"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
Please read what Roger Kimball has to say about the Federalist Papers in Obama’s Skin.
Obama gives us our potential. God didn’t build that.
Legisperitus: exactly! This is the party that repudiates the notion of “God-given” anything. They don’t believe in inalienable rights. They only believe in positive law.
Hmm, the new one speaks strongly of something that might be called the work-reward relationship and the notion of fairness of opportunity rather than fairness of results. They probably had to scrap the mention of God to avoid appealing to Southern rednecks.
Must have been in Obama’s encyclical “Ego sum Deus”
But almost (or every) speaker has ended by asking God to Bless those in attendance and/or the US.
“But almost (or every) speaker has ended by asking God to Bless those in attendance and/or the US.”
When they say “god”, they mean somebody else (hint: his initials are BO).
Dems wrote Him out? I believe that somewhere along the line Christ has shaken that dust off his own sandals.
Matthew 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Has anybody noted that there are large numbers of people on the Catholic left, or among others prominent in the Catholic “commentariat” who refuse to recognize that the Democrats are as columnist Ramesh Ponnoru are the “Party of Death”. One interesting factoid is that in the 112th Congress of the 53 Senators who are essentially Democrats ( 51 D and 2 Independents who caucus with them 51 had National Right to Life voting records of 0%, The best Democrat who calls himself “pro-life” had a voting record in agreement with NRLC of only 20%. In contrast 42 of the 47 Republicans had a voting record that agreed with the National Right to Life Commitee 100% of the time, and the worst pro-choice Republican agreed with the NRLC position 66% of the time. So the worst Republican was 3 times as likely to vote pro-life as the “best” Democrat. As the DNC is demonstrating the Democrats are simply no friend of the Church.
This is old news really, what is a puzzle is why is the official Church so unwilling to say this. To me a Catholic physician, it seems obvious that a vote for a Democrat is to continue to give power to an adamantly pro-abortion, anti-religious freedom etc etc.. crowd. In spite of this obvious fact we have the Bishops as a body trying to remain “neutral” ( witness the behavior of Cardinal Dolan) and many in the Catholic blogosphere even those with relatively “orthodox” leanings doing the same. My question is why?
Is it fear of the IRS?
Is it fear of the reaction of the left wing Catholic laity that hold power in many large dioceses?
Is it that many of the Bishops have liberal politics which lie closer to their heart than their concern for things like the right to life movement?
Maybe a combination? Clearly however the Church in American does not act like it wants to be taken seriously. You can not at one moment say a political adversary is engaged on a fundamental attack on your religious freedom, and then the next minute make him the keynote speaker at a major public dinner and say its all about Jesus would eat with Sinners. This strikes me as incoherent nonsense.
It is time for Catholics and other Christians to vacate the Democratic Party.
If they do not want to be Republican and like the social agenda of the Democratic Party, someone should found a USA Christian Democratic Party. Europe has/had a Christian Democratic Party. Don’t know much about the European social/political issues. The name is what would make a statement. It is not necessary to adopt the political ajenda of Europe.
In any event, it is time for true Christians to abandon the Democratic Party. I am not holding my breath.
From my view atop the Republican elephant, I can see many problems in the GOP. Under no circumstances has the Republican Party become Godless.
Dickie Durbin (“Catholic” senator) was really miffed that Bret Baier even asked about this platform change. He didn’t want to acknowledge it. They’ve got a pretty radical platform it sounds like.
One of my friends who is a faithful Catholic is also a member of the Democratic Party. Up to this point her reason for staying has been to try to save the party by voting for pro-life candidates.
I don’t know what she is going to do now in light of their new platform. I sympathize with her notion of trying to change the party from within, but I also wonder how anyone who is a faithful Catholic can stand to be associated with the Democratic Party.
Personally, I’m not keen on the GOP either. The only safe route I can see is to register as an “unaffiliated” voter, which is permitted in my state, and I assume in other states as well.
Democrats are the party of death and no morals. Not surprised they just came clean with taking God out.. He was never in to begin with.
Well, the Dems have been acting like practical atheists, they may as well “come out” as real atheists. Gramsci is happy, wherever he is.
To quote Number Two in The Prisoner…
“A small confirmation of a well known fact”.
At least they are being honest about themselves now – taken off the sheep’s clothing. It’s true they worship Obama just look at the convention logo.
It’s not the role of our priests and bishops to tell us directly what party to vote for. Catholics have all the tools necessary to make an informed conscience decision on our ballots. Because some of us just don’t get it, Bishops Morlino, Lori, and Aquila have recently given us reminders. In a nut shell: don’t vote for a party that’s for abortion, gay marriage, socialism, irresponsible spending/debt, and secularism. Gee whiz…which American political party does that describe?
The U.S. Democratic Party and the Liberal Party in Canada have shifted left since the 1960s. National spending greatly increased in both nations during the 70’s – the Welfare State. Socialism is practically incompatible with Christianity or any other religion, thus the state we’re in today. The problem is too many baby boomers vote on emotion and tradition rather than reason and vision.
Michelle F says:
One of my friends who is a faithful Catholic is also a member of the Democratic Party. Up to this point her reason for staying has been to try to save the party by voting for pro-life candidates.
That would mean she hasn’t been able to cast a Presidential vote for some time. And who are these anti-abortion Dem senators? I realize there are a few, but did they vote against pro-abortion nominees to SCOTUS? Or is it just talk?
Yesterday I went to see the movie 1216. Extremely well narrative on the life principles of Obama. I know that the left has trashed it, but it is a very worthwhile exploration of the values, the psychology, and the political philosophy of the president. I wish all voters could see it before they cast their ballots in November. Would it change the minds of pro Obama supporters? It might in some cases.
Pingback: Officcial: God Is An Embarrassment For Democrats « Mundabor's Blog
asks ” And who are these anti-abortion Dem senators? I realize there are a few, but did they vote against pro-abortion nominees to SCOTUS? Or is it just talk?”
Everyone should be aware there are NO pro-life democrat Senators, none, nada, zero; There are 2 Senators who have campaigned as “pro-life” Manchin from WV and Casey from PA. The remaining Senators have a 0% agreement with the National Right to Life Committee on Senate Votes. The 2 “pro-life Democrats” have a 20% agreement with NRLC, Compare this to pro-choice Republican Olympia Snowe. She agreed with the NRLC 66% of the time. Now I do not mean to say Sen Snowe is pro-life, she is not, What this shows is that Democrats who call themselves “pro-life” will not vote with you when the rubber meets the road. Consider that pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak and his allies supported Obamacare which gave Obama the power to issue the contraceptive mandate.
There is an interesting article written about the pro-life Democrat by Jonathan Last of the Weely Standard. He basically makes the case that this is now an oxymoron. If you are a Democrat you are functionally supporting the pro-abortion forces. I would argue that pro-life democrats who are trying to keep their party “pro-life” should switch to Independents and stop voting for Democrat candidates until there is a clear change in direction of this party.
What is a scandal and should be deeply troubling to the readers of this blog is the number of “conservative” Catholic pundits and bishops who adamantly refuse to acknowledge this fact.
It seems they took Our Holy Father’s invitation to heart, and are now honest about themselves. Government is their religion and Obama is at the helm. This is the reality of the party.
I haven’t seen anything in either major political party that would allow me to say with any degree of pride or satisfaction that I belonged to one of them. However, I clearly recognize that the immorality that one of them represents vastly outweighs the things I find objectionable about the other. When will other Catholics wake up and realize it? And when will Catholics who feel as I do have a real choice? The latter question will have to wait for an answer because of the urgency of what this election represents, particularly after watching the pro-abortion/pro-same-sex love-fest that is taking place in the name of a political convention.
With regard to the question of how someone can still be registered a Democrat, I can tell you that living in a locally-corrupt area heavily dominated by one party and which has closed primaries, it’s very understandable. I haven’t voted for any candidate so much as I have voted against another (which I will be doing in November when I vote for Romney). Also, I would be careful not to register Independent as this, too, really is a party. Best to register “no party affiliation” if you don’t wish to belong to any.
“her reason for staying has been to try to save the party by voting for pro-life candidates.”
I used to be a Democrat with the same idea. As I watched the behavior of Ted Kennedy -among others-I realized that was a lost cause. Mdepie made some excellent points concerning the difference between the Republicans who actually have pro life Congressmen and Senators who vote that way and the “party of death”. We saw how the few pro life Democrats were fooled -perhaps willingly–and ended up voting for Obamacare –so it passed.
I just heard a replay of Dick Durban-Catholic Democrat Senator from Illinois–trying not to answer Bret Baier about the platform change and trying to have it both ways as usual. How dare anyone notice-especially Fox News. They can count on the rest of the media ignoring the fact.
“Up to this point her reason for staying has been to try to save the party by voting for pro-life candidates.”
That ship has sailed. I’m reminded of my deluded Episcopalian friends and relatives who think they are still “fighting the good fight” to bring the heretics back to the fold. If anyone wants to try to save a party from within, the only chance is in the Republican party. Despite their platform, which I think is sound on abortion, there are plenty of candidates who still need to be schooled. At least there is something to work with in the Republican party. The Democrats have thrown in their lot with Baal, and they are proud of it.
Sissy, I stayed in my original parish with similar hopes. But that ship has also sailed.
wmeyer, I’m sympathetic to the impulse. I wasted some time in the same fruitless endeavor. There comes a time when you have to face reality, cut your loses, and find a more orthodox place in which to invest your time, talent, and treasure!
Big deal, they’ve made it official. We all know what they are. Too bad too many stupid Catholics are on board with them.
@The Cobbler: We Southern Rednecks prefer the term “Appalachian-Americans”.
Tridentine Catholic- Speedwell, Tennessee
Sounds like the Platform of the Anti-Christ….just say’in!!!
I’m SHOCKED… shocked I tell ya!!!
Sissy, we have to choose our battles.
Laura, I know, it’s hard to believe, isn’t it? ;)
Hey, folks, if you have not read Charles E. Flynn’s recommended article from the first comment here, do so. It is superb. I repeat the link so you do not have to scroll up.
You’re right, Supertradmum – very good article. He nails him as a malignant narcissist.
I also think the Republican party is imperfect, however given the political realities it is possible to work within that Party, on some level it is obvious that if you want to defend the pro-life Cause that is the way to go. Bottom line average National Right to life rating for Republican Senators = 93%, Average rating for the Democratic Senators = 1%.
A more important issue is how pro-life is the Catholic Church in America. I do not mean the Catholic Church as it exists as the Mystical Body of Christ standing apart from time, which of course is infallible, I mean the institutional entity that was until recently funding “pro-life” groups supporting Obama like ACORN, and whose chief political adviser in Washington DC was John Carr, while chair of the LGBT rights group ” Center for Community Change”, worked for the USCCB. The obvious conclusion is that the Church in America has grave problems involving fidelity to its own teachings. It extends to the leadership of the Church. I think unless we correct this the culture is doomed. How to correct it is the real issue. I am not sure I have an answer other than we must acknowledge the truth first.
In light of the revised Democratic Platform, I’m not sure I can view party adherents as atheist. It seems to me their ideology more closely resembles freemasonry. I no longer see how any Catholic, in good conscience, could intentionally remain a registered Democrat. The only idea more oxymoronic to me than ‘extinct life’ is the idea of being ‘pro-life democrat’.
Democrat Creed: “We all belong to the government”.
Democrat sign of the cross: “In the name of abortion, homosexuality, and racism. Amen.”
Dismas, I agree, they are pretty clearly freemasons, especially in light of their animosity to the Church. I do recall a poster, but not from which blog, who was Canadian, and claimed to be proudly both Catholic and Mason. Bizarre.
Sissy, they’re nuts. Pure and simple. We belong to our Lord. Period.
wmeyer: all kidding aside, I do shudder for the souls of Catholics who are identifying with this party, with full knowledge of what they stand for.
Sissy, I was not kidding. I fear we have very dark days ahead, and many souls on the wrong path.
wmeyer, I wonder if this apolitical angle couldn’t be better developed or leveraged by our Bishops and the USCCB regarding the current culture of secular politics?
Dismas: Only if they go on the offensive, I think, and they seem reluctant to do so. The Church Militant is what we need, not courtesy and the mere hope that they will see the light.
wmeyer: Surprisingly, I’m actually feeling a little more hopeful. I’m seeing tiny glimmers here and there that give me a feeling that the tide may be turning. I pray that eyes are being opened by this circus freak show called the DNC. I think I see daylight breaking. That’s why my relatives call me “Pollyanna”.
Sissy – I hope you don’t mind, but in light of your last post, I will hereinafter fondly and affectionately think of you as: ‘Sissy Mary Sunshine of the Immaculate Conception’
Thank you very much, Dismas. My nearest and dearest could assure you that “Mary Sunshine” would indeed make an apt patron for me! LOL!
Wow. Such anger.
There are many reasons why people of good will may differ with you on abortion, particularly if they do not begin with your premise that life begins at conception by the direction of a God. I’ll stipulate that given such a premise, you’re right, abortion is a terrible thing.
But to say the majority of registered voters in this country who belong to a party “have no morals,” believe that they “belong to the government” and not to themselves (or to God), that their “religion is government” and that Obama is a deity is all just really uncivil. I don’t think the Republican party has a monopoly on kind hearts and lovers of their homeland. I’m sorry you feel so much anger towards people towards your neighbors who don’t share your views. Some of them are just as angry at you, and that also makes me sad.
“There are many reasons why people of good will may differ with you on abortion, particularly if they do not begin with your premise that life begins at conception by the direction of a God.”
Of course, if they are not Catholic.
As to the anger, you bet we’re angry: our country is being dismantled, as it has been for decades, and we’re near the point of no return. I was raised to live under many freedoms. It angers me to see that I may soon legally become chattel of the state. It angers me that my Church may be driven underground. It angers me that these “people of good will” have committed over 50 million murders since Roe v. Wade, and have contributed to a similar number of deaths in the same period, through the irrational ban on using DDT, the single most effective–and cheap–weapon against malaria we have ever had.
Anger is not always sin and sometimes necessary.
52 plus million dead babies
the dismantling of the Constitution and states’ rights
the redefinition of the individual
the destruction of natural law philosophy
the undermining of marriage and families
the omission of my God from public life
What more does one need in order to experience both grief and righteous anger?
PostCatholic, I won’t bother to address all of your claims, but “everyone belongs to the government” came from the opening video shown at the DNC. A follow-up video today showed interviews with delegates expanding on how terrific it is to be “owned” by the government, and yes that is a direct quotation. So, maybe your argument is with the DNC.
Here, PostCatholic, just for you:
I apologize for posting again: I should have noted on the link above that it is a video of delegates responding to the “Everyone belongs to government” statement.
Supertradmum: agree with you that some anger is justified.
“Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them.”
–Pope St. Felix III
‘He who is not angry, whereas he has cause to be, sins. For unreasonable patience is the hotbed of many vices, it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked but the good to do wrong’. St. John Chrysostom
Sissy, the quote from St. John Chrysostom is perfect.
wmeyer, I have that as the signature line on my email….it gets a lot of positive comments, even from non-Catholics. You’re right…it’s time the Church Militant made it’s presence known in the culture.
Sissy, thanks for the great quotation from John Ch. It is now on my blog on the sidebar and I gave you credit.
Great quotation for now.
By the way, I have a poll on the blasphemous posters.
The DNC just voted to put “God” and “Jerusalem” back into the platform. Hmmm.
Sissy, it’s been a long day — don’t tease!
Obviously, they got some push back. I wonder if Bill Clinton called someone up and said “What are you clowns doing down there????” I suspect he’d like the party to survive at least until 2016 so Hillary can run.
Hillary will be 68 in 2016, and perhaps even less attractive as a candidate than she is now. Had they chosen to make a radical move, and the DNC not support O for a 2nd term, Hillary would have given them a much better shot at retaining the office. But in 2016? I think not.
I would be surprised, however, if Bill had been kept out of their platform discussions till now. He is arguably the most competent in their ranks. The cynicism and nastiness in their campaign, however, seem straight form Carville.
wmeyer, it appears to me that the inmates are running the asylum down there. I’m not sure the campaign is in charge…the speeches before prime time last night were truly repulsive.
“wmeyer, it appears to me that the inmates are running the asylum down there…”
And that’s a change from normal? ;)
We’ve seen months of the most bizarre sort of campaigning, declaring BO was misquoted, then playing the video (as proof) which has him saying exactly what was quoted. And the MSM nodding in support of O. Hypnosis? Or is it merely the harvest of 100+ years of applied John Deweyism in the schools? I can make no sense of it.
All of the above. But, you’re right…Deweyism laid the groundwork for this disaster.
I was watching the coverage when Strickland went up to announce the change in the platform, putting back the statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. I thought a riot was going to break out on the floor….a number of delegates, later identified as Muslims, got a little hot over it. They were yelling and shaking their fists at the speaker. Maybe they’ll have to take it back out?
In my infrequent attempts at discourse with Liberals, I find them apparently oblivious to reality. I listened to BO in 2008 and heard the campaign of a hard-left statist; they heard the promise of no less than heaven on earth. I heard him speak of his plans to severely damage the economy, they heard the promise of prosperity. I heard of his plans so severely reduce our rights; they heard of endless entitlements, all to their personal benefit. It boggles the mind.
and there is a record number of Democratic Muslim delegates. I need to find the article I read earlier
Same here. It was perfectly clear to me from the start that he was a marxist, and not even a cryto-marxist. He’s never really tried to hide what he is. You can’t even say he fooled people; it’s more that foolish people saw him as a blank slate upon which to project their own fantasies. I sufficient numbers have wised up.
Here is one of the Muslim articleshttp://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/record-number-muslims-dnc/2012/09/04/id/450777
Guess what? This afternoon, the Dems added the word ‘God’ back into the platform with regard to the phrase “God-given potential.”
cardnal: they also returned the phrase about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel, much to the chagrin of the delegates. Watching the chairman ignoring the nays during the vote and then “deeming” it passed was a hoot.
robtbrown, et al.,
Thanks for the replies; I’ve been debating whether I should suggest to my friend (again) that she re-register as something other than a Democrat.
To reply to a couple of specific points:
My friend has voted in presidential and other elections all along. One does not have to vote for members of one’s party in a General Election.
For Primary Elections, she says that if she can’t find a pro-life candidate for whom to vote, she votes for the Democratic candidate whom she believes is most likely to lose to the Republican candidate, and then votes for the Republican (or whomever) during the General Election.
Mdepie – Thanks for mentioning Sen. Manchin (D-WV). He was a member of my parish before he went to Washington, DC, and I think his record was 100% pro-life at that time. Now that he is in DC, he seems to be making some non-pro-life choices with his votes. I think the problem is he doesn’t know how to handle the high-powered politics of Washington, DC – and I sincerely hope that he doesn’t end up going over to The Dark Side.
SKAY and Sissy – Thank you, especially for the “that ship has sailed” image. I have been thinking of a sinking ship, and thinking that there comes a time when one must admit that the ship is taking on water faster than one can bail it, and it’s time to abandon the ship. Talking to her in those terms – and tossing in “deluded Episcopalians” – might help.
The stunning absence of truth in what is being said at this moment at the convention is truly astounding. “He pulled us back from the brink…” Huh? Our debt just today surpassed $16 trillion.
“He pulled us back from the brink…..”
Yes, sanity is scarce.
One or two of them almost tippy-toed up to the realm of sanity, but then, BARACK pulled them back from the brink!!!! Back to crazy land.
Perhaps the DEMS changed their mind regarding the word “God” because of the power of WDTPRS.
That is the prayers offered up to GOD by the WDTPRS crowd.
By the way, the Dems are going to spotlight (unbelievable!) their pro-death platform tonight by giving the President of Planned Parenthood , Cecile Richards, an opportunity to speak tonight at the convention. Disgusting! Death, death, death of the innocent and weak.
By contrast, Chicago in 1968 was a relatively honest convention, and the coverage, at least in the first 48 hours, was also. We were shown, for the first time, that Mayor Daley was the crown prince, granting permission to speak, or not. We were shown the real fraud in the security setup.
But in those days, we usually did not come to the convention with no room for doubt as to outcome.
I’ve always voted as I thought best. Whatever the outcome, I felt I would stand with our new president and get on with my life.
I have read all the comments here and found the word I needed to express my feelings: grief. Although the election is a few months away, I feel that Obama will win. Last night I watched some pre convention news programs and heard how, like sheep, we are being driven to the media’s biased side. This kind of media coverage went on constantly, a little dig here, a sarcastic remark there, all anti- Republican. Obama was spoken of in tones of reverence, good natured comments, etc. With this kindof coverage being fed to the American people even before the convention begins, how can there be any contest? What do we have to look forward to the next few months?
I could hardly bring myself to watch the convention and missed most of it. I didn’t see Michele being honored as if she were a saint. I feel I am seeing this country crumbling before my eyes. I see the family distorted, the disgusting in your face behavior from gay parades, the worrisome financial situation and most of all, all those babies. Murdered babies, with women shrilling screaming that it’s their right to tear these innocents apart, without any remorse.
I have spoken to friends and my own family about my concerns and they are all in denial. They don’t want to hear from me anymore, and become angry even though I have not approached them in a confrontational way. I just don’t understand. I can only believe that there is some force at work that has gotten us here. What seems obvious to me as evil and destructive brings out the enthusiasm and smug support of people who will let this continue.
So, back to election day…and for the first time I will not be able to accept the results of the people in this country and go on knowing at least someone who has this country’s best interest at heart is leading us. I don’t know why I am posting this here to all of you except I don’t know who else to turn to, to express my feelings.
I know this is the time to turn to God, that He will never let me down, and He has no territorial boundaries or term of office. But He was never so obviously and deliberately severed from this country. Without Him, it is so empty.
Oh, and the previous night the Dems gave an opportunity to the President of NARAL (Nat. Abortion Rights Action League, now they want to be known as the Nat. Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League . . . whatever) to speak to the convention. Yep, the Dems don’t support abortion at all do they? They just give speaking engagements to at least two major pro-death speakers at their convention…. NARAL and PP. When is the wrath of God coming?
Angie Mc: Don’t despair. If he wins reelection, it will be because the Lord has chosen to work through an “evil king” to bring about His divine purpose. He used evil kings to bring Israel to repentance in the OT, and He may be doing so now. But I sense a preference cascade building. I think he’s going to lose. Don’t lose heart!
– The path to hell is paved with good intentions and you’ll find many people of ‘good will’ there. Well, actually that is a distortion, as they were never good willing at all, they only believed they were… But believing you’re something and actually being something are two different things. In reality, they are not ‘good.’ Not according to the source of goodness itself. Which is God. Technically, with few exceptions, no-one is good. But some are better than others by virtue of how they devote themselves to obeying the moral law of God.
Morality is not relative, though many like to pretend it is. These people believe they have morals, but in fact they do not, in this case, not on very vital things. Any shared morals are not good enough. Many do ‘belong to the government’ because they increasingly grant the government enormous powers over their lives and welcome it. Their religion is ‘government’ because the political process matters to them more than God, as instanced by trying to write God away altogether, meaning the political platform is more important than God, and doesn’t need Him. It is noted many times abroad about how the American voting and democracy are treated like a religion and sacred duty to its people. Many will devote more time to politics than their faith. To debating politics than debating religion. And where religion is discussed it is mainly within the context of the political system, not really for its own sake. It along with the two party system has become in many ways to many people a form of idolatry. And this championing of democracy is championed and spread over the world as a utopian replacement for the Gospel, as if by bringing democracy to the middle east and elsewhere will magically solve their problems and bring peace. As many are finding out, the so called Arab Spring that was supposed to usher in some great democratic and free society is actually electing Islamic rule and persecution of Christians, but what did they expect? That just because people can vote they’d automatically vote the way we’d like them to? The culture is broken at a fundamental level, voting won’t change that, it will only further what the culture wants with all its ‘gifts’ and consequences. Ideals are taken and embodied and incarnated into the candidates who are literally treated like blessed saviors. Whether it’s Obama, or Romney or even Ron Paul, though with respect to the libertarians, they know it’s about more than just the individual guy you put in office, they recognize the need to change the system at a fundamental level.
Also, don’t feel bad about anger. Anger is not a bad thing. It, like the emotion of love and joy can be useful , and like love can also be abused and used to justify all kinds of evil. Anger, properly directed, leads to justice which corrects injustice. Of course what is just is subject to the moral law, and the moral law can only be granted by the ultimate lawgiver, not man. Even God gets angry, because anger is a necessary and good thing, like love… but in the fallible intellects of human beings, anger and love can be perverted and abused to justify immoral actions based not on the rationale, but rather on the feelings themselves. Love and anger can therefore be idolized, no different than the Greek and Roman pagan gods who embodied these emotions. Love is now an idol worshiped in and of itself and in whose name immorality and perversity and persecution are promoted and waged.
“When is the wrath of God coming?”
I think it’s already here. Not necessarily in the form of fire and brimstone from heaven, but in the form of a stagnant economy, chronic joblessness, inflation, oppressive taxation and mounting debt, the prospect of a declining standard of living and poverty in old age, and lots of other consequences of bad leadership that make everyone’s lives more difficult. This is what we, as a people, get for years of electing people who told us only what we wanted to hear, promised what they could not deliver, and enshrined sexual freedom as the only “freedom” that really counted.
Also, I had never heard of the term “preference cascade” before this morning and that last post is the third time today I’ve run into it…. for those of you just joining us it refers to an apparently sudden shift in public opinion that occurs when people finally realize that they aren’t alone in their convictions. It explains in part why dictatorial regimes seem to collapse suddenly — everyone hated the dictator all along, but because of the strict control he maintained over public events, the media, etc., and their fear of reprisal, they kept it to themselves and didn’t realize how many others felt the same way until something caused the facade to crack.
bookworm: “Also, I had never heard of the term “preference cascade” before this morning and that last post is the third time today I’ve run into it”
See: hearing about the preference cascade 3 times today is evidence of the rise of the preference cascade! LOL! That roar you hear off in the distance is the gathering avalanche.
This blog is a good place to turn for support. For me it is a place to vent some of my frustrations and air some of my ideas, as well as learn about and discuss current events from a Catholic perspective. The fact that the majority of posters as well as Fr. Z are orthodox Roman Catholics also helps to keep me from getting too carried away – at least I hope that if I get too nutty, someone will correct me.
I also share your sense of bewilderment over how people who were seemingly sane 10+ years ago now embrace things that are obviously morally wrong, or flat-out evil. I have no explanation for what is happening other than to say it must be demonic influence, but I have seen people changing, and it is very unsettling. I’m glad that you posted your concerns.
Sissy and Michelle F, thank you for your words and comfort. They meant a lot. As W MEYER said, too ” We belong to our Lord.”
We differ, Johnno. I don’t think love is an emotion. And while there’s perhaps a place for righteous anger, I refuse to concede there’s a good one for deliberate incivility.
– There indeed is a place for deliberate incivility. As Our Lord demonstrated when he violently drove the moneylenders from out the temple and called the Scribes and Pharisees wolves and vipers. Anger and strong words are oftentimes necessary to show how far one has fallen out of place. Being nice does not work against an enemy determined to commit evil. We may differ on when it is prudent or applicable to do so, but incivility and even the extent of violence and war can under the right circumstances be justified. Incivility and words are the next best step before going to those lengths.
– And Love is not merely an emotion. But people today reduce it to one, and use the emotion divorced from the ideal and rationality of love properly defined, and thus go awry.