Translate

Thursday, September 16, 2021

WHAT OR WHO IS CAUSING SUCH EXTREMISM IN THE CHURCH? ONE THING IS CLEAR, PRIOR TO VATICAN II MEL GIBSON, AKA, MAD MAX, WOULD BE IN THE MAINSTREAM AND APPLAUDED FOR HIS WITNESS TO WHAT HE CONSIDERS THE TRUE FAITH AND THINGS GONE OFF THE RAILS

 I have always liked Mel Gibson, especially as Australia’s Mad Max! This video of Mel is kind of like Mad Max. 

Mel Gibson is a believing Catholic, although I believe he belongs to a schismatic sect of the Church, not the SSPX, but something more radical.

To quote Pope Francis, we can’t condemn Mad Max, we must walk with him and listen to his concerns. 

There is a nugget of truth in all that he says and he says it from a strong, personal commitment to the Church as he would like it to be. Is he wrong? Is he right? Or is his perspective somewhere in the middle?

His he a prophet? Is he false teacher? Is he worse than pro-choice President Biden who doesn’t believe in science as it concerns human life beginning at conception and believes a child can be murdered by hitmen in the mother’s womb? If Biden should not be condemned by bishops, should Mel Gibson?

I show; you tell:

67 comments:

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Gibson is an anti-Semite. Read the news items.

Thomas Garrett said...

"ONE THING IS CLEAR, PRIOR TO VATICAN II MEL GIBSON, AKA, MAD MAX, WOULD BE IN THE MAINSTREAM AND APPLAUDED FOR HIS WITNESS..."


Exactly.

We have been lulled into a listless stupor of indifferentism (another wonderful "fruit" of that wonderful "Council" worshipped the the geriatocracy) and, have, little by little accepted a new religion. When you change the ritual, you are changing the religion--any Freshman religious studies class would assert as much.

This is EXACTLY why the corrupted bishops and cardinals (and other who shall remain nameless) DESPISE the Vetus Ordo and cannot tolerate it. It communicates the purity and unchanging nature of a religion that reflects the purity and unchanging nature of God--in short, it completely mucks up their agenda for the Ape of the Church. It will not be tolerated.

As for Mel? Well the sheer hypocrisy of the entertainment establishment speaks for itself. They can forgive (or should I say, encourage?) every deviant behavior under the sun, but when a man who embraces traditional Catholicism falls, there is NO forgiveness. Yea, it is the solemn duty or the amoral defilement establishment to amplify every fault and failure of this man while they construct their own edifice of perversion and Godlessness.

Stand up for what you believe and you ARE a target. Wear it as a badge of honor.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Which is worse or are they equal. President Biden is pro choice and doesn’t believe a pre born baby is human thus it is just fine to hire a hit man and murder the baby? A Pope Francis would say, don’t condemn be pastoral.

Thomas Garrett said...

Father Kavanaugh,

With all due respect, especially as a man of God who represents the very vehicle of His Mercy on earth, our Church, could you take it easy with the all-condemnatory judgments of Mel Gibson's heart?

Do you honestly believe that every "good" person who enjoys a public reputation of not being a racist is completely "pure"? We have letters from the Great Emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, using the "N" word. Do you think Jesse Jackson has never once uttered "cracker" in his frustration with white people.

All of us have dark impulses or beliefs that we struggle with or bury. We confess them, we fight them, but that doesn't always automatically cleanse them out of our consciousness. The anti-Jewish remarks made by Gibson were made when he was DRUNK. He publicly apologized. Do you wish to join the Hollywood elite's culture of "no forgiveness" for "special" crimes--in his case the crime of not getting his mind right. Why does Joe Biden get a pass on all the racist remarks he's made over the years, but Mel Gibson is sanctimoniously dispatched to the infernal regions?

I might expect a comment like the one you posted from the likes of David Geffen or some other "elite" insider...but you're a priest! With all due respect, Father, please put that first stone down!

Thomas Garrett said...

I would also suggest looking up what Maia Morgenstern, the JEWISH actress who played Mary in the Passion of the Christ, has to say about Mel. Clue: She doesn't condemn him.

Fr Martin Fox said...

I'm not prepared to accuse Mr. Gibson of being an anti-semite; such accusations have become an exceedingly debased currency. It's not clear to me why anyone needs me to reach such a conclusion and endorse it publicly.

Here's what I do know: Mr. Gibson pretty publicly walked away from his wife and family. That was a terrible witness and scandal. I do *not* know where that stands now.

I don't see anything in this video that says the Coalition for Cancelled Priests sought Mr. Gibson's endorsement, or solicited this video, so it may be he took it upon himself to provide it. But I would not have sought this from him without having decided first whether he is (a) a bigot or (b) an unrepentant adulterer.

John Nolan said...

I was given to understand that Gibson, like his father, belonged to a sedevacantist sect but changed his mind when he met Pope John Paul II.

I never met Papa Wojtyla but know some who did, including my sister-in-law. He was without a doubt the greatest man of the last quarter of the 20th century.

The only gripe I have concerning Mel Gibson is that he starred in two films which did considerable damage to history, viz. 'Braveheart' and 'The Patriot'.

Two of the three worst movies of the last thirty years, the third being James Cameron's 'Titanic'.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

The Forward. "Absolutely every anti-Semitic thing Mel Gibson has ever said
June 24, 2020 By PJ Grisar"

The hiatus was largely due to being virtually shut out from Hollywood, an expulsion prompted by the infamous Malibu DUI arrest in 2006 during which he unleashed an anti-Semitic rant. That was followed by leaked tapes in 2010 where Gibson screamed racist remarks, including using the n-word, at his then-girlfriend, Oksana Grigorieva, the mother of one of his nine children. She later alleged Gibson was physically abusive. Even before his fall from grace, Gibson had routinely been in trouble for homophobic comments

Thomas Garrett said...

Dear Father Selectivecompassion,

Methinks you might have shown your cards with that one word: "Homophobic".

Aside from the fact that its use is inaccurate--I'm not afraid of homosexuals--your concern for this special class of people who engage in the sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance begs many questions. I would prefer not to publicly ask them.

But your special sympathies for this crowd are, shall we say, suspicious and, possibly, revealing? Could this be why you took such extra special offense at my previous remarks about effeminate clergy dancing about with cupcakes and balloons?

Hmmmmmm.

TJM said...

Fr. K is a lefty - that is his “religion.” Because fellow lefties stated that Donald Trump was anti-Semitic even though he is close to his Jewish grandchildren, I am sure Father K bought into that nonsense, hook, line and sinker, just as he believes Donald Trump is racist even though as a developer he admitted Blacks into membership at his clubs and notwithstanding the fact that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson praised Trump for all he did for the Black community, until he switched to the party that freed the slaves, gasp, the Republican Party. You simply can’t reason with an ideologue like Fr. K

Thomas Garrett said...

It cannot be denied that, in many cases, there are certain, shall we say, tendencies, that often drive ideologies, wherein the ideologue justifies his personal tendencies by rationalizing them. That should be of grave concern to any of us who see our parish priests defending what is indefensible or creating new ideological sins that demonize those who embrace what the Church has always taught as suddenly being guilty of "discrimination".

I strongly suspect that, on Judgment Day, humanity will witness a great deal of discrimination, prejudice and bias exercised against Lucifer, his minions and those who embraced their lies.

Jerome Merwick said...

Hey Father K, remember "Reverend" Jesse Jackson's mini-scandal ("mini", because the liberal media protected him) when he called Jews, "Hymies"?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/frenzy/jackson.htm

Oh yeah, Jesse gets a pass! Why? BECAUSE HE GOT HIS MIND RIGHT! HE TOWS THE PARTY LINE! Yeah! This is the "minister" who supports abortion rights, homosexuality and the rest of the culture of death!

Where's your sanctimonious condemnations for him?

John Nolan said...

Thomas Garrett

Couldn't agree more. A phobia is an irrational fear, not a dislike or disapproval. 'Homophobia' would be 'an irrational fear of the same', which makes no sense at all. It has recently been joined by 'transphobia', applied to anyone who disagrees with the fashionable 'gender theory'.

These weasel words (another is 'Islamophobia') may be dismissed as the ideological newspeak of quasi-Marxists but they are in reality quite sinister, since they are held to constitute so-called hate speech and used to stifle legitimate opinion and argument.

It's both sad and disturbing that someone like Boris Johnson, who as a classicist ought to know better, has used the expression 'homophobic' on more than one occasion.

Mark said...

It may be that the meaning of the word has evolved (I am still trying to fully understand the etymology and as best I can tell the Greek word from which it is derived means fear or panic), but in every dictionary I checked (Oxford, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster), “the word “phobia” is given alternative meanings of fear of , on the one hand, and aversion to, dislike of, or hate of, on the other.

I would be very careful about concluding that someone has a particular characteristic based on their challenging comments. AND even if such a conclusion about a commenter is warranted, so what? Isn’t making this point a logically fallacious, ad hominem, and indeed a potentially defamatory argument? Shouldn’t a valid argument engage with the merits of the point or argument made in the comment?

Thomas Garrett said...

So what?

IF it has to be explained to you, all one can say is that you should have spent half as much time reading the catechism as you wasted on that old freshman logic text.

TJM said...

Mark,

As an academic you should know better than anyone else that on today's campuses there is a huge push to shut down free speech by the left which controls these institutions. Remember the speech codes? There is "right-think" and "wrong think." Probably there is close to 100% faculty unanimity on issues like climate change, abortion, gay marriage, and illegal aliens being allowed to flood the US. If you went into the faculty lounge and took a contrary position, there would be petitions to remove you, and there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth, and a demand for coloring books and safe spaces to protect students from the likes of you.

When I pursued my bachelors and JD in the 1970s, I could not have told you the politics of any of my professors. Today, they proudly proclaim their allegiance to the increasingly intolerant and fascist Democratic Party. By the way, the demand for "white supremacists" far exceeds the supply.

John Nolan said...

Mark,

I was using the clinical definition of 'phobia' which is an anxiety disorder manifested in a strong irrational fear of something that poses little or no actual danger.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Jerome - That Jesse Jackson expressed anti-Semitism has nothing whatsoever to do with Mel Gibson. It was wrong for Jackson and it is wrong for Gibson. But playing "What-Aboutism" doesn't alter Gibson's culpability.

Jackson wasn't given a pass for his inappropriate comments. Google "Jesse Jackson criticized for anti-Semitism" and you find the criticism from the NYTimes, The Washington Post, The Harvard Crimson, The NYPost, The Times of Israel, The Independent (UK), The Village Voice, among others.

Note that many of these criticisms were from the "liberal" media.

Mark said...

Thomas Garrett:

Your reply is cute but non-responsive. And I have read the Catechism. Have you? It says in relevant part:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Note especially, in the present context, section 2358.

There seems little doubt that Mel Gibson has uttered apparently bigoted remarks during the course of his career, including remarks directed against homosexuals. This said, he is a complicated person. The following Wikipedia entry on him paints a picture that in many ways is very sympathetic, and we should always be wary of casting stones:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson#Controversies

Mark said...

TJM:

As you say, I should know better than most. Of course, what I know best is my own institution. And the picture you paint of academia is, at least with respect to that institution, a gross caricature.

But if you really want to play the groupthink game, couldn’t someone plausibly suggest that this very Blog exhibits its own form of groupthink?

Moreover, someone who is such a Trump supporter (and one assumes who also supports what Trump has done to the Republican Party) is hardly in a position to call out “groupthink” on the part of others. Just see what happens to anyone who dares cross the will of the Narcissist-in-Chief who now runs the Party—and even he dare not cross the will of the mobocracy he has helped create, as the “vaccination” episode at his recent rally demonstrates.

Not to mention, of course, that the knee-jerk reaction to call something “groupthink” may itself be a groupthink driven reaction.

Anyway, I do not subscribe to groupthink but to “critical think.”

Mark said...

John Nolan:

I realize that is what you were doing, and I appreciate your sharing your classical learning with us—as, for example, on the later thread regarding use of the gender-neutral form of the third person pronoun “it” for a child.

Mark said...

Clarification—I intended to give the general Wikipedia link for Mel Gibson not just the section for “Controversies” in the link. I had forgotten that links can get quite specific in this way when cutting and pasting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Gibson

Michael A said...

Mel Gibson achieved something truly great with the masterful Passion of the Christ. The events that followed in his life I believe can be attributed to the devil making Mel a special project. He's a man with lots of nervous energy and an addictive personality and the devil attacked his weaknesses. My instinctive reaction to anything that Mel Gibson says is to favor it first and then hope he doesn't slip up. I have no fear of associating myself with him. I consider him to be my ally in a war against trash and filth. That's why some on this blog who like trash and filth have the reflex to attack a flawed man, which we all are, who is usually on the right side against evil. I might even dare to say that Mel Gibson is responsible for more conversions to Christianity than any or all priests on this blog. That's why the devil hates him so much. The production of the Passion of the Christ made me a better Catholic and it should always be remembered by good priests around Lent to make sure people watch it so the suffering Christ endured for us is burned into our minds.

Mark said...

Oh dear, copying and pasting, not cutting and pasting! To adapt the immortal words of Peter Sellers’ Inspector Clouseau: “Swine technology.” -:)

Thomas Garrett said...

Mark,

Your flair for rhetorical analysis far exceeds my puny skills as commentator here. Having acknowledged that, I am aware of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the subject. However, in light of the fact that we embrace the entire tradition of the Church, it is also helpful to note that we also belong to a Church that in a previous Council, Trent, declared, "" Neither fornicators nor adulterers, nor the effeminate nor sodomites shall possess the kingdom of God." I could provide countless quotes from various saints about this particular sin. And therein lies one of the great problems of the modern era our Church is so caught up in--we pay lip service to the consequences of sin, but choose to willfully downplay the gravity of what awaits the unrepentant. The new Catechism seems to prefer to focus on homosexuality as a "disorder"--even downplaying THAT as "disordered" thinking or disordered behavior.

However, this disorder has cost us gravely on this earth already, regardless of what awaits us on Judgment Day. The millions the Church has paid in settlements and lawsuits attests to that--and NO, I am not equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Rather, I would assert that "pedophilia" is only a small part of the problem with most clerical sex abusers and the John Jay Report, commissioned by our bishops, proved it, with more than 80% of the abuse cases involving adolescent or post-adolescent males. The all-too-easily-forgotten book my Michael Rose, Goodbye Good Men, documents all too well the infiltration of the seminaries by people dedicated to locking in the priesthood to people of this "preference".

So it DOES matter when we see priests whose concerns seem skewed to "protecting" homosexuals against perceived "discrimination" (especially in a world that already seems to elevate them to some sort of sainted status), especially at a time when families are under attack like never before. The hyper-sensitivity to the dramatized plight of those with same sex attractions raises a red flag. And its a flag Catholics deserve to see clearly, given what it has cost us.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Michael A, I agree with you about flawed humanity which includes sexual aberrations as well as elements of racism and anti Semitic sentiments. Having grown up in the south I have known some extremely prejudiced white people. But all of them made somewhat successful transitions to be less so as time progressed in the south with desegregation. The language towards blacks was atrocious. FRMJK points out that Mel Gibson went into a drunken rage using racist words about Jews. I have heard that kind of language directed at minorities by many people especially when having had too much to drink.
I find progressives are extremely myopic in their condemnations and manipulations. They focus on social and foist guilt complexes on everyone in a “puritanical” way and shame people as best they can, like FrJMK did with Mel. But when it comes to sexual morality, they have a blind spot with acts that the Scriptures, both Old and New condemn and in no uncertain terms.
I appreciate Pope Francis’ desire that “pastors” walk with sinners, not condemn them and thus push them away, but to lead them to truth. Yet the pope can use harsh words. I have been reluctant to call abortion “homicide” in a pastoral setting where I do not know who in front of me has had an abortion or facilitated one and may well feel a great deal of remorse and guilt about it and may have repeated but are still wounded. I don’t think I would ever say on my own that having an abortion is like hiring a hitman to kill someone for you and to pay them to do it.
How do we walk with racists, abortion promoting Catholics and others and those who participate in sodomy and fornication and do so publicly and proudly and brag about it?
I think we do what the pope did, call sodomy and fornication as well as adultery for what it is and as graphic as the pope did for abortion. But we need to be consistent with other moral imperatives of the Church to include social issues.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr. ALLAN McD - There is nothing "puritanical" in pointing out the facts of Gibson's behavior. Gibson's guilt is his own - no one has to "foist" it on him.

As for attempting to excuse Gibson for his words and actions because he was drunk, would you suggest the same excuse for a drunk driver who killed a family?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

O my! Finally I hear an implicit condemnation of President Biden from you for enabling homicide, genocide and the hiring of hitmen to kill unborn babies. Progress, I say progress.

Michael A said...

Father McDonald,
Did you ever witness any blacks committing acts of racism or was it always white rednecks? My personal anecdotes are that when I was six years old in 1968, my father was a high school teacher and he had repeated stories of black “students” beating school teachers so their teeth flew out of their mouths. And as a catholic grade school student there were no hot breakfast, lunch and dinner programs for me. I grew up rather poor and there was no assistance for me or any of my 5 brothers and sisters because we went to a religious school. No one gave/gives a you know what about kids going to catholic schools back then or now. Let them starve! That’s my personal experience with being a victim of discrimination and hearing about racism.
Or maybe I was enjoying white privilege and I was too stupid to know it.

Father Fox, another thought I had about Mel Gibson is that if I was given the choice of having Mel Gibson or Pope Francis to come speak at an event, I would pick Mel seven days a week and twice on Sunday. At least Mel Gibson doesn’t lead people into sin. He is a sinner but he doesn’t encourage anyone to be an adulterer as far as I know. This is unlike the poor little sodomites for whom Father K springs to their defense. And the pope has caused so much confusion about what is moral behavior that he helps people feel comfortable in their sin, with the sodomites at the top of that list. The biggest sinner in the pope's book is the 90 year old Savannah, GA resident using some AC.

Father K, being drunk is not an excuse but it is simply a fact. The drunk driver got into the crash because she was drunk and for some because they are irresponsible frequent drunks that get behind the wheel. Mel Gibson blurted out his questions about whether a policewoman was a Jew because he was drunk. That simply is a recognition of a fact that when you are drunk you do things that you otherwise probably wouldn’t. You however in complete sobriety defend sodomy and sodomites. That either comes from being foolish or dishonest. Neither choice a very good one.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A - Actually, being drunk lowers one's inhibitions. "In vino veritas" (in wine there is truth) suggests a person under the influence is more likely to speak their true but hidden thoughts.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

That’s why I do my blog drunk…

TJM said...

Mark,

I dare say that President Trump gave the Republican Party a spine, something it has lacked since the Reagan years. I don't know what you have against a President who started no new hot wars, left the Middle East in relative peace, gave working men and women their first real wage increases in decades, and created over 500,000 manufacturing jobs. Those should have had Democrats who claim they love peace and the little guy cause for rejoicing. In start contrast, Obama did not accomplish any of those things and Biden may be doing worst. I see the "grown-ups" back in charge has resulted in France recalling its Ambassadors to the US and of course, world opprobrium for the disastrous departure from Afghanistan. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.


As for your institution, I assume 99% of the professors are Democrats, adhere to liberal orthodoxy on Global Warming, Abortion, gay marriage, and illegal aliens flooding the US. If there is a spirited debate at your school on these topics, please text me the link. I think you would benefit greatly from looking at a fellow law professor's blog, Instapundit, which keeps us up to date on the intolerance and craziness going on at Harvard, Yale, and a host of other institutions of "higher learning."

Michael A said...

Father K,
The rage that is bubbling against Israel for its conflicts with Islamic people is especially intense on the left. I never thought I would see a time when the possibility for a radical shift in American support for Israel would take place. When that happens, you'll be able to thank the "ladies" from The Squad for it rather than supposed anti-Semites like Mr. Gibson.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael - Whatever "rage" you are imagining, it has nothing to do with Gibson.

Mark said...

Thomas Garrett:
It seems that you have now shifted your position. Previously, you invoked the Catechism in response to me. When I then in turn invoked and quoted the Catechism in response to you, you fell back on the “older” part of the tradition and, I infer, impliedly rejected the Catechism, or at least the passages I quoted. Perhaps you had another catechism in mind.

In any event, even according to the pre-Vatican II part of the tradition, surely it was not a sin to_be_a homosexual, i.e., to be sexually attracted to members of the same sex, even though the Church regards that inclination as “disordered.” As I understand the matter, the sin is engaging in the sexual practices, not the “orientation” to use a contemporary term. Isn’t this what the word “sodomite” refers to? (I am unsure what the word “effeminate” refers to in the context of Trent.) And regarding that, I much prefer Father McDonald’s sensitive, pastoral approach to the “demonization” of the Other. Moreover, like most of us, I know quite a few people with same sex attractions who are in very stable relationships, or even married now that this is legally possible, and I cannot imagine them being promiscuous, let alone engaging in acts of pedophilia or ephebophilia (although perhaps I am just naïve).

None of this seeks to excuse the clerical sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church or similar abuse scandals in other institutions, of course. Nor does any of it make it any more palatable for me to want even to imagine sexual practices between members of the same sex, or more precisely between members of my own sex, men, but that is a personal aversion which is perhaps a shortcoming (although I don’t believe it is) but in any event for which I feel no need to apologize to anyone.

Regarding priests, I do not believe the mere fact of having a same sex orientation should disqualify anyone from becoming a priest. Indeed, I strongly suspect that there are many very fine priests who fall in this category, including some who might surprise you.

Regarding the older parts of the Catholic tradition, I was attracted to the Catholic Church in my 20s precisely because of Vatican II, not despite it. Perhaps you think that makes me a “liberal” or a “progressive,” but I could not in conscience have joined a Church that had the attitude, for example, toward non-Christians, or indeed even toward non-Catholics, that I understood the pre-Vatican II Church to have. Why not? Because that attitude was contrary to everything in my experience and to my understanding of the nature of God.

In any living tradition—and surely our tradition is a living tradition, not a dead one—there will be argument about the goods that constitute the tradition as the tradition evolves, as it must if it is to survive and not become totally irrelevant and non-responsive to the human experience. The challenge is to know which “changes” are true to the tradition and which betray the tradition as the tradition navigates the challenges of the times. In the Catholic Church we believe that the Holy Spirit will guide the Church in discerning the difference.

Mark said...

TJM:

Our law school has had lectures and programs featuring “liberals” as well as “conservatives.” Some of the latter include Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas (the latter twice), Jay Sekulow, Nancy Grace, and Erik Erikson, to name a few. Yes, it is true, there have been a handful of colleagues who have “boycotted” such events over the years, which is sad, but this is a small minority. The Law School and the broader University has presented programs exploring all sides of various controversial issues, including gun control, same sex marriage, abortion, etc., etc. I have “liberal” colleagues whom the students praise for being very even-handed in their class discussions and general attitude toward “conservative” students, which is probably most of our student body. I have myself been complimented by students, including “conservative” students, for my fairness and ability to facilitate discussion of challenging and uncomfortable issues. Of course, we are not Harvard or Yale. Perhaps that is a blessing. Respectful disagreement of opinion is valued; disrespectful disagreement and demeaning slurs and insults are not, nor is disrespect for facts and truth. And this is all as it should be among aspiring lawyers. I do have one colleague who thinks about our faculty in the caricatured way you do, but he is just plain wrong, and I feel sorry for him as I do for you. Even so, I do recognize and will point out to others his many redeeming qualities. We all have such qualities, after all, whatever our shortcomings.

Speaking of redeeming qualities and turning now to Trump, I am not trying to make tendentious comparisons but just because a leader does some good things does not excuse the bad things the leader does. My mother grew up in Hitler’s Germany (she was a student at Cologne University when Cologne was being bombed to smithereens by the Allies, although the Cathedral was spared thank God, much as the Germans were bombing cities in Britain), and he did many good things indeed for the German people. Trump is a danger to the Republic. And yes, I agree, we are not entitled to our own facts. So, let me ask: Was Obama born in Kenya? Was there massive fraud in the 2020 general election? Both “facts” have been forcefully advocated by Trump (although he finally backed down—publicly at least—regarding the former claim). I have a lot of problems with Biden and Harris, as I do with the state of our politics generally, but that does not mean I would prefer Trump.





Michael A said...

Father K,
You are the one who is very concerned about antisemitism, when you believe it is committed by a right winger in a drunken stupor. I'm just simply informing you that four of your favorite female politicians are much more hostile to Jews and Israel than Gibson while they're sober. Does their antisemitism cause you any concern? Or maybe you're unaware of it? They do have a habit of throwing tantrums and screaming a lot so yes there is rage. A majority in that party went nuts back at the 2012 convention when a plank position was brought to the floor of the convention in support of Israel and the crowd erupted in boos. Lots of rage. The feelings from dumbocrats have only intensified since. If you're truly concerned about anti-Jewish fervor then you should start examining the leaders of the political party you support.

Thomas Garrett said...

Mark,

I sure have to be careful in responding to you, since you are so adept at analytically picking us all apart. You could say that I "fell back" on the "older part of tradition", but in my mind--and I freely admit that I haven't taken all those philosophy classes nor attended law school--in my mind, I was trying to demonstrate the there is more depth to the Catechism than the current text often reveals. If we are Catholics, we accept the entirety of Tradition, no matter how much some latter day experts insist that we need to "update".

I too have met priests who, through channels I would rather not divulge, had same-sex attractions. Some were OK, some were not--I'd rather not elaborate here. I stand by my conviction that same-sex attraction is incompatible to the priesthood, however. A priest is a leader, a father, a living sign of contradiction to the world. Of course, they are also sinners like the rest of us, but this is something deeper--it is an orientation that is contrary to our nature as men and women and, as such, it cuts too deeply for someone who has the burden of being the Alter Christus among us. Many saints and popes have written in agreement, however, I would recommend taking a look at this overview of some comments our last pope made on the subject:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6026964/

Whether it was the Traditional Mass or the "openness" of Vatican II that led you to the Church, I am glad you are a Catholic, although you seem to be more the exception than the rule. Then again, I wouldn't want to put you in a box. I look forward to reading your shredding reply...if you think it's worth the bother.

Thomas Garrett said...

Thank you Michael A.

All of our presidents, politicians and celebrities have faults and most of us know them, thanks to a very hungry (and scummy) news media. I only point this out because so many people have taken such "permanent" offense at locker-room style remarks revealed from the likes of Mel Gibson or Donald Trump, while members of "The Squad" get a pass for spewing obscenity and venom on a daily basis.

I still retch at the memory of pottymouthed Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib proudly boasting her intentions for Trump: "We're gonna impeach the m_therf_cker!"

Ugh.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A - There is a world of difference between anti-Semitism and expressing opposition to the actions and policies of the government of Israel.

You might consider: " Criticism of Israel and Its Policies Isn't Antisemitism"

https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-criticism-of-israel-and-its-policies-isn-t-antisemitism-1.9668517

Michael A said...

Father K,

I see. When Islamic fanatics want to nuke Israel it is a thoughtful political position. That's good stuff!

Hitler had the same ideas but when voiced by a Nazi it was bad and when voice by an Islamic communist it is a profound foreign policy idea.

Thanks for clearing things up. I'll be sure to carefully study your link.



Thomas Garrett,
Too bad you are mixed up in having to argue with someone who sees lots of wonderful homosexuals living sweet lives of monogamy with their partners. I believe it is considered to be an intrinsic evil and people who admire the righteous homosexual help to condone the dangerous sin. I believe what makes it so dangerous is that when judgement time comes we will have a choice to either pick God and heaven or cling to our sin and choose the devil and hell. Admiring the righteous sin(ner)is a stupid thing to do and will help to secure their eternal damnation. Keep up the good fight.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A - Hitler died three years (1945) before Israel was established (1948).

Please tell us how he had a plan to "nuke Israel" like the Islamic fanatics.

Things will be cleared up when YOU decide to give up your addlepated thinking and deal with reality.

Michael A said...

Father K,

Thanks for the history lesson. I didn't have to look up the year when Israel was established but addlepated got me. Next time select a better synonym from the drop down list.

You have a tough time following a story line. Just because people live in different centuries doesn't mean that they can't share the same beliefs. Does this make sense to you? For example you and Karl Marx might have a lot in common even though he wrote the Manifesto in 1848. A little history lesson for you too.

TJM said...

Mark,

Trump a danger to the Republic? LOL. He never violated or ignored court orders and kept pursuing appeals until he was vindicated. By the way, The Clintoons were the ones who started the whole birther issue, not Trump. You cannot bring yourself to say that Donald Trump did a good thing by not starting any hot wars like Obama did. Obama's Libya disaster resulted in Muslims flooding into other countries causing great harm. Think France and Germany. The modern Democratic Party is a far greater and pernicious danger to the Republic. They actually are a crime organization masquerading as a political party. Even Alan Dershowitz has commented on how corrupt they have become using "lawfare" to criminalize purely political conduct they do not like. As for the election, if you think a senile, grifter received more votes than either Obama and Hillary, I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Mark - The latest revelation, attorney John Eastman's six point plan to overthrow the election, shows even more clearly how dangerous Trump was (and is) to our Republic.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/09/21/trump-lawyer-memo-pence-outlined-procedure-overturn-election/5796803001/

and

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/21/politics/read-eastman-memo/index.html

Mark said...

Thomas Garrett:

I have noticed that you are much more rhetorically adept than you publicly give yourself credit for. -:)

Mark said...

Michael A:

Did you read the article Father Kavanaugh linked?

Also, please tell us where any of the four representatives you mention have called for Israel to be nuked?

I guess if being critical of Israeli government policies is antisemitic, then a lot of Jews must be antisemitic, and so must the Jews who signed the Jerusalem Declaration the article is about:

https://jerusalemdeclaration.org/

See especially paragraphs 11-15.

Regarding your response on homosexuals, my comment on stable relationships was made in the context of discussing a pastoral approach on the part of priests, for example in confession. On the larger question, there can still be much to admire in a person despite their shortcomings, or sins. As Bryan Stevenson says, “each of us is more than the worst thing we’ve ever done.”

Mark said...

TJM:

Until he was vindicated? But he wasn’t vindicated by the courts, was he? And so, when that failed, he tried another, extra-constitutional tactic (January 6 events), and even now he is still promoting the Big Lie. And if you actually believe that Lie, then I suggest that someone has already sold you some swamp land in Florida, specifically the Mar-A-Lago Swamp.

Read the latest Bob Woodward book “Peril.” Talk to General Millie. Of course, you will dismiss all of that as “fake news” I suppose. Well, then, if you do, go and read, or reread, Orwell’s “1984” to understand what has happened to you.


Mark said...

Father Kavanaugh:

Quite so! Thank you for the links.

Mark said...

TJM:

Regarding the Birther Lie specifically, see:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-perpetuated-birther-movement-years/story?id=42138176

Michael A said...

Mark
I’m fully aware that there is a large percentage of Israeli’s who say positive things about terrorist organizations and Islamic fanatics so I don’t need more proof that those opinions exist. I can’t comprehend them or the other many liberal ideas/policies lead to the ruin of a nation as they do/will here and in Israel.

Are you not aware of any outrageous statements and behavior by Squad members against Israel? Are you not aware that they have expressed support and have been photographed with terrorists from Hezbollah and Hamas? Those organizations call for the complete annihilation of Israel and when you associate with them then accept the baggage that comes along with it. So yes, nuke Israel is not just figuratively speaking but literal. Do you admire those “ladies”. Father K didn’t utter one word about his disapproval when I brought them up. I guess they have his full endorsement. Do they have yours? Why or why not?

https://www.newsweek.com/ilhan-omar-justifying-attacks-israel-condemning-israel-defending-against-them-opinion-1590627
https://www.timesofisrael.com/rashida-tlaib-poses-with-hezbollah-backing-anti-israel-activist/
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/07/rashida-tlaib-marc-lamont-hill-other-leftists-celebrate-palestinian-teen-from-murderous-jihadi-family
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2021/07/tlaib-tweets-support-for-palestinian-jihadist-calls-for-halt-to-us-aid-used-to-violently-oppress-palestinians

You should reread your comments about your familiarity with homosexuals that are now married because the law permits it. The way your paragraph reads you only left out the word, thankfully. I don’t know lots of homosexuals or homosexual partners, like you do. What I do know is that they are promiscuous and that have a strong penchant for young prey. If the Church sex scandals don’t convince you of this then you have a problem hearing and accepting the truth. Please don't tell me that they were not homosexuals,but pedophiles and that homosexual pedophilia is very rare. If that is the case then somehow the Church was able to achieve a statistical anomaly never seen in human history. Somehow we rounded up the .00001 in the population that expressed an interest in the priesthood and ordained them all.

Who in the hell is Brian Stevenson? Is he an authority on anything of importance? You quote him as though he is. He’s not a whacked out sociologist fighting for social justice is he? His quote makes some sense too bad liberals don't follow it. They are quick to cancel people for one thing they said or did 30 or 40 years ago. I find that ironic and amusing, don't you?

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A - You have never uttered one word of disapproval for Gavrilo Princip, so I suppose his actions have your full endorsement.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Nor FRMJK have we heard you disavow the Democrat party and our Catholic President who supports and enables the genocide of unborn children and the gruesome partial birth abortion and more than likely killing a post-born child if there is a botched partial birth abortion, whatever that means. In addition, no word on President Biden's debacle of a withdrawal of Afghanistan resulting in unknown suffering and deaths of people left behind and the loss of human rights of women. Not a word from you on the catastrophe of the southern border with illegal migrants seeking illegal entry into the USA. Nothing.

Michael A said...

Father K,

You truly are a radical partisan. I'm concerned that you put your politics before your religion. That's not good. Try to be Catholic first and then a dumbocrat. Nobody mentioned Gavrilo, unless I missed it. Your reference to him in this case really makes no sense. 99.9% of the world's population has no idea who he is. The personalities I mentioned are famous present day political leaders. Try to stay in this century. We were discussing Mel Gibson and the Squad and you pull Gavrilo out of left field. Again, you need to follow the story line.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A - I mentioned Gavrilo Princip - and you say NOTHING to condemn his or his dastardly deed! Therefore, you plainly support him and endorse him! Will you now unequivocally state that his deed and the entire Young Bosnia are to be condemned?

Fr. ALLAN McD - I have on this blog stated repeatedly my opposition to abortion. If you say otherwise, you are lying. But, you see, that's not the issue. I note as well that YOU have not denounced Princip. Therefore...

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

another failed try. I wrote you have not denounced the Democrat party or President Biden. I don't know Princip or anything about him but if he is a democrat and support Joe Biden, I denounce him.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Fr ALLAN McD - One of the saddest things you have ever posted: "I don't know Princip or anything about him..."

Michael A said...

Father K,
I think you might have failed your logic and reason classes in the seminary. I guess that you are claiming that you know nothing about The Squad members and therefore you’re unable to comment on them? You are however able to paste links that prove there are Jews in Israel that don’t support some of the policies of their government toward terrorists. If you’re able to discover the positions of people in foreign countries just maybe you can spend a little time to familiarize yourself a little more with the beliefs of some hags who are political leaders in your country that you implied are expressing sincere diplomatic thoughts.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Michael A - Your use of the term "hags" tells me all I need to know about you.

Michael A said...

☺️

You need better rejoinders. BTW, when the Squad is done with Israel, they'll be comin' for Catholic priests. Maybe you'll be able to escape by being a Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann. But don't count on it.

Mark said...

Michael A:

About Bryan Stevenson:

https://eji.org/bryan-stevenson/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Mercy_(book)

Many regard him as a real-life contemporary Atticus Finch (as in To Kill A Mockingbird).

Regarding the alleged promiscuous and predatory behavior of homosexuals, compared of course with the same for heterosexuals, please check out the studies and statistics and let us know what you find.

As a general matter, it might be a good idea to get to know some people in the “Other” category (homosexuals, Muslims, immigrants, etc.) before rushing to judgment about them. And before anyone says it, yes of course, this is true for Trump supporters as well. On that point, I know many people who support Trump and most of them are lovely, admirable people. They are certainly not "deplorables" as silly Hillary called them, sadly just mistaken or manipulated by the Manipulator-in-Chief. -:)

Michael A said...

Mark,

I understand that you now accept that The Squad associates itself directly with calls for violence against Israel, since you strangely make no mention of it in your reply. That’s good, we are making some progress.

Brian is a waste of time.

I have more personal observation about the same sex disorder than you know. And rather than it being a source of gayness as in happiness for me, it is a source of sadness as it is for the people who are “gays”. What I notice about many of them is the lost look in their eyes and rather than being gay/happy they are miserable and sad. This makes perfect sense to me, because they have been duped by the devil to immerse themselves in sin and it brings them the opposite of what the world/devil promises them. You should think about the topic from this theological angle as your starting point and then maybe you might discover a clearer reality about your gay friends.

The statistics were that the average homosexual male had as many as 500 sexual partners in his lifetime. They also have much shorter life expectancy likely attributed to repeated STD and suicide because they are "gay". And the word pederast doesn’t exist without reason. What falsified statistics now show I don't know. What I would be interested in since we’ve had gay marriage legalized is what are their numbers on domestic violence cases and divorce rates. My guess is that these stats are forbidden to keep or reveal.

BTW, my parents came legally to the USA in 1951 and my wife likewise in 2008.

TJM said...

Father K and Mark always cite leftist sources: USA Today, ABC, New York Times, etc. No wonder they are divorced from reality

Both of you should answer this question: Was it not a good thing that President Trump, unlike his predecessors, started no new hot wars? Isn't that to paraphrase your little wooden god, Biden: A big, f-ing deal? The problem with you two is that you are so blinded by your leftist ideology you cannot bring yourselves to acknowledge the good things he accomplished. Sad

TJM said...

Mark,

Bob Woodward is a partisan hack and a liar.

If you can bring yourself to read this, it may enlighten you:

https://onlinecolumnist.com/2020/09/14/woodward-a-multimillionaire-political-hack/

Mark said...

TJM:

Not so. You keep on doing this and I keep on correcting you. I do not cite only “left wing” sources. I have cited many different types of sources. You are either not paying attention, forgetting, or lying. I hope it is not the last one.

I will acknowledge the good things Trump has done when you acknowledge the good things Obama did and the good things Biden has done. Deal?

I read the piece on Woodward. In it I noticed the following sentence: “Woodward mentions nothing in his book about Dr. Fauci saying Trump did everything possible, didn’t keep anything from the public.” True, Fauci did say something along those lines. But then Curtis mentions nothing in his piece about what Fauci said later, after he was “liberated,” does he? So much for objectivity!


Mark said...

Michael A:

No, you don’t get to do that. You should not draw a negative inference from my failure to respond to one of your many points. Quite honestly, it is exhausting trying to keep up with all the vitriol and accusations. I do what I can, however. My wife asks me often why I bother. Well, it certainly isn’t to convince anyone posting here, but to help achieve some degree of balance for those many who read but never comment so they don’t get an entirely warped view of this Blog (or Catholics). I suspect the same is true of Father Kavanaugh, although I will let him speak for himself.

Oh, please do tell us why Bryan Stevenson is a waste of time. Inquiring minds want to know.

Sorry if I misunderstood your comment that “I don’t know lots of homosexuals or homosexual partners, like you do.”

Please cite the source of your “true” statistics. I infer from your reference to “what falsified statistics now show” that you discovered something that doesn’t quite fit your narrative. Facts are so inconvenient sometimes, aren’t they?

I also came legally to the United States, in 1979. But I would not cite that as evidence that I know enough immigrants to be able to make judgments.

Fr. Michael J. Kavanaugh said...

Mark - You have more patience than I... As you know, TeeJayEmm is off my radar permanently and Michael A is moving rapidly in that direction.

Yes, I, too, hope that some of the readers of this blog will find value in what I post. That's pretty much why I stay.