Tuesday, July 7, 2020


America has always had a civil religion that included a Protestant and a deist perspective. Clearly there was separation of Church and State, but a civil religion did develop with Judeo Christian principles, but clearly not Catholic.

Today there is a developing new civil religion, purely secular, purely atheistic but a religion nonetheless. This godless, secular civil religion, though, still has as its underpinnings puritantical ideologies, not in the arena of sex, normally associated with Puritans, but in the area of a lack of an ability to forgive the wrongs of the past, culturally defined and applied to individuals who are far  from pure, sexually maybe, but that is unimportant, racial prejudices are the unforgivable sins now.

Thus, any figure from the past that did what the law allowed, buy and sell slaves, seperate but equal and a failed revolution to create a new country, a confederate country, all of  it and all of them must be cleansed from the history of the country as the new puritanical, secular, godless civil religion of the land will not tolerate the imperfect from the past or present.

Which political party supports  best this new secular, godless, puritantical civil religion? I will give you one guess.

Should Catholics be forbidden, in a puritanical way, from being a part of this anti-Catholic religion and the political party that supports it?

And when these same puritans become enlightened enough to recognize the horror that happens when all lives don't really matter, especially the unborn, will they do the same to those in that party who supported abortion on demand and the laws that enabled it and those who have abortions and provide them?


Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...

"...but in the area of a lack of an ability to forgive the wrongs of the past..."

I suspect the issue is not about failing to forgive the wrongs of the past, but of celebrating and even lionizing today the people from the past who committed horriffic acts of cruelty and barbarism. Memorializing as a person of honor and rectitude those who, for example, sought to destroy our Union and maintin a state's right to slavery is what is objectionable, and rightly so.

"Should Catholics be forbidden, in a puritanical way, from being a part of this anti-Catholic religion and the political parties that support it?"

The Church has not the authority to take such action.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

My. Point is that slavery was legal then as is abortion now. There is always the danger, from the Catholic point of view, to believe that just because something is legal it is moral, but many fall into that trap. For Protestants of a fundamentalist perspective, alchohol, tobacco, gambling, dancing, etc are viewed as immoral and to a certain extent were somewhat sucessful in banning these things in some places, albeit temporarily.

If the 13 colonies had lost the Revolutinary War or won it only to be conquered by England later, a puritantical attack on those who led the revolution would have taken place.

To judge the past but specially people of the past, by today's standards, especially the past which codified in law the things today we find dispicable, is puritantical and off the rails.

The way the democrat party is going, should in right minded, and moral people, be seen as a hate organization that does some good especially as it pertains to its fight for abortion on demand up to birth and later, euthanasia, curtailing religious liberty and wanting to force the Church be it Catholic or otherwise to do its bidding by codified law. Catholics should not be permitted to be a part of such an organization like Catholics are not allowed to be masons or members of the KKK.

Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald -

Yes, we can judge the actions of historical figures by today's standards, even while recognizing that "The past is a foreign country and they do things differently there."
While those who owned slaves - just one example - were acting according to the mores and laws of their times, their behavior was objectively wrong. While we can judge them, we can also acknowledge that they were doing what they believed to be right and just.

That is a pertectly acceptable judgment to make.

The move to end the memorialization and lionization of these figures is where we stand today. No one is saying that, in some Back to the Future way, these historical figures should amdend their ways.

What is being said is that holding these people up to public honor, celebrating their accomplishments, setting them up as models to be emulated is wrong.

Pierre said...

Yet, there are "Catholics" who support Margaret Sanger, a racist, and founder of Planned Parenthood, the preeminent Abortion Mill and killer of Black babies. Any comment, Father Mike?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fr. MJK, you are brilliantly making my point about the puritantical point you are making and given your Irish heritage, I guess I could call it Jansenism. Given you logic, you had better decapitate our Lord in any statues you have in your church, social hall and rectory and of course remove the crucifix. You should esponge HIs Name from everything including all His good teachings. Our Lord in HIs public ministry never condemned slavery. In fact he held it up as a model of following HIm the Master, we the servant/slave. Think of all his parables that include slave/master imagery. And of course He did not ordain any women as deacons, priests or bishops and only called 12 men to be his apostles the future first priests/bishops of the Church, with the fullness of Holy Orders. And of course He did not institute same sex marriage and condemned adultery and fornication through His Holy Word in both the Old Testament, New Testment and Sacred Tradition.

So if you are to be consistent, when willl you follow through on your flawed logic?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

The democrat party as did the Church was slow to condemn slavery and certainly democrats in the south were some of the most racists in the land. All of the 1950's and 60's southern racists were democrats and more than likely were most members of the KKK. Thus according to Fr. MJK, this party should not be lionized and should be removed from the lexicon of lionizing them in any way whatsoever. They need a new name. But yet, they are still the party of abortion on demand to include infanticide. They endorse euthanasia, taking away the religious liberty of the population and the Catholic Church, other churches, and other religions.

But you won't hear FrMJK following through on the logic he has enunciated above because it goes against his meme. And to give him credit, he likes the social justice efforts of the Democrat party as it concerns the poor, marginalized etc. But the good they do can never be used to support their evil past and their present day ideologies.

rcg said...

Fr K I strongly disagree with you. It is not a dilemma for us that someone in times past and long dead held views we abhor in ourselves. If the monuments are to vanity then we should be sure to include that in their memorials. But we must also note that those men rose above themselves and leave us the same philosophies we hypocritically use to condemn them. One earthly life is too short to benefit from the full fruit of an inspired thought credited to their Creator. If we live in better times we live on the foundations those men built. They were too mortal to survive the iterations and proofs of equality but it is their formulae and tests that brought us here. The foul deeds they did collapsed on their own in parallel experiments to give us guidance if not by pure reason then at least by comparison. Would you have been as harsh in the Harrowing to ignore those moments men listened to the Whisper and confessed their weaker selves preferring the prurient stories of their lives? If so, we are depriving ourselves a much more important lesson that the statue tells than the one written on its pedestal.

Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald. No, I am not making your point. I am not agreeing with you. I am not taking your side.

And, since you don't want to or, more likely, are incapable of having any kind of a serious discussion of the topic, I won't discuss it with you any further. I will add only that this statement: "Our Lord in His public ministry never condemned slavery." is the height or silliness. It is meaningless and vapid.

rcg - The dilemma is as I have stated - we are publicly honoring men and women who behaved in ways that were objectively evil. The monuments aren't to vanity, but to our desire to, in the case of the Civil War monuments, maintain a classist system which puts white people on top and black people on the bottom.

I do not live on the foundations of slavery, white supremacy, and a dissolution of the union. The Confederate Civil War "heores" did not produce "better times." We can and do easily remember our history without honoriing the villians therein.

Anonymous said...

True, this secular godless religion does not forgive past sins, it exploits them. The new religion thrives on the chants, violence and wrath in the same way the ancient pagan religions did.

John Nolan said...

If I'm not mistaken, the figure in the pillory is Titus Oates of the notorious and wholly invented 'Popish Plot' of 1678. He sent innocent men to their deaths and got off lightly - he should have been hanged.

The Catholic Church is not immune from puritanism. Savonarola and his followers, those at the Council of Trent who wanted music prohibited, the Jansenists, and most recently the Second Vatican Council. A pox on the lot of them. Pietism and sanctimoniousness corrode the soul.

Pierre said...

Father McDonald,

The " social justice efforts of the Democratic Party?" Please don't make me laugh. The Democratic Party gave up on the working man when the Clintoons' took over the Party who are now multi-millionaires off of public service like the Obamas who now live in the Hamptons as far away from the "people" as they can be. Social justice begins with the right to be born. What is the Democratic Party's record on that?

Until the China Flu hit, President Trump's policies provided Blacks and Hispanics with their lowest unemployment rate in history and wages were rising. The Democratic Party desperately needs people to remain poor for government hand outs because the Democratic Party sees poverty as the sure fire way to retain power. Democratic Party policies have made most large cities which they have controlled for decades hell holes for the poor. The events of this summer have demonstrated that amply. Why hasn't the Democratic Party ended "systemic racism" in cities they have controlled for decades? Why haven't they reformed Police Unions which they control?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Fr. MJK, When one stomps his feet and runs off and says I won't discuss it further, I take great joy in knowing I have won the argument. Your horribly flawed logic does not allow you to take this any further.

Anonymous said...

The problem is that when you condemn members of the Confederacy who owned slaves
you likewise condemn Washington, Jefferson, etc. Of course, it now goes beyond that since statues of Columbus are coming down as well. And as evidence of historical ignorance of the woke mob, I just learned that a statue of Frederick Douglass was one of their latest targets.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

It is the absurdity of the logic both forth by FRMJK that does not acknowledge what happens when that logic is brought to its logical conclusion. Who and what culture can stand scrutiny and in an atheistic, puritanical civil/secular religion where forgiveness is not allowed only retribution.

Christ can't stand, certainly His Church can't stand; and neither can our own country that won the Civil War. And the missionary efforts of the Church--these are now being slammed by people around the world, thus poor St. Junipero Serra is executed in effigy and the non saint, but good Catholic Columbus. It is ridiculous.

Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald.

You've won nothing.

You assert that modern secularism has roots in the Puritan tradition. As an example of this you say, "This godless, secular civil religion, though, still has as its underpinnings puritantical ideologies, not in the arena of sex, normally associated with Puritans, but in the area of a lack of an ability to forgive the wrongs of the past,..."

You know little or nothing of Puritans.

Here's Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758), an Evangelical Reformed/Puritan theologian and preacher: "They (his hearers) should be 'far from all revenge and ill will, all living in love, studying to promote one another's good,' and 'apt to forbear with one another, apt to forgive one another.'His people should be 'forgiving one another, retaining no grudge against any.' If they showed forgiveness, they would 'make' doubters 'believe that there is indeed something in our profession." (Valeri, M.. (2006). Forgiveness: From the puritans to Jonathan Edwards. Practicing Protestants: Histories of Christian Life in America, 1630-1965. 35-48.)

Edwards, the Puritan, emphasized the essential nature of forgiveness.

Another Puritan author, Thomas Watson (1620-1686), "When do we forgive others?”
His answer: “When we strive against all thoughts of revenge; when we will not do our enemies mischief, but wish well to them, grieve at their calamities, pray for them, seek reconciliation with them, and show ourselves ready on all occasions to relieve them” (Thomas Watson, Body of Divinity, page 581).

Watson, the Puritan, emphasized the essential nature of forgiveness.

Lastly, from "Practicing Protestants: Histories of Christian Life in America, 1630–1965" (eds Laurie F Maffly-Kip, Leigh E. Schmidt, and Mark Valeri) "When expounding on forgiveness, many established Puritan writers treated it as a practical embodiment of belief. Cotton Mather...described forgiveness mainly in terms of social acts; 'to do good unto those who speak ill of speak well of refrain from taking a rumor-monger or critic to court for abate the financial obligations of poor debtors rather than sue them." (page 38)

Puriotans were ALL ABOUT forgiveness. You don't know beans about Puritans and forgiveness. Your ignorance takes you anywhere you want to go, because your ignorance knows no bounds.

I don't think the contemporary protests have anything to do with forgiving the sins of the past. They are concerned with the desire of many today to honor and validate the sins and the sinners of the past, pretending that this is a worthy part of our "heritage" that ought to be lauded and celebrated.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Fr. McD, you are right about Fr. MJK-

Fr. MJK ALWAYS has to have the last word, and I NEVER remember him actually making a statement that he will not continue "discussing" something any further! It does mean you won!

He had to confront the contradiction in his logic for a change. He usually won't do that, and finds ways to evade by some justification or convoluted argument.

I expect, when I tune in at a later time, he will have thought of some convoluted way to slither out of what he said, through some "clarification" or change of direction, claiming he is totally consistent and again, RIGHT in what he claims.

It seems to me Fr. MJK has a little problem with ambiguity, as do these protesters condemning various American heroes. They, like he, cannot seem to come to the realization that all heroes are flawed human beings who got some things wrong. But that doesn't invalidate what they got right. When we celebrate what they got right, we don't deny what they got wrong. Rather we highlight the virtue they exhibited or their great accomplishment, noting it is worthy of our admiration.

For those iconoclasts, things are (excuse the expression, it is not meant in a racial context) black or white. Either something (or someone) is wholly good, or it is to be be rejected as bad. Funny, though, not even they themselves could pass such scrutiny.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

A very long time ago I came across this quote from a very holy priest which I found so profound I typed it, cut it out, and kept it. It comes to mind every time I see the way the secular world deals with infractions of whatever is the latest morality.

"In the tradition of the Church, sin remains in the confessional, the repentant sinner receives forgiveness and life goes on; but in the world today, sin is encouraged and the sinner is crucified, his sin never to be forgiven or forgotten. This is the evil way of dealing with sin."

To jump on that bandwagon is a bad move for a Catholic.

God bless.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

See, Fr. McD. I told you he wouldn't stop.

God bless.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

FrMJK, why the treatise? My point is that our country has a puritan streak but at least God is in the mix and God's principles which includes forgiveness. Not so for the secular version of our new civil religion that maintains the worst of puritanism and exacerbates it with its godlessness. Thus rather than looking at the good our forebears did, including those who were a part of the confederacy and many through no fault of their own (our war dead from that lost war) godless political puritans with a godless political agenda was a cleansing of both the good and bad of those memorialized in history and statuary.

And yes, Jesus and our saints can and will be victims of this godless, puritanical crusade that you cannot bring yourself to critique because of an idol in your own life associated with current fades promoted by the corrupt democrat party.

Pierre said...


So wise, unlike some of our clerics.

Fr MJK will never address the serious structural evil of the Democratic Party. Phony "social justice" does not absolve them of the intrinsic evils they support.

Also, he has never commented on Queen Nancy Pelosi's father dedicating a statue to honor Robert E. Lee when he was mayor of Baltimore in 1948. Just like his daughter, I doubt it was from a sincere wish to honor General Lee but a crass political move. His daughter learned well. I had expected that the New York Times by now would have demanded she denounce her father and do penance for his "sin."

Pierre said...

The modern democratic party and their stormtroopers, BLM and Antifa, remind me a lot of the people who put the innocent to death during the Salem Witch Trials.

Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald - The treatise is meant to help you understand that the Puritans were not unforgiving and that your suggestion that a connection between today's iconoclasts and the "unforgiving" Puritans has no basis.

I cited THREE examples of the willingness of Puritans to forgive. There are hundreds and hundreds available online.

If you read what I posted rather than reacting defensively you'd know that was my point.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

No Fr. MJK, you are doing what your always do, not addressing godless, puritanical secular/civil religion that can't forgive our founding fathers and their legal slave holdings. These people are anarchists with a puritan streak. I know it is hard for you, especially when you have lost an argument, many of them here on this blog, not to change the subject, but try.

Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McDonald, I haven't changed the subject.

In your typically ignorant way, you make an assertion about a connection between Puritans who you assert were unforgiving, and the contemporary secularists who are unforgiving.

The Puritans were not unforgiving. You simply don't know what you're talking about.

The contemporary secularists do not derive their unwillingness to forgive from the Puritans.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

There you go again, give it up or you might get knocked off a pedestal and banned. But I am not a godless, secular puritan with rigid ideas about how to get rid of the past.

Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...

And 411 words is hardly a "treatise" unless the reader is unwilling to read. Heaven forbid, since the reader might actually learn something.

Francis Bacon gave us "Reading maketh a full man; conference a ready man; and writing an exact man."

Full you ain't.

Anonymous said...

Are ignorance and ego related? 😉

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Sir Francis Bacon, according to your rewriting of history and cleansing it, needs the same.

Bacon's ideas about the improvement of the human lot were influential in the 1630s and 1650s. Francis Bacon thus came to play a leading role in creating the British colonies.

I think you have already commented to John Nolan how horrible English Colonization was and now you extol Sir Francis Bacon. Have you no shame. Bacon should be eaten not extolled and because of his colonizing tendencies he should be destroyed, at least any busts and statues.

Pierre said...

Anonymous at 4:33,

Well when it comes to FrMJK, it would appear that is a true statement

Anonymous said...

Anon - Not necessarily. But ignorance and bravado often are.

We had a classmate who, whenever he was corrected in matters of fact, responded, "Yeah, that too." It was his way of not acknowleding his ignorance while, at the same time, being forced to make some response, in this case, a nonsensical one.

Anonymous said...

With the taking down of Confederate monuments and banning the Confederate flag it has only increased the sale of Confederate flags nation wide of which I’m a proud owner and by the way it is HERITAGE and not hate. Remember over 300,000 Southerners died in battle including many Roman Catholics and yes nuns tending to Confederate wounded and dying, they were Americans as well and don’t forget that. Again 99% of Southerners were poor share croppers and not slave owners, let the statues and flags stay in place for the love God enough of hating the South and it’s people!!

Anonymous said...

Thank you Anon 4:46. I can now say I learned something in all this back and forth....

S. Truth said...

Anon 4:51 - Heritage.... The heritage of the Confederacy is the subjugation of blacks.

Don't take my words for it. Here are the words of the CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens, delivered at the Athenaeum in Savannah, Georgia, on March 21, 1861:

"Its (The Confederate States of America) foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

He continued:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science."

There's your Confederate "heritage."

Anonymous said...

Cardinal Dolan has a good piece in the Wall Street Journal today concerning the statues controversies and names of places. He began by recounting someone dismayed by his naming a parish after St. Peter, who denied Christ three times of course, and noted that the woman complaining had been a member of a St. Mary Magdelene parish---yeah, that Mary was not always a model of virtue either. Cardinal Dolan wrote in part, "If we can't name churches after sinners, the only titles we'd have left would be Jesus and his Mother...Defacing, tearing down and hiding statues and portraits is today's version of Puritan book-burning!"eter

And not even the dead can rest in some places---in Lexington, Virginia, home of Washington and Lee university ("for now"---that is, there is talk of changing the name of the school because of Lee---you know he served on the "wrong side" of you know what war) and Virginia Military Institute---well, the city council is changing the name of Stonewall Jackson Cemetery, as in the one who also fought in "that war". Next" Maybe say goodbye to Washington Street, Lee Avenue and Jefferson Street in that city.

John Nolan said...

'For the settlers ... the devastating impact of smallpox furnished proof that God was on the colonists' side, conveniently killing off the previous tenants of this new world. One of the things the Pilgrims gave thanks for at Plymouth at the end of 1621 was the fact that 90 per cent of the indigenous peoples of New England had died of disease in the decade before their arrival, having first - very considerately - tilled the land and buried stores of corn for the winter. In the words of John Archdale, Governor of Carolina in the 1690s, "the Hand of God [has been] eminently seen in thinning the Indians to make room for the English."' (Niall Ferguson).

Archdale was a Quaker. The Puritans of the New Model Army which defeated the Royalists at Naseby in 1645 went on to massacre over a hundred female camp-followers, believing they were doing God's work. Oliver Cromwell saw himself as God's instrument in pursuing a policy of 'ethnic cleansing' in Ireland (1649-1653). It is estimated that at least 200,000 out of a population of under 2 million died. In part Cromwell's atrocities were in revenge for the massacres of Protestant settlers by the native Irish in 1641.

However, according to Fr MJK, 'Puritans were ALL ABOUT forgiveness'. He reminds me of the KKK leader interviewed on TV some years ago who said his organization was really a charitable institution. When accused of bigotry he denied it: 'We just don't like nigras, Jews and Catholics.'

Pierre said...

Strange that modern “liberals” hate the Confederacy and their leaders more than the Yanks who fought in the Civil War. “Liberals” have apparently have forgotten the words of the Great Liberator, Abraham Lincoln: with malice toward none and charity toward all.

The Egyptian said...

To MJK and others, if we are not careful we will find ourselves in the mindset of Lavrentiy Beria, show me the man and I'll show you the crime. Any one of us can be charged with something, our laws are so thick that to quote law professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds, you could convict a ham sandwich. Don't believe Gen Flynn is just a one off.

The left will eventually kill itself, or as the famous oracle Bugs Bunny one said, in an excitable moment,Robespierre, oh Robespierre

Paul McCarthy said...

Boy I sat down tonight to watch the number cable show Tucker Carlson and took a glance at my favorite blog Southern Orders only to read this hilarious debate.

Whatever happened to George Floyd? I thought his death was the issue of the day, but how long did it take before he ended up in the trash heap of history.

My question is why now? We had 8 years of a African-American president and these issue never came up and when it cMe to base names the Obama DOD said no to renaming them.

What we are going through is a Cultural Revolution much like what happened in China in the 60’s. The problem with all these Lillie white Marxist women and men who lead this revolution funded by Soros and his Open Society God hating organization. Problem is that the Chinese citizen didn’t have what we do; the 2nd amendment.

Speaking of another subject BLM has nothing to do with Black Lives. If it did it would be protesting outside Sanger clinics or Liberal city halls ran by white and black socialist for the last 50-60 years while the black community was destroyed by the Racist LBJ Great Society which has enslaved 2 generations of blacks in inner city liberal ghettos. They destroyed the black family and replaced father’s with a government check.

Black leaders need to speak up more and not just the older conservative civil rights leaders such as Woodson.

Now back to our church a church led by spineless Bishops with only a handful that are true shephereds versus politicians enjoying their luxurious lifestyles. Until the church restores the Oath against Modernism I have little faith in our shepherds.

As I said before this nation has a sin problem not a racism problem. Instead of talking about sin all we hear about is our systemic racism.

God Bless Father Rothrock. He spoke the truth and now is silenced by a pathetic coward.

V for Victory

Our Lady Hammer of Heretic’s please get hammering.

Anonymous said...

And along the same line to quote Judge Sol Wachtler:

" A Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich, if that's what you wanted"

A paraphrase of the Judges original quote in Bonfire of the Vanities, by Tom Wolf.

JR said...

I think Fr. Michael Kavanaugh would be a much happier person if he would stop trolling this blog and start his own where he could spit out his opinions with impunity.

Anonymous said...

I think Father Kavanaugh's input is vitally important to this blog, and I am not saying this to take sides. I personally view this blog as a learning place, having been brought up after Vatican II, and being very much drawn to things Pre Vatican.I don't have the knowledge or the terminology that most of you have, nor the understanding. What I DO have is the ability to see both sides of an argument and reflect and learn from it. Despite the fact that the snark and sometimes nastiness bothers me, and I am just as guilty of snark as anyone else, I value EVERY post on this blog and look to learn from it.

So YES, Father Kavanaugh's comments are welcomed as are all of your comments right down to the craziest.

Anonymous said...

This will ruin Father Kavanaugh's day:

Grammy-winning rapper and fashion mogul Kanye West ripped Joe Biden and declared that the Democratic Party has controlled black Americans to the point that “this white man can tell a black man if you don’t vote for me, you’re not Black.”

“That is a form of racism and white supremacy and white control to say that all Black people need to be Democrat and to assume that me running is me splitting the vote. All of that information is being charged up on social media platforms by Democrats,” Kanye West said in a lengthy interview with Forbes magazine. “And Democrats used to tell me, the same Democrats have threatened me…. The reason why this is the first day I registered to vote is because I was scared. I was told that if I voted on Trump my music career would be over.”

Fr. Michael Kavanaugh said...

John - You might next quote a Catholic theologian about the importance of some moral question, and then cite numerous Catholics who have violated the moral norms the Church teaches.

Would that, then, change or invalidate the Church's teaching? Of course it would not.

I cited the teaching and beliefs of the Puritans to show that Fr. McDonald's assertion that the iconoclasts of today are the "unforgiving" descendants of the Puritans. They aren't.

Regarding Kanye West, he has also stated, "“When you hear about slavery for 400 years ... for 400 years?” he said. “That sounds like a choice.”

Kanye thinks that those who remained slaves did so by choice. So you you want to give him any credibility, go right ahead. I don't.

John Nolan said...

Fr McDonald's use of puritan/puritanism is too indiscriminate. Fr Kavanaugh narrows it down to the historical religious sect (capital P) but then appears to take their preaching at face value.

Had they remained a religious sect, the fact that the Puritans saw themselves as God's elect would have mattered little. Unfortunately during the seventeenth century they were given the opportunity to exercise political power in England during the interregnum of 1649 to 1660, and for a much longer period in New England; in both places they attempted to establish a theocratic system, and in New England they largely succeeded.

The Puritans might have been expected to be virulently anti-Catholic but they also persecuted the Quakers, both in England and America. Between 1659 and 1661 four Quakers, including a woman, were hanged in Boston. This led the new king, Charles II, to order that no Quakers be put to death for their beliefs, and the Puritan theocracy was effectively ended when the Massachusetts charter was revoked in 1684. They still wielded considerable influence in the colony and were behind the infamous Salem witch trials in 1692.

To be fair, most of Europe had witch-hunts during the seventeenth century, with the exception of Spain. The trained lawyers of the Inquisition refused to believe village gossip or be influenced by popular hysteria.

John Nolan said...


I took issue with your bland assertion that 'Puritans were ALL ABOUT forgiveness' which is demonstrably untrue.

And I never mentioned Kanye West. He can think what he likes.

Anonymous said...

Father K,

Yet you take the word of abortion extremists like Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden.

It tells the readers here all they need to know about your credibility

Pierre said...

Father Z is reporting that Archbishop Vigano has composed a prayer for the re-election of President Trump! Liberals hair is on fire

Paul McCarthy said...

I thought this discussion now requires a little wisdom from Ann Bernhardt. Read it and laugh then cry as it’s where this once god fearing nation now stands.

John Nolan said...

In 1772 Lord Chief Justice Mansfield ruled that slavery did not exist in England and Wales: 'It [slavery] is so odious, that nothing can be suffered to support it, but positive law.' And there was nothing in either statute or common law to support it.

Little over 30 years later the slave trade was outlawed, and in 1833 slavery in the colonies was abolished. It was a rare example of morality prevailing over national self-interest. For the remainder of the 19th century the one constant in British foreign policy was the fight against the slave trade and indeed the institution of slavery itself. This included the Arab slave trade in East Africa, which had existed for far longer than the West African trade. Many would argue it was the greatest achievement of the 'Pax Britannica'

The BLM movement originated in the USA, where the Secessionist War of 1861-1865 is still a controversial subject. (I don't wish to offend Southerners by calling it the Civil War, and it is strictly speaking the second American civil war, the first having been fought between 1776 and 1783.) If you look at the BLM UK website you find, amid the usual sub-Marxist rhetoric, the promotion of the 'Stop Trump' movement, which doesn't make sense this side of the pond.

It's also worrying that indigenous Black youth (mostly of Afro-Caribbean descent) have adopted the worst aspects of American Black culture.

BLM UK is organizing another big protest in London on Saturday. With even virtue-signalling 'celebrities' (the Twitterati) beginning to distance themselves from the movement, it will hopefully turn out to be a damp squib.

Pierre said...

BLM is a Marxist organization, so it is beyond comprehension that any Catholic would support it. BLM is also a terrorist group which has destroyed countless black owned businesses and homes. But we have our fair share of useful idiots in the US

rcg said...

It is disheartening to read defenses of these mobs from leaders, elected and otherwise, who do not have any sense that the protection they seek can only come from defending the institutions responsible to protect the citizens. The attacks on statuary is not against the monument or the person represented. It is clearly a stand-in for people and ideas they oppose and are practicing to destroy. These are public property and destroying these things is an act of rebellion against the society. It is not a question of removing an image associated with a person condemned in a heated political environment. It is all about how it is being done. We are legitimizing violence as protected speech for the worst of reasons. In the current political environment there are few politicians who would stand against removal of the figures. What about removal of the image by peaceful means; removed to another location for use as a study of history? Instead we have priests advocating destruction of public property, abrogating the rule of law.

Anonymous said...

This will cheer Father Kavanaugh up. Joe Biden is ready to oppress the Little Sisters of the Poor again:

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was one of many on the left to express dismay at the Supreme Court's Wednesday ruling that the Trump administration acted within its authority when it expanded exemptions to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirement that employers provide insurance that includes contraception, and promised he would return to an Obama-era policy should he be elected.

Anonymous said...

Pierre - Nope.

In the words of Fr. Z - "I note that the Prayer, which is very good and which every person ought to be willing to pray right now, does not ask for the re-election of Pres. Trump. It asks for him to be protected, to be aware of his duties, to be a bulwark against God’s enemies, defend the oppressed, be a supporter of the children of the light. It asks the Blessed Virgin to protect these United States. It asks the Most Sacred Heart of Our Lord to guide us."

Yes, Trump should be protected.

He has not been aware of his duties from the get-go. In fact he shirks them with abandon.

He is an enemy of God, not a bulwark against them. (Remember, three "marriages." Rememebr, grab her by the *****.)

He defends nothing but is re-election campaign.

He spreasds his darkness wherever he goes.

Hair on fire? Not in this life...

Anonymous said...

With the news and the trajectory of the left in a perpetual state of revolution it is hard to keep up with the violent changes to their desiderata and grievance hierarchy. What we know is that the left is in their own internal cultural revolution. This is a defining moment. It's a CHAZ/CHOP "re-imagining" of society playing out across the country, and the globe, as the left seeks to (re)define itself. Hitchens is dead, Chomsky is old and apparently "cancelled", Jon Stewart is out and his replacement is terrible. They haven't had an intellectual leader in quite some time and I cannot foresee one arising in the future. How can an intellectual arise in this environment unless the intellectual is willing to forfeit the pillars of truth which inform the intellect?

With regards to the first post which appears on this page which reads "I suspect the issue is not about failing to forgive the wrongs of the past, but of celebrating and even lionizing today the people from the past who committed horrific acts of cruelty and barbarism. Memorializing as a person of honor and rectitude those who, for example, sought to destroy our Union and maintain a state's right to slavery is what is objectionable, and rightly so." I know that is only from two days ago but I am surprised that you have not caught on. Statues are symbolic and the attack on confederate statues is another slight of hand move. As predicted, the assault on America is not limited to the confederacy or slaveholders. The assault is an attempt to impose a new identity -whichever identity and orthodoxy which comes out of the left's internal revolution - on this country. You too, Fr. K, have already been cancelled. As liberal (and I don't mean that as a pejorative) as you may be, unless you are willing to recite the entire progressive confiteor - including an emphatic validation of LGBTQIA+ in its entirety - then you are out. Cancelled. Not invited. I can't say it doesn't tickle me a bit to see our progressive firebrands find that they are not welcome at the "table of woke." Not all are welcome there.

No Catholic can possibly support this party. The seamless garment is nowhere near large or thick enough to hide this anymore. It was sheer to begin with but now it is like trying to cover an elephant with a dishrag.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Pierre. 👍

Having said that, there isn't a democrat I would vote for either.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:06 AM,

In other words Bill Clinton is your role model for probity?

John Nolan said...

I believe it's unwise for a Catholic priest to openly support one political party over another, even when he posts as Anonymous. Criticism of individual politicians or particular policies is legitimate.

And to call Trump an 'enemy of God' recalls the Puritan diatribes against Charles I and Archbishop Laud, both of whom they had put to death once they achieved power. I think a certain commentator would do well to temper his admiration for this particular ultra-Protestant sect and start sounding like a Catholic.

C. C. said...

And I think John Nolan should understand that his understanding of what a Catholic sounds like is highly suspect, open to question, and of little importance to anyone other than himself.

Annymous said...


Is that another nom de plume for Father K?

John Nolan said...

C.C. aka Anonymous

Since you don't know what my understanding is, since I haven't disclosed it, you are in no position to judge that it is 'highly suspect'. And my opinions and conclusions are, like everyone else's, open to question. Have you any intelligent questions? If so, feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer them.

If you disagree with my first paragraph, perhaps you might explain why you do so. After all, it cuts both ways. I happen to vote Conservative but would not expect a priest to use the pulpit, the parish bulletin or even the internet to endorse the Conservative Party.

Boris Johnson's marital record, like Donald Trump's, is chequered to say the least. But if a priest denounced him as an 'enemy of God' he would lose half his congregation and probably be removed forthwith by his bishop.

Back in the 1980s the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament was led by a London priest, Monsignor Bruce Kent. Although many Catholics were uneasy about his role, he was tolerated by the Archdiocese until he announced his intention of campaigning for the Labour Party in the run-up to the 1987 General Election. His ordinary, Cardinal Basil Hume, made him choose between the priesthood and party politics. He chose the latter, left the priesthood and married shortly afterwards.

Anonymous 2 said...

A thoughtful piece from 2015 that seems just as topical today:

Pierre said...

Bravo, Cardinal Hume!

John Nolan said...

Anonymous 2

An interesting article. The 'truth and reconciliation' committees in South Africa and Kenya were dealing with very recent events. When dealing with history the truth (as far as it is possible to ascertain it) is already out there; it does not require a committee of well-meaning individuals to determine it.

Some Americans perhaps need to to be reminded that the United States permitted slavery on its own soil for the first 89 years of its existence, and for a further century tolerated apartheid-style laws in some states of the Union. Shifting the guilt onto the short-lived and defeated Confederacy simply won't do.

The legacy of slavery is the large number of Blacks in the US. To regret importing their ancestors in the first place can imply that the country as a whole would be better off without them, which is surely not the intention!

During WW2 GIs coming to Britain were shown training films telling them not to be surprised or shocked at the lack of colour prejudice here. It wasn't entirely true - the serious unrest in port cities in 1919 had a racial element. But in the 1940s Britain was racially homogeneous and in order to be racist you need people to be racist about. Large-scale immigration from the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent from the 1950s onwards led to increased racial tensions and the first race riots in Notting Hill (London) and Nottingham occurred in 1958.

A final point - since the T&R initiatives in SA and Kenya, have things improved in either country? There is little evidence that they have.

TJM said...

I was shocked back in 1995 when I was in London, at a pub near Hyde Park when the pianist refused to continue playing the piano until a person of color left the bar. It was a rather ugly confrontation. The pianist actually stood up and shouted for this person to get out. My party and I promptly paid our bill and left. FYI, I am half English, my great-grandmother was born in Piccadilly.

In the US, race riots have occurred in Boston, Chicago, Detroit and New York, an inconvenient fact often overlooked.

Pierre said...

These quotes on Robert E. Lee will sadden the liberal haters:

Dwight D. Eisenhower: "General Robert E. Lee was… one of the supremely gifted men produced by this Nation… Through all his many trials he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God… he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history… I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall."

Neither was Winston Churchill: "Lee was the noblest American who ever lived and one of the greatest commanders known to the annals of war."

Neither was British Field Marshall Viscount Sir Garnet Wolseley: "I believe all will admit that General Lee towered far above all men on either side… he will be regarded as the great American of the 19th century, whose statue is well worthy to stand on an equal pedestal with Washington, and whose memory is worthy to be enshrined in the hearts of all his countrymen."

John Nolan said...


No establishment in London in 1995 would have been allowed to exclude anyone on account of his colour. I don't doubt what you say, but it is more likely that the grudge between the pianist and the other party was due to something other than his complexion. Of course an American might misinterpret the situation in view of what prevails at home.

Of course there is racism in Britain, as in every other part of the world. But it's not that overt.