"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
- Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
"Father John Zuhlsdorf is a crank"
"Father Zuhlsdorf drives me crazy"
"the hate-filled Father John Zuhlsford" [sic]
"Father John Zuhlsdorf, the right wing priest who has a penchant for referring to NCR as the 'fishwrap'"
"Zuhlsdorf is an eccentric with no real consequences" - HERE
- Michael Sean Winters
"Fr Z is a true phenomenon of the information age: a power blogger and a priest."
- Anna Arco
“Given that Rorate Coeli and Shea are mad at Fr. Z, I think it proves Fr. Z knows what he is doing and he is right.”
"Let me be clear. Fr. Z is a shock jock, mostly. His readership is vast and touchy. They like to be provoked and react with speed and fury."
- Sam Rocha
"Father Z’s Blog is a bright star on a cloudy night."
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a scrappy blogger popular with the Catholic right.
- America Magazine
RC integralist who prays like an evangelical fundamentalist.
-Austen Ivereigh on Twitter
[T]he even more mainline Catholic Fr. Z. blog.
-Deus Ex Machina
“For me the saddest thing about Father Z’s blog is how cruel it is.... It’s astonishing to me that a priest could traffic in such cruelty and hatred.”
- Jesuit homosexualist James Martin to BuzzFeed
"Fr. Z's is one of the more cheerful blogs out there and he is careful about keeping the crazies out of his commboxes"
- Paul in comment at 1 Peter 5
"I am a Roman Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
I am a TLM-going Catholic, in no small part, because of your blog.
And I am in a state of grace today, in no small part, because of your blog."
- Tom in comment
"Thank you for the delightful and edifying omnibus that is your blog."- Reader comment.
"Fr. Z disgraces his priesthood as a grifter, a liar, and a bully. - - Mark Shea
“pro-choice devout Catholic” is a contradiction of terms. You are one or the other, not both.
It’s a diplomatic nicety. She hasn’t formally been appointed therefore she can’t formally be rejected. This is not to say that the Holy See did not reject her suggested candidacy.
Perhaps the rejection came before candidates were received, i.e., at the Vatican embassy in DC.
Duh? The trial balloon was shot by the Swiss Guard before the package became airborne.
It would be a major faux pas for Obama to send a diplomat to present credentials cold. Back-channel diplomacy is used to arrive at an acceptable candidate so that no one needs to be embarrassed by being returned persona non grata.
It was a useless question, designed to facilitate boxing the Vatican in. The correct response would be, “We were not aware that her name had been submitted.”
Perhaps these “Pro-Choice Catholics” whose names were submitted will not share some empathy with the unborn.
Their Vatican diplomatic careers were terminated by the host’s choice, before their career ever came to term.
I love Rome’s sense of irony!
“It’s a diplomatic nicety. She hasn’t formally been appointed therefore she can’t formally be rejected. This is not to say that the Holy See did not reject her suggested candidacy.”
Why should we believe anything Fr. Lombardi says?
“Their Vatican diplomatic careers were terminated by the host’s choice, before their career ever came to term.”
At what point does a fertilized career political sycophant become a human diplomat? And can career termination be permitted to save the health and life of the President?
Come on folks…. the truth is in the details. Ms.Kennedy was never formally submitted as a candidate (this seems to be a trend for Ms. Kennedy!) so she was never formally rejected. Her name was “floated” as a possible choice, and the Vatican re-iterated it’s position that candidates in conflict with the Church’s teachings would be rejected. It doesn’t take a genius to know that Ms. Kennedy is in serious conflict with Church teaching, so even the press were able to infer from this that she would be rejected were her name to be submitted. Somebody, somewhere just made the mistake of assuming she had been formally nominated, and Fr. Lombardi corrected this error.
BTW, does anybody really care that Caroline Kennedy WON’T be the next Vatican ambassador? I know I don’t.
My husband is a career diplomat. The procedure of floating the name of a potential ambassadorial candidate before the country to which they would be assigned is a common practice. It could be embarrassing for both countries to have a nominee rejected so they are rejected before they are officially nominated. Normally this is not made public, but most ambassadorial appointments don’t attract the attention that this one has.
If the Vatican approved of a pro choice ambassador wouldn’t it seem as if they have just given up on America?
One can’t be pro-choice (which is PRO-ABORTION) and devout at the same time. It’s a contradiction in terms.
One can’t be pro-choice (which is PRO-ABORTION) and be a practicing Catholic (who is practicing Catholicism) at the same time. It’s a contradiction in terms.
By definition, a person who has a PRO-ABORTION view is flirting with an action that would be excommunicable if they were to act personally upon it. Acting to legalize it (by voting? or political action?) is surely someplace in between.
[Unfortunately, the clause “who is practicing Catholicism” appears to be necesssary since there are at least 2 books out there with the title “Practicing Catholic” whose authors seem to have a big screw loose in the head. The authors of both those books are eager to call themselves “practicing Catholics,” but they don’t seem to be practicing Catholicism. At. All. One wonders what they are practicing. Or practicing FOR.]
James-Charles Noonan Jr in his book The Church Visible says something to the effect that the Holy See never accepts an Ambassador to the Holy See who is known to disagree with the Church on abortion, divorce, and something else which escapes my memory. Fr Jenkins CSC might note that the book does not specify that the Holy See restricts this veto to Catholics….
In all charity:
How many times did the Vatican deny Summorum Pontificum before its release?
Did not the Vatican deny that JPII considered retirement, only to have Cardinal Dsiwisz later admit that he did indeed consider it?
And in more recent history, did not an “unnamed Vatican official at the CDF” deny the upcoming Vademecum about apparitions and visions when the CDF is indeed working on such a document?
Let us always, however, err on the side of benefit of the doubt.
There’s an interesting trend I’ve noticed. It seems that those who describe themselves as “devout Catholics” are usually those who reject some fundamental Church teaching. Those Catholics who actually are faithful to the Church don’t feel the need to describe themselves as “devout.” Predicating oneself as such almost always seems to be a way to justify one’s heresy. “I’m a heretic, but I’m a devout Catholic and my faith means everything to me, so therefore my heresy is acceptable.” Pelosi does it, Biden does it, Kennedy does it (and you can pretty much put any first name in front of Kennedy and this would be true). I wonder why this is?
michigancatholic: “…One can’t be pro-choice (which is PRO-ABORTION) and devout at the same time. It’s a contradiction in terms.
One can’t be pro-choice (which is PRO-ABORTION) and be a practicing Catholic (who is practicing Catholicism) at the same time. It’s a contradiction in terms….”
It seems that Ms. Kennedy is a poly-oxymoron; doubly sharply-dull :^D
Why not keep personal attacks to themselves? If you want to argue about pro-choice candidates, calling them morons does nothing other than than look childish (which is what the word means anyway)
I have to confess to wondering if many fellow pro-lifers are more and more becoming about politics masked in a veil of superficial piety.
We don’t want to argue about pro-choice candidates, J. If you notice, we agreeing on what we think. And Guy used the term oxymoron, not moron. Look it up, it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
RE abortion and politics, the pro-life movement isn’t what started abortion off in the courts of the land in the first place. People who were keen to legalized murder did that in 1973. It was wrong from the get-go and it’s still wrong. We’d all just as soon return the situation to one of natural law and get it out of the courts anyway. IT never belonged there in the first place.
I’m just curious. Why is Obama INSISTING on nominating a pro choice Catholic to the Vatican? There isn’t one democrat out there that is pro life? It’s not like he’s going to be risking the “feminist” vote by nominating a single pro life person to the Vatican Ambassadorship. It’s a “gimme” b/c he can just tell the feminists, ‘hey, it’s the Vatican, I have to nominate a pro lifer”. This is also part of a bigger picture, that I’m trying to get my head around.
It\’s quite clear when the \”moron\” in of oxymoron is in bold what the true intent was. As for the word moron…it comes from the Greek moro which means an infant or small child. A moron is one with a childish mind.
Again, my point was to say that often underneath a seemingly (or what could otherwise be) rational argument lies a different emotional motivation for the contention here (and I\’m not talking about a justified emotional reaction to the act of abortion itself). The battle against pro-choice Catholic individuals devolves into something about condescension and condemnation, lacking in Christian charity.
ck dexter- That is the interesting point. The President is clearly making anyone who is a prochoice/proabortion catholic out to be his model of “Catholic” behavior. HHS sec’y has always been a Catholic. All of the floated names are prochoice catholics. He will try and shove a prochoice, progaymarriage Quisling catholic in prominent positions to sway the average Catholic to say “those are OK positions for a Catholic to take.”
And the irritating thing is the prochoice quislings are winning big right now. But if there isn’t a US ambassador to the Vatican, there is a statement right there too.
I don’t think anyone can blame the Kennedy’s or any other pro abortion Catholic politician for their positions. For years they’ve followed the same course, and, with few exceptions, nothing was done.
For years it’s been obvious to everyone that the real ogres in the Church were those who wanted Latin liturgy ad orientem.
Did not the Vatican deny that JPII considered retirement, only to have Cardinal Dsiwisz later admit that he did indeed consider it?
Comment by Kevin J. Symonds
I’m unaware of any Vatican statement on JPII retiring, but I do know that it was common knowledge during a consistory in the early 90’s that JPII asked the Cardinals whether he should step down.
Caroline Kennedy is no Catholic. The only person she is fooling is herself! Pray for her and for all the other so-called Catholic politicans especially this Sunday: Divine Mercy Sunday.
-I believe I may still have the documentation to prove this. Either way, I would swear in a courtroom the Vatican denied it. I remember reading it as clear as I am looking at this monitor in front of me.
I am interested to see people’s reaction to the so-called “vademecum” when it gets published. That is going to blow people out of the water.
>One can’t be pro-choice (which is PRO-ABORTION) and devout at the same time. It’s a contradiction in terms.<
How absurd. No sane person is “pro-abortion” although it’s a phrase that’s bandied about by wingnut right-wingers.
Government and religion should not mix, and anyone who desires this has absolutely no understanding of history.
Amy: Most of the readers here will agree with you that pro-abortion activists are insane.
I suspect you wrote what you did because you are (EUPHEMISM ALERT) “pro-choice”. You would be therefore be pro-abortion, but don’t like the label or implications.
There really are people who are pro-abortion. If you sincerely don’t know that, and if you have been paying an attention at all, then you may be deluding yourself. I give you the benefit of doubt on that.
Point 2. I think you should review your history if you think that government and religion should not “mix” (which isn’t a very helpful word for such a topic).
But I personally know some who are pro-abortion and call themselves Catholic. They say things like, “that baby would be better off dead,” and “the parents could have prevented this from happening.”
But I personally know some who are pro-abortion and call themselves Catholic.
In case someone hasn’t heard this one. … Abraham Lincoln was asked how many legs a dog would have if you called it’s tail a leg. He replied “Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.”
To be pro-choice is to condone abortion. Why would someone condone something they were not “for” (pro=for), something that they did not approve of?
Also, we are merely asking politicans to get their morality right; no-one is calling for a mediaeval-style monarchy or a theocracy.
Actually, do let’s call for that. Democracy seems to be failing.