Pope Francis is getting clobbered from all sides. The side that His Holiness should choose is not disruption or heterodoxy or out of control inculturation or confusion. His Holiness needs to be listening to orthodox Catholics who are pastoral and flexible, middle of the road, but right leaning.
- Charles Collins, Crux Apr 29, 2020“For liberals, Francis is too conservative and for conservatives he’s too liberal. The Pope is an old-fashioned Jesuit who can’t be put into a box,” he said.My comments: Part of the problem with Pope Francis is that he sows confusion and is inconsistent in what he says. He plants viruses in his speeches and writings that then begin processes which he intends but doesn't outright say and when he says it, you aren't sure. Rome, we have a problem.His Holiness asks for an outgoing, missionary Church, yet because of the confusion that now reigns as it did after the Council, no one is sure as to what that means because Pope Francis uses the word "proselytize" in a way that seems to mitigate against evangelization, missionary endeavors and apologetics.He has created a loss of Catholic identity, a loss of an appreciation of our Catholic culture and trappings and sides more with charismatic Protestantism than traditional Catholic leanings.Pope Francis uses the term "clericalism" as it was used in the 1970's to diminish the sacramental role of the priest and to make him into a sort of social worker with little that distinguishes him from the laity.Clericalism is paternalism, looking down one's nose at the laity, building up the cult of the personality of the cleric that allows him to abuse his office and others with him he should be serving in a sacramental way. Clericalism is a club mentality and uses the office of priesthood for one's own gain and self-satisfaction.
65 comments:
Pope Francis is an unmitigated disaster. There has been a "Francis effect" and it has not been good. His pontificate has breathed new life, however temporary, into the failed Vatican Disaster II approach and given the old geezer heterodox clergy a thrill in their twilight years. The only meaningful area of growth in the Church in the US is the EF community as they take over more failed OF parishes. If you take a gander at The New Liturgical Movement, it is not old gaffers attending the EF but young families with children and the celebrants are largely young priests. Pope Francis should have kept the Church on the path laid down by Pope Benedict and ignored the geriatric failures who are the very embodiment of Einstein's definition of insanity.
Don't forget that 'The Tablet' is the UK equivalent to the 'National Catholic Reporter'. It's known over here as the 'Bitter Pill' or the 'Suppository'. Lamb, its Rome correspondent, peddles the usual liberal line that those who ctiticize on doctrinal grounds elements of the current papacy are really motivated by a secular political agenda (right-wing, nationalist).
Liberals, of course, don't see anything secular or political about the reform agenda they are pushing and connect (rightly or wrongly) to Pope Francis. I have never understood their topsy-turvy world.
Do a lot of lay Catholics pay attention to Francis? I don't get the impression people really care that much what he has to say, but my circle of Catholic people is pretty limited.
That's a good question. I have to say that people felt good about the Church under Pope Benedict (my experience of him was exclusively at St. Joseph in Macon). When he resigned, the last day of his pontificate we had a special noon day Mass at St. Joseph and the Church was almost full for it. I think people had an affection for Pope Benedict and appreciated his clarity and desire to return the Church to a strong identity in a world that hates religion. He was counter-cultural, but an academic who made clear the teachings of the Church, no confusion under him.
I don't think there is the same affection for Pope Francis. His look is severe even though that may not be the case with him. The first time I saw him the day of his election when he came out on the balcony, my visceral reaction was, o my, he is a severe looking man, isn't he. But then he spoke the familiar Italian words for God evening that dialed that back.
I think most laity are ambivalent about him. Immediately, those who loved Benedict were alarmed by Francis. I heard that at St. Joseph the first week of his papacy.
I think Catholics may have disengaged from this papacy. Pope Francis is very much like President Jimmy Carter in simplicity, folksiness and charm, but it wore thin with Carter as it has with Francis. Carter made many mistakes as has Francis, the biggest being the joy many people take in American pageantry which he diminished and his dour outlook on so many things Americana. The same with Pope Francis and his ethos.
Father McDonald,
Off topic but I thought you would like to read this piece by Father Sirico on the situation in Michigan:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/when-priests-arent-allowed-to-give-last-rites/?fbclid=IwAR28xKGeSwZ2EKkkTSQsKatpv3PaX3HfOk0_9nY6oPoMXniOeXWs4omxL3Y
Father McDonald,
Very astute analogy. And we are still living with the consequences of Carter's botched approach in Iran.Good intentions are not a substitute for judgment.
The only Catholics that I really discuss things with -- and then not in detail or often -- are self-proclaimed Liberal Catholics (with Obama stickers on their cars). But these are people who deeply love the faith, in their way.
One person in particular was very disheartened by his allowance of Communion for the divorced and remarried because she had a sister who had refrained from Communion for years due to her irregular situation. These people felt betrayed by Francis's change.
More recently, I asked them about Francis's allowance for idol worship in the Vatican, and they were unaware of it. Their pastor had informed them that married priests were likely on the horizon, something they supported. But they were incredulous to see the video of idol worship during the same synod.
So I suppose most of his antics are filtered through pastors, who put forward the more palatable things and leave of the other things that would upset even the most liberal of Catholics.
I went through RCIA in a Jesuit parish in NYC many years ago, and have occasionally heard homilies in Jesuit churches in various places since. To my mind, it seems a common Jesuit clever clogs modus operandi to tiptoe up to the edge of advocating doctrinal change (aka heresy), but in a muddled way so as to have plausible deniability if challenged on it. In earlier centuries, for instance in the China missions, Jesuits could be cleverly flexible, but it was for the sake of promoting orthodox Christian belief. Now it seems that often Jesuits are cleverly flexible for the purpose of promoting change in doctrine, particularly as regards sexual morality. I see this tendency with Jesuits such as Pope Francis and Father Martin as well.
HFPF is his own worst enemy. As a Jesuit, and admittedly I am painting with a large brush, he is a relativist in so many ways. In remaining ambiguous and resisting taking a definitive stand on pretty much anything, he has sown the seeds of his and everyone's confusion. The Dominicans are all about truth and come down on issues with reason and logic and do not float around from issue to issue.
Carter's appreciation for a simpler way of life as president was, I suspect, evidence of a man without guile and reaction to the foolishness and ostentation of Nixon. Nixon's excess was not limited to the visual aspects of the presidency. It was he who, when asked about the legality of his actions by David Frost, replied, "Well, when the president does it, that means that it is not illegal." There have been, of late, similar ostentatious claims made by the present occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
You will recall that is was Tricky Dick who had special uniforms designed for the White House security detail. These were widely ridiculed as reminiscent of the type worn by executive security forces in "banana republics." Others compared the look to that of a high school band uniform.
From our founding and the introduction of the address of our chief executive as "Mr. President," we have not, in large part, given into the temptation to mistake style for substance. It's easy to dress your "palace guards" in showy costumes. It is much harder to maintain integrity and compassion when serving the people.
As to the laity, I have found that, regardless of who occupies the Chair of Peter, the vast majority are not attuned to his every utterance and move. And it is wise for them not to be.
"As to the laity, I have found that, regardless of who occupies the Chair of Peter, the vast majority are not attuned to his every utterance and move. And it is wise for them not to be."
This is a wise statement from Fr. Kavanaugh.
Archbishop Viganò strikes again. I have to say I agree with him on Pope Francis and how he vacillates and throws others under the bus. One wonders if both Viganò and Bergoglio may have some emotional pathologies?
https://www.marcotosatti.com/2020/04/29/interview-to-vigano-contedisgraceful-delirium-of-omnipotence-illegal/
Marc,
If those Catholics had Obama stickers on their cars, it is evidence they did not take their faith seriously. During this crisis Pelosi has been attempting to get funds for abortions and their operatives in the legal profession have been suing governors who do not deem abortion “essential” services. They can call themselves whatever they want but they are not Catholics in the meaningful sense of the term. Sadly there are bishops and priests who fall into the same category
FRMJK: “As to the laity, I have found that, regardless of who occupies the Chair of Peter, the vast majority are not attuned to his every utterance and move. And it is wise for them not to be.”
I had the exact same response as Marc, so I needn’t repeat his; just would add that those of us who are somewhat attuned to the present occupant of the Chair tend to suffer greatly from the experience.
It is very simple: Those who wish to hear and obey Jesus Christ have their hearts and minds tuned to Pope Francis.
God's Holy People love and obey Pope Francis.
Unfortunately, as they had done in regard to Popes Benedict XVI, Saint John Paul II, etc., a great many Catholics have tuned out Pope Francis.
Examples:
-- Pope Francis has exhorted Catholics to keep Sunday holy...many have tuned him out.
-- Pope Francis has promoted to the hilt the holy Sacrament of Penance...many have tuned him out.
-- Pope Francis has praised and promote Humanae Vitae...many have tuned him out.
-- Pope Francis has, time and again, condemned abortion...many have tuned him out.
-- Pope Francis has insisted that marriage is between a man and woman...many have tuned him out.
-- Pope Francis has insisted that marriage is between a man and woman...many have tuned him out.
-- Pope Francis' holy defense and promotion of Catholic Social Teaching has been rejected by many Catholics.
Resistance to Pope Francis' holy Magisterium exists among many Catholics.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
People with Obama stickers on their cars can take their faith very seriously, as these people do. The person I'm speaking of here goes to mass everyday, sent the kids to Catholic schools despite financial hardship, and does extraordinary work in the community, teaching the kids to do so as well.
But s/he is very mistaken about certain doctrines of the faith and has been led to believe that some things are optional. But s/he's definitely not operating from a position of bad will.
Marc,
Here is more on the subject of fake catholics:
Vice President Joe Biden underlined his shift on the issue of abortion, describing it as “an essential health care service” during the coronavirus pandemic.
But there are "catholic" bishops and priests who will vote for this Alzheimer's patient
Marc,
Then your friend is operating from a position of manifest ignorance but given our pusillanimous bishops failure to address this serious moral issue in a meaningful way, I am not surprised. You should try and educate her. She may be shocked to learn that her voting record is in flagrant disregard of the Catholic Faith. You should tell her that when Obama was a state senator in Illinois he voted against a bill that required doctors to assist a baby that survived an abortion and he stated publicly that he didn't want his daughters to have to pay for a "mistake" by carrying an unwanted child to term. He was, and is, a morally depraved person.
I’ve had such conversations with her, TJM. The rest is the work of the Holy Ghost.
Marc
PF does these things that is true, then he opens his flapping yap and comes off as an idiot, a communist if you will, after all he sold out the Chinese Catholics for what, a "promise". His "economic" pronouncements are Marxist at best and ignorant at most. His grasp of environment is glaring, and his understanding of the USA is ignorance at it best (or worst). AND DON'T get me started on pachamama
Typical Jesuit, all the good statements in the world does not cancel out bad or nefarious actions
Hi Marc:
I hope you and your family are doing well in these challenging times.
I appreciate your charity towards your Obama-voting friend. As to TJM’s responses, well, there you have it. Your friend is either stupidly ignorant or maliciously evil. At least TJM opts for the former. Of course, in TJM’s world, the only safe passage between this Scylla and Charybdis is to vote for the King Midas in the White House. Ironic, no?
Also, in TJM’s world, all roads may or may not lead to Rome but they certainly all lead to abortion and thereby to the end of all conversation.
Cue TJM accusing me of being a liberal and/or Obama worshiper and/or abortion lover and/or fake Catholic and/or useless academic and/or choose your own dismissive label.
Take care.
Anonymous 2 aka Anonymous K,
I was wondering where you have been. I heard you were busy fighting to maintain abortion as an essential healthcare service like Jesus would be doing right now.
Marc,
Sorry your friend is not open to Catholic truth
I held my nose and voted Republican for years to save the lives of the unborn... Then I voted in a pro life governor who made sure to tell an interviewer that even though he is personally pro life, it is ultimately a woman's choice to make. When I pointed this betrayal out to my Republican Catholic friends, they dismissed it because they liked his other Republic politics. However, when election time came around again, he was magically the pro life candidate that all Catholics *must* vote for lest we be complicit in all abortions.
I've found I can't have a conversation with my Republican friends about any policy without abortion being used to justify it. It's as if to smugly say "You have to support my political preferences in economics, immigration, and education, because you are in mortal sin if you don't." Republicans get the pro life vote without having to be accountable.
Anonymous 2, it's nice to hear from you. I hope all is going well with you in these bizarre times!
TJM, I can assure you that Anonymous 2 is not Fr. Kavanaugh. And I think that the situation with my friend illustrates one of the major failures of the Church over the last 50 years. This person was raised Catholic with a family that has always been Catholic. If the Church had not deviated, this person would likely have not deviated. So it's not as simple as "not being open to Catholic truth." This person fully believes s/he is following the Church's teaching as best as s/he can.
Anonymous K,
When the Republican Party platform contains mandatory intrinsic evils like abortion, I will worry about the Republicans then. Not only does the Democratic Party platform contain intrinsic evils that NO Catholic can support, their policies are anti-religion. I recall when then Governor Casey was not permitted to be on the Dem convention platform stage because he was pro life. And they were attempting to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for birth control for their employees. And during this pandemic, Pelosi is demanding money for abortions. Why are we killing the unborn when we are supposed to be about saving lives during the pandemic. Pelosi obviously has not heard or chooses to ignore Pope Francis referring to abortion as an "assassination" and you obviously don't care that you elect people that will keep the assassination squads in place. Have you no shame, have you no decency?
Economics, immigration and education are prudential matters, where people of Faith may disagree. FYI, until the China Flu hit, President Trump's policies were providing the lowest unemployment rate in US history for minorities and rising wages too. The Dem response is always more welfare, more foodstamps, etc. Do they even think about the human dignity of the lives they are trying to control? Just this past week we saw how "inclusive" and "tolerant" the Dem Party has become. Michigan Democrats are censuring an African-American state legislator because she had the temerity to thank President Trump for her recovery and they also excoriated a Dem State legislator in Georgia for daring to say he was going to vote for President Trump because of President Trump's outreach to the Black community. Can't have that because if the Dems lose any more Black voters, that Party is toast.
You are living in a fairyland if you think the Dems care about anything but raw power. And God help us if they recover all of the levers of power at the federal level.
If you really care about the unborn, then you should be willing to give up all your positions on policies where people of faith may disagree. The Republicans, if they truly care, should do everything they can to get the pro life Democrats on board - even if it means sacrificing all the rest of their platform. I truly doubt, were the Democrats to become the pro life party and the Republicans fully endorse abortion tomorrow but otherwise stay the same, that you would change your voting behavior.
Also, I'm not Anonymous K.
Marc,
Your friend wants to believe that against all reason. There is no way a rational, thinking Catholic could do what she is doing. I do agree that the hierarchy bares much of the blame with the disconnect between Faith and action. They will be held accountable by God will not be impressed with their go along to get along approach to the Catholic Faith and their misplaced priorities
"China Flu" There you have it, folks.
And that is followed by the lie about "President Trump's policies..."
Don't take my word for it.
Forbes Magazine: "Trump’s Economic Growth Is Slower Than Obama’s Last 3 Years"
Business Insider: "The typical household's income fell dramatically after the recession, but has recovered since Obama's second term"
Market Watch: "Trump didn’t transform the economy — it’s mostly the same as it was under Obama"
And speaking of recessions, nine of the last ten U.S. recessions began with a Republican President.
1953 Republican
1958 Republican
1960 Republican
1969 Republican
1973 Republican
1980 Democratic
1981 Republican
1990 Republican
2001 Republican
2007 Republican
TJM has taken the bait hook, line, and sinker. He is gaslit like all the others. He is hoodwinked, addle-brained, and rattlepated.
Anonymous K,
Most of those years are when Democrats controlled CONgress but thanks pointing out your cluelessness. But innocent children in the womb continue to be assassinated, per Pope Francis, by your Party’s Abortion Uber Alles policies. Enjoy Hell
Anonymous K,
Everything you cited is false, but for a guy who supports a Party that has raised the killing of the unborn to a sacrament it is no surprise. Your fearless leader, Nancy Pelosi, wants additional funding for taxpayers to kill the unborn while we are supposed to be saving lives from the pandemic.
Every econo0mic metric (until the China Flu, which the New York Slimes called it before they decided to use it as a cudgel against President Trump) has been better for minorities under President Trump but since you love: infanticide, gay marriage, multiple genders (strange for a member of the party of "science"), illegal aliens mooching off of taxpaying Americans, etc. it is not a surprise.
Unlike left-wing tools like you who hang around in rectories, I, a working person, pay close attention to economics. Obama's policies converted full-time jobs under Obamacare to part-time jobs and placed job killing regulations on most blue collar workers. Obama lost over 200,000 manufacturing jobs with his regulations and taxes and when President Trump began to roll back these taxes and regulations over 500,000 manufacturing jobs that Obama said were NEVER coming back, did. As a matter of fact, Obama sneered, what is Trump going to do, wave a magic wand? Abracadabra baby, he must have. Maybe snobs like you don't care, but those blue collar workers do. The stock market was flat the last 2 years Obama was president, due to the job killing regulations and taxes finally taking their toll, but miraculously when President Trump was elected, the stock market took off, in November of 2016. I don't expect economic simpletons like you to get it. You just don't and never will. But hey, Catholic parishes are folding, and it is likely due to folks with your "leadership" skills sticking with the failed and tried policies of the last 50 years.
Ah, number 3 then: “abortion lover.”
TJM wonders where I had gone. Contrary to his assertion, I have not been “busy fighting to maintain abortion as an essential healthcare service.” No, like most of us, I have been quite preoccupied dealing with my little piece of the fallout from King Midas’s bungled response to the Covid-19 pandemic.
I had also wondered where TJM had gone. But I am not surprised he is back now because King Midas is up against the ropes, with his gold turning into lead, and has doubtless called upon all of his foot soldiers, wherever they are in the world, to come to his defense.
Well, TJM, defend against this if you can:
https://johnmenadue.com/fintan-otoole-donald-trump-has-destroyed-the-country-he-promised-to-make-great-again-irish-times-25-4-2020/
You know, TJM, we might get along much better if you would accept that Trump is just another symptom—an especially virulent one—of a corrupted political system and culture, not its cure, and that the only way forward entails the radical transformation of that system and culture, the precondition for which, of course, is our own radical transformation as citizens.
TJM - Ah, so you're better at following economic matters than the folks at Forbes, Business Insider, and Market Watch.
You must be a self-proclaimed "very stable genius" like the man you worship, Donald Trump.
The Irish Times is a left publication.
Any comment on Obama's FBI shafting of General Flynn? His politicization of the FBI, DOJ, IRS, etc? President Trump is the antidote for widespread leftwing (Dem) Corruption in government and hopefully in his second term will go after the rot in academia. Unlike Harry Truman who called politicians who became rich off of government crooks (think Clinton and Obama), you probably are thrilled that your master, Obama, has purchased a multi-million dollar estate on the coast in violation of global warming principles and was golfing the other day while his scold of a wife was urging people to stay indoors.
We might get along better if you acknowledged your side is unprincipled, corrupt and craves power and money in the most obscene manner.
AnonymousK,
Your sources are lefty screeds kind of like secular National Catholic Reporters. Nice try but you are not dealing with the simpleton lefties you are accustomed to. Hey, are you going to burn a cross in the front yards of the Dem African-American state legislators in Michigan and Georgia who have praised President Trump? In the name of Plantation Party unity?
Before this thread got completely mired in US party-political mud-slinging, there was an interesting exchange on the merits and demerits of Presidents Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. Both presidencies ended in ignominy (Watergate for Nixon, the Iran hostages fiasco for Carter).
History has been kinder to Nixon than it has been to Carter. The former has been credited with the historic recognition of Communist China; the rapprochement with the Soviet Union which led to SALT 1 and the ABM Treaty and a general détente; and the end of the Vietnam war. When the Yom Kippur war of 1973 took the world by surprise, Nixon's skilful combination of firmness and tact led to a resolution. It should be remembered that for the world at large, domestic US policies don't count for a lot.
By the time Carter left office, the Cold War had taken on a new chilly and dangerous phase. It would be easy to attribute this to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and its provocative deployment of SS-20 missiles in Europe, but détente was already unravelling when Carter took office in January 1977. I remember a lecture I attended in London in 1982 by an American policy wonk who demonstrated how US foreign and security policy is formulated and developed - and the long lead-time involved, which does not depend on who occupies the White House. History is perhaps being a little unkind to the peanut-farmer.
John Nolan,
This is an interesting take. I would disagree with one point. Ronald Reagan ignored the mandarins of the foreign policy establishment in the US when he took on the former USSR assisted ably by Lady Thatcher (now that is one woman I would have voted for as US President if she were eligible) and St. John Paul II. Our foreign policy establishment did not want to "offend" the Russians. I have no knowledge of England's foreign policy establishment, but ours has generally been behind the curve.
I went to the link you posted Anonymous2. There is so much to say about it, I don't know where to begin.
The Irish Times columnist poses the question:
"How many people in Düsseldorf or Dublin are wishing they lived in Detroit or Dallas?"
Düsseldorf maybe. Germany is the only major country in Western Europe doing better than the U.S.
Italy, Spain, France, and the UK, when proportionalized to the U.S. population, are doing much, much, worse.
In all those countries, the equivalent U.S. deaths would be well over 100,000.
Maybe we will catch up with them but right now that is the reality.
Ireland, with half the population of Georgia, has (checking the latest stats), more corona deaths and 75% of the cases.
Georgia, the ninth most populous state in the U.S., is 12th in the country in the number of COVID cases and 13th in deaths.
Florida, with COVD states proportionalized for population, is doing even better than Georgia.
Instead of spending his energy criticizing Pres. Trump and the Governors of Florida and Georgia, the Irish times the columnist should take time out to take a course in statistics.
Just the Facts,
The “smartest” people in the US allegedly live in New York City, but New York accounts for almost 40 percent of the deaths from the coronavirus, around 23,000. Their communist mayor told the New Yorkers to stick it to the man (Trump) and use that petri dish of disease known as the subway. Governor Cuomo just yesterday ordered the subways to be sanitized! Yet he is considered a genius by the leftwing media. The dullard governors, like Governor Abbott of Texas has only had about 700-800 deaths on his watch even though the population of Texas exceeds New York’s. What is rich is that Hell’s Bible (The New York Times) was scolding Southerners for improper social distancing. No you just can’t make this stuff up!
TJM:
I don’t have a side. Please re-read the final paragraph in my 12:39 a.m. post.
Just the Facts:
Thank you for reading the Irish Times article. Facts are important. Indeed, I am appalled at how often they are ignored in favor of egregious lies by gas lighters like Trump (but not only Trump, of course, he just takes the biscuit). But facts are only part of the story and if you focus only on statistics you can miss the main point being made. So, I don’t dispute your statistics at all. More importantly, neither would the author of the piece in the Irish Times. But that wasn’t his point, was it?
So, what was his point? The way I read his article his point was twofold. First, with all its massive resources and capabilities, the United States should not be behind Germany or only marginally ahead of Ireland per capita (the reason people don’t want to move from Dublin is that it isn’t that much better over here). No, the United States—and not, for example, South Korea or New Zealand—should be leading the world in how to deal with the pandemic. Woefully, it isn’t. And so the author notes that:
“The US went into the coronavirus crisis with immense advantages: precious weeks of warning about what was coming, the world’s best concentration of medical and scientific expertise, effectively limitless financial resources, a military complex with stunning logistical capacity and most of the world’s leading technology corporations. Yet it managed to make itself the global epicentre of the pandemic.”
His second point is related. Granted there are countries worse off, but that is no excuse. The reason the United States is in such a parlous state is the abject failure of leadership at the top.
And as you say, we’re not done yet—there is plenty of time for the United States to win the statistical league tables for the number of infections and deaths.
John Nolan rightly observes that this thread has become mired in party-political mudslinging. On this point I refer to my response to TJM. The final paragraph of my 12:38 a.m. post on this thread seeks to transcend such superficial mud-slinging and to raise the question of a much profounder spiritual malady that underlies our corrupted political system and culture.
But we will never be able to address this malady as long as people regard Trump as some kind of savior. He’s part of the problem, not the solution. The problem is not limited to the United States, of course, but extends throughout the liberal democratic world. America is supposed to be the leader of this world and if it wants to provide leadership in dealing with the problem of a corrupted politics—if it wants to be truly great again—it will need a very different kind of leader than Trump. And no, I’m not talking about Joe Biden, or indeed any of the usual suspects.
“The US went into the coronavirus crisis with immense advantages: precious weeks of warning about what was coming, the world’s best concentration of medical and scientific expertise, effectively limitless financial resources, a military complex with stunning logistical capacity and most of the world’s leading technology corporations.
Yet it managed to make itself the global epicentre of the pandemic.”
No, at this point the U.S. is not the global epicentre of the pandemic. As I pointed out in my comment, on a per-capita basis the United States is currently doing much, much better than the countries of Western Europe.
And...
50% of total cases in the U.S. are in just four states:
315,222 NY
121,190 NJ
64,311 Massachusetts
56,065 Illinois
60% of the deaths from COVD-19 are in just four states:
NY 24,069
NJ 7,538
Mass 3716
Mich 3866
As far as deaths per million population, New York and New Jersey are at the top of the list but you can add Connecticut, a state contiguous to NY and Massachusetts, a state contiguous to Connecticut to round out the top four.
To add further perspective. as many as 80,000 may have died of influenza in the flu season of 2017-2018 (a relatively bad one) according to the CDC.
Trump Worshipping TJM - You are the most pitifully self-deluded person I have ever encountered.
Just the Facts:
I am unsure about use of the term epicenter. My own understanding of the term is that it refers to the area of greatest current activity. On March 24 the WHO warned that the United States could soon become the epicenter of the Covid-19 pandemic due to a very large acceleration of cases:
https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-world-health-organisation-us-epicentre-pandemic-donald-trump-covid-2020-3
According to some, the United States may have become the epicenter already by the end of March:
https://www.popsci.com/story/health/united-states-covid-19-coronavirus-cases/
This said, one may need to be cautious in using the term. Not only may people disagree about whether the focus should be on absolute numbers or number relative to total population (per capita), but the term may be dangerous if it leads others to drop their guard:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/28/coronavirus-united-states-epicenter-new-york-152716
Anonymous K,
You are the most deluded priest I have ever encountered. Still hiding in your rectory or has the governent given you persmission to leave? Still dreaming about holding hands, shaking hands and drinking from a common cup at Mass?
As for covid, here is an article one may read if they want a different take. I know "progressives" aka Karens will be outraged:
https://outline.com/8RSwPr
Anonymous 2,
Politico is another left-wing screed. I am getting a clear picture now of where you get your "facts." I suggest you look at the aggregation news site, Instapundit, Professor Glenn Reynolds iniative and I think you will find a lot of the "facts" tossed around in the so-called mainstream media are just lefty talking points.
Well, Anon 2, what's a reasonable person to say, or do?
Every publication that proves with facts that the Trump Worshipping TJM wrong is a "lefty screed," every opinion that differs from his own is a "lefty talking point," and every politician is . . . oh, wait a minute . . . abortion.
Oh, and that outline.com item he referenced, it's by "reporter" Joseph Curl, a former muck-raker at the Drudge Report. Curl's the one who trashed Obama for playing golf, then tells everyone to chill out when Trump does the same thing.
Self-delusion.
TJM:
As you know, I do not reject outright someone’s views because of their stand on one single issue. I am not a “single issue fanatic” in that sense. Therefore, even though I may disagree with some of Professor Reynolds’ libertarian positions, I do not reject everything he says. He makes many good points in his writing.
I am surprised that you cite him as an authority, however, given the follwing:
“Reynolds holds libertarian positions on many social issues. For example, he supports embryonic stem cell research, abortion rights, legal prostitution, and both same-sex civil unions and marriage. He has stated a number of times: "Personally, I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons."
Please explain.
P.S, Sorry, I forgot the source citation – Wikipedia entry for professor Reynolds.
TJM:
I read the article you linked. There are several issues with it.
First, some of the “facts” it cites are highly controverted. It would, of course, be wonderful if the infection (and recovery) rate were as high as the California and New York studies suggest. No-one in their right mind would object to such a result. But as you may know, serious questions have been raised, both about the efficacy of the antibody tests used and the statistical methodologies employed, as well as about the strength and length of any immunity conferred by previous Covid-19 infection. I would be the first to cheer if everything panned out as the article claims but wishful thinking is no substitute for hard facts. Just ask Just the Facts. He’ll tell you.
Second, the reasoning is fallacious. To begin with, even assuming the wishful thinking becomes hard fact, we did not know and, given the Trump Administration’s abysmally slow start in confronting the pandemic within our borders, could not know these facts at the time a decision about lock-down had to be made. Given that there was a real and substantial risk of 2 million deaths, should we have taken that risk? Related, the real question about numbers is not what happened after the lock-down but what would have happened without the lock-down. It is fallacious to argue that a speeding car heading towards me presented no danger because it did not kill me after I got out of the way.
I know it has probably become a cliché by now but there really does seem to be a red state virus (attacking the economy) and a blue state virus (attacking health). This is sad and misguided. What is needed is a good dose of practical wisdom, not ideological or any other type of reductionism. Fareed Zakaria seems to be on the right track in this regard:
“Trump’s willful ignorance makes us want to hand the country over to Fauci. But that’s the wrong response. We need leaders who take responsibility and make choices, informed deeply by science but also by economics, politics, ethics and other disciplines. Just as war is too important to be left to the generals, pandemics are too important to be left to the scientists.”
See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/itll-take-more-than-just-scientists-to-stem-this-pandemic/2020/04/30/9ee1daf6-8b1d-11ea-9dfd-990f9dcc71fc_story.html
Anonymous 2,
Thank you for the reference to Professor Reynolds. Just because he holds some positions I do not approve, that does not mean that the thrust of his work overall is not good. He exposes much of the hypocrisy in government, academia and the national media. What he publishes is almost never contained in the former newspapers of record, The New York Times, which is a lefty, viewspaper.
Trump was right and the media and the US establishment was wrong. He banned travel to and from China and was called a racist for that by the Times, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and a whole host of establishment figures. Events proved Trump right. So who is willfully ignorant? In response to Trump's action, Nancy Pelosi urged San Franciscans to run down to China Town and it was Mayor De Blasio told New Yorkers to use the subways and go out and party. Why were these two engaging in anti-science theatrics? The reality is these types are so deranged that they will counsel the opposite of what Trump advises since resistance is more important to them than protecting lives.
I leave you with one last thing to consider. The state of the media which is driving fear during this time. Victor David Hansen, a conservative, penned this piece on the state of the national media. I think you fill find it thought provoking:
https://amgreatness.com/2020/05/03/do-the-media-even-exist/
Victor David Hanson: "During the coronavirus pandemic of 2020, Hanson pushed unsubstantiated theories that the coronavirus had first infected Americans in the fall of 2019. During April 2020, when the United States was in large parts practicing social distancing and closing down non-essential in-person activities, Hanson called for a re-opening of the economy and end to social distancing. He criticized models on the coronavirus spread and referred to these models as "science" in scare quotes." - Wikipedia
Hanson has argued (National Review, July 23, 2013) that whie people should be scared of all blacks because of the "...tendency of males of one particular age and race [African-American]to commit an inordinate amount of violent crime."
As Ta Nehisi-Coates noted, "If I were to tell you that I only employ Asian-Americans to do my taxes because 'Asian-Americans do better on the Math SAT', you would not simply question my sensitivity, but my mental faculties."
Anglo-American journalist Kelefa Sanneh, in response to "Facing Facts About Race", wrote "It's strange, then, to read Hanson writing as if the fear of violent crime were mainly a "white or Asian" problem, about which African-Americans might be uninformed, or unconcerned—as if African-American parents weren't already giving their children more detailed and nuanced versions of Hanson's "sermon," sharing his earnest and absurd hope that the right words might keep trouble at bay."
Another stellar exemplar of self-delusion for the self-deluded.
“Just because he holds some positions I do not approve, that does not mean that the thrust of his work overall is not good.”
Well, I can’t disagree with this proposition of course. It is a perfectly reasonable one. Why, then, don’t you take the same view about so many others instead of dismissing them outright because they, for example, support abortion? Could it be because you disagree with their “overall” thrust? Is there any doubt, that if I had cited a source—a member of the Democratic Party, say—with which you generally agreed but they supported abortion rights, you would have dismissed them outright for this reason alone?
My point, of course, is that a person is so much more than, and their views are so much more than, their position on any one issues, however misguided that position may be.
The travel ban was necessary but far from sufficient. If all you have is a hammer (or immigration bans) then everything looks like a nail (or a “foreign virus”). Those politicians you mention have no corner on deranged reactions. I could accurately reformulate your sentence to read “The reality is [Trump is] so deranged that [he] will counsel the opposite of what [Obama did] since resistance is more important to [him] than protecting lives.”
I look forward to reading the article you linked later today.
TJM:
I read the article you linked. I believe we have exchanged views about the author, Victor Davis Hanson, before. I have little doubt that Hanson is a fine Classics scholar but I am afraid that this does not make him particularly well qualified to comment on current politics or Donald Trump. The following passage from his Wikipedia entry should speak for itself:
“Hanson is a supporter of Donald Trump, authoring a 2019 book The Case for Trump. Trump praised the book. In the book, Hanson defends Trump's insults and incendiary language as "uncouth authenticity", and praises Trump for "an uncanny ability to troll and create hysteria among his media and political critics." . . . Hanson praises the Trump administration for its "inspired" and "impressive" Cabinet members. In the book, Hanson blamed Barack Obama for "deliberately [whipping up]" "much of the current division in the country", while ignoring Trump's birtherism or attacks on Muslims. The book likens Trump to a hero of ancient literature, sacrificing himself for the greater good. Hanson expressed support for Trump's proposed border wall on the Southern border, saying that walls around houses deter criminals.”
To retain one’s independence of thought, it is important to practice critical thinking. No-one does this perfectly but it is important to try. When I watch CNN or MSNBC or read the New York Times or Washington Post I try to be as “critical” as I am when I watch FOX News or when I read the National Review, the Washington Times, or the column you linked from the website American Greatness. I hope you can say the same. If you can, you will see the lacunae and flaws in Hanson’s “narrative.”
On the Joe Biden point, I think there should be a full and fair investigation of the sexual harassment accusation(s) against Biden. But as the saying goes, “what is sauce for the goose . . .” Therefore there should also be a full and fair investigation of the many similar accusations against Trump. This, of course, will never happen, as you well know.
On the Nemesis point, yes, the goddess is coming—also, and especially, for Trump. Of this I am convinced.
Correction: In my 12:02 p.m. post, I was in a hurry and failed to edit sufficiently.
I wrote “Is there any doubt, that if I had cited a source—a member of the Democratic Party, say—with which you generally agreed but they supported abortion rights, you would have dismissed them outright for this reason alone?”
I should have written “Is there any doubt, that if I had cited a source—a member of the Democratic Party, say—with which you generally disagreed and they supported abortion rights, you would have dismissed them outright for this reason alone?”
Anonymous 2,
Unfortunately the national media lies all the time and essentially serves as the PR wing of the Democratic (Abortion) Party. There is not a single point of difference between the National Media and the DNC on any issue (Abortion (infanticide), Gay Marriage, Transgender Issues, shafting American citizens in favor of illegal aliens who overwhelm our social services to the detriment of taxpaying citizens.
I assume you agree the New York Times recent howler, suggesting the DNC investigate Biden. And what about the media and Dem politicians who went after Justice Kavauagh, tooth and nail, with wall to wall 24/7 media coverage, but when MS. Reade (a Democrat) comes forth, it's crickets? A media that would do that is not worth one second of anyone's time because they have no standards. Besides, as a Democrat, Reade's believability should never be in doubt. We need to believe all women. How do you rationalize the media's treatment of Justice Kavanaugh vis-a-vis its treatment of Senile Joe? (A whole other issue).
I dismiss Catholics who support abortion rights, including individuals masquerading as Catholic priests and bishops. Professor Reynolds is not a Catholic so he has not had the benefit of the great teaching efforts of the Catholic bishops in that regard (sarc).
IF you can name one pundit on the left who has the intellectual heft and insight of Victor David Hansen, please do.
You still haven't commented on the fact that President Trump likely saved thousands of lives by banning travel to and from China when he was being impeached by the Crime Organization known as the Democratic Party. Even US constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz stated the whole impeachment exercise was unconsitutional (do you care to dispute Alan Dershowitz?). Trump was excoriated for being a "racist" for that, and as I stated Mayor De Blasio, in a fit of childish pique, encouraged New Yorkers to continue to use the subway (even though an MIT study said it was likely the conductor of the virus) just to stick it to the man. And because of De Blasio's actions, New York City enjoys the worst infection and death rates in the world. Take out New York City and the US looks like a real winner in dealing with the China Flu.
And what about Pelosi telling folks to come on down to China Town because it was safe? Was that good science? Did you enjoy Pelosi's walk through her kitchen with her $24,000 refigerator and $13 a quart ice cream while millions are losing their jobs during the shutdown? Were you happy that Pelosi was fighting for funding for abortion during a pandemic? Do you see nothing inconsistent about fighting to keep the Abortion Mills open while we are trying to save lives, not kill them?
Sadly, I think there is no basis for dialogue since your mind is closed like a trap, so you need not respond. You attempt to sound reasonable and sophisticated but your underlying positions betray you.
TJM is correct. There is no basis for dialogue between us. Before there can be, he will have to do at least two things: (a) Stop projecting, and (b) Learn how to read. Of course, there are many other things he needs to do too. But these two are fundamental and no progress can be made on the others until he has mastered these two.
Anonymous 2,
This is who YOU are, a reader of leftwing loon Politico as one of your "honest and objective" sources:
Martin Tolchin, a founder of Politico and former New York Times correspondent in Washington, DC, published a letter to the editor of the Times Tuesday calling for a Joe Biden “coronation” regardless of claims of sexual assault.The letter came in response to a recent Times editorial calling for the Democratic National Committee to investigate claims by Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer, who claims Biden assaulted her in 1993.Tolchin wrote that he did not want Reade’s claims investigated — or anything else about Biden — because all he wanted was to see Trump defeated in November
What is really pathetic, is that Anonymous 2, allegedly an intellectual, cannot respond to my fairly straightforward assertions about De Blasio and Pelosi's failure to adhere to "science"and President Trump's respect for science and saving the lives of American citizens by banning flight to and from Red China while the Democrat Party called Trump's actions racists. Only a rank coward would fail to respond.
I assume his "academic" institution will be decimated by virtue of its TDS disease. Maybe Pelosi or Obama will invite him to reside at their mansions behind fortified walls where they are safe from the canaille. I really had high hopes for him, unlike the fake priest who posts here under his own name and a plethora of "anonyimous" nom de plumes. FYI, I was a Democrat Party offical when it was a non criminal organization. But when it moved to the dark side, I bailed, unlike you! I do not rejoice in the murder of the unborn like most Democrats do.
TJM - You do not make - ever - "fairly straightforward assertions."
That you have to couch your criticism of Anon 2 and anyone who disagrees with you with words like "pathetic," "allegedly," "rank coward," "leftwing loon," is indicative of this reality. Yes, it is a reality, but one that, for whatever reason, you cannot recognize in yourself.
You cannot defend your positions, save with extremist talking points, citations of discredited "news" sources, and name-calling.
It is obvious why you are a Trump worshiper. You see yourself in him.
TJM writes “What is really pathetic, is that Anonymous 2, allegedly an intellectual, cannot respond to my fairly straightforward assertions about De Blasio and Pelosi's failure to adhere to "science" and President Trump's respect for science and saving the lives of American citizens by banning flight to and from Red China while the Democrat Party called Trump's actions racists. Only a rank coward would fail to respond.”
Of course I can respond, but what’s the point when TJM ignores what I actually say and completely distorts my articulated positions to create a cartoonish caricature (straw man?) that he can then demolish in service to his own Trump worshiping ends?
For example, TJM asserted that “You still haven't commented on the fact that President Trump likely saved thousands of lives by banning travel to and from China when he was being impeached by the Crime Organization known as the Democratic Party.” (8:56 a.m. May 5). But in my post at 12:02 p.m. on May 4 I wrote: “The travel ban was necessary but far from sufficient. If all you have is a hammer (or immigration bans) then everything looks like a nail (or a “foreign virus”).” I can only assume that TJM was blinded to my agreeing with him that “the travel ban was necessary” because I then had the temerity to go on to criticize the Great Leader. This is, of course, how Trump himself behaves; complete loyalty is required; one hint of criticism and “you’re fired.”
Similarly, if I readily concede that De Blasio and Pelosi are found wanting (which I agree they were) but then go on to criticize the claim that Trump respects science, it would doubtless provoke a similar reaction on the part of TJM. So again, I ask: What’s the point?
I could provide other instances of where TJM has ignored and distorted what I have written on this thread, including about the allegations against Biden or about our corrupted political system and culture, but yet again: What’s the point?
For those more open-minded readers with whom there is still very much a point in communicating, I reiterate that I am not seeking to engage in partisan mudslinging in this thread and on a blog that is Catholic after all. My position is summed up in the following comments:
“You know, TJM, we might get along much better if you would accept that Trump is just another symptom—an especially virulent one—of a corrupted political system and culture, not its cure, and that the only way forward entails the radical transformation of that system and culture, the precondition for which, of course, is our own radical transformation as citizens.” (12:39 a.m. on May 1 final paragraph).
“The final paragraph of my 12:38 a.m. post [sic] on this thread seeks to transcend such superficial mud-slinging and to raise the question of a much profounder spiritual malady that underlies our corrupted political system and culture.
But we will never be able to address this malady as long as people regard Trump as some kind of savior. He’s part of the problem, not the solution. The problem is not limited to the United States, of course, but extends throughout the liberal democratic world. America is supposed to be the leader of this world and if it wants to provide leadership in dealing with the problem of a corrupted politics—if it wants to be truly great again—it will need a very different kind of leader than Trump. And no, I’m not talking about Joe Biden, or indeed any of the usual suspects.” (10:10 p.m. on May 1).
"I reiterate that I am not seeking to engage in partisan mudslinging in this thread and on a blog that is Catholic after all."
Here is what you said:
Anonymous 2,
Anonymous 2,
"You know, TJM, we might get along much better if you would accept that Trump is just another symptom—an especially virulent one—of a corrupted political system and culture, not its cure, and that the only way forward entails the radical transformation of that system and culture, the precondition for which, of course, is our own radical transformation as citizens."
Anonyous 2, that statement is political mudslinging referring to a sitting president as "an especially virulent one." Now with the lid being blown off the Russian Collusion narrative where the FBI and DOJ pursued a 2 year investigation and spent around $40 million dollars knowing the premise was a lie should sober folks like you up. But it probably won't.
Deo Gratias!
The Justice Department on Thursday dropped its case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, in a stunning development that comes after internal memos were released raising serious questions about the nature of the investigation that led to Flynn’s late 2017 guilty plea of lying to the FBI.
The announcement came in a court filing, with the department saying it is dropping the case "after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information."
I imagine all of the Dems are in mourning.
TJM:
I noticed you conveniently omitted mention of the other paragraph I posted—you know the one that dismissed Joe Biden and the other usual suspects. Was that political mudslinging too? If it was, then I guess all of those contending for the Presidency got covered in mud. Which, of course, is precisely my point.
Are they all part of our corrupt political system and culture? Yes. Is Trump an “especially virulent” symptom (pun intended) of that corruption? Yes. Does Trump sometimes do things with which I agree? Yes. Does that alter my overall judgment about him? No.
Here is a little test for you. While I am very willing to criticize Democratic contenders (and erstwhile contenders) for the Presidency, and Democrats more generally, I have yet to hear one peep of criticism of Trump and his Republicans from you and I doubt very much that we ever will. Please prove me wrong.
As for Flynn and the alleged Russia collusion, there is so much to be said, but again what’s the point (at least at the moment)?
In the paragraph you quote I am trying to take us to a place and a conversation beyond partisan politics. I am genuinely sorry you don’t seem willing to go there. But I remain open and hopeful and trust in God, as I must. It has happened before with someone with whom I had a very combative relationship on this blog—just as combative as with you. Now we are occasional luncheon partners (although regrettably we have been unable to meet for about a year now, which is my fault not his, due to my crazy schedule). I consider him a friend, and hopefully we can deepen this friendship in the future when we can again resume normal human interactions. Perhaps something similar can happen with you.
Anonymous 2,
I was a partner in an international law firm for 30 years and at one time, before I grew up, was a Democratic Party official. Once I realized what a total fraud the Party became with the Clitoons, who enriched themselves in a way that would make Harry Truman blush and aped by the Obamas , and their love affair with the Sacrament of Abortion, I walked away. The Democratic Party does not give two sh-ts about the working man any more. They cater to Hollywood, Billionaires, and so-called Elites. President Trump in many ways is like an old time Democrat before it became corrupted by the left. I recall that Al Sharpton and Jessee Jackson used to praise him for the work he did for the African-American community. Once he declared himself a Republican, his past efforts were no longer recalled. The left has stopped at nothing, calling President Trump an anti-semite, even though his daughter and grandchildren are Jewish. The modern Democratic Party stands for:
1) Abortion
2) Gay Marriage
3) Transgender bathrooms
4) Illegal aliens mooching off of American taxpayers for votes since they can no longer convince sane people to vote for them.
Today, if you are paying attention at all, is the news that General Flynn is now free of the Obama Administration's evil jihad against him. The revelations today will shatter the Democratic Party and its ally the so-called mainstream media.
I know as an academic, you would find yourself very lonely if you had the guts to publicly
question the very suspect and evil positions of the modern Democratic Party. Because you live in the South you are doubly under the microscope since the cognoscenti in New York and Cambridge question your intellectual bona fides since you live there. There is more division today not because of Southernors but because your so called betters in New York and Hollywood. If you want to live in that kind of world that's your problem but not mine.
TJM:
Donald Trump seems to be at once very simple and very complicated. With respect to the latter trait, he can appear paradoxical. Here he is, for example, at his most charming back in 1998 at the Jesse Jackson Rainbow Coalition event to which you allude:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4620219/user-clip-donald-trump-jesse-jackson
And yet the Central Park 5 episode had already occurred at this time and birtherism, championed by Trump, was still to come.
Is there a simple explanation for the apparent paradox? Perhaps there is. The following two articles point to some consistent elements:
https://www.phillytrib.com/when-did-donald-trump-become-a-racist/article_fdd7d40a-b66b-52d4-a40f-c19ed451711e.html
https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/453306-trumps-no-racist-hes-an-equal-opportunity-offender
Could it possibly be, then, that Trump is a thin-skinned, coarse, and narcissitic opportunist without much, if any moral center who will say and do anything if he considers it to be to his advantage? And if he is such, then please tell me how this is supposed to be healthy for our body politic?
I will readily concede that there are many in politics, both Democrats and Republicans, who answer this description (although perhaps a little less coarse) to some extent. But this only supports my point about the corruption of our political system and culture. Moreover, it does not negate my judgment that on a continuum ranging from the virtuous political leader at one end to the vicious at the other, Trump is further along towards the vicious end than most, and perhaps all.
Post a Comment