The Tablet… losers!

Recently Fr. Tim Finigan gave a thoughtful talk to the Catholic Theological Association of Great Britain about parallels/connections between the phenomena of “new movements” and the Catholic blogosphere.  He is onto something.

Even a cursory glance shows that both new movements and the growing influence of the blogosphere (which is overwhelmingly orthodox and traditionally Catholic) come from the grassroots.  They are challenges to the status quo. They reveal that people are not getting from “normal” paths what Catholics need.

They aren’t getting what they need from The Tablet either.  People are turning to the alternative Catholic media and a more reliable message.

Very well placed people are turning away from The Tablet and its like.  There is an alternative media now.

In the wake of Fr. Finigan’s talk in Durham, comes this from The Tablet (aka RU-486) with my emphases and comments.

Let’s start look at this piece from RU-486 in the midst of Catherine Pepinster’s whine that public discourse is getting too rough.  And this from the The Tablet!  The Tablet, that oh so civilly suggested that having people strike the breast during the new translation of the Confiteor of Mass was tantamount to child abuse (HERE).

[...]

[T]he use of social media, particularly blogs and tweets, where instant reaction is coarsening debate. [Sometimes instant reaction is sparked by other people posting idiocies.  Sometimes instant reaction sharpens debate by keeping the other side accountable.] And it’s evident not just in politics but in religion too, particularly in comment over the same topics that cause such vitriol in politics: life and death issues, sex, marriage, gays. [Oh no.  No one should permit that there ever be spoken a sharp word about those issues. Imagine speaking up about mortal sins!] Friends who work at The Guardian tell me that great care has to be taken in monitoring its website whenever Catholics write opinion pieces, given the aggression of many readers’ instant responses to them. [Ehem.. I'll wager all the money in my pocket right now that if we were to study and group those comments, the vast, truly vast majority of them would be in the category of vicious anti-Catholic remarks rather than sharp comments by committed, faithful Catholics.  Yes, there are "orthodox" Catholics who behave like jerks too.  I lock them out of my combox regularly.  But in the main, the really nasty stuff is from liberal catholics.]

Critics of the Church and of Catholics are not only to blame. Nasty, unChristian remarks abound within the Catholic world. [Yes, they do.  And I'll go head to head with the writer on what it is like to get hate mail.] No wonder one Catholic journalist says he won’t read the most vicious sites of the Catholic blogosphere any more: he views them as an occasion of sin. [Boo hoo.  Then get out and find something else to do.  But wait.... (CUE CREEPY ORGAN CHORDS)... there's more!] But what’s worrying is that Rome is apparently keen to read them too. [Ooooo!]

The Vatican itself has become adept at using new media [Sorry... but here is another clue that the writer is clueless... "Vatican" and "adept" and "social media" in the same sentence?  Really?] – check out YouTube, its tweets, its websites – realising the power of these twentyfirst-century opinion formers. [In "the Vatican" I think the byword is "Yesterday's technology tomorrow!".  Okay, I am being a little too hard.  The byword is really "We update technology every 75 years, whether it needs it or not."  But here is the real problem... and this is KEY:] The word is that Vatican officials are gleaning much of their “knowledge” of the Church beyond Rome from blogs, including those that have made spite their signature dish.  [Ooooo!  Translation: The blogosphere is an alternative source and it is more trusted than The Tabletand other dying liberal dinosaurs. They are losing. They know that they are losing. They are running scared.]

If we have reached a stage when Rome’s views are shaped by bloggers’ vitriol rather than the opinions of its nuncios and its bishops, let alone sounding out the people in the pews who pray and pay, then something deeply distorted is developing. It’s certainly no way for Rome to learn to talk human.  [Or even to talk English.]

My course, instant response?

Losers!

When liberals start whining that we should tone down the rhetoric, that we should all make nice on other, blah blah blah, it means that they sense they are losing the argument.  Conservatives/traditionalists/Catholics are supposed to lie down and let the liberals kick us to bloody bits and then, ever so nicely, say “Thank you!”.

The Tablet is increasingly irrelevant.  What The Tablet is peddling is passé.  A big shift is coming.  They know it.  They are panicking.

Finally, RU-486, more people will read what I, and men like Fr Finigan, and other good Catholic bloggers write in a day than will read your bitter pill in a month.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Biased Media Coverage, Our Catholic Identity, The Drill, The future and our choices, Throwing a Nutty and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to The Tablet… losers!

  1. Marianna says:

    I have heard that The Tablet’s circulation is falling; if that is true, I hope it’s because its same-old same-old liberal rubbish is no longer to people’s tastes. Unfortunately, though, I get the impression (and it is only my impression) that very large numbers of Catholics here in the UK would broadly support Tablet-style liberal positions and that the (rumoured) drop in circulation could in part be accounted for by the fact that so many of these people, thanks to our “dumbed-down” education system, hardly read any more, and certainly not enough to make it worth their while buying a “Catholic” weekly.

  2. leutgeb says:

    The whole thing with lay people who write blogs is that we are precisely the people praying and paying in the pews, who previously had no voice and were all alone. Sniff. Now we can organise….

    This week ‘s editorial has a truly opaque final paragraph, but before we get to that point contains the wonderful idea that the CDF have some explaining to do. Ha!

    The Tablet is almost solely responsible for spawning a new genre of British Catholic satirical blogging. Blognics will soon need to has opportunities for Catholic stand- up.

  3. Matt R says:

    A couple things struck me. The websites for RU-486 and the Fishwrap are extremely unappealing layouts; it’s like the people that work in their design departments are the same age as the people they praise. Contrast that to the NC Register and the Catholic Herald; it irritates me when a site doesn’t keep up in that area and I’m sure it bugs others too. The blogosphere can cover everything everywhere about all things Catholic-good, bad, and ugly-while a newspaper such as RU-486 is quite selective in its coverage. If something they are embarrassed about (because it weakens their position) is covered, it’s a few days late and a couple pounds short (and only covered because folks online covered it and RU-486 felt left out!) Go figure, the bloggers are very willing to provide contact information for the involved clergy. More and more is that is to offer thanks for good work, but when necessary, it is the contact information for the bishop when a problem arises. RU-486 has no one to complain to, since the stuff they lament is supported by the Holy See.

  4. “The Vatican itself has become adept at using new media” There’s coffee all over the floor that I now have to clean up…I nearly died laughing…

    A warped version of the truth will not attract, only the Truth itself will attract, poor misguided souls.

  5. Bea says:

    I guess they are afraid they can’t reach people with their liberal “propaganda”
    Us “sheep” hear His voice of what is Truth and THAT we will follow.

    Love that allegory, Fr. Z .
    Tablet: a bitter pill to swallow

  6. Philangelus says:

    Okay, so let’s see. In the “spirit of Vatican II” we have to move things away from the hierarchy and toward the laity because “the people” have their own special spirituality and needs, and the hierarchy over at The Vatican doesn’t understand, and therefore we should do things to emphasize our community spirit at the cost of sacrality and an understanding of the numinous. The liberal emphasis has been the people, in other words, rather than the elite.

    Ah, but now that we have blogs, The People *are* speaking, all the people, and now that the elite liberals can no longer tell everyone what it is The People want — now it’s bad to have The People speaking and chatting with one another on their blogs. Very bad. We need a hierarchy of reporters instead to tell us what is good and holy and true.

    And I guess according to this article, the Vatican is now siding with The People, and that’s bad…?

    Vatican officials are gleaning much of their “knowledge” of the Church beyond Rome from blogs

    Yes, and we’re very glad if the Vatican is reading about the issues that concern us and our take on it. Thanks for noticing!

  7. LisaP. says:

    There’s always been strong communal censorship in public discourse — at its best, it’s called civility. But in recent years, particularly in some communities, there have been other forces at work, so that many people almost behave schizophrenically — thinking and speaking in one way when they are among others and thinking differently in the car on the way home. It’s not just that we self-edit our speech, we self-edit our thoughts, not allowing ourselves to “go” certain places when we are in company with those that might excoriate us, pressure us, give us bad grades, fire us, etc. It’s all very Orwell / Soviet (thankfully not to those extremes, but definitely on the continuum).

    So the good of the internet is that the anonymity gives people the opportunity to let themselves speak without so much fear, and therefore to think without so much fear. This is great for free thought. However, it can also abrogate those earlier forms of useful self-editing, like self-editing in the name of civility, charity, etc.

    To equate, though, self-editing in the name of civility with self-editing in the name of PCness is to firmly place yourself on the side of the thought police, using the fear of an uncivil and unkind society to try to gather back into chains free thought.

    Won’t last, though. As long as we don’t value free thought and speech as a whole society, the internet won’t allow us to get around our collective decision. The internet is becoming less free and less useful than it used to be — search engines, for example, rarely lead you directly to useful sources any more on any substantive subjects. It will come and go for awhile and individuals push through again and systems put them down again, over and over — people have ingenuity. But I’d rely more on ham radio than on the internet for our future freedom.

  8. majuscule says:

    I was just curious and went to take a look:

    Log-in To The Tablet

    Your email
    Password

    First Time Log-in
    In order to view the pages the Tablet website, you will need to register using your subscriber reference number, email address and create a unique password. You will then receive a welcome email containing a link to activate your subscription. If you do not receive this email, please try registering again.

    no, thankyouverymuch

  9. wmeyer says:

    Vatican adept at using new media? LOL! Nor even the USCCB.

    If the officials in the Vatican are reading the blogs, I can only wonder if these are people arming themselves to argue (yet again) against most, if not all, of the points raised in the new media. The better to give us another round of Spirit of Vatican II.

    Sorry, but I am rather pessimistic about the practicality of conveying our concerns to people who may be likely to care.

  10. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Wow, Father. I never thought you could increase my interest in reading the Tablet and such: if their sites are unappealing, my dial up connection can read them the same as the fanciest apple box can.

    On the other hand, the reason I read the NCR online (rarely) and National Public Radio (the secular professional-sounding arm of the same monolith) is to learn what odd arguments they’ve cooked up now. The nutty the NCR threw, demanding the resignation of Bishop Finn, comes to mind. The appointment of Archbishop Cordileone is another.

    God bless,

    Chris

  11. Josephus Muris Saliensis says:

    Dear Fr Z,

    Thank you for this accurate view. The funny thing however is that even though, as you rightly state: “more people will read what … good Catholic bloggers write in a day than will read your bitter pill in a month”, it remains true that blogger are obsessed with The Tablet and NCR et al. If they are so irrelevant ( and they are in the the parishes, believe me) why are they given so much credence online? Far more coverage here than they get on their own website!

    However, despite the irony, I think this is a good thing. For all their intellectual ineptitude, they act as a formal opposition in debate (a bit like the British Labour party in parliament) and thus keep traditional bloggers keen and on their toes.

    So thank you, Liberal MSM, you too are an unlikely agent of God’s plan!

    Brick by Brick.

  12. Indulgentiam says:

    “let alone sounding out the people in the pews who pray and pay,” seriously?
    um, the people in the pews who pray and pay ARE the ones sounding of on the blogs.

  13. PostCatholic says:

    Sometimes instant reaction is sparked by other people posting idiocies. Sometimes instant reaction sharpens debate by keeping the other side accountable.

    Well, quite. Thanks for tolerating me.

    I believe you’re a Randall Monroe fan? Are you familiar with number 386?

    [ROFL! I love that one. Touché. And you're contributions are welcome. You are going to come around one day, and I want to be there to see it.]

  14. makreitzer says:

    An English friend of mine takes issue with most of what appears in The Tablet. But those kinds of papers are useful for knowing the enemy. After all, the heretics inside the Church do the most damage and it’s useful to have a foreign “fishwrap” to provide the same service as our own dissent rag, National Catholic Reporter. I read it regularly just to see the heathens rage.

  15. jessicahoff says:

    Oh, is ‘The Tablet’ supposed to be Catholic then? How is one supposed to know, there’s no sign of it is most of what is in there.

  16. Dr. Edward Peters says:

    Right again, Pater. When print media types complains about the internet and blogs, it almost always boils down to their whining that they no longer have a monopoly on the public expression of views. Remember when all we had was a letter the editor as recourse? Short, edited-down, and appearing only months after the offending piece was published and promoted? Those were dark days.

    I luv the net. [And the net always speaks highly of you.]

  17. robtbrown says:

    IMHO, the media monopoly was primarily when there was only news from the 3 TV networks. Back in the 50′s and early 60′s US cities commonly had more than one newspaper providing differing views. There were writers who cast an acute eye on events, motivated more by common sense, humor, and a love of phrase making than left or right ideology–Jimmy Breslin, Jim Murray (sports), Tom Wolfe, et al.

  18. Supertradmum says:

    Five media groups own most of the Western worlds news sources.

    Trouble. Blogs are important. The Tablet is not important.

    Poor things at The Pill, but it is time they consider their immortal souls and come back to Rome.

  19. Gregory DiPippo says:

    The Counter-Revolution will also not be televised, but it will be live-blogged!

  20. frjim4321 says:

    On the other hand, the reason I read the NCR online (rarely) and National Public Radio (the secular professional-sounding arm of the same monolith) is to learn what odd arguments they’ve cooked up now. The nutty the NCR threw, demanding the resignation of Bishop Finn, comes to mind. The appointment of Archbishop Cordileone is another. Chris C-Z

    [I knew he couldn't lay off this one... o{]:¬) ]

    NCR and NPR belong to the same “monolith?” By what name is your monolith called? The monolith of rational, intelligent, educated adults? People who believe in science?

    What’s an “argument” that NPR made in the past seven days that you have heard and can document? There is no evidence anywhere that the content of NPR programs is in any way biased. If there is, where has it been published professionally?

    +Finn was found guilty of endangering children, as such he should resign. There is very little to discuss about that. He’s done, and has lost whatever credibility he ever had with his people in KC. [Behold! His psychic powers. Your Earth's yellow sun has given me many abilities, but that one eludes me.] He can no longer be effective there or anywhere else as ordinary. Time for him to go.

    +Cordileone I have more sympathy for with respect to the entrapment for possible DUI. It doesn’t take much to blow a 0.08, and I believe that threshold was lowered many due to pressure from insurance companies that stood to gain quite a bit.

    That being said, for SF I would rather have seen a prelate who would tend take a more pastoral stance toward the human issues in his diocese. Of course the DUI is not a sufficient cause to retract his assignment; but it will surely undercut his efficacy in the role at least during his first few years.

  21. frjim4321 says:

    many = mainly

  22. Southern Catholic says:

    Many in Congress, including Mr. DeMint, have argued that NPR’s serving of news comes with a heaping side dish of squishy liberal ideology. And that’s true to a point. In terms of assignments and sensibility, NPR has always been more blue than red, but it’s not as if it has an overt political agenda. Working in public broadcasting probably disposes you to certain kinds of government assistance — to public broadcasting, for example. – David Carr, The New York Times 2011

    It’s simple frjim, the Democrat’s favor increases to the budget to NPR, while Republican’s favored to cut there budget. So NPR is going favor the people that are going to cut there check. Besides that, whenever NPR does a report on the Vatican or something Catholic, they use the Fishwrap as there correspondents for their reports. Everybody knows how far left the fishwrap is. It should be really clear that NPR has a liberal bias.

    If Bishop Finn needs to step down, so does pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage priests, because of the scandals they bring to the church. [There it is!]

  23. Matt R says:

    NPR switches back and forth between being slightly liberal and slightly conservative (on fiscal policy anyways, depending on who’s in the White House). But everyone is going to be slightly biased.It’s the best journalism outfit based in the USA, trying hard to get the facts the first time. “This American Life” did an entire show disavowing the Foxconn report, and telling listeners that it wasn’t up to standard. I can’t think of another media group that would do the same thing save Al Jazeera. It’s not perfect, but hey, at least NPR doesn’t regularly operate like Fox, CNN, the NY Times, and the rest of the lot. Of course NPR isn’t going to bite the hand that feeds; perhaps they might sing a different tune if the GOP laid off their attempts to cut it. Also, the GOP would love to turn off NPR if it meant big media companies could then pipe in talk radio, which of course usually supports the Republicans, without any alternatives.
    The reason I follow blogs, NPR (when I have the time), and networks like Al Jazeera is because, as Supertradmum pointed out, five companies control most of the media. Let’s see: News Corp, Disney, Time Warner, Viacom, and Bertelsmann (of Germany). That’s down from 6 ten years ago, and 50 50 years ago. Yikes.

  24. Clinton says:

    The parish of my college years gave me an insight into how rags like the NCR and the Tablet
    stay afloat. That parish was run by a once-proud order, now sadly heterodox. The literature
    rack in the vestibule was kept well stocked with dozens of current issues of the Fishwrap,
    along with a few of Our Sunday Visitor. A young lady I was dating at the time did volunteer
    work at the rectory, and I recall several times where I helped her with her chores. One of her
    tasks was to restock the racks when the new NCRs were delivered, which always meant taking
    a stack of two dozen or so old issues to the trash. Oddly enough, the OSVs would be gone, but
    the NCRs? The parish couldn’t even give those away! At the time, I wondered at the
    waste, but now I see that by maintaining dozens of subscriptions to a rag no one in the parish
    wanted, the order was merely doing its bit to help keep its preferred Fishwrap in business.

  25. joan ellen says:

    Fr. Z said “People are turning to the alternative Catholic media and a more reliable message.” I am. This topic, media, especially alternative Catholic media, is interesting. i.e., where is it, the future of media and communications going?

    Even a couple of weeks ago I was worried about the Internet’s future. And the whole communications system(s). Then I read on a blog (can’t recall it) that cyberspace is too vast for it to go down. When I ponder that, and having had the experience of this blog and it’s reports/images on ‘spacey things’, and my daughter recently mentioning the Universe and it’s constellation, I decided that this ‘geek’ was probably more on target than not.

    The idea of the constellation, it seems, says that no matter what happens to the earth, the earth should enjoy some sort of stability because it will be protected by the constellation. Therefore, the ‘geeks’ notion may be correct on that basis. The Internet is here to stay, as another commenter on the same blog said, if not, another one would be started up. If the Internet is here to stay, then so is “…alternative Catholic media…”. And that seems like good news, God willing.
    Sorry for the ramble, Fr., but this topic seems to be so now .

  26. frjim4321 says:

    [I knew he couldn't lay off this one... o{]:¬) ]

    True, as you know prelates that endanger children is a subject that gets my dander up.

    [Behold! His psychic powers. Your Earth's yellow sun has given me many abilities, but that one eludes me.]

    Thank you, but I claim only the kind of insight that is available to terrestrials. I appreciate the compliment, though.

    If Bishop Finn needs to step down, so does pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage priests, because of the scandals they bring to the church. [There it is!]

    Well, that would perhaps be so if the actual endangering of children (which may have resulted in an additional offense after the first report of kiddie porn on the priest’s computer) is on a par with opining on a blog that (1) the election of pro-choice candidates may result in fewer abortions than the election of lying anti-choice politicians whose policies may result in more abortions and (2) if there were any real evidence that the extension of equal protection under the civil law to same sex couples in any way endangered canonical and/or canonical marriage. As you know I don’t speculate on these topics from the ambo or in any other venue that would cause consternation among the faithful; in fact I would consider that pastoral malpractice.

    I suspect that those who have experienced sexual abuse, or their parents or other family members, would consider it offensive that some of those of the more traditional perspective consider those heinous acts no more serious that stating a contrarian opinion on one of the many religiously oriented internet blogs.

    [You have put your foot wrong in several places. First, review the topic of this entry. You have pulled it down into a rabbit hole, along with your straw man. Second, you brought more than one straw man to your rabbit hole. For example, do you think that anyone here thinks that bishops should protect or excuse priests who sexually abuse children? Really? I thought you had read this blog long enough to know that that truly stupid notion would have been quashed by my past posts on the vile topic. That notion is so stupid, as a matter of fact, that I am sure a man of your obvious intellect would avoid it. Third, if what you are writing here, with your straw-men-stuffed rabbit hole, is some sort of blow-back for my comments on the Fishwrap's treatment of Bp. Finn, then I suggest you go back and discover the actually point of my entry about the Fishwrap's treatment Bp Finn. Cheers! (... as they say around here)]

  27. frjim4321 says:

    2nd canonical = sacramental

  28. Sissy says:

    frjim4321 said: “if there were any real evidence that the extension of equal protection under the civil law to same sex couples in any way endangered canonical and/or canonical marriage. ”

    That’s a straw man argument, Father. I don’t think anyone has ever argued that allowing homosexual to “marry” civilly hurts canonical marriage. But it does hurt homosexuals, and it most certainly hurts the children they will be raising. And it will hurt society overall. If you think this agenda will end with only homosexuals getting “equal protection”, you are gravely mistaken. .

  29. frjim4321 says:

    Okay, Sissy, so we disagree on that, but we can disagree civilly and my having a different opinion than yours is not tantamount to exposing children to danger which I thought was the topic here which was raised by Southern Catholic and seconded by o{]:¬).

  30. Sissy says:

    Father Jim, that was my point. Homosexual marriage does expose children to danger. The largest (16,000 subjects) academic study of families ever done in the US found that children raised in same-sex households suffer any number of negative impacts as compared to children with single parents and children raised by married couples. There are all sorts of ways that children can suffer harm; harm isn’t limited to sexual exploitation.

  31. Sissy says:

    Sorry, Father Jim, I need my glasses. There were actually 3,000 subjects in the UT study that showed children of same-sex couples doing more poorly on numerous measures of well-being. Other subjects came from a “study of studies” that debunked the previous studies promoted by the APA (but nothing approaching 16,000…. a slip of the typing fingers). My apologies for misstating the numbers.

  32. frjim4321 says:

    My I please have the reference for that study?

  33. Southern Catholic says:

    (1) the election of pro-choice candidates may result in fewer abortions than the election of lying anti-choice politicians whose policies may result in more abortions

    How so? The POTUS brought back the Mexico City Policy and increased funding to Planned Parenthood, so in other words, more money and an increase to the availability of abortion providers = more abortions.

  34. Pingback: Om katolsk (og annen) blogging » EN KATOLSK WEBLOG

  35. MPSchneiderLC says:

    Why don’t we just ignore the Tablet and the NCReporter?
    I worryt hat every time we counter their arguments so vehemently, we give them undeserved credibility.
    Plus, thee is plenty each of us can do to build his faith without getting into arguments like these. I agree that the orthodox are usually more civil but often people on our side still fight it like a political argument. The Church is not divided into Liberal and Conservative (like politics) but rather orthodox believers and those who have left this belief (even if they haven’t officially left the Church).

  36. Scott W. says:

    We’ve already had a foretaste of the feast of ashes and scorpions to come by approving same-sex “marriage”. We’ve seen people fired from their jobs for refusing to affirm these lies. We’ve seen charities forced out of doing their work. We’ve seen a high-school student hauled before the principle and bullied for hours on end because he wrote a pro traditional-marriage article for the school newspaper that he was asked to write. And we’ve seen one ex-lesbian that converted to Christianity that had to flee the country with her daughter because a fogbound judge awarded custody to the creepy ex-”spouse” with no biological connection to the daughter. These aren’t just hiccups, this is a zero-sum game. For same-sex unions (no matter what you want to call it) to win, true marriage must lose.

  37. Sissy says:

    Southern Catholic, I’m not sure where Fr. Jim gets his idea that poverty causes abortion. The Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) itself has reported that abortions are nearly 4 times higher in states where Medicaid funds cover abortions. Here’s a study that demonstrates that the opposite is true:

    http://www.consistent-life.org/povertyabortion.pdf

  38. Indulgentiam says:

    frjim4321: “Well, that would perhaps be so if the actual endangering of children (which may have resulted in an additional offense after the first report of kiddie porn on the priest’s computer) is on a par with opining on a blog that”

    Are you kidding? The fact that all here know you are a Priest and yet you continue to opine all manor of heterodox views is SCANDALIZING the faithful. You are not only a Priest when you stand behind the ambo. Don’t you know Who you represent? The weight that your words carry b/c of Who you represent? You think your just another joe on a blog sounding off? You need a reality check. That collar, if you still wear one, and that title (Father) came with a VOW of loyalty and obedience to ALL the Bride of Christ teaches. You continually “opine” disloyalty and that is a scandal from the ambo, in a blog ANYWHERE.
    The Lord bless you and keep you,…
    Our Lady guard you and guide you.

  39. robtbrown says:

    FrJim4321′s comments lead me to think that he assumes a certain neutrality exists in a secular society. Anyone who has spent any time in a secular occupation knows this is not be true.

    I still remember two anti-Catholic remarks made by professors when I was at KU. One was blatant, the other a bit subtle (and a distortion of history). And there were incidents witnessed by others, who went to the Dean–and were basically laughed out of his office.

    Sodomy is traditionally considered a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance. Offices often take up collections for wedding gifts. Will there be collections (and subsequent public congratulations) for sodomite unions? Will career military personnel be forced to socialize with homosexual couples?

  40. Sissy says:

    robtbrown: I think Fr. Jim doesn’t realize that the state has a legitimate interest in marriage, and that interest is not assisting people to realize their sexual inclinations. The leftist agenda really has nothing to do with homosexual “rights” at all (see as how homosexuals have all the same rights as every one else). It’s a much more insidious agenda intended to destroy society from within. The real prize, as someone noted on this blog a while back, is gaining access to children. I personally know of at least three fine, loving foster couples who have been forced to drop out because they will not sign statements attesting to the claim that homosexual couples can provide a home for children that is equal to that provided by a heterosexual couple. We know that wonderful Catholic and other Christian adoption agencies are having to close down. These are not neutral or beneficial results of the “homosexual rights” agenda. If Father Jim’s dream ever comes true (that the Supreme Court will someday agree with him that unnatural “marriage” is required by the 14th amendment), then we will see much worse calamities than we are already witnessing.

  41. Scott W. says:

    Will there be collections (and subsequent public congratulations) for sodomite unions? Will career military personnel be forced to socialize with homosexual couples?

    There was a discussion with one of those banging the drum that homosexual “marriage” won’t affect anyone else. It was over the ex-lesbian that fled the country with her daughter and this person went on about how she and the people who helped her escape were just criminals. So we squeezed him a little and asked if he would comply with a law that took heterosexual couples’ children away and assigned them by lottery to homosexual couples in the name of “family diversity”. After ducking the question for awhile, he finally confessed that he would. He also admitted that he would have returned an escaped slave to his owner under the Fugitive Slave Act; saying that he would accept the lesser injustice to avoid the greater. How it was a lesser injustice to obey a pro-slavery law was hardly obvious, but the legalism to the point of insanity was obvious and very telling–the pro-same-sex union folk have no god but Caesar. So yes, if all this is legalized, you can expect the enforced socialization because, you know, it’s the law.

  42. Pingback: MONDAY AFTERNOON EDITION | Big Pulpit

  43. LisaP. says:

    Scott W.,

    Yes, that’s why I worry when I hear conservatives make heavy reference to “rule of law” with no other discussion around it. Rule of law is good when law has a good basis. I imagine I’m a little too far on one side — I tend to feel every law needs to have a moral justification I can understand before I feel I need to obey it. But it worries me that I see so many good people in this country who don’t distinguish between legal and right (or, for that matter, between illegal and wrong, between illegal and right, and between illegal and right as in your slavery analogy). More than that, I’m afraid young people *can’t* distinguish.

  44. LisaP. says:

    Sissy,
    What a horrible thing to hear. I know some families that have adopted after being foster parents. It is a very, very hard thing to do inherently, then you add having to comply with a system that is overwhelmingly bureaucratic and it’s beyond the ability of most people. To narrow the field, or distort the field, of willing and eligible foster parents with something like that is addled and cruel.

  45. Sissy says:

    Scott W said: “Rule of law is good when law has a good basis.”

    Thomas Jefferson agreed with you: “[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”

  46. Ingatius says:

    Father, you are right to point out that the Tabletistas are losing the battle in the Church. But I have to say that there is a lot of hatred and venom that is found on self-proclaimed traditionalist or conservative Catholic blogs. [So? That's not the point. And when it comes to true venom and the amount of venom, nothing beats a liberal.] It is easy to dress it up as enthusiastic rhetoric but the reality is that it is no great advertisement for the Faith and it does not bring souls closer to Christ.