"The great Father Zed, Archiblogopoios"
-
Fr. John Hunwicke
"Some 2 bit novus ordo cleric"
- Anonymous
"Rev. John Zuhlsdorf, a traditionalist blogger who has never shied from picking fights with priests, bishops or cardinals when liturgical abuses are concerned."
- Kractivism
"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.”
- Comment
"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."
- Comment
"A cross between Kung Fu Panda and Wolverine."
- Anonymous
Fr. Z is officially a hybrid of Gandalf and Obi-Wan XD
- Comment
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
That’s it!
Forget the way to San Jose, I’m moving to Santa Rosa.
And Bishop Vasa will or will not be backing the wall street funded, pro-choice Romney?
I’ll drink to that. Maybe that will help fortify me for tonight’s blather.
If our priests and bishops would leave it at that, I think we would be a lot better off. Instead, around election time I hear sermons that tend to leave that part out and make other “social issues” seem of vital importance. It’s easy to see how pro-choice liberals get elected by Catholics.
mamajen: Sad but true. Social justice is the catch-all code word for pay-no-attention-to-his-faults, vote for him even though he supports abortion, because he wants to take more tax money to distribute as welfare.
If only there were more people who agreed with Bishop Vasa on this…
The difficulty is that the current Catholic population has been coddled with years of no accountability, follow-your-malformed-conscience teaching, and even bishops who voted for O.
From what well of strength can most of them be expected to find the strength to vote against O now? And why would they? Whose example, exactly, would they be following?
It seems that many hierarchs don’t understand the nature of political discourse. We have a polarized situation in which it is expected for democrats to be pro-choice and republicans to be anti-choice. The fact is the president has little control over the constitution – it is what it is. On the other hand the principal driver for abortion is poverty, and little is said from either party regarding that crucial issue. It seems that the most conscientious vote would be for the candidate least likely to accelerate the explosion of poverty in our land thus further reducing the rate of abortion.
I’ve been saying that for decades. That’s why they have to be stopped at the bottom, before they make their way to the top. An abortionist isn’t fit to be dog catcher much less a senator or President.
May God grant Bishop Vasa a long life in service with the church. Wish he were my Bishop.
frjim4321:
In the first place, it is constitutionally given to the president to nominate and appoint justices to the Supreme Court, the institution which we may thank for legalized abortion in the United States, (not the Constitution).
Secondly, I’m dismayed that a priest would use the term “anti-choice” is af it could possibly make him seem more sophisticated in anyway. I would think that the very least thing that a priest should be pro…is life.
Finally, is poverty really the principal driver for abortion as opposed to a culture wherein sex has become a pastime and women are regarded as mere playthings by (some) men (more than others), to be taken advantage of by them at will and cast aside just as quickly? Has it nothing to do with a culture that regards children as an inconvenience rather than a blessing amongst affluent men and women alike, who live for pleasure, success, and independence rather than home and hearth?
It seems to me that the most conscientious vote would be for the candidate least likely to appoint leftist justices to the Supreme Court and most likely to address fundamental values that we, as a people, have lost sight of.
The only quibble there is for one to have with Bishop Vasa’s quote is the fact that it is gramatically incorrect. He ought to have said, “particularly one who claims to be Christian”. Apart from that, however, he’s got it quite right, hasn’t he?
I have seen a lot of conjecture on this blog about President Obama being pro-abortion but haven’t seen any facts to back it up. Could someone provide proof or point me to a site that supports this line of thinking? I’m having a hard time believing this viewpoint.
Trad Catholic Girl:
There’s no conjecture. See this (from this very blog) regarding just the latest…
https://wdtprs.com/2012/01/robert-george-on-pres-obamas-attacks-on-religious-freedom-and-catholics/
What state follows permissive? Guessing that a society of me’s has gone so far beyond being permissive, that without the Guide of the Ten Commandments (the Sixth bringing on the Fifth) in public, the word should be changed to philistine-istic. Maybe they’ve been staging a return?
My parents were terribly poor when they got married. Their first bedroom set was a mattress on top of milk crates. My mom was pregnant with her first child in 1958. She recalled, during that time, going to a party with my dad when a very well-dressed woman began screaming at her husband to look at how poor my parents were, yet they got to have a baby while she had to have an abortion. Perhaps taking the life of their child meant they got to dress nicer and have nicer things. Of all the struggles of poverty that my parents had to deal with early in life, they never had to deal with the poverty of killing their child in order to struggle less or to have more. We ate a lot of red noodles – macaroni with tomato sauce – but I never thought my family was poor. As for me, I’d rather live in a very poor country where taking the life of one’s own child was considered an unthinkable crime, than to live in a rich country that thought the fear of poverty, or any other fear was a reasonable excuse to tear a child from his/her mother’s womb.
@Trad Catholic Girl
There are many places you could find this information. Just Google “Mexico City Policy”; one of Obama’s first acts was to rescind that policy, so that federal funds could go to the funding of abortions overseas.
There’s lots more.
http://www.issues2000.org/social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/abortion/192685-naral-abortion-can-help-obama-win-back-defectors
@Trad Catholic Girl
You are joking, right? Right? Please say you are joking.
http://townhall.com/columnists/robertgeorge/2008/10/15/obamas_abortion_extremism/page/full/
http://catholicsagainstobama.wordpress.com/2008/10/09/barack-obama-and-the-born-alive-infant-protection-act/
Oh, and did you hear that he made a statement on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade?
http://www.barackobama.com/news/entry/on-the-39th-anniversary-of-roe-v-wade
You’re joking, right?
Fr. Jim: “anti-choice.” Are you being serious? You are the first priest I have seen use that offensive term. Now while you’re at it, just call me a dirty spice, since I’m also Mexican!
That should read “dirty spic” not spice LOL.
Fr.Jim,
“Anti-choice”?? Really ??!!??!!
That probably was a good deal more revealing than you meant it to be.
Bravo to Bishop Vasa!
And I’ll echo what AnAmericanMother just said about Fr. Jim: “Anti-choice???? Really?!?!?!”
[shaking my head over that one!]
Troll n.
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup, message board or combox with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Is trolling sinful, especially when done by a priest?
frjim4321
Bwahaha! You think getting rid of poverty will lower abortions? Even wealthy and well-off people will abort… after all that’s time and money they’d rather spend elsewhere on themselves rather than some unwanted inconvenient amount of children, thus making their lives a little more poorer… People will always find convenient excuses to abort, from lack of money, to being unwilling to put in the work to raise a child, to wanting more sex but no more ‘risks’ of children, to wanting to fit into that dress in time for some social event, to just plain old fashioned covering up of adultery and abuse.
Either way, murdering people is not a strategy to reduce poverty. In fact it is argued by the very people you’re pinning your hopes on to reduce poverty that eliminating a good amount of the global population will help save more resources for the rest of us. And the way to reduce that risk of poverty is directly attributed to promoting immoral sexual lifestyles and abortion for all. A wikileaks article exposed one of the U.S. reasons for pushing abortions overseas in the Philippines was so that the U.S. could have more access to the country’s natural resources rather than its own people. How shameful and utterly selfish!
Centristian and Fr_Sotelo, I can’t think of a more logically correct term that “anti-choice” because de facto those who oppose abortion do not want people to have the choice of elective abortion. Further, many of those who call themselves “pro-life” are very soft on many life issues other than abortion. For example I have heard self proclaimed “pro-lifers” advocate for capital punishment, etc. “Pro-life” would imply that one has a consistent ethic of life in all respects, and not merely in the single issue of abortion.
For the record I am staunchly opposed to elective abortion and the use of tax dollars to pay for them. Just because I am analytic in my use of terminology does not mean I am a “troll.”
Pingback: THURSDAY POLITICS EXTRA | ThePulp.it