived, of the malaise of progressivism that afflicted the Church prior to Pope St. John Paul II, in the immediate aftermath and drunken euphoria of the tower of Babel mentality that entered the cracks of the Church, what Pope Paul VI described as the "smoke of Satan."

It's as though the Church has returned to the depressed spirit of the USA during the short tenure of President Jimmy Carter--all doom and gloom and no real excitement or patriotism. That changed with President Ronald Regan who recovered in the presidency the dignity it once had and Jimmy Carter in his south Georgia folksy way had abandoned.

Some three years of Catholic progressivism, there seems to be a spirit of doom and gloom and those who are most engaged in the life of the Church and take her orthodox teachings seriously are in the grips of despair. Others who could care less about orthodoxy, and they are a small group, are joyful in a kind of sadistic sort of way.

Who will be the next President Regan, or should I say Pope John Paul Benedict the First of the Catholic Church? Time will tell. Will the excitement and enthusiasm for things Catholic with a small "t" or big "T" tradition return as it had up until three years ago? Time will tell or at least eternity will!

24 comments:

I Was There said...

"That changed with President Ronald Regan who recovered in the presidency the dignity it once had and Jimmy Carter in his south Georgia folksy way had abandoned."

You have a very hazy recollection of Reagan.

Corruption: No administration was as corrupt as Ronald Reagan’s, not even Nixon’s. His attorney general resigned after he was involved with a company that received illegal no-bid contracts. His secretary of the interior, who thought his job was to sell off federal lands to defense contractors, was indicted on multiple counts of perjury.

Illegal Arms Sales: In 1985 and 1986, Ronald Reagan sold arms to Iran, locked in a horrific war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, for cash and the release of U.S. hostages. The sales to Iran violated sanctions against Iran.

AIDS: In the early 80s, a horrific new epidemic ravaged America’s gay population. Because so many of the victims of AIDS were gay, the right-wing viewed the disease as a kind of divine retribution for their sins. Reagan didn’t mention AIDS in public until September 1985, after more than 10,000 people had died from the disease. In 1986, Reagan called for a report on AIDS but also proposed cutting federal funds for research and patient care as treatments were just starting to make it to market.

South African Apartheid: When Congress looked likely to pass sanctions on South Africa to battle apartheid in 1985, Reagan vigorously opposed any action. In order to stop moderate Republicans from defecting, he issued a half-assed executive order imposing some sanctions. The next year, when Congress realized Reagan’s sanctions didn’t have teeth, it overwhelmingly passed a bill imposing real sanctions on the racist regime. Reagan vetoed the bill. Happily there were enough votes to override his veto, and the sanctions became a key part of the eventual end of apartheid.

Deficits: Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

Taxes: Reagan was a serial tax raiser. As governor of California, Reagan “signed into law the largest tax increase in the history of any state up till then.” Meanwhile, state spending nearly doubled. As president, Reagan “raised taxes in seven of his eight years in office,” including four times in just two years. As former GOP Senator Alan Simpson, who called Reagan “a dear friend,” told NPR, “Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times in his administration — I was there.” “Reagan was never afraid to raise taxes,” said historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan’s memoir. Reagan the anti-tax zealot is “false mythology,” Brinkley said.

But let's not let facts get in the way of the apotheosis of Reagan.....

Anonymous said...

Ok, back to reality.

Pope Francis is stacking the College of Cardinals with men that share his same revulsion for Catholic Doctrine. Not that JP II (who made Bergoglio bishop and cardinal, Kasper, Schonborn) or Benedict (Dolan, Wuerl Marx)were any better.

The pope is making outrageous pronouncments which attck marriage , confession, the Eucharist (telling adulterers that they can go to confession, not mention adultery, and receive absolution. And that basically anybody who wants to can go to communion). And nobody has a problem with any of it. The worse is yet to come. Imagine a Cardinal Tagle elected pope and coming out onto the balcony wearing a collared shirt and pants and allowing everything under the sun. Because the next pope will feel he has to outdo the publicity stunts feining humility and simplicity of Fancis. Who's hotel room by the way is the entire, newly renovated 2nd floor of that hotel. But neve mind reality. Disaster is coming. I know I know the comments mocking me. Drama, unrealistic, gloom, you need to go to confession, etc etc etc. But just wait and see.

TJM said...

I was there, you are as delusional as modern day Dems who think Hillary is honest. I was in business during the Carter years and note the following:

12% annual inflation
21% primer interest
10% unemployment

In 2 years Reagan fixed the economy (without blaming Carter at all, unlike the little girlie man in the White House now who keeps blaming Bush) and it roared. So much so, that he carried 49 of 50 states in his re-election bid, something NEVER accomplished in US history. A lot of Blue States went for Reagan so what did he do hypnotize them?

Corruption is far more rampant in the current administration it becomes almost exhaustive to list. Obama makes Nixon look transparent and honest.

The deficits under Reagan occurred because the Dems (as always) reneged on their promise to cut spending. The so-called Reagan deficits are chicken feed compared to the little girlie-man's who has actually DOUBLED the national debt in less than 7 years (i.e. he has added more debt than ALL other presidencies combined).

Today we have record numbers of Americans on food stamps, government assistance, and the lowest labor participation rate, since the Carter years.

Reagan restored American prestige and laid the foundation for the demise of that evil empire the old Soviet Union that the New York Slimes adored! Edward Sheradnovze a Soviet big wig years later agreed with Reagan that it was an evil empire.

David Brinkley, whom you cite as an authority, is a total and complete left-wing loon.

James said...

I don't see many - any? - figures in the current cardinalate of Reagan-like stature, although there are certainly plenty of Jimmy Carters (Tagle is my worst nightmare too, but Nichols is a very close second).

The nearest to Reagan, for my money, is Cardinal Muller, but it's highly unlikely that another German will be chosen so soon after what no doubt most cardinals regard as Benedict's failed papacy. Cardinal Sarah is surely out of the running following ad orientem-gate, and Cardinal Burke would be lucky to garner half a dozen supporters.

A couple of the cardinals who seemed like contenders in 2013 (Ranjith, Ravasi, Barbarin) now seem to have faded from view. Erdo is still a strong possibility though, particularly since it's unlikely that the current line-up of cardinals will favour a curial candidate (e.g. Parolin).

Richard M. Sawicki said...

TJM:

As a self-appointed presidential historian I need to point out...

Reagan was the SECOND president to carry 49 out of 50 states, as Richard Nixon did so against George McGovern in 1972. In fact, McGovern lost his own state to Nixon, and only carried Massachusetts and D.C.

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

I Was There said...

"Corruption is far more rampant in the current administration it becomes almost exhaustive to list."

Examples, please. (And the comparison was between Reagan and Carter.)

"The deficits under Reagan occurred because the Dems (as always) reneged on their promise to cut spending."

There's some "girlie man whining" for you.

"In 2 years Reagan fixed the economy..."

Nope. "Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Tripling the federal budget deficit is not "fixing" the economy.

"Today we have record numbers of Americans..."

Today? Again, the comparison was between Carter and Reagan. Or did you fall into a black hole while typing?





Anonymous said...

Cardinal Erdo could do great things as pope. He should have been elected last time. Bergoglio is making a mockery of the papacy.

John Nolan said...

Reagan - the best President after Truman, just as Thatcher was the best PM after Churchill. I was also there.

Jusadbellum said...

Reagan never had the sorts of supermajorities in the House and Senate that Obama had from 2008-2011.

He also faced the USSR which, in 1980, was much more of an existential threat than any force the US has faced since then.

His budget called for both tax cuts and spending cuts. The Tip O'neil House agreed to the tax cuts but then reneged on the spending cuts. The House controls the purse...not the President.

Re: AIDS. The virus was not Reagan's creation. Its spread among promiscuous gay men was not Reagan's doing. Federal funding is not the sole source of healthcare spending. It's not like there was an easy cure a mere flip of a switch away and he choose not to flip it. Instead, there was and IS a lifestyle choice that can keep anyone from contracting HIV as evidenced by the CDC's yearly reports showing that straight white men are almost never diagnosed with HIV/AIDS. If you don't want to get HIV, then don't engage in anal sex with strangers. If you do, it's not Reagan's fault.

Re: debt.... yes, it increased under Reagan... but the dividend was the ending of the Cold war! What have we had to show for current debt hikes? Only maintenance of the status quo.

In all other periods of the Republic, debt was taken on to win existential conflicts and then immediately paid down. Clinton presided over the pay down but only after the 1994 "contract with America" GOP blowout that won Congress from the Democrats for the first time since the 1950s.

The Debt was the fault of the DNC and the 'surplus' was the victory of the GOP.

Democrats control the top 10 cities in the country....and have controlled them for decades and yet - despite their supposedly superior intellectual and moral people and policies, these 10 cities (minority majorities) are basket cases. But instead of accepting moral responsibility for the high crime rates, failing schools, crumbling infrastructure, rampant corruption....they blame it all on the "right" or nebulous "racism" as though it's a gas and not incarnated in the lives of people directly involved with the ruling of those cities.






TJM said...

I Was In Lala Land would be a better moniker for you:

Well just on the corrupt level:

1) $400 million payment to Iran, circumventing Congress

2) Improperly influencing the Hillary Clintoon FBI investigation

3) Unlawfully changing the ObozoCare law on his own umpteem times

4) http://www.infowars.com/75-times-obama-broke-law-during-presidency/ (this contains about 75 instances)

Does George Soros pay you to troll here?

Dems lying and reneging on promises it just SOP for them. Are you a member of the Abortion Party?

Anonymous said...

We'll probably never again see a 49-state sweep, given how polarized this country has become. Since 1992, 18 states (and DC) with a combined 242 electoral votes have voted Democratic in 6 consecutive presidential elections, and another 13 states have voted Republican those same 6 elections...as for Reagan's ability to do so a generation ago (win 49 states), the culture wars were not as deep as they area today (who was talking about same-sex marriage 30-odd years ago?), and the Carter presidency was so spectacularly inept, voters understandably did not want to elect in 1984 Walter Mondale, who was Carter's vice president. Reagan won that year because of peace and prosperity, not because he had become a conservative "culture warrior" a la Pat Buchanan or Rick Santorum.

And TJM, David Brinkley is dead---do you mean Douglas Brinkley?

TJM said...

Richard M. Sawecki,

Thanks for the correction! I totally flubbed that one. If we had the same honest and well informed electorate today that we had then, Hildabeast would lose in a similar landslide. It's not so much that Donald Trump is great (he is not in my opinion) but Hildabeast is so evil, corrupt, greedy and with no discernible talent other than destroying women who had the misfortune of coming into "contact" with her "husband", that the nation should reject her and the whole odious apparatus that is the Clintoons' resoundingly. It would also teach the evil, corrupt national media aka Dem SuperPac an object lesson. My rule of thumb is to ALWAYS vote against the media's candidate and you can be relatively certain that you made the wise and prudential choice.


TJM said...

Anonymous at 3:02, yes Douglas Brinkley. I've seen him interviewed and he is as biased an individual writing "history" as I have seen.

I Was There said...

"$400 million payment to Iran, circumventing Congress."

Wasn't a Congressional action - resulted from arbitration. "The major issue between the two governments was a $400 million payment for military equipment made by the government of the Shah of Iran, prior to the 1979 uprising that topped him. The U.S. banned delivery of the jets and other weapons amid the hostage crisis, but froze the $400 million advance payment. “The Pentagon handled arms purchases from foreign countries,” says Gary Sick, a former National Security Council official who served as the principal White House aide for Iran during the Iranian Revolution and the hostage crisis. “Defense took care of the details. So the $400 million scheduled purchase was a government-to-government transaction. The U.S. government was holding the money. That’s why it was so difficult to resolve.” - Forbes

"Improperly influencing the Hillary Clintoon FBI investigation"

Evidence?

"Unlawfully changing the ObozoCare law on his own umpteem times"

Has the President been charged? Is there an indictment? Has a grand jury been empanelled?

Who is George Soros?





Anonymous said...


It is amazing how much the arms sales to Iran under Ronald Reagan sounds like what has been going on with the current administration.
Pres. Reagan's major accomplishment ( with some of the credit also going to Pope St. John Paul II) was bringing about the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
That was major.

TJM said...

I Was Clueless,

You obviously do not read, at all, and as a partisan, you care not to inform yourself. But for the simple, I will explain.

THe Nuclear Deal with Iran is a Treaty, something that must have Senate Approval. So Obama called it something other than a treaty and the lapdog press shrubbed.

In terms of the yet unindicted felon, known a Hillary, Loretta Lynch, Obama's subordinate, met with Bill "Horndog" CLintoon, while the FBI investigation was pending. An ordinary lawyer would have been disbarred and if you think a toady like Lynch met without Obama's approval, then you do qualify as typical low information voter the Dems count on.

IN terms of ObamaCare, which is imploding as I write this, Obama signed probably at least 15-20 executive orders revising the law (all of which has been reported in the newspapers) which is unconstitutional and usurpation of Congressional authority. He is a president, not Louis XVI who could act via lettres de cachet.

Lastly I gave you a link that illustrates at least 75 more instances of his unlawful conduct,


THe spineless Republican Congress won't deal with Obama for fear that the Media aka Dem SuperPac will tar them as racist. He should have been impeached and removed from office. His actions are far worse than Horndog Clintoons

Paul C said...

Father,

Was my comment regarding the word "perfidious" applied to all Jews, including anyone with Jewish blood who accepts Jesus and the teachings of His church, in any way inappropriate or problematic?

Paul.

I Was There said...

"THe Nuclear Deal with Iran is a Treaty, something that must have Senate Approval. So Obama called it something other than a treaty and the lapdog press shrubbed."

The $400 million payment to Iran was not part of the treaty.

"In reality, the payment represented continued adherence to a masterful feat of American diplomacy and to the peaceful resolution of disputes under international law. Ronald Reagan understood how important it is for us to keep our promises — which is why, as president, he upheld the agreement negotiated by the Carter administration that led to the recent payment."

"The payment was not a ransom but rather part of a settlement agreement that the United States reached with Iran for claims arising out of the 1979 Iranian revolution, which toppled the pro-American shah and brought the current Islamist government to power."

" Reagan’s executive order implementing the Algiers Accords was a remarkable endorsement of the power of international law to peacefully resolve a violent crisis abroad. He transferred claims under U.S. jurisdiction to an international court — a striking departure from those today who question our fundamental commitment to international alliances such as NATO and who flatly reject widely adopted treaties such as the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Reagan saw international law as an important mechanism by which the United States could secure peace and security for its citizens. The Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal, which has equal numbers of American, Iranian and neutral judges, has settled more than $2.5 billion in claims, including many in favor of U.S. nationals. Nearly 35 years on, it continues to be a hallmark of peaceful dispute resolution and has contributed greatly to the development of international law."

"All of this information has been publicly available since January. All that is new is last week’s disclosure that part of the payment was transferred in cash — due to U.S. government restrictions on making wire transfers to Iran — and renewed expressions of Trump’s dangerous ignorance. The payment, then, reflects the United States’ commitment to respect the rule of law, keep our promises, and pursue peace and accountability under international law. These are characteristics of our strength in the international community that we must steadfastly promise to uphold."

Washington Post By Allen S. Weiner and Duncan Pickard August 11 at 7:49 PM

The link was to 75 instances where unlawful conduct was asserted or claimed. Assertions and/or claims need adjudication before they become facts.

TJM said...

I Was Clueless, Obama has no authority to pay $400 million to ANYONE. Only Congress can appropriate money to settle the debts or obligations of the US government. You must have gone to a union goon public school where civics is conveniently overlooked so the sheeple don't realize the lawlessness of their Party, the Dems. I get it, you're an Abortion drooler will jump in the oven if Obama or Hillary tells you to do so.

I Was There said...

TJM - The money was LONG AGO appropriated. The money was LONG AGO placed in a trust account, the dispersals from which have been handled by a board of arbitration.

If you would READ the articles, you'd know the facts.

rcg said...

What a strange divergation for a thread. It appears "I Was There" feels goaded to justify an opinion of a man long dead. We should agree to bury this argument rather than defend Reagan against so honest a person; who was there.

Anonymous said...

I Was There said:.

We were all there for the following:

• President Obama rescinded the "Mexico City Policy," which previously had banned NGOs which are supported by American taxpayer funds from using those funds to perform abortions in foreign countries.

• Compelled Catholic and other religious organizations to provide health plans with free contraception, even though such requirements violate their rights of religious freedom and conscience.

• $9 trillion in new national debt under Obama…after he promised to decrease the deficit.
( While campaigning in 2008 Obama declared that it was "unpatriotic" that Bush had increased the national debt at a rate of half a trillion dollars per year; but under Obama the rate of national debt increase has accelerated to almost three times the Bush rate ($9 trillion in new debt in seven years)

• Obamacare — A massive and incredibly convoluted bill which exponentially increases the federal government's control over our personal lives…which neither Obama nor a single Democrat even read before passing.

• Billions of taxpayer dollars gambled on "green" companies like Solyndra, NextEra, Ener1, Solar Trust and many others — all of which went bankrupt.

• An intentional refusal to enforce federal immigration laws.

• True Unemployment at or above 10% for almost his entire term in office

The first President who after seven years in office, has not had a yearly economic growth rate of 3% (the worst economic recovery U am aware of)

• Operation Fast & Furious — a government-sponsored illegal gun-running scheme designed to purposely go awry so as to induce public outcry for gun control.

• Increased the percentage of Americans dependent on food stamps to unprecedented levels (over 40 million).

• Militarily intervened in Libya in 2011 without the Congressional approval required by the War Powers Act — technically an impeachable offense.
(Of course this was part of the Administrations disastrous Middle East policy).

• Handed out over 1,200 waivers to politically connected donors exempting them from the onerous requirements of Obamacare.

• Under Pres. Obama's watch, for the first time in history America's credit rating was downgraded, due to his poor economic policies.

• Authorized assassinations and drone strikes to kill American citizens abroad — without due process.

• Greatly expanding the number of unaccountable "czars," which essentially amounts to unilaterally adding new federal departments with no congressional oversight — leading to a true "bureaucracy" in the original sense (rule by unelected bureaucrats).

• Using taxpayer dollars to bail out the private pension funds of autoworkers' unions at GM & Chrysler.

• Illegally ending the welfare-to-work requirements passed by Congress.

• Doling out $800 billion in stimulus cash for "shovel-ready" jobs that didn't exist — what economic benefit was realized from this?





I Was There said...

As of Jan 12, 2016

Violent Crime — Homicides and other violent crime have decreased markedly since Obama took office. The drop in all violent crime — including homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault — is even greater. There were 229,078 fewer violent crimes in the U.S. in 2014 than in 2008, a drop of 16 percent, according to the FBI.

Meanwhile the unemployment rate went down again, to 5.0 percent. It’s now 2.8 percentage points lower than it was in January 2009, when the president first took office in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Historically, the jobless rate is significantly lower than it has been most of the time since 1948. The historical median is 5.6 percent.

Labor Participation Rate — The labor force participation rate, which is the portion of the civilian population that is either employed or currently looking for work, ticked upward since our last report, to 62.6 percent in December. But it is still 3.1 percentage points lower than when Obama took office. Contrary to many of Obama’s critics, however, that decline is due mostly to factors outside the control of any president — factors such as the post-World War II baby boomers reaching retirement age.

Corporate profits have soared under Obama. After-tax profits were running at an annual rate of just under $1.8 trillion in the July-October quarter of last year, the most recent figures available. But despite recent losses, stockholders have done quite well under Obama. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index was 139 percent higher at the close on Jan. 11 than it was the day Obama took office. Other stock indexes show similarly robust gains. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has also more than doubled, rising 106 percent during Obama’s tenure, and the NASDAQ Composite index has tripled, rising 222 percent.

Consumer Prices – Overall inflation in consumer prices has remained moderate over Obama’s more than six-and-a-half years in office, rising by only 12.4 percent between January 2009 and November, the most recent month for which the Bureau of Labor Statistics has released the Consumer Price Index. The average yearly rise under Obama of 1.9 percent is less than half the post-World War II average, according to BLS figures. Between 1946 and 2008 the average yearly rise in the CPI was 4 percent, measured from December to December. In the most recent 12 months, the CPI has gone up only a little more than 0.2 percent.

Food Stamps - 14.7 million people were added to the food-stamp rolls during George W. Bush’s time in office. By comparison, the net gain under Obama now stands at just under 13.4 million — and it’s slowly declining as the economy improves.

Welfare to Work - Is Obama dropping work requirements? No. He is allowing states to change the work requirements, but he is not dropping them. The changes could be made to a variety of federal requirements, including “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”

Libya Impeachable? - Mr. Obama sent a letter on Monday notifying Congress he had acted in Libya, in conjunction with the War Powers Act's 48 hours requirement. He said he authorized the action as part of a response authorized under the U.N. security council demanding that Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi change course or face consequences; the goal, he said, is "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya."




Anonymous said...




"Meanwhile the unemployment rate went down again, to 5.0 percent. It’s now 2.8 percentage points lower than it was in January 2009, when the president first took office."

The actual unemployment percentage is (and has been) TWICE what is officially reported.
At any rate, the way the unemployment rate has been calculated was changed, so that makes it an unfair comparison to previous administrations.

"Labor Participation Rate — The labor force participation rate, which is the portion of the civilian population that is either employed or currently looking for work, ticked upward since our last report, to 62.6 percent in December. But it is still 3.1 percentage points lower than when Obama took office."

Because we are, and have been in an economic recovery ( ostensibly), the Labor participation rate should be higher.

"Corporate profits have soared under Obama."

Yeah. Too much money has gone into stocks and not toward economic growth. You also have foreign investors. Money has to go somewhere.There is not always a corresponding direct relationship between the Economy and the stock market anyway. A lot of money has been in a loop involving the Federal Reserve, the Banks and Wall Street. With the interest rate being at historic lows, this is the time to borrow buy and build but it hasn't happened to the extent that it should have.

"Food Stamps - 14.7 million people were added to the food-stamp rolls during George W. Bush’s time in office."

Not everything that happened under Mr Bush was good. If people needed Food Stamps it is good that they received them. Again though, they should not go up during a recovery (which we are supposed to have been in).

" the goal, he said, is "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya."

That worked out really well, didn't it? Part and parcel with the rest that has happened in the Middle East.